Hey on Article XXVII: Of Baptism

1. The Hiscory of this Article might be very long, and might draw us into a number of Con- troversies; I will endeavour to select what is most material, and best founded. We should never- theless divide our History into two parts; the first relating to Baptism without any regard to the Age of the person baptized : the second relating to the Baptism of Infants.

2. First of Baptism without regard to Age.— Barro signifies to tinge, or wash ; arri much the same ; Banrifopas, in the middle voice, is re-

fleftive, and implies washing one’s /e/f. Washing, a as

as a religious rite, is not confined to Christianity; it has been practised both by Hearhens and Jetos; and probably takes its rise from the natural prin- ciples of the human constitution. I know not that the natural principles of cleanliness, purity, delicacy, and their opposites, nastiness, filthiness, &c. have ever been philosophically analyzed; but men act upon them continually, and recognize the. sentiments which they are adapted to produce.— Mr. Hume, in his Essays, (Principles of ’ Morals, Sect. 8.) spegks of cleanliness as a quality agree- able to others, but he says nothing of its effects on one’s self; which nevertheless 5 to be very powerful. Every one makes cleanliness a part of merit and excellence: but there is certainly a great connexion between bodily cleanliness, and purity of Heart. No one ever thought that purity was not acceptable to superior Beings; and those who have worshipped different ranks of Deities, have always been the more exact in their Pyrifications, the more noble they conceived the Deities to be, to whom they had occasion to address them- selves.

Perhaps acts of Purification have generally, or always, been emblematical ; they have been - per- formed as ns of internal cleansing from vice: but yet the natural connexion between external and internal purity, makes the representation to ope- Tate as a reality: whatever expresses purity, pro- motes it. Hence it appears natural, that different sets of men, in different ages and countries, should have agreed in the practice of ablutions and puri- fications“.

Any one who wishes to see a short account 80

the

Some reasoning of this fort was made use of in the Ap- pendix to the first Book, Set, J x. N

BOOK IV, 111. 267

the Lustrations of the Greeks, may consult Potter’s Antiquities®, |

The distinction between clean and unclean, was very strongly marked in the Law of Moses, And the Jewish traditions carried it still farther. The sixth Order, or great division, of the Talmud, or Misa, is the Order of Purifications; in which the rules are very numerous* and complicated. But we are most concerned with the Jewith manner of admitting Proselytes into their Religion; they used circumcision, if it had not been used before, but always“ Baptism. |

It is worth while to observe, that when a Pro- selyte was baptized and admitted into the Jewish Religion, he was said to be born again; his Bap- tism was regeneration*, And there was something of the same sort amongst the Heathens; a person who had been considered as dead, on account of long absence, &c. went through an emblematical new-birth, before he recovered his rights, or was admitted to certain holy ordinances’.—Nay, Ter- tullian says, Persons were baptized in the mysteries of Apollo and Ceres, with a view to regeneration and impunity.—(Idque fe in regenerationem et im- punitatem perjuriorum suorum agere præsumunt. — Ter. de Baptismo, C. 5)*.

111, In the Christian religion, Baptism was

used

b Vol. 1. page 219.— Justin Martyr tries to account for the Luftrations of the Heathens by some notion relating to true Christian Baptism.— Apol. 2. page 9g1.—Thirlb. quoted by Middleton, in Letter from Rome, page 139. |

© See Wotton on the Misna, Vol. f. page 160.

4 Introd. to Wall on Infant Baptism.— Wotton on the Misa, Chap. 8,—But see also Lardner’s Works, Val. 11. page 320.

© See Authorities in Introd. to Wall, Sect. 6. dee Potter, Vol. 1, page 223; Atur«goTorpni, OT v5egomoT- 4%. The Authors of the Greek Primitives make the latter to mean, one whose funeral pile was built in his life-time,

Wall, page 25, quarts. |

268 BOOK Iv. 111.

used from the beginning. The Law and the Prophets were until John®.” When John began

to preach and baptize, the Christian religion began

to be published; but the Baptism of John seems only to have been preparatory : he preached, in a very awakening manner, Repentance; and he made his disciples go through a ceremony of purifica- tion, expressive of Repentance; but all by way of preparing them to acknowledge the great Per- sonage who should come after him. He did not

pretend to confer the gifts of the Holy Ghost*.

Christ himself followed. There are several places of Scripture, in which it is said, that Christ * baptized;

but John iv. 2. shews that, in some way, it might

be said, and at some time, that © Jesus himself bap.

tized not, but his disciples.“ Whoever performed

the office, converts were admitted into Christi- anity by Baptism, and such Baptism may be called the Baptism of Christ.—As far as we can judge, it was wise to adopt a custom generally received; and one falling in with the natural feelings of all mankind. The Baptism of Christ differed from that of the Heathens as being the Seal of a con- tract; for whatever admits any one into a Society, must imply conditions and contracting. Nay, this contract was to mankind, of boundless extent, and of endless duration. Christ is repeatedly said to baptize with the Holy® Ghost; possibly we may not see the full force of the expression ; it might be,

that

b Luke xvi. 16. —Lardner, in the place above-mentioned,

thinks, that Baptism was r used as an initiation rite, in the

Christian Religion, Works, Vol. 2. page 320.

i Acts xix. 1—6.

• See Matt. iii. 11.— John i. 33.— iii. 22, 26.— iv. 1.

1 This expression might perhaps bear to be interpreted as a comparative phrase; like Matt. ix. 23. and parallels. If so, it would mean, that Jesus baptized 4% frequently than his disciples. 5 i |

= Matt. Ul, 11.— John 1. 33.— Acts 1. 5

BOOK IV. ART. xxVII. SECT. 111. 269

that the Baptism of Christ was immediately at- tended with spiritual gifts; as distinguished from that of Joku, which was only an emblem of Re-

ntance; or from that of succeeding Christians, which seems to have been followed by gifts of the Holy Ghost, but not always immediately.

Under the subject of Confirmationꝰ, we saw something of the manner in which the gifts of the Holy Ghost followed Baptism at a distance, as described in the Acts of the Apostles.—St. Paul has been thought“ rather to disclaim the office of baptizing; he does not seem to me to do that; he only mentions that preaching was his depart- ment; and speaks of baptizing in such an easy way, as if he had always baptized. when he had had leisure, and occasion had served, and as if he had never taken any exact account of those whom he baptized. But yet the number of those he had haptized at Corimh when he wrote his first Epistle, seems to us very small ; and puts us upòn thinking how, from the nature of preaching and baptizing, they must interfere much more with each other according to primitive, than according to modern customs: certainly many could baptize, who could not preach, or govern. |

The Baptism by Fire, Matt. iii. 11%. does not seem to mean any particular kind of Baptism to be described by an Historian, or Antiquarian. The expression, ** He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with Fire,” seems of the prophetical kind, and not intended to be understood at the time of speaking it. It would excite a sentiment of dread, immediately after“ hewn down and cast into the fire;” — but it might predict the

fer * Ads ii. 38. 9 Art. xxv. Sect. 111. P 1 Cor. 1. 14. 17. $ Kaz wvgs is omitted in several Manuscripts,

0 ] | ; £ [] , : \ j +13 ’ if = “IS j bY ’ : : U N b

• . _

— Me 4 — — po ep wy cw ——

. F232 owe, no re .

fery _— which fate upon the Apostles : com- pare Acts i. 5”.

The Baptism of Christ, and that of his. fol- lowers, seem still emblematical.—This is well de-. scribed by Cyprian*, where he says, there is no need of “ soap and other helps, and a large pool,” &c,

iv. The carly Fathers seem to speak as if Bap- tism had been always, that is, in all ordinary cases, in ancient times, performed by immer ston of the whole body; performed any where, at any Pond or River; till Baths were made for the purpose, in buildings on the outside of churches, which were called Baptisteries.—If we consider how very short and general the directions of scripture are with regard to Baptism, and how few circumstances are related in the narrations, we shall not wonder if we find very great variety in the ancient rites of baptism before Churches were regulated by civil Laws.— Irenzus’s account of the Valentinians is trans- lated by Wall*; but, without repeating their ex- travagances, we may mention, that frequently Baptism used, amongst sober Christians, to be pre- ceded by Prayer and Faftiug *: - that the Head of the Person in the water, was put under water three times, in which case writers ufe the expression, trine immer sion: it seems, at first, as if this cere- mony had arisen from the Form of baptizing in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; but yet, for some reason or other, a custom of immerging three times, has

| = prevailed,

r Those who are most conversant in oriental idiom might inform us, whether Holy Ghost ard fire, could mean the same as the Holy Ghost assuming a #ery appearance?

© Part2. Chap. v. Sect. 1. uv Wall, Part 2. Chap. ix. | -

prevailed, both amongst the Heathens* and the Jews?. The trine immersion afterwards got into disrepute, on account of some Heretics who used it, and was ordered to be left off, by a Council held at Foledo*.—After Baptism, a mixture of milk and honey used to be given, and a white gar- ment put on; all these were emblematical. Some unction used to be practised: and the ceremony was never performed without an abrenunciation of the Devil, and some profession of Fait li. I men- tioned Exorcism under a former Article, and how soon Baptism was sometimes followed by Con- firmation. 1-1 |

It used to be reckoned, that Martyrdom supplied the place of Baptism ; that is, that if a convert, who had not been baprtized,- suffered Martyrdom for the Christian religion, his martyrdom would complete his admission into the Church of Christ, as much as Baptism would have done: and parti- cular reasons and analogies were urged in favour of the notion.—As the person baptized is wetted with water, fo is the Martyr with his own blood […] v. The rites of Baptism used in the Greek Church, may be found in Sir Paul Ricant’s* pre- sent State, &c. and an account of their grand annual Purification may be seen in Cave’s Ap- pendix, before referred to, under the word & iat:

and

See Sparrow’s Rationale, page 260. - * Wall, Part 2. Chap . Sc. 2. page 466, quarto. d Chap. 7. |

baptism, is about the Greek Church.

are held to baptize effectually, without any consi-

and one chapter in Bingham’s History of Lay-

vi.. The Romanifts profess, that pure water is the only proper“ matter of Baptism; yet by rules built on tradition, they use holy Chrism: they also ule Exorcism, Salt, Sputle, the white Garment, and burning the wax-light : and sign eight parts of the body (reckoning. the eyes 7wo,) with the sign of the © Cross.— They consider Baptism as valid by whomfoever * performed, Layman, Jew, Infidel, Woman, &c. but only in cases of necessity ; that is, they had rather have a person baptized irregu- larly than not at all. Heretics who administer baptism 1n the-name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and who intend what the Church intends,

deration of necessitys,

VII. The Reformed churches shew their abhor- renee for Popery by departing more or less from the Romish customs. Those who think that the Church of England has not carried Reformation far enough, speak with a kind of horror of any Baptism whatever performed by* Women. And direct the ceremony not to be performed where Popish Fonts* used to be superstitiously placed; they also omit the sign of the cross, and are much scandalized by it in others. I he Lutherans are said, on the other hand, to use exorcism; the Engli/h, according to their usual moderation, drop- wa. most popish ceremonies by degrees, (see Wall, page 470.—Puller, page 281.) and probably *

| than

4 Trent Catech. Sect. 11. or 7.

© Thid. Sect. 61, &c. f Tbid. SeR. 22.

Council of Trent, Session 7, 4th Canon on Baptism.

[…]

i Directory.

BOOK iv. 273

than they would have done, had all their Divines staid at home, or none of them gone to Geneva, &c. but they {till use Forts, with the sign of the Cross. |

viii. Charles Leslie, a celebrated writer against the Quakers, says, that no one spoke against water- baptism before George Fox, whom he places in the year 16 50. — And Archbishop Secker’ says, that a « Set (meaning the Quakers) sprung up amongst us within a little more than 100 years, deny” the sacred appointment of water: But it seems to me, that some of the ancient heretics had the same turn of thought with. our modern Quakers ; the same way of understanding, or rather, of feeling, the Scriptures®. For there is a sort of temper, which, in any age, if not corrected, will bring men to aim at being all spirit. Quintilla seems to have had this quakerith turn; and was a self-commis- sioned female teacher“: a great rarity, I fancy, in ancient times.—- The Council of Trent has a Canon against the denyers of Water-baptism; such

therefore existed®.

’ 1x, The Socinians have been mentioned before as allowing but. one ceremonial præceptum of Christ, an injunction to break bread . They con- sider

• On Water-Baptism, end of Sect. 11.— Works, Vol. 2,

pige 679. Charles Leslie was a protestant adherent to the retender in 1714; and would have converted him from Popery.

Lecture 35. page 222.

m Compare Barclay’s Apology, page 386, Edit. Birm. with

what was said in Art. xxv. of the Ascodrutz, &c,— See

also Aug. Har. 59.— Wall, 2. 7. 7.—But with regard to the

Manichean Bapdfa, Wall, 2. 5. 3. and Lardner, Vol. 3. page

490, are of contrary opinions.

• See Wall, Part 2. Chap. 5. Sect. 2.

Canon 2. of Sess. 7. (de Baptismo.)

Art. xx v. SeR. 11. from Racovian Catechism, page 143.

And Ep. to Radecius in Socinus’s Works, fel. Vol. 1. page 380, 383, 384.

„

yi

?

;

C

b

\ =

• • A - ory \ » e _ 9 ay Cr CCC ee ——— ˙¹¹ . ³Ü¹ß […] A n […] . — —

two modes of performing an emblematical act,

274 . BOOK iv. ART, XXVII. SECT. x.

sider Baptism as a visible ceremony, admitting men into Christianity, when they have been Jews, or Pagans ; but not to be used in a Family already Christian, —Faustus Socinus has written a treatise on Baptism .

The Jews had a notion like this of the Soci- mans*, |

x. I will only mention one thing more before proceed to the History of Infant-Baptism; and that is, the custom of /prinkling or pouring water on the person baptized ; or the custom of partial immersion, as supplanting, in some countries, that of total immersion. The Baptists do distin- guish between sprinkling and pouring, but to no end that I can perceive. Indeed more attention has been paid to the distinction between dipping and sprinkling, than it appears to me to deserve:

may be equally good, if they be equally adapted to circumstances.

Wall says, that Mr. Walker has studied this subject of aspersion, affusion, &c. more diligently than any other person’.

In early times of Christianity, Baptism was per- formed by immersion, ordinarily, but c/mic Bap- tism was always, probably, performed by affusion, or pouring : though it was reckoned to leave a man in some respects less qualified for some public offices —Wall quotes a good* instance out of Cyprian : he allo mentions the case of a Prisoner.

But

q Sce Vossius de Baptismo. |

See Wall on Infant-Baptism, Introd, Se& 3. and 5. or the last chapter of the Book, page 524, quarto.——Lntrod, page l.

dee Wall, page 470, quarto, the title of Walker’s Book is, «« Doctrine of Baptisms ?? |

t Part 2. Chap. 9. Sect. 2. page 464, quarto : quoted Sett. *. It is scarcely needful to say, that clinic Baptism is Baptism of those who keep their beds,

BOOK IV. Xt. 275

But fo far, affusion was only allowed in clinic bap- tism, or in cases of necessity. |

Near the end of the fifth Century, Gennadius of Marseilles” speaks as if it was an indifferent matter whether a man were wetted with water, or plunged into it; but he is the first who does so. Indeed the custom of immersion was first left off in France, and last in England; in the time of Queen Eliza- beth. — But still it is said, that all Countries con- tinue the practice of immersion, except the Wes- tern or Latin Church; except those, who are, or have been, under the Government of the Pope.— It is natural that the custom of sprinkling should gain ground, as being more commodious than im- mersion, especially in cold * Countries: some very eminent men of our own country, have however been desirous to restore the practice of immer- sion, in ordinary cases?, It is favoured by our Rubric.

xi. We come now to the History of Infant- baptism.

As the custom of baptizing in general, so that of baptizing Infants in particular, seems to have had some Pindation in the Nature of man, Parents are anxious that their offspring shall be secured from dangers, and put in a way to obtain advantages, as soon as possible. And the same motives which impel parents to admit their chil- dren into the Family of a Master, in the way of Apprenticeship, or into any literary Society for the purpose of education, impel them to make their children members of ‘Christ, in order that they

yet, generally speaking, Immersion may suit the warmest cli- mates best,

Wall, Part 2, Chap. 9. Sect. a. page 474, quarto. $ 2

276 BOOK iv.

may be inheritors of the Kingdom of Heaven,— By the Law of Nature, a Parent makes any en- gagement for his Son, during minority, which his Son would make for himself, if fully informed of the benefits resulting from it: and if any bond or security is to be given, it must be given by the parent. Would then a youth, if for the moment enlightened, and informed of all the benefits re- sulting from Christianity, and of the hazards of neglecting it, be baptized or not? on the answer depends the rectitude of baptizing a youth during his minority*. But these moral remarks must not here be pursued farther than 1s requisite to set the History of Infant-Baptism in a right point of view“. |

Amongst Heathens, there was such a thing as Luftration® of Infants : which was accompanied, both amongst Greeks and Romans, with the giving of a name.

Amongst the Fews, circumcision was performed on the eighth day after the birth, and a name was given? at that time And what was before men- tioned, from Wall’s Introduction, about their baptizing Proselytes, may be extended to Chil- dren; as Wall proves from Jewish writings“: the Jews had moreover, a reference to our moral prin- ciple, the good of the child*; and they expected

Jews

z Minority, in any one affair, if not fixed by Civil Laws, must mean the time, from birth, during which a person is unable to judge for himself, in that particular affair. |

• ‘This was farther explained in my Lectures on Dr. Balguy’s Moral Syllabus, Part 2. Chap. 3. Sect. 1. Subsect. 1. 35. and dubsect. 2. 3.— But both the Syllabus and the Explanation are in MS.

d See Wheatly on the Common Prayer.—Office of Baptism, page 360,

© Gen, Xx1. 3, 4.— Luke 1. 59, 60.— ii. 21.

4 See Introd. Sect. 3. 5. and Sect. 11. of this Art.

e Walls Introd. Sect. 3,

BOOK IV, ART. XXVI1. SECT. XII. XIII. 277

Jetos to be baptized on the coming of Elias or . ä

x11, But the most difficult matter to settle is, how the Chri/tians acted, in early times. with regard to the baptizing of infants. Walls History of Infant-Baptism seems to me an excellent book; clear, learned, rational, candid, unaffected ; and I should add, speaking from my own experience, lively: I sincerely recommend it; not only on account of the information it gives with regard to infant-baptism, but as laying open Christian Anti- quity in general, and treating, in a masterly way, many subjects useful to a Divine*®. Nevertheless I do not pretend that it removes all doubts what- soever, even on its principal subject. With regard to the Scriptures, what can be deduced from them lies in a small compass. On the one hand, they mention #0 instance of infant-baptism; on the other, they afford no instance of baptism being delayed. Some Families are spoken of collectively, as being baptized, but the children, are not mentioned par- ticularly b.

X111, How soon any accounts of infant-bap- tism, appear in reputable writers, 1s a matter in dispute. Some Pædobaptists have, in their can- dour, allowed a longer time before any appear,

7 | than

f This is affirmed at the conclusion of Wall’s Introduction, but I see no proofs; they may be in Selden, Lightfoot, &c. however, the notion makes the message of the Jews, John i. 19—25, intelligible, Who art thou that baptizest eros? — Jews need not be baptized till Christ, or at least Elias, come: art thou then the Christ? or art thou Elias? or who art thou?

s This Book was before recommended, at the opening of the Pelagian Controversy. — Art. 1x. Sect. viii. |

u Acts x. 48. and xvi. 15. 33. and 1 Cor. 1. 16,—See more- over Acts ii. 41. and viii. 12, or 16; where numbers are baptized in which must probably be some children. |

278 BOOK iv. ART xxviII. SECT. XIV.

than others have approved of.—Bingham’ begins his evidences from the earliest times; so indeed does Wall; but the first proofs are only by impli- cation*. To these writers I must refer you : the substance of the proofs is well collected in a short popular dialogue done by Wall from his larger work, and intitled, A Conference between two Men that had doubts about Infant-Baptism.“— From this I may read a few words about the firfl centuries. - What I shall attempt is to give you some of the most remarkable things in the History, and such as have had the most influence on mens opinions. xX1V. 1. No dispute or controversy was ever held in ancient times concerning our subject ; all the passages produced in evidence, are incidenta]*, 2. Several persons are spoken of in History as having been baptized late in life: now when it appears, on examination, that such persons were themselves converts from Paganism, there is no great difficulty; but when they appear to have been born of Christian Parents, it is not so easy to account for the delay: however, there is another thing to be inquired into; whether the parents were bap- tized before the children were born; if not, one may see, that such as were unbaptized themselves, would scarcely baptize their children in infancy, if they i Book 11th, * The manner in which Wall investigates the practices of the Apostolic Age, has been already mentioned under Art. xxiv. I Conference, page 72. m Augustin says, that the Doctrines of the Trinity and Re- ntance, and Baptism, and Unity of the Church, were never fully opened till they were controverted ; (see Art, 1. Sect. 1v.) we may observe, that the reason why the practice of Infants Baptism was never fully u Fe was, because it was never controverted : = And we call every mention of Infant-Baptism incidental, which occurs when that subje& is not the point iu dispute, 5 „

they could avoid it. That some converts did delay their Baptism, is clear from Martyrdom® being thought equivalent to Baptism ; and from Gregory of Nazianzum preaching against such de- lay :—bur it seems as if our adversaries spoke of some instances without sufficient proof“.

4. Justin Martyr, who lived about forty years after the death of St. John, discourses “ of baptism being to us instead of circumcision : — Irenæus near forty years later, mentions infants as © by Christ born again unto God.” —Origen, about fifty years later still, „does, in several places, speak of infant- baptism as a known and undoubted practice: and (in one of them) as having been, according to a tradition, ordered by the Apostles“.“

| dying ® SeR. 1v.

® The notion results from reading Wall’s Book. Gregory of Nazianzum preaches against delaying Baptism, Orat. 40. or, de Baptismo, for which see Wall, Part 1. Chap, 11.

? Hzret. Fab. 1. 10. 4 Part 2. Chap. 5. Sect. 1.

Conference, page 72. Wall, page 27, quarto, or Part 1. Chap. 5. SeQt. 3,

S 4

dying unbaptized, as any writer: that is, he advises putting off Baptism till the age of Reason; but only on this supposition, that there 1s no danger of death, By dissuading he acknowledges the practice, however difficult it may be to account for his dissuading; and the opinion of a single man, who in several things was excentric, is not of so much consequence as the practice. But it seems odd he should not know, as well as Origen, of the Tradition, that infant-baptism had been ordered by the Apostles.— Many things are said, with great good sense as it appears to me, to ac- count for this singular phænomenon; and it is shewn how much better opportunies Origen had of learning what the Apostles had said, than Ter- tullian; but what occurs to me does not seem to have been mentioned by others, and therefore I am diffident about it.—He seems to me to be, when he advises putting off Baptism to the age of rea- son, growing a Montanist; the followers of Mon- tanus * did not allow the Church the power to forgive great Sins after […] Tertullian himself held mæchia to be © immundabile vitium.“ Now the only reason for which he dissuades from early Baptism, seems to me to be an horror of fin after baptism ; and he particularly dissuades single persons, and young widows, as being most likely to yeild to carnal lust, The austere temper of a Montanift seems likely also to make a man dread any one’s dying without baptism, at the same time that it makes him dread baptizing : such incon- sistencies are apt to attend excessive passions; not less those of a morose kind than any others,

We may here mention Fidus’s application to Cyprian, (who 1s placed in the year 248,) though

| | it

Art. xy1. Sect. 11.—Prom Lardner’s Works, Vol. 9. page 49.

FOOK TV; ART. xXxVII. SECT. XIV. 281

it is only the misrepresentation of it which has oc-

casioned any difficulty. Fidus defired to be in-

formed whether he might, in any case, baptize a

child before the eighth day; the answer was, yes, if it be in danger; if there be necessity. This is re-

presented as if no infant, even after the eighth day,

was to be baptized except in cafes of necessity.— Whereas Fidus had had no difficulty after the eighth day; he had baptized commonly; but the rite of circumcision, corresponding to Baptism, having been delayed till the eighth day, together with the objection or disgust which some might have to giving a very young child the Kiss of Peace, and other reasons, not very forcible, made bim doubt, whether, even supposing there was some danger, he should baptize. Children though in danger, had not been circumcised, that he knew of, sooner than the eighth day.

6. Augustin lived about 200 years after Ter- tullian ; he very frequently speaks of infant-baprtism, though | incidentally. And says, that he zever heard of any * Christian, Catholic or Sectary, who taught any other doctrine but that Infants are to be baptized [for pardon of fin].” —The Pela- gians (incidentally) allow the same*.—Ir seems strange, that neither they nor Augustin should ever have seen Tertullian’s Book de Baptismo. I do not see that «Wall solves this difficulty. I can conceive, that Tertullian might not occur to Au- gustin when he made his aflertion ; and for this reason ; because the ruling 1dea in Augustin’s mind was not infant-baptism, but the danger of suffering from original fin; about which danger, Tertullian was no adversary.

J. The case of Gregory of Nazianzum is not free from difficulty. He says, in an Oration abour Baptism,

» Conference, page 48. x Ib. page 48, 49.

282 BOOK Iv.

Baptism, that if infants are out of all danger of : dying, his own opinion 1s, that they should be baptized when they are about 7hree years old. An opinion, as Wall remarks, © which would mow neither the Pædobaptist nor Antipædobapti The Pædobaptist however fees, that the custom of baptizing infants, is here allowed, as a fact; and urges, that a child is no more capable of contract- ing when he 1s three years old, than when three weeks old. All objections of any force are against a child’s being baptized during what may be called its minority in religious matters. This is what oc- curs if we consider Gregory’s sentence by itself: but it should be considered with the context. There is certainly something extraordinary in this private opinion of Gregory’s; something which has a yolution, if one could but find it out. — The Oration is a forcible harangue against de- ferring baptism; the pretences for deterring it, are answered; and with regard to children, the preacher urges, Nyziov cgi g pn Aubert ago 1 Xanxiny ex Pee ue &yinchyro, 2 ovuNv vie TW Hf ꝗ and then he proposes to Mothers the example of Hanna, who made Samuel holy immediately, as soon as he was born, (yewnberra legen evfug won): and immediately after delivering his notion about three years, he speaks of the sudden dangers to which an human being is subject, and advises securing infants against them by means of Baptism. — How 1s it then that this peculiar notion comes in amidst directions which seem inconfiftent with it? Wall considers it as a compliment to the preacher’s Father?; which, from certain circum- stances, seems no groundless conjecture. We know fo little of the minutiæ of Gregory’s Hil- tory, that we seem unlikely to go farther than 5 ce

—

Wall about Czfarius, page 306, quarto.

BOOK kv. ART. xxVII. s ECT. XIV. 283

see an inconsistency; from which one may venture to conclude, that the notion of three years had some extraordinary origin: that it was not a natural conception, agreeable to the scope of the dis- course, not the genuine offspring of Gregory’s un-

biassed understanding“. | To dwell on more particulars, would exceed our limits; I have laid before you every thing (as far as I know) that seems against the custom of baptizing infants ; the historical authorities for that custom are too numerous and extensive to be given: for them I must refer to Wall; I believe ou may conclude all the numerous authorities which I have not mentioned, to be in favour of Infant- Baptism. In general, it may be mentioned, that infant-baptism was never ordered or enjoined by any Council; was never inserted in any Creed; and that all established national Churches have prac- ticed it. Peter Bruis (perhaps Bruce), a French- man, whose followers were called Petrobrussiaus, is thought by Wall to have been (with one Henry) the first Antipedobaptist teacher who formed a Church about A. D. 1030, The German Ana- baptists are placed in A. D. about 1420: these were mentioned formerly : if there was any con- tinuation of doctrine from the Petrobrussians to them, it was obscure, and held by a few men. The aim of both was to reform: to improve religion, and make the Church of Christ perfect in practice as well as in theory. — The Anabaptists were slow in getting footing in England ; Neal places their | first

z Robinson says, this Oration was delivered to an audience in which were many persons anbaptixed: that must be true; at least there must have been enow to make it worth while to per- suade to Baptism : but yet by far the greatest part of those Parents who were ’ themselves baptized, might baptize their children in infancy. If Infant-Baptism was unusual amongst luch, Gregory could not have used the language he does,

284 BOOK IV. ART. xXVTI. SECT. XIV.

first congregation or Church, in England, in the year 1640. Probably Cromwell found them of use, and encouraged them. Mr. Tombs 1s reckoned their best writer, Servetus, who suffered death at Geneva in 1 551, on the prosecution of Calvin, censured infant. baptism “ with the utmost severity.“ (Mosh. Cent. 16. 3. 2. 4. 5.) N Here it may be proper to mention the subject of Sponsors. Susceptores, or Sponsors, have been used in Baptism for a great length of time; Bingbam (11. 8. 1.) divides them into three sorts. 1. Those who answered for Infants. 2. Those who answered for infirm persons, un- able to answer for themselves. 3. Those who attended at the Baptism of Adults, as witnesses, and thereby received a commission to remind them of their baptismal vow. In the Baptism of Adults, the Sponsors with us are used as wit nesses only; and as persons autho- rized to remind the newly-baptized of his bap- tismal vow.—It does indeed seem improper that such a solemn act as Baptism, making such a change in a man’s condition, should go unattested, or be left to casual testimony : and as reproof or advice to adults, though they constantly want it, is impertinent from thole who have no authority to give it, there 1s an evident utility in the Church’s commissioning fome friend to suggest occasionally a friendly admonition, in spiritual affairs. Wall shews that Sponsors were in use amongst the Jews, when they baptized Profelytes.— (See Part 2. 10. 17.) I do not recollect whether the Puritans had any Sponsors: —In the Comedy called the Puritan, amongst Shakipeare’s works, they are called“ Un- godmothered varlets.“

And

And now, what is the result of the facts here stated ? | |

1. Could they have happened on a supposition that Christians always baptized infants? or, that there never was a time, since Christianity was pub- lished, when some infants were not baptized ? yes, they might:—the silence of Scripture, considering how very {mall its“ records are, is consistent with the practice: thousands must have been baptized at one age or other, whose baptism is never men- tioned : more 1mportant events demanded the pen of the Historian, than the Baptism of the infant- children of those converts who had been them- selves baptized.

2. Could the facts have been as we find them, supposing all Christians had been plainly and posi- tively commanded, by written edi, to baptize their children in infancy ? I think not. Neither Tertullian nor Gregory of Nazianzum would, in that case, have presumed to occasion any delay.

3. Are the facts consistent with the supposition, that all Christians might baptize infants if they pleased ? yes; I fee no marks of any prohibition, or discouragement.

4. Lastly, could the facts have been as we find them, supposing that as many Christians left in- fants unbaptized, as baptized them? I think not; the evidence shews the majority of those who bap- tized infants, to be very great,

On the whole, it is probable, that many parents, &c. baptized children, in all ages of the church; very many, in some : but that none were compelled to baptize them in any age. |

In speaking of infant-baptism we have paid no

attention

• InPaley*s Horæ Paulin, we find several instances of events

relating to the Apostles, which are not recorded in the Acts of the Apostles, | |

rr . N h r 44 4 > : So * *

286 BOOEK¹ IV. xv.

attention to the difference between immersion and sprinkling; but as what was said before on sprinkling related to Baptism in general, or with- out regard to age, it must relate to all particular forts of baptism. — Therefore we may content our- selves with observing, that there has been a zrine fprinkling” as well as a trine immersion ; and that sprinkling may be more easily justified in baptizing Infants, than Adults; because immersion has an effect upon the feelings and sentiments of adults, but no mental effect upon Infants.

xv. I will here insert an observation or two on what may be called irregular Baptism; such as oc- casions a doubt whether a person shall be re-bap- tized. We said something allied to this, under the twenty-third Article: and under the present, when describing the notions of Romith Church and the reformed churches. The subje& is very copious, as any one finds, who reads Bingham’s History of Lay-bapti{m.

Some ancient Christians used to re-baptize those persons, more than once, whose first baptism they themselves accounted valid; these were the most strictly Anabaprists : the Christians whom we call Anabaptists in modern times, baptize those over again who were baptized in infancy; but it 15 because they look upon infant-baptism as not valid. Hence they chuse to be called not Ana- baptists, but Bapri/s.— The followers of Marcion used to baptize, in their own way, more than once: and we now see old people who wish to be confirmed repeatedly. — Wall says, he knows of no other ancient Christians besides the Marcionites who reiterated their own Baptism. (Part 2. Chap. 5. Set. 5.) EE *

Irregularities

Wall, page 468, quarto.

BOOK iv. 287

Irregularities may arise from place, time, matter, &c. but those seem most attended to, which arise from the want of due qualifications in the persons who baptize. These may be inferior orders of Ministers, as Deacons; or the assistant Ministers mentioned Article xxv. Sect. v. Subdeacons, Rea- ders, Acolythists, &c.—or degraded Priests, be- come Laymen; or confessed Laymen, or Women. The validity of Baptism may also become doubttul from its being administered by heretical Ministers, though that is because such are deemed no minis- ters at all —In our own country, Midwives have been allowed to baptize, in cases of necessity : Neal“ gives us a Form of a Licence for that pur- pose, and says, with some surprize, that notwith- standing such licences were given, Bishop Whitgift affirmed, © that Baptism by Women and Lay-per- sons was not allowed by the Church.” The case was, that an ambiguous Rubric had divided the learned®, and Whitgift probably spoke his real opinion.

As a full History of irregular Baptism would de- tain us too long, I must content myself with a few general remarks; the result, as it were, of

History. |

But we must distinguish between authorizing certain persons beforehand to perform any sacred act in certain extraordinary cases, and confirming acts on looking back upon them, which have not only been irregular, but have been performed with- out any previous authority. Acts authorized must

be

© Marcionites and Pepuzians are mentioned by Rogers, 141, with reference to Epiphan. Hzr. 52, in regard to Baptifen by non-ministers, See Hampton Court Conference in 1603. * Seean account of this Rubric in Bingham’s History of Lay- Baptism, Chap. 3. Se&. 5.— Works, Vol. 2, page 567.

288 BOOK IV, xv.

be confirmed, however irregular ; but doubt may arse about a person having gone beyond what he was authorized to do. The greatest difficulty, however must arise in debating, 1. Whether any act is to be authorized; 2. When an unauthorized act is to be confirmed.

1. When we debate about authorizing certain persons to baptize in extraordinary cases, our in- quiry must turn on this; which is the /east evil; to let a man infringe the rights, and intrude into the province of the sacred ministry; or to let men die unbaptized, in original sin.— The Scotch Church is shocked at the idea of Women bap- tizing; the Directory forbids all private Baptism’; if they feel no shock at the thoughts of an human being not becoming a Christian when he might, they act consistently; but ought they not to allow. that others may be as much shocked at the latter evil as they are at the former? if a case is really one of necessity, there is no alternative but irregular baptism, or dying in a state of Heathenism chosen voluntarily. EN

2. When sacred acts have been performed with- out authority, people are apt to reason as if they could lay down rules for necessity : but necessity knows no law. Whoever acts in cases of necessity, according to the best of his judgment and with an honest intention, must act rightly; and what he does, ought to be confirmed. Men may dispute bistorically about Baptism in cases of necessity, in order to determine what has been done : but if

men

f Pulley says, c the Directory did forbid very uncharitably all private Baptism : notwithstanding most of its followers now- adays admit only private Baptisms.” — Moderation of the Church of England, London 1679, page 289.— The Directory was approved by the Assembly of Divines in 1645. — For the Scoich Church, see Syntagma, page 154, cap. 22.

men under necessity act bona fide for the best; if they return to rule as soon as they are able, and make what compensation they are able for damage arising from their acts; it signifies nothing to them what the Romanists, or what the Calvinists have settled z they are rizht; and those who annul their acts, are wrong.

3. But as disputes may arise about the effects of Baptism in cases of necessity, would it not be best to have some ordinance for admitting those, who have been irregularly baptized, fo regular Baptism? such ordinance need not assert that the former baptism is invalid; but only say, that if it be fo in any degree, there is now a completion given to it; we have such a Form in the Church of Eng- land when 1t 1s not sufficiently proved that private Baptism has been performed. Indeed the whole reception of one privately baptized into the Church, may be considered as a completion of an irregular baptism. And in our civil government, when a mealure has been taken during a recess of Parlia- ment, enjoined only by Proclamation, &c. I be- lieve it is always confirmed by parliamentary au- thority at the ensuing Sessions.

xvI. If I have seemed too prolix on this His- tory of Baptism, it must be considered that History

| | here

Dr. Burn, under Bapti/m; says, from Bishop Fleetwood, that there has been no law in England to forbid, or invalidate Lay-Baptism in cases of neceslity : he supposes it good, and understands that a person so baptized is not to be re-baptized. — After the Restoration he suppoies there might be in Wales two 2 Fares hundred thousand persons who had received only Lay-

Neal gives (1661), as one of the things settled by the Com- missioners for reviewing the Common Prayer, (page 612, quarto) —* 10. Private Baptism is not to be administered but by a

lawful Minister.” —— History of Puritans, quarto, Vol. 2. page 614.

VOL. iv. 1

• 4” =

290 BOOK iv. XV1,

here answers two purposes; it not only relates fats, but it contains arguments. Besides, the History of Baptism has been, of late, in my opi- mon, much misrepresented; and in a manner likely to do harm. I mean by the late Mr. Robin- son, Baptist teacher* at Cambridge. It came in my way, on a former* occasion, to shew how he misrepresented Augustin; something of the same sort may be expected now. But, 1n truth, Wall has already answered him; and to see his misre- presentations, nothing more is needful than to look into a book to which he himself refers.—l have mentioned the cases of those who were baptized * late in life, that of Cyprian’ with Fidus, of Tertullian®, Augustin’s“ ignorance of Tertullian’s advice; and the case of Gregory of Nazianzum® ; these are the | strongest things against Infant-Baptism that I know of in Antiquity, and these are specimens sufficient, Let any one then who wishes to study the History of Baptism, compare Robinson’s account of these, with WalPs; I desire nothing more. But what are we to think of a person who proposes, in an earnest way, arguments to which he himself has read complete answers ?-I speak only to thote who, with myself, think them undeniably such ;— we must accuse no one of wilful falshood: — mis- representation is indeed falshood ; but there may be

things

n In the History of Baptism, quarto, London, 1790. i Book 111. Chap. x1v. Sect. xiv.

k Robinson, page 218. 2 50.— Wall, 2. 3.— See also Bingham, „„

| Robinson, page 184. 193. partic. 195.— Mentioned page 219.— Wall, 1. 6. 1. m Robinson, Chap. 2 1.— Wall, 1. 4, 5. n Robinson, page 218.— Wall, 1. 19. 17, page 174, quarto. o Robinson, page 249.— Wall, 1 11. 1. &c.— ne might compare what Wall and Robinson fay about Pelagius: Wall, page 210. 218. Or what they say about the Council of Milevrs, in 316; Wall, page 197. 220.— Robinson, page 216. |

things to make men think differently from our- selves, of which we have no conception: this however I may be permitted to say; that it is totally above my comprehension how any honest candid lover of truth, could use the arguments which Robinson has used, after reading what Wall has written. This is by no means denying Robin- {on the character of an honest man; for many conclusions of reason, and dictates of wisdom, may be above my comprehension. —I myself have a poor opinion of Robinson’s reasoning powers; whether his understanding or his education may have been the cause, I know not; or a pursuit of eloquence; or an indignation at the prosperity of his adversaries; or any thing else. I suppose his verbiage, and his quotation, will keep him from contempt; but those who are able to see no far- ther than I am, if they allow him to be a man of good abilities, must read his great work, his ela- borate History of Baptism, if a love of Truth be uppermost in their minds, with disgust and abhorrence?.

You may say, I am prejudiced; I should certainly be more upon my guard against pre- judice than I am, if I had ever had the least dislike, either to the man, or to his doctrines: I never heard the least harm of the man; and, though I prefer the practice of our Church, yet I think I could live upon terms of the most intimate friendship with one, who preferred the custom of delaying baptism to the age of maturity.

XVII. Our History then being finished, we come to Explanation. |

which

? See the conclusion of Wall’s last Chapter but one.

292 BOOK IV. ART. xxvII. SECT. XVII.

which in Art. xxv. was affirmed of Sacraments in general. Saying it is * not only” a sign, implies that it is a sign; or that there ought to be some- thing external in Baptism; contrary to the notion of the Quakers.

Our Church holds as “ effential parts of Bap- tism,“ Water, and the form given in Matt. xxvii, 19.,—See Rubric, end of Private Baptism, or of receiving into the Church.

« It is also a sign of regeneration ”—the term regeneration occurred in the ninth Article, and was there explained. From what has been said under the present Article, it appears to be a term bor- rowed, or adopted, from the Jews (if not used by Heathens,) denoting what we call Baptism : Now a name of a thing consisting of Parts, is often taken from one part; so Baptism denotes the whole sacrament, though strictly it be only the name of the external washing; and in like manner Rege- eration, amongst the ancients especially, denotes the whole sacrament, though strictly it be only the name of the internal benefit“, or improvement; the * spiritual grace;” that is the favour, or bene- fit accruing to the mind or spirit; in this life or the next; which benefit may always be ascribed, with humble gratitude, in an indefinite manner, to God’s Holy Spirit.—Nor is it inconsistent with this, to understand the Spirit, in the Sacrament of Bap- tism, as the meazuing* of the outward sign, and as explained by being opposed, or contradistinguished to the visible sign —The meaning of the ys

5 bs che

q3 Art. 1x. Sect. xx1v.

An instance of the general observation here made, was ex plained Art, 111. Sect. 111. |

See Dr, Balguy’s last charge, page 302.— Also Art. xxx. Sect. 11.

BOOK Iv. 293

che spiritual benefit annexed to it: all the expres- sions seem to come to the same thing. 5 […] quod, by which fig, the promises of God are sealed, &c. or, in one word, regeneration 1s enacted, executed, sealed, « As by an justrument — l know not, that any explanation of this word instrument is wanted: it signifies means, or a deed : here it is the means of erafting and of signing and sealing. The particulars which follow, seem to be com- ponent parts of regeneration: if so, we have, in this Article, the notion of the Church of England, of Regeneration, given by itself: which, to the members of our Church, is an authentic defini- tion. The first part, or ingredient, of Regene- ration, 1s being admitted into the Society of Christians, or * grafted into the Church,” - the Catholic church.—The second is, remission of sins committed before baptism, or afterwards, upon repentance: or a promise Of the forgiveness of Sin.“ — The third is, adoption as “ Sons of God, by the Holy Ghost.” —The fourth is a confirma- tion of Faith ; the fifth an increase of Grace, or of such holy, pious, virtuous dispositions and princi- ples, as are most particularly to be ascribed to the divine assistance.— Indeed Faith was shewn, under the tenth Article, to be rightly ascribed to God’s Holy Spirit. 65

We might here ask, whether John Wesley’s conception of Regeneration is the same with that set forth by the Church of which he professed himself to be a Member, the Church of England?—His Regeneration is subsequent to Baptism; which makes his Brother say, that with him Baptism

| was

t Art, x. XXx XVI.

T 3

294 BOOK iv. ART, XXVIT, SECT. XVIII,

was nothing®.” If it was not more than a mere * sign of profession” his idea of Baptism must be contrary to that of our Church.

Adoption © by the Holy Ghost,” —is a reference to Scripture.— See Rom. vill. 14. 16. but that may occur better in our Proof.

« By virtue of prayer” this is true, but is it not making Prayer essential to Baptism ? In the Refer- matio Legum there is the same 1dea* ;—Verbo Dei quod intercedit, &c.—erudiuntur fideles, &c.

e Young children, parvulorum : this seems defi- nite enough: but the age of the Infants here spoken of, seems {till farther defined by the Ru- brics of our Office for baptizing Adults. From them it appears, that a person may be baptized as a child, who happens not to have been “ baprized in his Infancy.” Indeed this Office for Adults is comparatively modern, having been made in the year 1661, after the Restoration, in order that any who had been brought up Quakers or Baptists, might, if they pleased, be received into the esta- blished Church: and with a view? to Missionaries: But the divines who composed it must be con- sidered as very able expositors of the Church’s meaning and intention.

In any wise,” rather obsolete; the Latin, however, is Omnins.

XVIII. © Tobe retained in the Church;”—that is, not given up. This expression seems free from austerity and preciseness. A rite may be retained in a Church, even though every one be not com-

pelled

u Samuel Wesley, after Mr, Hutton; fee Wesley’s Letters, page 72.—See also page 116. 65. 70. — Wall contends, that the word Regeneration is “ never used by the Ancients but when they speak of Baptism,” page 354. 520. x

Y See Preface to the Common Prayerbook made in 1661.— Also Wheatly on the Common Prayer, octavo, page 31.

BOOK IV; AKT; XXVII. SECT. XVIII. © 295

pelled to use it. And the declaration is easy and liberal with regard to the particular circumstances of Infant-baptism, as age, &c.—Qur office for public Baptism of Infants speaks the same liberal language ; the Sponsors are exhorted to believe that God favourably e/loweth Infant-baptism ; which plainly acknowledges an imperfection in it: it is called a * charitable work,” and fo distinguished from an indispensible duty of a kind perfectly de- terminate. The next expression of the Article is in the same spirit.

As most agreeable with the Institution of Christ:“ there is more latitude in doing anything as suitable to an institution, than as injoined by positive command: in the former case, you may reason from analogy, follow your common sense, and feelings; in the latter case, you only obey orders; you do not think for yourselt.

Dr. Priefiley (Hist. Corr. Vol. 2, page 93.) seems to think our Church not very candid; at least, he represents it as say ing in its public forms, that Baptism is necessary tor Salvation,” —Per- haps the office to which he alludes, may be that for the Baptism of Adults; in which, the Exhor- tation, after the Gospel, does say something very like it: yet it clearly excepts extraordinary cases, by the words, ©** where it may be had:” so our cate- chism ; ©* generally necessary to Salvation.”

Our Church is certainly - against all zeglect of Baptism; the exhortation to Adults consists chiefly of practical scriptural exhortations to Baptism, and {criptural reasons for them. It does not enter into speculations. — Moreover, our Church takes no part in the question about Infants dying unbap- tized, (except fo as not to bury: Wall, page 377,) though it pronounces (Rubric, end of Private Bap- sm) those to be © undoubredly taved” which | 7 4 die

296 BOOK iv. ART. xxvII. SECT. XIX.

die baptized: a sentence in which ancient Chris, tians were unanimous, In such a case, what can hinder Salvation? The truth is, that we hold the necessity of Baptism as Agents, but not as Judges. — We think, that we do not do our part if we neglect what seems ordinarily a means of Salvation; and we think 1t the preferable mealure to procure good for children, as far as hes in our power; in things spiritual as well as temporal: But we judge no one. Three heads of our Church have pub. lished this opinion. — Archbishop Whitgift, Arch. bishop Laud, and Archbishop Secker : [See Wall, 2. 6. 8, page 377.—And Secker’s thirtyfifch Lec. ture, near the end.]

xix. Let us now come to our Proof.

There seem to be seven propositions in our Article, and one more seems wanted, in order to justify the modern practice of partial immersion, or sprinkling, or pouring, which prevails in our Wel- tern Church.

1. Baptism implies an external ceremony.

2. It is the instrument by which men are grafted into the Church of Christ. |

3. It marks God’s promise of forgiveness of sins. 4. It marks God’s promise of adopring us fot Sons.

4. It confirms our Faith.

5. It increases Grace.

6. Sprinkling, or pouring, is not unlawful, when used instead of immersion; (especially in Intant- baptism.)

7. Baptizing infants, is to be preferred to leaving them unbaptized till they are able to answer for themselves,

We need only undertake here to give sufficient proofs, not such as might be given by those who made the subject of Baptism a separate study.

| | xx. Baptism

BOOK IV. XX—xXX111. 297

xx. Baptism has an external part, or contains an external ceremony, in which water is used, This sees fuffictently clear from the word Bar- rico, which signifies to c. We may consult Matt. xXvili. 19.—-John iv. 1.— When a person is said to do a thing more than another, the thing must be of the fame nature in both cases. Now John’s Baptism was confessedly by water.—The Minister of the ZEthiopian* Queen waits for Bap- tism till some water appears. Cornelius’s Baptism depends on water; © can any man forbid water,” says the Apostle, “ that these should not […] The Quaker’s Baptism, by the Holy Ghost, was just over. More paflages will occur under the fol- lowing propositions. | 4 * xX1, Baptism is the Instrument by which men are grafted into the Church of Christ.— This may appear from the texts already quoted, as they all shew, that the end of baptizing, was to make men Disciples. Mabureucars wavra em, means make Disciples (woabnras)? of all nations; the two cases above-mentioned are plain. We may add 1 Cor. X11. 13.—Gal. vi. 27. It will follow from this proposition, that all benefits which arise on any man’s becoming a Christian, may be spoken of as accompanying Baptism. | xX11. Baptism marks the divine promises of Forgiveness of Sins. Acts ii. 38.—Xiti, 38,—xXtts

16.—Eph. i. 7.— Col. i. 14. xxIII. Baptism marks the divine promises of | adopting us as his Sons. —Rom, viii. 14, 15, 16, 17.

(here the Holy Spirit is mentioned.) —Gal. iii. 26, 27,—Gal. iv. 5.—Eph. i. 5. 5

| XXIV. By

[…]

298 BOOK IV. ART. xxviI. SECT. XXIV. xxv.

xxiv. By Baptism our Faith is confirmed. It must he so, in the natural course of things. You cannot take a measure proposed for your good, by those who have a power of promoting it, without feeling your confidence strengthened. Whatever seals promises, must confirm faith. Any person, by enlisting himself in the service of Chris, and receiving promises made on his account, must feel a greater Faith in Christ.— It has been just now ob- served, that such Faith may, on scriptural autho- rity, be referred to the agency of God’s Holy Spirit; according to Gal. v. 22.—it therefore we receive the Holy Spirit through Baptism, we strengthen Faith.

xxv. By Baptism our Grace is increased.— This, in the language of our Church, means, good dispositions and principles; as in 2 Pet. end. It is inconceivable that good dispositions should not be increased by any worthy receiver of Bap- tism. A solemn act of self-dedication to a reli- gious society; to a society carried on under the immediate protection of Heaven itself; for the in- stitution of which all mankind had been in a course of preparation from the beginning of the world; for which the greatest things had been done, the greatest evils suffered; such a solemn act must correct, regulate, meliorate, the heart and principles, if anything can. Conceive the amend- ment of the heart and actions to be ascribed to the Holy Spirit, and then study the expressions of Scripture.—John iii. 5.—Rom. vi. 4.—1 Cor vi. 11.—Eph. iv. 22, 23, 24.—Eph. v. 26, 27.— Col. ii. ro, 11, 12.— Titus iii. 5.—Heb. x. 22.— 1 Pet. iii. 21. The proof of this proposition shews, that Baptism is “ not only a sign of Profel- fion,” &c. but a sign of a spiritual good also. :

| | The

The metaphor of putting on, used in the texts, arises from dressing after Baptism ; it seems con- nected with the ceremony of the white garment* ; nay, was probably the cause of that ceremony, — The metaphor of being buried, was probably the effect of the custom of immersion.—Men were as it were buried in the water, and rose again to newness of life; or new birth, — All renewing is supposed to take place on the change made at Bap- tism; the idea is that of new birth, varied a little in the expression. And Col. ii. 11. should be re- marked, as justifying our reasoning by Analogy from Circumcision to Baptism. — W hence we may apply Rom, ii. 28, 29.—These metaphors must not be confounded; but each may be used. And being aware of them 1s a great help to understand- ing bai passages of scripture.

We have now gone through the several parts of Baptism, external and internal; only two propo- sitions remain, which regard the manner of it, and the circumstances which sometimes attend it. xxvi. Though Baptism was at first adminis- tered by total - immersion, its validity is not de- stroyed, if safety or great convenience, requires its being administered by affu/ion. — The mode of performing an emblematical ceremony, as was before observed, cannot well be a thing of the last im- portance.— The word BzTTiQ does not imply total immersion * only: and if it did, we seem in such a case, to be at liberty to consult our /afety, from Matt. ix. 13. and xii. 7.—or even our great con- venience: it signifies to wash: Ban signifies a spot : a spot is partial: conceive first that the Jews used to wash their hands by having water poured upon them, and then read, in the Greek, Luke xi. 38. read also Mark vii. 4.— Heb. ix. 10.—Besfides

what F Sect. iv, v. 4 Wall, page 433, quarto.

what we call baptizing, is not always expressed by Barigo, but sometimes by aww, which is certain] used tor ordinary*® washing ; generally of the whole body; but not always: Acts xvi. 33. could not be total immersion: — See Eph. v. 26.—Titus iii, 5. in the Greek.

Archbishop Secker introduces Isaiah lit. 15.— Ezek. xxxvi. 25. and some other passages which mention sprinkling; but the word sprinkling in Heb. x. 22. does not seem to me to mean the external part of baptism, but the internal, meta- phoricallys; the external being expressed by the following words; “and our Bodies washed with pure water,”

In general, I have felt some reluctance to admit the passages cited by Archithop Secker in sup— port of sprinkling in Baptism. There are various {prinklings enjoined in the Law of Moses, as those with ashes, water, oil, blood; and with some mix- tures, such as ashes and water; blood and hyssop, &c.—and some of these are alluded to in the New Testament; but I feel unwilling to apply to the external part of Baptism any allusions to the sprink- ling of Blood; they seem more applicable either to purifying the Heart, or to the death of Christ, and the Doctrine of Atonement. If there were, in the New Testament, allusions to the sprinklings with water, I should be willing to adopt them; and 1

think

• Properly, nx signifies to wash hands; (sometimes to wash feet) :==mavw—to wash cloaths; Azw— to wash the whole body. Ba vr does not, I fancy, make one feel, so — as the others, the idea of aiming at cleanness; only as cleanness comes of cour/e from immersion: but it seems applicable to a greater number of things than the others.

f 35th LeQure on Catechism, page 226.

& The sprinkling corresponds to those sprinklings which were intended to purify, (see Lev. viii. 15,—Heb. ix. 18 —22). thele were made with C.

BOOK IV. xxvII. 301

think the Prophecies, If. Iii. 1 5. and Ezek. xxxvi. 2 5. may be applicable; but I do not recolle& any allusions to sprinklings with water: Heb. x. 22. may seem to be one, as blood is not mentioned; but of that I have spoken. — Nevertheless there cer- tainly are, in the o Testament emblematical puri- fications by water, both in the way of bathing and sprinkling“; and as that is the case, there — some degree of scriptural authority for our using both methods in our sacramental cleansings: the case is such as to admit of all kinds of arguments and authorities: especially as it is not easy to understand how some baptisms mentioned in the New Testament, could be performed by total immersion”,

xxV11. Baptizing Infants is preferable to leaving them unbaptized till they are of age to answer for themselves.

1. This seems to follow from reason, and from the principles of natural law* already mentioned : if an Infant was enabled to judge for himself, a Christian, (and it is of Christians we speak), must conclude, that he would chuse to be admitted into Christianity. One good effect of Infant-baptism is, that it precludes the painful question, * when shall I be baptized?” and prevents that procrastination which Gregory of Nazianzum laboured so much to prevent. One may conceive a young person to delay baptism, sometimes through fear and scruple, sometimes deferring it to a © convenient season” with a view of enjoying an illicit gratification a little

Numb. xix. 19—21. and “ diverse washings,” Heb. ix. 10. (dra Pogois BanTrioporg,) leem to include both sorts: will not dur Szrrioua therefore allow of both sorts, bathing and iprinkling ?

i decker’s Lect. 35, page 227,

*Sect. x1. beginning.

little and a little longer. = And why should not infants enjoy the benefits of Christian society, as well as worldly rank and property? Those who refuse them the privilege, mean well; but they act like a formal and precise, though well-meaning servant, who would stand still and be useless, though much wanted, rather than do any thing which his Master had not ordered him to do.

2. The Religion of Moses obviates the great ob- jection to our plan, which is, that an Infant can- not enter into a Covenant. Whereas circumcision admitted children into the Old Covenant by Divine Appointment”. |

3. The practice of the first teachers of Christi- anity seems to me, upon the whole, to be much in favour of Infant-baptism. I should imagine with the learned Lightfoot®, that as the Jews usually baptized the children of Proselytes, they would, when they went out to be baptized by Zohn, take their young children to be baptized with them. This is not mentioned, but the baptism of chil- dren seemꝭ to be taken for granted in scripture, as | are moral“ duties of the greatest importance.— When we have not words to judge by, we must judge by actions or customs. As the children of

converts to Judaism were always baptized, the order to convert and baptize all nations, would, of course, be understood? to include children. —Sup- pose the order had been, go ye and circumcise all nations; would not the circumcision of children have been included ?—It one of our Baptist con- gregations was to send out a Minister, with the commission, Deut. xxix. 10, 11, 12. with Gen. xvii. 12, 13. and Lev. XII. 3. ; n Horæ Hebr. on Matt. iii. See Wall’s Introd page lvi. 2 Dr. Balguy, page 87, beginning of 6th Discourse,

o Walls Introd, page xlviii, and lvi.— Conference, page 28, 29.

BOOK IV. ART. XXVI1. SECT. xxvII. 303

rommission, Go and baptize the Indians or Gen- to0s,” I should think he grolsly perverted his com- mission if he baptized children. But if one was sent from the Church of England with the same commission, Go and baptize the Gentoos, I should think he grossly neglected his commission if he did not baptize children. When a custom was once settled, which the sollicitude of parents would strongly impel them to continue, not to check such a custom was, in a manner, to encourage it, and give it a sanction.— And such a custom pre- vailing, it is difficult to conceive that Households 15 5 be baptized, and the children omitted.

Besides the practice of the first publishers of Cin thus gathered, there is a particular passage, or perhaps two, of the New Testament worth considering.

1 Cor. vii. 14. shews, that if either parent of a child was a Christian, the child might be brought up a Christian, and called Ah, or of the pecu- liar? people of God: Christians have often in Scripture the name of Saints, or Sancti. Now Wall contends, that holy, ayic5, means, or implies bap- tized ; and this he seems to support? with great force of argument. |

Mr.

? Locke on the place.

4 Wall, quarto, page 67. 99. 175.— Conference, page 40, & c. 46, &c,—‘The idea seems to be this: I (Paul) am now giving you prudential advice of my own (ver. 12.) do not leave your husband (or wife) because he is an Heathen ; for the fat is, it hath often happened, that the Christian wife hath converted her Heathen husband, so that the man hath been baptized (1y:a57a), or sanctisied (a word often used for Bap- tized) through his wife; and vice versa, —Besides, if you leave your husband, what will become of your children ? live to- gether, and though he continue a Heathen, you may prevail upon him to let your children be brought up Christians: (or made saints, sancti).“ Now no one, = Wall, is called Saint,

or

304 BOOK IV. XXVI1,

Mr. Locke’s expression 1s as if the child must be a Christian? if born of Christian parents; but he only takes the Baptism for granted : he only compares Christians with Jews; (lee his Note) and though a child might, in some sense, be said to be a Jew born, all things being supposed to go on regularly in their ordinary course; yet circumci- sion, was, in strictness, necessary to make a Jew; and so Baptism, to make a Christian, As Mr. * took the Baptism for granted, so might St.

aul.

I will only farther mention, Mark x. 14. or the the four verses which make the Gospel in our office for the Baptism of Infants.—* They brought young children to Christ” — perhaps an Antipzdo- baptist would say, why did he not baptize them? Because their parents did not bring them for that purpose; the parents were not yet Christians; Jesus was not a professed Bapti/?; perhaps his Disciples might afterwards baptize some of thele. What- ever argument this scripture may be for the Bap- tism of Infants, it shews plainly how eager parents were, at the time, to gain every spiritual benefit for their young children. They desired that their children might be“ touched by an Holy Man; not thinking he would take them up in his arms.—

From

or holy, who was not &aprized How can we conceive that a child, whose Father was an Heathen, and mother a Chriltian, could be made a Christian any ether way but by being baptized? — Gal. iii. 27.— Augustin says, (see Wall, page 175.) that whatever is meant by the text, no one can be made a Christian without the Sacraments.

r This may be the ground of the Socinian notion: see Sec. 2X, but if our reasoning here is just, that notion is not to be admitted; it is to be considered as unscriptural, if not dangerous: and as probably arising from prejudice against the doctrine of the Trinity. | ; Compare touching for the King’s evil. - Woman touching .ahe hem of Christ’s garment.

BOOK IV. xxVIII. 305

It appears from the accounts of the other Evange- lifts, that Christ took a child in his arms as an emblem of innocence, 1n order to teach his Disciples how simple and free from guile they ought to be; chil- dren in malice, though men in understanding: but St. Mark’s account gives more idea of our Saviour’s attending to the children ?hemsetves : why might not our Lord both feel a kind concern for the children, and take occasion from them to in- culcate godly sincerity and simplicity? if his feel- ings were lively, his moral would be strong.— He admitted them to no covenant, but he blessed them affectionately; holding them in his arms: his bene- diction, surely, must be some spiritual good, My reason dare scarcely make an argument from this interesting scene; but, when I contemplate it, I always wish myself a painter, that I might give a lasting representation of it. What an attitude might not that of Jesus be! what a countenance ! looking down, with a mild and gracious benevo- lence, on the Infant in his Arms! expressing a deep knowledge of what was in man! other chil- dren of different ages and characters, grouped in various employments ; the officious Disciples, with ill-grounded apprehensions, and needless import- ance, endeavouring to disperse them; the mother of the child in our Saviour’s arms, near him, ex- pressing, as one principal figure, in her face and gesture, suspense and hope, not without some de- gree of fear; joy, refined and meliorated with parental affection and piety: other parents; some mildly triumphing in the benediction already re- ceived, others gently pressing forward to attain it. — Though reason may scruple to draw an argu- ment from this scene, yet who that performs

the

t 1 Cor. xiv. 20. VOL. Iv. U

306 yook Iv, xxvIII. xxix.

the ceremony of Baptism, does not feel its effi- cacy? the Infant in one’s arms excites a sentiment of tenderness; the Gospel has been just read; the ceremony becomes, to the Imagination, an Imita- tion of the ® benevolence of him who appointed it: and then this Scripture pleads to the heart, more forcibly than any coarse audible eloquence; it even convinces more intimately than the logic of any precise reasoners, who, by too great stiffness in ad- hering to what is minutely right, are often found substantially in the wrong.

xxvIII. We here close our direct proof: let us see whether any objections occur, of weight enough to induce us to dwell upon them.

Objections may come from Quatters (ancient or modern), or from Baptists.

With regard to Water-baptism, we have only . such objections as are made by those whom I call ancient Quakers, the Ascodrutz, &c. and by the Quakers of modern times.

The ancient Heretics would have our religion to be 1ntirely spiritual; but can we throw off our earthly tabernacle in this life? are not our minds affected by means of our senses? are not the gene- rality of men affected chiefly by their means? nay, amongst those who reflect, are not ideas of re- flexion allowed to have their first origin in sen- sation *?-—And can Christians set aside matter, one of whose pecular articles of Faith, is, the Resur- rection of the Body? a

xxix The modern Quakers produce passages of Scripture in support of their Sem notions; but without a sound interpretation: when they have seemed to follow Scripture, it has been

because

u cc This charitable work of ours.“

Locke on the Human Understanding.— Book 2. Chap. 6. and Chap. 1. Sect. 3. 24.

BOOK IV. ART. xxVII SECT. xxix. 307

because they took it in a /iteral sense; which is apt to strike the people, though often grossly wrong; so wrong as to be universally thought so, in a little time. Wall, apologizing? for Irenzus’s book against early Heresies, and for writers who were obliged to confute © such idle and enthusiastic tuff as seems to us not to deserve three words ;” adds, So any book written now in answer to the reasonings of the Quakers, &c. will, in the next age, seem to be the work of a man that had little to do*,” Such books however have been written, by Bennet and Charles Leste: and to them I will refer you: contenting myself with a short speci- men. St. Paul, exhorting to unity, says*, © there is one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism :”* how then, says Barclay, can there be 7wo Baptisms?—one by water, another spiritual ?—This argument is not mentioned by Barclay in passing, but it is insisted onꝰ: yet to say, there is only one Baptism, there- fore it has no water; seems the fame thing as to say, one thing is never composed of Parts; the King of England is but one man, therefore he has no Body, or he has no Soul. That is but one free, therefore it has no root, or it has no branches.

Several

Page 43, quarto. |

I would not be thought fo far to adopt the observation of Wall as to say, that any one may at first sight, perceive the fallacy of all the arguments of the Quakers; they have by some been thought perplexing, even when not convincing. -— Mr. E. told me once, coming * one of my Lectures, that he had been in more danger from Barclay’s Apology, than from any Book written against our Religion, — And Rev. John Norris, of Bemerton near Salisbury, who died in 1711, said, “that he would rather encounter ten Cardinal Bellarmines, than one David Barclay.” - So the Newspaper says; but without refer-

=, RE 8 of Mr, Norris’s works where the saying is to und.

Eph. iv. 5. | d Barclay’s Apology, Prop. 12. Sect. 3. e

308 BOOK IV. xxx.

Several arguments of the Quakers turning upon one form of expression, it may be mentioned; mean the scriptural negative form of comparison : such as we find 1 Cor. 1. 17. and 1 Pet. iii. 21.— « Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the Gospel Baptism”—* t the putting away of the filth of the flesh, hut the answer of a good con. {cience,” &c,—But there are a multitude of such comparisons; see Matt. ix. 13. and Col. iii. 2.— One might add, Matt. vi. 19, 20. and xxv. 5, and 1 Tim. 11. 9, 10. according to Fordyce.—And, according to Archbishop Sharp, Matt. xi. 3 15.— Who will make all these to be absolute negatives? —1f not all, why the two first? |

xxx. But, to drop the enemies to Water-bap- tism, as our Church holds © it essential to Baptism, that a person be baptized “ in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,” it may be proper to mention an objection of the Baptisis; that, in the Acts of the Apostles, con- verts are sometimes* said to be baptized in the name, or ine the name of Christ, or of the Lord. — But this seems to mean only admission into Chri/- tianity, by Baptism; it might be, 1n the usual form. Baptism in the name of Christ, seems contradil- tinguished to the Baptism of John; or of the Jews; or to Heathenism : such an expression would not preclude the farther inquiry, by what Form was {uch a person baptized into the name of Christ ? probably, by the usual form*. For the expression,

the < Art, xV1. Sect. 1v. | 4 Rubric to private Baptism, at the end; already mentioned, $68. TE; 55

e See Acts ii, […] S. See Wall, page 435, quarto. —

f This may be right reasoning, though some ancient Chris- tians did sometimes baptize in the name of Chri/? instead of Laptizing in the form prescribed, Matt. xxviii. 19. they might

misunderstand

BOOK Iv. ART. XXVII., SECT. XXXI. 309

the name of Christ, we should read Acts iv. 12. which was introduced 1nto our eighteenth Article. — There is no other name under Heaven whereby men may be saved, but that of Christ ; the names of Moloch, Remphan, &c. are insufficient and impotent.,—-When we were accustomed to this language, being baptized into the name of Christ, would only convey the idea of becoming Christians, without implying any particular forms. With regard to [nfant-baptism, several objections have already occurred : I will therefore now men- tion only two. xxxI. If infants are to receive one sacrament, why not both? — it used to be a custom, for many centuries, to give Infants the Lord’s supper; nay, it is now with the Greeks, and with “ near half the Christians in the world.“ - But to make them Members of Christ, was more necessary on account of original sin, than to make them go through a ceremony in commemoration of his death. — Those who receive the Lord’s Supper, renew their bap- tismal vow, broken by actual fin; but Infants have committed none, and it may be doubted whether, | regularly,

misunderstand Acts xix. 5.,—See Art. 1. Sect. xv1i1t. Vol. 2. page 373.

8 Gal. iii. 27. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ.” -

Acts xix. 2.— Some persons at Ephesus told St. Paul, that they had not heard of the Holy Ghe/t ; he immediately asked, * unto what were ye then baptized?” does not this seem to imply, that if they had been baptized as Christians, they must have heard of the Holy Ghost? that is, they must have been baptized according to Matt, xxviii. 19.

d Wall, page 517, 4to. or 2. 9. 17. He adds, that pro- bably the Western Church would have continued the practice, had it not been for the Doctrine of Transubstantiation: this may be just, though dir Edwin Sandys says, that the Greeks hold Transubstantiation.—Speculum Europæ, page 233.—But sce farther Art. xx x, Sect. 111.

—

not to be sor children: but quotes no text.

310 BOOK iv. ART. xxvII. SECT. xxxII.

regularly, Confirmation should not precede a par- taking of the Lord’s Supper. We have reasoned from the Jewish to the Christian law: amongst the Jews, children were initiated by circumcision, but did not partake of the Paschal supper, which is analogous to the Lord’s supper with us; fo at least it is supposed*. —Infants cannot receive in remembrance of Christ. —But if any church is, at last, of opinion, that Infants ought to have the Lord’s Supper; let such give it them: our rea- soning in favour of Infant-baptism remains un- affected.

XXX11., Baptism consists of two parts, external and internal; persons baptized are accordingly said to be born again of water and the spirit“.— Chil- dren may be born of water, but how of the Spirit? how can their Faith be confirmed, or their grace increased ? It does not seem necessary that all the benefits of Baptism should belong to every person baptized; it is enough if the Sacrament has both an external and an internal part. An infant cannot have faith’, or good principles; but it may be * grasted into the Church” and adopted; and it may even have forgiveness, though not of actual sin; it may have remission of the penalties in- flicted on the human® race. Our Saviour was baptized ; but he who knew no fin, of any kind, could have no forgiveness. He who was, from the first the Son of God, could not receive adoption.

xXXX111. Here

i Exod. xii. 26. does not prove this:— Bingham quotes it, 15. 4. 7. end, and gives some reasons.— Wall, at the end of Chap. 9. (Part 2.) mentions the Passover twice; as understood

• John ii. 6. 5 | | The Lutherans allow them Faith; and the Pelagians used to ascribe to them actual Sin, in order to avoid original. m This may seem less strange or harsh to those who have considered what was said under the ninth Article,

BOOK IV. ART, XXVII. SECT. XXxXxIII - XXXV. 31

xxxIII. Here we put an end to our Proof, direct and indirect; and therefore proceed to our Application. I have been in doubt whether a new Form of Assent is wanted, and have tried one; but on the whole, 1 do not think it worth while to detain you by giving it here. We come there- fore to mutual concessions.

xxxiv. Here, again, we have to deal with Quakers and Baptists,

Concessions to Quakers, of the ancient or modern sort, we have none to make.—-Nor to the Soci- mans : some Baptism we think clearly appointed in the scriptures; but, at the same time we disclaim all judging of our Brother; © to his own“ Master he standeth or falleth,”

xxxv. As to Baptists, they differ from us, both with regard to sprinkling, and to baptizing Infants. But if they agree with us in other things, there seems nothing in these, which need hinder us from uniting, —At some*? times the Baptists have pro- fessed to think, on most subjects, with the Church of England: but sects are apt to veer about with every wind of Doctrine“ (preventing which, is one great good of an established church): — the Socinians are now labouring to unite * all sects of Dissenters against our National Church: an union which could answer no religious purpose. It is indeed ridiculous to think of the Baptists and Socinians fayouring each other, merely because they both oppose Infant-Baptism, when they do it from principles so different, that they should rather dispute than unite ; one holding Baptism to

be a Secker’s Lectures, Lect. 35. near the end. —Rom, xiv. 4.

„ Wall, page 551 P Eph. iv. 14,

i See. Dr. Priestley ‘s Address to the Methodists, prefixed to Wesley’s Letters. | |

U 4

312 BOOK iv. xxxv.

be necessary, the other to be unneceflary.—Rut as to immersion and sprinkling, a Baptist need not quit the Church of England ; because ac- cording to our Rubrics, I do not fee how a Priest could refuse immersion if it were required. Our Fonts have indeed grown less and less suited to dipping, but that surely is not to be mentioned in arguing about Doctrines.

Nay our baptizing Iafants does not seem to lay the Baptist under an absolute necessity of sepa- rating from us. Suppole a Baptist was to try the experiment : would he be compelled to bring his children to Baptism*? does not our Church pro- vide for baptizing at any age ? But if a Baptist was called upon to subscribe to our xxx1x Articles, could he subscribe to our present Article? to every part of it, except the last clause, Baptists laue subscribed. —But the clause, © the Baptism of young children 15 to be retained in the Church;” could he subscribe to that ?—if he could not, it might be altered ; © the Baptism of young children is to be permitted to those who prefer it,“ would do as well for our church. But some might be contented with this sense; I desire and with that the Baptism of young children may be * retained in the church,” and I think it ought to be, in order that those who think it their duty to bring their children to Baptism, may not be deprived of an opportunity: but on the other hand, as I think it right to afford my Christian brethren, who differ from me, an opportunity of baptizing in their

own

I do not see that he would, by the Canons.—Burn mentions an Act of 3 Jac. ordering the children of Popisi Recusants to be baptized within a month. ’ Wall, page 551.

BOOK IV. ART. XxvII. SECT. XXXV. 313

own way, I hope they will grant me the fame Liberty.“ |

Limborck is of opinion, probably after Grotius, that all Christians might, consistently with the Scriptures, follow their own notions with regard to the manner and circumstances of Baptism ; in- cluding in these, the age of the person baptized*®. But he thinks, of course, that Infant-baptism ought to be deemed walid, and therefore he blames the Anabaptists for re-baptizing. And he thinks infant-baptism valid, not only because every one should have liberty, in such a case, to act as he pleases ; but becaule it is agreeable to the Genius of the Doctrine of Jesus Christ. —An expres-

fon not unlike the concluding one of our Article *.

Dr. Priestley* concludes his History of Bap- tism with giving his opinion, that those who are called rational Dissenters baptize children more from the influence of settled cy//om, and through a desire of avoiding all disturbance, than from any fixed persuasion that they are under an obligation to baptize them. 5 —

Even Mr. Tombs”, the best, as well as the most candid, of the Baptist-writers, who con- tinued an Antipædobaptist all his Life, wrote against separation from the Church, and “ con-

tinued in communion with the Church, till he died.“

What

© Limborch, Theol. Christ. 5. 68. 25.— Wall somewhere says, that Grotius was the first who represented it as a matter of indifference whether a man was baptized in infancy, or his Bap- tism delayed. He blames Grotius as disingenuous. |

[…]

optime convenire,”

• Hist. Corr, 2. page 94. There is afterwards an Appendix, to both Sacraments.

Wall, page 454.— Also 429, 430. 528, See also 2. 2. 15.

What greater encouragements to Unity can

be had?

xxxvi. I have frequently finished my Appli- cation with some hints of Improvement; but none occur to me at present, except such as the preceding remarks cannot fail to suggest.

BOOK IV. ART. xXXVII I. SECT. 1. 315

Notes

• Wall. page 464, quarto, from Ep. 69. — This is applicable to the subje& of Hrinꝶling, Set, x.
• Potter’s Antiquities, Vol. 1. page 221. 223. Idem ter socios puri circumtulit unda, En. G. 229,—Terque senem flamma, ter aqua, ter sulphure lustrat. Ovid Metam. lib. 5. cap. 2.— In the latter passage the word Hamma reminds one of the scriptural baptizing with fire; though no way probably connected with it. | Y See Wall’s Introd. page lxi. and page 488.
• may De eccles. dogm. cap. 74. | * In Russia, it is said, Children are bathed in cold water ;
• . One thing which makes passages in ancients seem less to our purpose than they really are, is the variety of names by which Baptism is called; as, Regeneration, Renewal, Sauctisication, Illumina- tion, the Seal, the Grace, &c. and the originals of these words are sometimes translated by other Eng- lish words :—these are mentioned in Walls Pre- face; in Theodoret I find amoaurewsrs? : Wall quotes it from Irenzus?.
• . The greatest difficulty arises from Tertullian, who 1s placed about 100 years after St. John’s death, and therefore before Origen, He, in his Book de Baptismo, cap. 18. dissuades (and he is the only Father who does dissuade) from early bap- tim, though he seems as much afraid of any one’s
• Baptism is not only a sign of profession,” &c. this is affirming the same of Baptism 1n particular,
• De Hæresibus, cap. 7.