Imatges de pàgina
PDF
EPUB

tant Pædobaptists from it. They are apt now to face out any of them that makes any pretence to this text, as going against the general sense of Protestants. Mr. Stennet, in his late Answer to Mr. Russen (p. 73) having said That the "custom of baptizing infants seems to have taken its rise from the misinterpretation (as he calls it) of this text ;" and having instanced in Chrysostom, Cyril, and Austin, as concluding from this place a necessity of baptism to salvation (and he might have added to them all the ancient Christians that ever spoke of this matter as producing this text, though not this only) he himself declares, That he takes Calvin's interpretation, of which he there gives a scheme, to be the truer, you may be sure. Immediately after which, that which only seemed before, he now tims to be certain; and he adds, "Those of the Romish church do still build their infant baptism on the same principle." If that be true, then we may observe (by the way) that he takes afterward (ch. 6) a great deal of pains to no purpose, to prove that they pretend no Scripture ground at all, but only the authority of the church. "But this principle (he says) the Protestants have justly abandoned.' If he mean, the principle of an absolute impossibility of salvation for a child by mischance dying unbaptized, as raised from this text, it is true; but if he mean the principle of an impossibility of salvation to be had, according to God's ordinary rule and declaration, any other way than by baptism, I shall by and by shew, that not all the Protestants, if any, have abandoned it; on the contrary, they, most of them, take this text in the sense that the fathers did; only they judge, that in determining of the future state of an infant so dying, we are not to bind God to the means that he has bound us to; but may hope that for extraordinary cases and accidents he will make an allowance. As in the case of circumcision omitted, though the rule were as peremp tory as this, That soul shall be cut off; yet where his providence made it impracticable (as in those continual travels in the wilderness, &c.) he did not execute the penalty; and yet in ordinary cases the rule stood firm.

But see what a triumph this Antipædobaptist raises upon the supposal that the Protestants have abandoned this principle::-"And since (says he) this foundation is by these last [the Protestants] allowed to be insufficient to bear the weight of infant baptism, it might be worth a further inquiry, Whether it be founded on any solid foundation at all? and if those who appear first to have used it, proceeded on so great a mistake, Whether this custom ought not to be discontinued, as well as the basis on which it was originally laid ?"

The judicious Mr. Hooker saw betimes the inconvenience as well as the groundlessness of this new interpretation of Calvin, which was then greedily embraced by Cartwright and others, that they might with better face deny any necessity of that private baptism which had been ordered by the church in cases of extremity, and says on that account," I hold it for a most infallible rule in expositions of holy Scripture, that where a literal construction will stand, the farthest from the letter is commonly the worst. To hide the general consent of antiquity agreeing in the literal interpretation, they cunningly affirm, that certain have taken these words as meant of material water; when' they know that, of all the antients, there is not one to be named that ever did otherwise, either expound or allege the place, than as implying external baptism. Shall that which has always received this and no other construction, be disguised with a toy of novelty?. God will have the sacrament used not only as a sign or token of what we receive, but also as an instrument or mean whereby we receive grace, &c. If Christ himself, who giveth salvation, do require baptism, it is not for us that look for salvation, to sound and examine him, whether unbaptized men may be saved; but seriously to do that which is required, and religiously to fear the danger which may grow by the want thereof," &c. Eccl. Pol. lib. 5, sect. 59, 60.

2. By those words [the kingdom of God] in this text, they do all of them understand (as any one would

naturally do) the kingdom of glory hereafter in

Heacen.

This is confessed by the right reverend author of the late Exposition of the 39 Articles of the Church of England, who goes about himself to affix another sense, on those words, viz. that they here signify the church, or the dispensation of the Messiah. Speaking of the ancient times, he says "The words of our Saviour to Nicodemus were expounded so as to import the absolute necessity of baptism to salvation; for it not being observed that the dispensation of the Messiah was meant by the kingdom of God; but it being taken to signify eternal glory, that expression of our Saviour's was understood to import this, That no man should. be saved unless he were baptized," &c.

It must be granted, that in some places of the New Testament, by these words [the Kingdom of God] is meant the Gospel State in this life. I gave an instance ↑ before, where I think it is so taken; but it is also often taken in the ordinary sense for the state of future glory; and that it should be so taken here, I crave leave to offer these reasons:

[ocr errors]

1. All the ancient expositors and other fathers, both Greek and Latin, do, as I said, understand it so, The reader has seen a multitude of their sayings, occasionally brought here, whereof not one is capable to be understood otherwise; and I believe none can be produced that is. Hermas, who set down in writing these words of our Saviour, or the substance of them, before St. John himself did, takes it so; as appears by his speaking of people entering this kingdom after their death. Tertullian § paraphrases" cannot enter? by non habet salutem, cannot be saved;' and so all the rest. Now it is hard to think that not one of the antients should expound it right.

2. Mr. Walker, who had consulted as much on the

[blocks in formation]

་་

exposition of this text as any man, takes the Antipædobaptists for the first inventors of the new exposition; and that it was invented by them to serve a turn; for so are his words; -"God's spiritual kingdom on earth, or visible church, is all that the Anabaptists will have these words to signify; and that upon this design, because they would by this distinction avoid the force of the argument hence," &c.

3. As he there observes, this text explains itself; for the expression being redoubled by our Saviour, in v. 3, and again in v. 5; it is in v. 3,-- He cannot see the kingdom of God. And St. Austin long ago made this observation: - "What he had said he cannot see, he explained, by saying he cannot enter into." Now for the church here, one that is not baptized may see it. It is therefore plainly meant of the Kingdom of Glory.

[ocr errors]

4. It is not likely that our Saviour should in his discourse with Nicodemus introduce a sentence in so solemn a way of speaking, as to premise twice over to it these words, Verily, verily, I say unto thee; and yet at last the sentence should come to no more than this, that without baptism one cannot be entered into the church; for, to be baptized, and to be entered into the church, are terms much about equivalent.

[ocr errors]

Neither does it appear what the Antipædobaptists gain by this interpretation of theirs, if it were consistent; since the only way, at least the only known and ordinary way, to the kingdom of glory, is by being of Christ's church, or under the dispensation of the Messiah.

As for the absolute necessity of baptism to salvation, which the learned bishop, whom I mentioned, says these words were anciently expounded to import,-I am going presently to recite the sense of the antients particularly, how far they expounded them so, and how far not.

* Modest Plea, c. 12 § 8.

† Lib. 3, de Animâ & ejus Origine, c. 11.

[ocr errors]

St. Austin is of opinion* That had it not been for this sentence of our Saviour, the Pelagians, when they were so hard pressed with the arguments taken from the baptism of infants, "would have determined that infants were not to be baptized at all.”

The Church of England, together with the whole ancient church, does apply and make use of this text as a ground of baptizing infants; beginning the office for it thus: "Forasmuch as all men are conceived and born in sin, and that our Saviour Christ says None can enter into the kingdom of God, except he be regenerate, and born anew of water and of the Holy Ghost," &c. And afterward:-"Seeing now, dearly beloved brethren, that this child is regenerate," &c. They do in all the three offices of baptism, as soon as - the party is baptized, whether he be an infant or one of riper years, give thanks that he is regenerated and grafted into the body of Christ's church.

Whereas some people have expressed a wonder at St. Austin, that he should hold, "that all that are baptized are also regenerate ;" no man living can read him without perceiving that he uses the word [regenerate] as another word for [baptized] and that this with him would have been an identical proposition; as if one should say now-a-days, - -"All that are baptized are christened.

If some of late days have put a new sense on the word regenerate, how can St. Austin help that? The Church of England uses the word in the old sense.

Many of the late defenders of infant baptism have, as I said, left out this place from among the proofs that they bring from Scripture for it; but for what reason, it is hard to imagine.

If they fear that from hence will follow a ground of absolute despair for any new convert for himself, and for any parent in respect of his child, dying before he can be baptized, is it not natural to admit of the same Leukia, and allowance in these words, as we do, and

*L. 1. de Peccat. Merit. c. 30.

« AnteriorContinua »