Imatges de pàgina
PDF
EPUB

observe, that the orations which he cites are indeed a proof that many grown people converted did put off their baptism a long time; because those orations, or sermons, are made on purpose to convince people of their sin and danger in so doing; but there is nothing in them that gives any evidence that those who were once baptized themselves, did ever delay the baptizing of their children; save that in one of them, Gregory Nazianzen gives his opinion, that in case the children are in good health, and there be no fear of their death, one may do well to defer their baptism till they be about three years old; but otherwise, to baptize them out of hand. The place I have set down at large, in Part 1, ch. 11.

*

Mr. Baxter also, who has shewn a great deal of zeal, and spent a great deal of pains in maintaining the cause of Pædobaptism, yet when he is in a complying humour, allows thus much: "That, in the days of Tertullian, Nazianzen, and Austin, men had liberty to be baptized, or to bring their children, when and at what age they pleased; and none were forced to go against their consciences therein; and that he knows not that our rule or religion is changed, or that we are grown any wiser or better than they."

The days of Tertullian and Nazianzen are pitched on, I suppose, because of their sayings, which have been mentioned. The days of Austin have no reason to be brought in here; but only because Mr. Baxter thought that his parents were Christians (a mistake common to him with many others); and that they not baptizing him in infancy, it was probable that many other Christians omitted it likewise.

The same thing, as I hear, is maintained by those remonstrants that are authors of Censura Censuræ, in their 23d chapter.

Since the writing of the rest, I find that Garner, the Jesuit, is, or would seem to be, of this opinion; by what he says in his Notes upon a Sermon of Nesto

* Defence of Principles of Love, p. 7.

*

rius, published with Mercator's Works: "In those old times baptism was not given presently after the birth, as it is now; but was many times deferred a great while, not only by the adult (who came to it at their own time) but also by the parents of infants till they were grown up."

This race of men at first pretended to no more than this, That infant baptism cannot be proved from Scripture, without having recourse to the proof that is taken from the practice of the ancient church; and this they did, that they might force the Protestants to own the traditions of the ancient church to be necessary in determining points of religion; for that, without them, the Protestants could not defend their cause against the Antipædobaptists; but now that the Protestants have largely shewn that that recourse to the traditions of the ancient church does turn the scale on the Protestants side against the Papists; and that they find it necessary for their cause to decry both Scripture and the traditions of the ancient church, as being both of them together insufficient; and that we must throw ourselves on the authority of the present church, i. e. the church of Rome, they do, in order to force this down, set their wits to maintain that infant baptism cannot be proved, neither from Scripture nor from the primitive practice, but only by the infallibility of the present church.

But, as such subtle men do sometimes forget themselves, especially if they be voluminous authors, this same Jesuit, in his Notes on another book, says, t "When the apostle writes to the Romans, of whom several had been baptized in infancy, and yet says, So many of us as have been baptized into Christ Jesus, have been baptized into his death, &c. under those general words he comprebends those that were baptized before the use of reason." By making some that were grown men at the time of this epistie, viz. 23 years

* Page 79, edit. 1673.

+ Notes on the Ninth Chapter of Mercator's Subnotations, p. 63.

after Christ's death, to have been baptized at Rome in their infancy, he supposes infant baptism there practised as soon as the gospel can be reckoned to have been preached there, and, perhaps, if we compute the times, sooner.

Mr. Danvers (book i, ch. 7) produces one Boemus, who should say, that, in the Christian church; and Mr. Stennet (Answer to Russen, p. 85) one Macaire, who should say, That in the church of Alexandria, no infants were, in the first ages, baptized. It is the un

happiness of vulgar readers, that if they see a strange name quoted, they think it a great authority; but it is a very disingenuous thing to take advantage of this their weakness. It is like putting off bad wares upon ignorant chapmen; for Boemus, I could never hear who he was, nor when he lived. (P. S. I find, since the first edition, that he is a late author of no note or regard for learning.) — Macaire (as Mr. Stennet says) was Bishop of Memphis, in Egypt, Anno 756; but we have no account from him, how or when this newfound book of his came to light, or how it appears to be genuine. This is certain, that at that time there was no such place as Memphis; and that the Saracens had above a hundred years before that over-run all Egypt, whose custom was to destroy all Christian books and learning; and can we think that this unknown man, in such a time of ignorance, is able to tell us any news of the primitive practice, which Origen (who lived in Alexandria 5 or 600 years before that) and the other fathers, who had a clear light of history to their own times, had never heard of? Such authors serve only to fill up a crowd of names, and to put an abuse upon a plain honest reader; the prevention of which is my only excuse for mentioning these, who are by no means to be reckoned among learned men.

There is also a passage in the former English editions of Camden's Britannia, which, if every reader knew whọ is the author of it, would for the same reason have no need of being mentioned here; but many readers take all that is there put into the text for Camden's own;

whereas Doctor Holland, the translator, has inserted abundance of his own additions; and, among the rest, he has in Cumberland interpolated, among Camden's words, a fancy of his own against the antiquity of infant baptism. Camden is there speaking of the font at Bridekirk in that county," which is," he says, a large open vessel of greenish stone, with several little images curiously engraven on it," having also an inscription which he could not read. He He guesses it to have been made originally for a font, to which use it is still employed; and, to account for the images engraven on it, he says, "We read that the fonts were anciently adorned with the pictures of holy men, whose lives were proposed as a pattern to such as were baptized;" for which he quotes, in the margin, Paulinus. Then follows, in the text, this addition of Dr. Holland: "For, in the first plantation of Christianity among the Gentiles, such only as were of full age, after they were instructed in the principles of the Christian religion, were admitted to baptism."

Camden's words, quoted from Paulinus, do intiinate no more than this, That there were in ancient times many baptisms of adult persons; but that such only were admitted, is said only by Dr. Holland, who seems to have concluded it too hastily from what Camden quoted. -It appears since, by a more accurate view taken by the Bishop of Carlisle of the inscription, and of those which Camden calls Images, on the said fontstone, that the contrary to what Dr. Holland thought, is proved from them; for he, in a letter to Sir William Dugdale (printed in the additions to the last edition of that book) explains both the inscription and the images; by which latter he says, "We have there fairly represented a person in a long sacerdotal habit, dipping a éhild into the water, and a dove (the emblem, no doubt, of the Holy Ghost) hovering over the infant," &c.

Of the professed Antipædobaptists (for ail that I have yet mentioned were Pædobaptists, notwithstanding some of their sayings concerning the ancient use) Mr. Tombs was a man of the best parts in our nation,

[blocks in formation]

and, perhaps, in any; but his talent did not lie much in ancient history or reading. All that I have seen of his of this nature, has been considered in speaking of the authors to whom he refers *.

Mr. Danvers has heaped together a vast rhapsody of quotations ; but having seldom consulted the authors. themselves, but taken them at second hand, and out of any sort or writers, such as he calls by the names of Twisk, Frank, &c. and a book called Dutch Martyrology, &c. books of no kind of credit, he has for the most part strangely misrepresented them.

He was publicly accused by Mr. Baxter and Mr. Wills, for a wilful forger of quotations; ;-and the. book would tempt one to think so; but, upon second thoughts, I hope it was partly his authors, and partly want of good heed or skill that misled him. Mr. Wills went so far as to put in an Appeal to his own party against him, that they ought to renounce him; and he printed it; but he and they answered as well as they could, and made the best of a bad matter; and indeed, Mr. Wills in that Appeal (for want of books I suppose) made not bis best advantage of the charge that miglit have been brought against him; for he instanced, in some of his false quotations, that were of the least consequence, omitting those of greater, and such as it had been impossible for him or them to reconcile; and also, in some of them was mistaken himself.

Most of the rest of them do, as much as may be, avoid speaking of the practice of the primitive church, and do except against any argument brought from thence as a human authority: a method which, if they be resolved to continue in their opinion, is much for their purpose, provided they ineet with adversaries so weak as to let it so pass over.

I have produced all the modern learned men that I known of, that have thought that infant baptism either

* Part 1, ch. 4, 5, 6, and 21.

+Treatise of Baptism.

Confutation of the strange Forgeries of H. Danvers.

« AnteriorContinua »