=.3 Ancient & Modern Library
-=^rt> I ;*^'
OL IL
Ctieolodtcal Collection,
THE HISTORY OF INFANT BAPTISM.
The Ancient and Modern Library of 'Theological Literature.
II. a
THE HISTORY
OF
INFANT BAPTISM
In
THE FIRST,
BEING AN IMPARTIAL COLLECTION OF ALL SUCH PASSAGES IN
THE WRITERS OF THE FOUR FIRST CENTURIES
AS DO MAKE FOR, OR AGAINST IT.
THE SECOND,
CONTAINING SEVERAL THINGS THAT DO HELP TO
ILLUSTRATE THE SAID HISTORY
BY W. WALL, VICAR OF SHOREHAM, IN KENT
LONDON
GRIFFITH, FARRAN, OKEDEN & WELSH
(SUCCESSORS TO NEWBERY AND HARRIS)
AND SYDNEY
JUL ' 4 2003
THE HISTORY OF INFANT BAPTISM,
CONTAINING
SEVERAL THINGS THAT DO HELP TO ILLUSTRATE THE
SAID HISTORY.
PART II.
viii The. Contents of 'the Second Part.
infant baptism to have been either not from the beginning, or not universal,
have been brought to this concession by the instances of several ancients,
who are pretended to have been born of Christian parents, and yet not
baptised in infancy, p. 24.
CHAPTER III.
OF THOSE WHO ARE SAID TO HAVE BEEN IJORN OF CHRISTIAN PARENTS,
AND YET NOT BAPTISED TILL OF MAN'S AGE, p. 25.
Sect, i, p. 25.
An account of the persons, and state of their case.
Sect. 2. Of Constantine, and Constantius, his son, p. 27.
That were not born of baptised parents.
§ i. Constantine was not baptised till just before his death, p. 27. § 2.
His father was not a Christian, p. 28. Nor his mother, when he was born,
P- 3°- § 3- Constantius's parents were not baptised Christians when he was
born, nor a long time after, p. 30.
Sect. 3. Of Gratian and Valentinian the Second, p. 32.
There is no proof that their father was a baptised Christian when they
were born.
S i. The history of their father, p. 32. § 2. The time of the birth and
death of each of them, p. 33. § 3. Valentinian desired baptism before his
death, but missed of it, p. 35. § 4. Gratian probably was baptised, but not
in infancy, p. 36. § 5. Their father does not appear to have been baptised
himself till a little before his death, when the youngest of them was eight
years »ld, p. 37.
Sect. 4. Of Theodosius the First, p. 37.
§ i. He was not baptised till after he was Emperor, p. 37. § 2. His
father was not a baptised Christian till he (the son) was twenty-five years
old, p. 38.
Sect. 5. Of St Basil, p. 39.
There is no proof to the contrary but that he was baptised in infancy.
§ i. The quotations brought by Mr Danvers for his baptism at his adult
age are some of them forged, others unfairly recited, p. 39. §2. Arrphi-
lochius's Life of St Basil, from whence this story is fetched, is a forged piece,
P- 39- § 3- Nazianzen, Nyssen, and Ephraim Syrus, writing the passages of
his life, have no such thing, p. 40. § 4. The same man that baptised him,
did afterwards give him ordination, p. 40.
The Contents of the Second Part. ix
Sect. 6. Of St Gregory Nazianzen, p. 41.
He was not baptised in infancy, though probably born of baptised parents.
§ i. An account of when he was baptised, p. 41. § 2. His father was not
a Christian till the year 325, p. 41. § 3. The old account is, that the son
was born anno 300, which is contradicted by Baronius, p. 42. § 4. Pape-
brochius resettles the old account, and answers Baronius, p. 42. § 5. A
quotation out of Gregory himself, that he was born after that his father was
in orders, p. 44. § 6. Some other reasons on each side examined, p. 45.
§ 7. An inquiry when his sister Gorgonia and brother Caesarius were
baptised, p. 46.
Sect. 7. Of Nectarius, p. 48.
§ i. He was elected Bishop before he was baptised, p. 48. § 2. There is
not the least pretence that his parents were Christians, p. 48.
Sect. 8. Of St Chrysostom, p. 49.
His parents were probably heathens at the time of his birth.
§ i. Ancient historians do say they were, p. 49. § 2. Grotius, without
giving any reason, affirms the contrary, p. 49. § 3. Proof out of Sozomen,
that Chrysostom himself was for some time a heathen, p. 51. § 4. M. du
Pin's quotations on this subject examined, p. 51.
Sect. 9. Of St Ambrose, p. 52.
There is no account of his parents being Christians at the time of his birth.
§ i. He was chosen for Bishop before he was baptised, p. 52. § 2. There
is no proof that his parents were Christians at the time of his birth, p. 52.
§ 3. There is very probable proof from his own words of the contrary, p. 53.
Sect. 10, p. 54.
There is no proof to the contrary, but that St Hierom was baptised
in infancy.
§ i. Erasmus thought he was baptised at Rome, because he says he there
took on him " the garment of Christ," p. 54. § 2. St Hierom by that phrase
means the monKs Jiabit, p. 55. § 3. Baronius's reason to the contrary con
sidered, p. 56. § 4. The objection from his ordination answered, p. 58.
§ 5. The state of the monastic life at that time, p. 60. § 6. St Hierom's
excessive value for it, p. 61.
x The Contents of the Second Part.
Sect. ii. Of St Austin, p. 61.
His father was a heathen when he was born, and a long time after.
§ i. He was thirty-three years old when he was baptised, p. 61. § 2.
His father did not turn Christian till he [St Austin] was seventeen years
old, p. 62. § 3. St Austin was a Manichee, and then a Deist, before he was
a Christian, p. 64.
Sect. 12. Of Monica, Adeodatus, Alipius, and some others, p. 65.
They do none of them make instances to this purpose.
§ I. It is not known whether Monica were born of Christian parents, and
baptised in infancy, or of heathens, and baptised at years of discretion,
p. 65. § 2. St Austin was no Christian when his son Adeodatus was born :
as soon as he was baptised himself, he got his son baptised, p. 65. § 3.
Alipius was a heathen first, and then a Christian, p. 65. § 4. A reflection
on Mr Delaun's quotations against infant baptism, taken out of Danvcrs,
p. 86, p. 66.
CHAPTER IV.
OF THE CHURCH OF THE ANCIENT BRITONS ; AND OF THE SECTS OF THE
NOVATIANS AND DONATISTS, WHICH ARE BY SOME THOUGHT TO HAVE
BEEN ANTIPjEDOBAPTISTS. AND OF THE ARIANS, p. 67.
§ I. Danvers's Proof from Fabian's Chronicle, that the ancient Britons
were against infant baptism, is grounded on the misprinting of two or three
words in one edition of that book ; the contrary proved, p. 67. § 2. The
pretence that the Novatians and Donatists denied infants' baptism, has no
proof ; there is proof to the contrary, p. 69. § 3. The Arians called Ana
baptists : not that they disliked infant baptism, but because they rebaptised
all that had been baptised by the Catholics, p. 71.
CHAPTER V.
OF SOME HERETICS THAT DENIED ALL WATER-BAPTISM : AND OF OTHERS
THAT GAVE BAPTISM SEVERAL TIMES TO THE SAME PERSON. THE
DISPUTE IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH ABOUT REBAPTISING. OF THE
PAULIANISTS, WHOM THE NICENE FATHERS ORDERED TO BE BAPTISED
ANEW, IF THEY WOULD COME INTO THE CHURCH. THE REVENGE
WHICH THE MODERN PAULIANISTS TAKE ON THOSE FATHERS, BY
ACCUSING THEM OF TRITHEISM. THE FALSENESS OF THAT ACCUSA
TION, p. 72.
§ I. The Valentinians, some of them, renounced all external baptism ;
others profaned it by their alterations of the form, &c. Their several tenets
concerning it out of Irenaeus, p. 72. § 2. Quintilla preached at Carthage in
T/ie Contents of the Second Part. xi
the second century, that water-baptism is needless ; faith alone is enough,
P- 73- § 3- The Manichees held that baptism in water does nobody any
good, p. 73. § 4. The Messalians held the same, being a distracted sort of
people. And so did the Ascodryti, Archontici, and Seleucians or Hermians,
P- 74- § 5- The Marcionites of old, and the Muscovites of late, the only
persons in the world that ever owned formal anabaptism, or rebaptisation of
the same person several times, p. 75. § 6. The dispute among the Catholics,
whether baptism given by heretics be valid, or must be reiterated. Baptism
given in the right form of words, though by heretics, adjudged valid, p. 76.
§ 7. The Paulianists excepted by the Council of Nice from the number of
heretics that were to have this privilege, p. 77. §8. The modern Paulianists,
do, in revenge, accuse the Nicene and other Fathers of Tritheism : and that
they held not a numerical, but only a specifical, unity of the Divine essence,
P- 77- § 9- They persist in affirming this as proved by Curcellasus, after
that all the instances produced by Curcellaeus had been by Bishop Stilling-
fleet shown to be mistakes. The open affront given by M. le Clerc to all
the" Churches that own the Nicene Creed, p. 79. § 10. The new instances
they bring from Tertullian, answered, p. 80. § 11. And those they bring
from Gregory Nazianzen, p. 82. § 12. The heresies of Praxeas, Noetus, and
Sabellius on one side, and Philoponus on the other, and the way the church
men take to refute them, -do plainly show that the Church held the numerical
unity, p. 85. § 13. St Austin, St Hierom, St Ambrose, &c., do express fully
the numerical unity of the essence : but these are blackened on other
accounts, p. 89. § 14. The mischief brought on the credit of Christian
religion, by vilifying the ancient professors of it, because their sayings can
not be brought to serve a turn, p. 90. P.S. — St Austin also in a late piece is
made a tritheist. § 15. St Hilary vindicated from the same imputation,
p. 92.
CHAPTER VI.
THE OPINIONS OF THE ANCIENTS CONCERNING THE FUTURE STATE OF
INFANTS, AND OTHER PERSONS THAT HAPPENED TO DIE UNBAPTISED,
p. 95.
§ i. They do all understand that rule of our Saviour (John iii. 5), "Except
one be born again," &c., of water-baptism. Calvin's new interpretation of
that text, and the advantage which the antipaedobaptists do take of it, p. 95.
Also they do all by the Kingdom of God in that text, understand the kingdom
of glory. The inconsistency of some later interpretations with the words of
the text, p. 95. § 2. Their opinion of the case of martyrs dying unbaptised,
that they went to heaven, p. 100. § 3. The case of converts believing, but
being unbaptised. Those that had contemned or neglected baptism, con-
xii The Contents of the Second Part.
demned. Those that had fully resolved to take it, but missed of it, went,
as some thought, to a middle state; as others thought to heaven, p. 101.
§ 4. Of infants dying unbaptised. All agree that they miss of the Kingdom
of Heaven. They go, as the Greek Fathers think, into a middle state ; as
others, into some degree of punishment, p. 105. § 5. Of the degree of their
punishment. St Austin thinks it to be a very moderate one ; a state better
than no being at all. The books in which the more rigid opinion is held, are
Fulgentius's, and not his, p. 107. § 6. The opinions of the following ages.
Fulgentius, anno 500 ; Pope Gregory, 600 ; Anselm, 1000 ; do speak of their
being tormented. The schoolmen, anno 1200, go over to the opinion of the
Greek Church, that they shall be in a middle state. The Council of Trent were
about to determine the opinion of their being tormented to be a heresy, p.
1 10. § 7. Some in the Middle Age have conceived hopes of some unbaptised
infants going to heaven. Hincmarus Rhemensis, Wickliff, the Lollards,
Hussites, &c. (and the schoolmen for infants dying in the womb), and in the
latter times Cajetan and Cassander, p. 112. § 8. The opinions of the Pro
testants, Lutherans, Calvinists, Church of England, English Presbyterians,
antipasdobaptists, concerning the possibility of salvation of unbaptised
infants, p. 117. § 9. That all baptised infants dying such are saved; the
generality of the Christian world has agreed. The ancient Praedestinarians
and Semipelagians consented in this. Of the modern Praedestinarians some
few have doubted or denied it, p. 119. § 10. The ancients never refused to
baptise a child on account of the parents' wickedness, as some Calvinists now
do, p. 122.
CHAPTER VII.
AN ACCOUNT OF THE STATE OF THIS PRACTICE FROM THE YEAR 400
TILL THE RISE OF THE GERMAN ANTIPJEDOBAPTISTS. OF THE
WALDENSES, AND THEIR CHIEF ACCUSERS, ST BERNARD, PETRUS
CLUNIACENSIS, REYNERIUS, PILICHDORF, ETC., THE CONFESSIONS OF
THE WALDENSES THEMSELVES, p. 122
§ i. There are no pretences of anyone in this period before the time of
the Waldenses being against infant baptism, but what are proved to be
mistakes. The instance of Hincmarus, Bishop of Laudun, shown to be
such, p. 122. § 2. Of Bruno, Bishop of Angiers, and of Berengarius,
Archdeacon of the same Church, there are reports that they held doctrines
that do overthrow infant baptism ; but they never owned any such, p. 125.
§ 3. A general account of the Waldenses, A.D. 1 1 50. What the Popish
historians do say of their tenets. What the present remainders of them do
say of their ancestors. Some of their old confessions. The present debate,
whether they were anciently paedobaptists or antipaedobaptists, p. 126.
The Contents of the Second Part. xiii
•
§ 4. That there were several sects of those men whom we now call by that
general name Waldenses ; and that some of them denied all water-baptism.
The distinct account of their several tenets about baptism given by
Reynerius, &c., p. 131.^ § 5. That one sect of them, viz., the Petrobrusians,
otherwise called Henricians, did own water-baptism, and yet deny
infant baptism. Four witnesses of this. The Lateran Councils under
Innocent the Second and Innocent the Third. Mr Stennet's pretence to the
disciples of Gundulphus, anno 1025, examined, p. 135. § 6. That all the
rest of them owned infant baptism, p. 141. § 7. Those that denied it quickly
dwindled away, or came over to those that owned it, p. 142. § 8. The life
of Peter Bruis and Henry, the two first antipaedobaptist preachers in the
world, p. 144.
CHAPTER VIII.
THE PRESENT STATE OF THIS CONTROVERSY. THAT ALL THE NATIONAL
CHURCHES IN THE WORLD ARE P^EDOBAPTIST. OF THE ANTIP^DO-
BAPTISTS THAT ARE IN GERMANY, HOLLAND, ENGLAND, POLAND, AND
TRANSYLVANIA, p. 147.
§ i. All the national Churches in Europe are paedobaptists, p. 147. § 2. So
are those in Asia. A disquisition concerning the Georgians, of whom Sir
Paul Ricaut had heard that they held formerly, " That children ought not to
be baptised till the age of fourteen," and that they now hold, " That they are
not to be baptised till eight years old." The mistake of this report shown
from Sir John Chardin, who travelled in that country. Of the Armenians,
Jacobites, Maronites, Christians of St Thomas, &c. They do all baptise
infants, p. 148. § 3. The two sorts of Christians that are in Africa, viz., the
Cophti and Abassens, do both of them baptise their infants forty days after
their birth or circumcision. A mistake in the print of Mr Thevenot concern
ing what he heard by the relation of an ambassador from the Abassens, that
before the Jesuits came there, they did not use to baptise till forty years,
putting years for days, p. 154. § 4. Of the antipasdobaptists in Germany,
anno 1522. An enquiry whether that opinion was then set up anew, or had
been continued from the time of the Petrobrusians. A letter written to
Erasmus, anno 1519, concerning the Phyghards, p. 154. § 5. Of those in
Holland and the Low Countries ; their insurrection at Amsterdam. Of
Menno, and the present Minnists; their tenets, &c., p. 158. § 6. Of the
English antipaadobaptists. Some Dutchmen in England, but no Englishmen,
of this way in the reigns of Henry VIII., Edward VI., Queen Mary, Queen
Elizabeth. No considerable number of English till the times of the Rebellion,
xiv The Contents of tJic Second Part.
p. 161. The great encouragement given them by Oliver Cromwell. Their
great increase at that time. The present state of them. Their tenets con
cerning, i. Separation. 2. Immersion. Their reasons for the necessity of
it The word Bairrtfw does not include dipping in its signification, p. 174.
3. Baptising naked. 4. The form of baptism. 5. The flesh of Christ.
6. The Millennium. 7. Eating of blood. 8. Sleep of the soul. The opinion
of the ancients concerning Hades, and the state of souls in it, p. 181.
9. Singing of Psalms. 10. The use of the Lord's Prayer, n. Extreme unc
tion. 12. Way of marriage. 13. Posture in receiving the Lord's Supper.
14. The Saturday Sabbath. 15. Confirmation, or laying on of hands. 16. Pre
destination. 17. Original sin. 1 8. The divinity of Christ. 19. Their disputes
with the Quakers. 20. Their Church officers. 21. Their way of adjusting
differences in money matters. 22. Church discipline against scandalous
members. 23. Of the Jesuits creeping in among them. Bishop Stillingfleet's
sagacity in discovering Hallingham, Coleman, and Benson to have been
Jesuits. Of one Everard a papist, who, having got in Cromwell's time a
commission for a troop of horse, set up for a preacher against Infant Baptism.
All the papists do of late years industriously put it into their books, " That
Infant Baptism cannot be proved from Scripture." The weakness of some
late antipaedobaptists in valuing themselves on the papists thus siding with
them in the dispute, p. 161 &c. to p. 201. § 7. Of the antipaedobaptists in
Poland, Hungary, Transylvania, &c. Those that were formerly in Poland
were mostly Socinians, and so are they that are at present in Transylvania,
p. 201.
CHAPTER IX.
^
THE ANCIENT RITES OF BAPTISM, p. 2O2.
§ i. The adult used prayer and fasting before it, p. 202. § 2. The ordinary
way of baptising was by immersion, but in case of sickness, &c., they gave it
by affusion of water on the face. Some ancient proofs of this from a letter
of St Cyprian. The examples of Novatian, St Lawrence, Basilides, the
jailor in Acts xvi., &c. An account of the times when immersion was left
off in the Latin Church : France was the first country in Christendom that
left it off, then Italy, Germany, &c., and, last of all, England, not till the
time of Queen Elizabeth. The Directory forbids dipping. The Church of
England at the Restoration re-established it, in case the child be able to
bear it. The opinion of Mr Mede, Bishop Taylor, Mr Rogers, Sir Norton
Knatchbul, Mr Walker, Dr Towerson, Dr Whitby, Sir John Floyer, &c.,
that the general use of it ought to be restored. All nations of Christians in
the world, except those that are or have been under the Pope, do dip their
T/te Contents of the Second Part. xv
infants if in health, p. 203 to p. 219. § 3. The ancient Christians baptised
naked. The care that was taken to preserve the modesty of women, p. 219.
§ 4. The head of the baptised was thrice put under water ; once at the nam
ing each name of the holy Trinity, p. 220. § 5. The forehead was signed
with the sign of the cross, p. 223. § 6. A mixture of milk and honey given to
the new-baptised person. A quotation out of the Epistle of Barnabas to
that purpose, p. 224. § 7. The white garment put on after baptism, p. 225.
§ 8. Of the two anointings ; one with oil before the baptism, the other with
a rich ointment or chrism after baptism, together with the laying on of
hands of the bishop, p. 225. § 9. The professions made at baptism, both
of the adult and infants ; and first, the promise of renouncing the devil and
all wickedness, p. 228. § 10. The Profession of Faith : the form of it at
first, only to say, " I believe in the Father, and in the Son, and in the Holy
Spirit." It was afterwards made in the words of the creed that was in use
in each Church. The copies of the most ancient creeds are lost. The
substance of them collected from rules of faith delivered by Justin Martyr,
Irenasus, Tertullian, Origen, Cyprian, &c., p. 230. § u. The Nicene Creed
the eldest copy of any public creed that is extant. Eusebius's Creed, the
Creed of Alexander, of Arius, of some Arian Councils at Antioch, of Eunomius.
Julian the Apostate's applause of Photinus's belief; the abhorrence expressed
by the Arians, as well as Catholics, against it. All the Catholic Christians
of the East used the Nicene Creed at Baptism, p. 237. § 12. The Constan-
tinopolitan Creed ; what is added to the Nicene. Of the sense of those
words, 2 Cor. iii. 17, 6 Ktptos rb Hvev/j.a e<m, p. 242. § 13. The Roman Creed ;
no copy of it extant older than the year 400 ; what clauses have been added
to it since that time ; the descent into hell, &c. And how it came to be
called the Apostolic Creed, or, the Apostle's Creed, p. 245. § 14. The
baptismal professions made twice by the adult ; but once in the case of
infants. Infants never ordinarily baptised without godfathers making
profession in their name, p. 250. § 15. The Eucharist given quickly after
baptism ; always to the adult, and in some places and ages of the Church,
to infants. Mr Daille's charge against the ancients for doing this examined.
No proof of it being given to mere infants till after the year 400. The mis
take of those that say St Austin calls it an Apostolical tradition, p. 251. § 16.
This custom continued in the Church of Rome from 400 to 1000. It was
then dropped on account of the Doctrine of Transubstantiation coming
up. The contrary determinations of Pope Innocent and Pope Pius about
the necessity of it. The Greeks in later times took it from the Latins, and
not being disturbed by the Doctrine of Transubstantiation do practise it
still, p. 256. § 17. The argument of the Antipaedobaptists against any
regard to be given to the practice of the ancients in other matters, because
they were in an error in this matter, proposed and considered, p. 258.
xvi Tlie Contents of the Second Part.
CHAPTER X.
A SUMMING-UP OF THE EVIDENCE THAT HERE HAS BEEN GIVEN ON
BOTH SIDES, p. 259.
§ i. Evidence for Infants' Baptism, p. 259. § 2. Evidence against In
fants' Baptism, p. 264. § 3. Evidence that seems to make against Infant
Baptism, but does not really, p. 267.
CHAPTER XI.
A DISSUASIVE FROM SEPARATION, ON ACCOUNT OF THE DIFFERENCE OF
OPINION ABOUT THE AGE OR TIME OF RECEIVING BAPTISM, p. 274.
§ i. The great guilt and mischief of the sin of schism, p. 274. § 2.
Different opinions in points not fundamental, no just cause of separation.
The fault of the Romish way of bringing all men to unity, by forcing them
to subscribe to the same opinions ; and of the way in the opposite extreme of
setting up several Churches for the several opinions, p. 276. § 3. He that
likes some other way of ordering the public worship, ceremonies, &c., better
than that which is established in the Church where he lives, is not therefore
to separate, p. 280. § 4. He that thinks some error, not fundamental, to
be expressed in some of the prayers, collects, &c., ought to join in the other
service, though he cannot join in those particular prayers ; provided there
be no idolatry in any part of the worship, p. 285. § 5. In the Scripture
command of holding communion with the Church where we live, there are
but four cases excepted : — I. Idolatry ; 2. False Doctrine in Fundamentals ;
3. The Churches requiring some condition of communion that is sinful ; 4.
If that Church herself be schismatical. He that adds any more exceptions,
adds to the Scripture, p. 286. § 6. An error in opinion about the age or
manner of receiving baptism is not a fundamental one, 287. § 7. Some
difficulties on the part of the Church of England in receiving Antipaxlo-
baptists to communion ; and some on the Antiptedobaptists' side, in accept
ing communion with the said Church, considered. They are none of them
such as to render the said communion impracticable, p. 296. An Alphabetical
Table of some few matters, p. 303.
1bi8toi-£ of Jnfant Baptism.
PART II.
CHAPTER I.
OF SOME OTHER PASSAGES WHICH ARE CITED, AND PRETENDED TO BE
TO THIS PURPOSE, BUT ARE NOT.
§. i. HPHE passages produced in the First Part are all that I have met
with in authors that wrote in the four first centuries ; saving
that in St Austin's works there are, as I said, a great many more, but
all to the same purpose.
In some collections of this nature I have seen several other quotations
pretended to be out of authors within the said term. But they are
either —
1. Out of such books as are now discovered to be forgeries of late
years. Or,
2. They are nothing to the purpose. Or,
3. Wrested and altered by those that cite them to another sense than
what they carry in the authors themselves. Or,
4. Such wherein the author does not say that for which he is cited ;
but he says something from whence the other does draw it as a con
sequence, and then sets down that consequence, as if it were the
author's own words. Or,
5. Quotations absolutely false.
First. Out of such books as are now discovered to be no true works
of the authors whose name they bear, but forgeries of later years.
So there are quotations for infant baptism, taken out of the Decretal
Epistles, which have been set out under the name of the most ancient
Bishops of Rome, but were, as I showed before,1 really forged long after
1 Pt. I. ch. xvi. §§ i, 2.
II. A
2 The History of Infant Baptism.
that time. As for the spurious quotations that are of any tolerable
credit for antiquity, I gave before some account of them.2
§ 2. Secondly. Many that are produced are nothing to the purpose.
As when the antipsedobaptists do fill their collections of this nature
with passages out of the ancient Fathers that relate to the baptising of
adult persons. There is no paedobaptist but does grant that there are
innumerable such places ; for in the first 300 or 400 years of Christianity
(in which space of time it was that the greatest part of the heathen
world, being converted, came into the Church) the baptisms of grown
persons converted were more in number than the baptisms of the
children of Christians : as it must needs be, since the Apostles, at their
death, left the world in such a state, as that there were probably a
hundred heathens left for one Christian, even in the Roman Empire,
where they spent most of their pains : but at the end of 300 or 400 years
there were probably ten Christians for one heathen. Now in that space
of time there are recorded a great many sermons and other discourses,
persuading people to come in and be baptised ; and in those discourses
they instruct them in what is necessary thereto — as that they must first
understand and believe the principles of Christian religion, and resolve
to forsake their wicked courses and idolatrous worships. And com
monly when they are upon this theme, they speak of baptism just as the
Church of England does in the Catechism — that there is required of
persons to be baptised, repentance and faith. There are also extant
many sermons made to the persons newly baptised, putting them in
mind of their vow and covenant. And it is common for the antipaedo-
baptists to cite some passages out of such discourses, which, taken by
themselves, look as if those authors were against infant baptism, and
allowed it only to grown persons ; but the contrary appears in that the
same authors, in other places, when they speak of the case of infants,
do show their opinion and practice to have been otherwise, and that
they looked upon that as a particular and excepted case. For this sort
of quotations is often made out of Chrysostom, Gregory Nazianzen, and
even St Austin himself.
In short, they have in this matter dealt with those ancient authors
just as they did lately with Mr Baxter ; who being busy in writing some
thing in defence of infant baptism, heard the hawkers cry under his
window, " Baxter's Arguments for Believer's Baptism : being a pam
phlet of collections taken out of some of Mr Baxter's works, wherein he,
speaking of the terms of the baptismal covenant, had shown the neces
sity of a justifying faith in order to baptism ; though in the same books
he had declared he spoke in reference to adult persons only." On which
occasion Mr Baxter says, " The men that cite authors at this rate, cite
me against myself with the like confidence." 3
8 Pt. I. ch. xxiii. 3 Baxter, More Proofs for Infant Baptism, page 414.
Quotations Impertinent. 3
Indeed, Mr Tombs wrote a piece against Mr Baxter called Felo dc se,
or, " The Self Destroyer," in which he endeavoured to show, that
though Mr Baxter intended these proofs of the necessity of faith only
in the case of the baptism of adult persons, yet " his arguments prove
more ; and that the middle terms of his arguments do beat down his
own tenet of infant baptism." If the antipsedobaptists had dealt only
thus in their quotations out of the ancients ; and had declared their
purpose to be, to improve these sayings of the Fathers to confute the
opinion and practice of the said Fathers themselves, none could deny
them the liberty of making their best of such a course. And they may,
if they think fit, indite the Fathers of being felones de se. But it is
common with them to cite such passages as evidences that the authors
were against infant baptism ; or, that there was no baptism of infants
practised in those ages, or those churches, because they find such
passages concerning the baptising of grown persons, and concerning the
qualifications required in them.
Such places as these I have left out, inasmuch as they only prove that
there were frequent baptisms of adult persons in those times ; which
nobody denies.
Yet I shall here set down for instance two of them, which do in
appearance, the most of any that I have met with, make for the purpose
of the antipaedobaptists.
Basil, contra Eunomium, 1. iii.
Higrevffat 'yap fit? irponpov g/Va rw /Sacrr/o/iar/ sTifftppayiffaadai.
' For one must believe first : and then be sealed with baptism.'
Hieronym. in Matt, xxviii.
" Primum decent omnes gentes, deinde doctas intinguunt aqua : Non
enim potest fieri ut corpus recipiat baptismi sacramentum, nisi ante
anima susceperit fidei veritatem."
1 They first teach all the nations, then when they are taught they
baptise them with water ; for it cannot be that ;the body should receive
the sacrament of baptism, unless the soul have before received the true
faith.'
St Hierom here commenting on the commission given by our Saviour
to the Apostles4 of carrying the Gospel to the nations that were
heathens, explains the method they were to use: viz., first, to teach
those nations the Christian religion, and then to baptise them ; which
all pajdobaptists grant to be the method that ought ever to be used.
For if there be any nation of Indians to be converted nowadays, they
use the same ; and yet when they have converted and baptised the
parents, they do also at the parents' desire, baptise what children they
4 Matt, xxviii. 19.
4 The History of Infant Baptism.
have. And it is of such heathen people or nations that St Hierom
here speaks, that their minds must be instructed before their bodies be
baptised.
St Basil is there proving against the heretic Eunomius the divinity of
the Son and of the Holy Spirit by this argument, that we are baptised
in the name of them as well as of the Father, and consequently are to
believe in them — for that baptism supposes faith in that deity in whose
name the baptism is ; and applying this to the case of one that learns
the faith of the Christians, shows that he must be taught to believe in
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (viz., that each of these persons is God), or
else ought not to be baptised with those words ; and that consequently
the Eunomians did in effect renounce their baptism by renouncing this
faith. As there was no dispute between the Catholics and Eunomians
about infant baptism, so St Basil will appear to anyone that reads him
not to have had any thought pro or contra at that place about it.
But it happens very unluckily for the purpose of those that produce
these sayings, that both of these Fathers are known by other passages to
have owned infant baptism, as I have shown plainly in the first part of
this work.8
§ 3. Thirdly. Some quotations that are brought, are wrested and
altered, by those that bring them, to another sense than that which they
carry in the authors themselves.
As for example : Danvers 6 cites out of Eusebius 7 that Dionysius
Alexandrinus, writing to Sextus, Bishop of Rome, testifies, " That it was
their custom to baptise upon profession of faith ; and that one who had
been baptised by heretics, not upon profession of faith, did desire to be
so baptised, accounting his former for no baptism."
This, as it is here by Mr Danvers brought in and worded, would
seem to be an instance of a man that having been baptised in infancy
desired now to be baptised again. But that which Dionysius does there
write, is in these words, and no other :
" The man being present when some were baptised, and hearing the
interrogatories and answers, came to me weeping ; and falling down at
my feet, confessed and declared that the baptism wherewith he had
been baptised by the heretics, was not this [or, this sort of] baptism,
nor had any likeness to this of ours, but was full of impieties and blas
phemies. He said he was sore troubled in conscience, and durst not
presume to lift up his eyes to God, for that he was baptised with those
profane words and ceremonies." 8
Now this is clearly the case of a man that had been baptised by'the
Valentinians (or some such heretics), who, as Irenseus tells us,9 did not
baptise in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit ; but with
e Ch. xii., xv., xix. 6 Treatise of Baptism, page 50. Second edition.
7 H. E., L vii. c. ix. 8 Apud Eusebium loc. citat. B Lib. i. c. xviii.
Quotations impertinent, or Altered. 5
strange and profane forms of words which he there recites, and some of
which I do hereafter recite.10 All which is nothing relating to the case
of infant baptism ; and he that compares the words, will observe how
foully they are quoted.
§ 4. Fourthly. Some quotations are yet more unfair ; as, when the
author cited does not say that for which he is cited, but he says some
thing from whence the other does draw it as a consequence, and then
sets down that consequence as if it were the author's own words.
Thus Danvers, in the foresaid treatise,11 says that St Hierom, in his
Epistle against the errors of John, Bishop of Jerusalem, says, " That in
the Eastern Churches the adults were only baptised ; " and again, in his
Epistle to Pammachius, says, " That they are to be admitted to baptism
to whom it does properly belong, viz., those only who have been in
structed in the faith."
Now if one read over that Epistle of St Hierom's to Pammachius
against the errors of John, Bishop of Jerusalem, and all the other epistles
of his to Pammachius (for such work one has with quotations set down
after such a blundering manner), there is no such thing.
But this there is : 12 the said bishop having said that " in a certain
sermon of his he had fully discoursed of the faith and all the doctrines
of the Church," St Hierom takes occasion to reprove this as a con
fident saying, that he should pretend to do all that in one sermon ; and
then adds, " We have a custom to discourse for forty days together, to
those that are to be baptised, concerning the Holy Trinity, &c. If you
on that text could in one hour discourse of all the doctrinal points, what
need is there to continue such discourses for forty days ? But if you
did recapitulate all that you used to preach in the whole Lent," &c.
There is also another passage towards the end of the epistle, where he
thus expostulates with the said bishop — " Do we divide the Church,
who but a few months ago, about Whitsuntide (when the sun being
eclipsed, people thought the Day of Judgment was coming), did present
forty persons of both sexes, and several ages, to your presbyters to be
baptised ? And yet we had five presbyters then in the monastery, who
might have done it by their own right ; but they would do nothing to
anger you. Or do you rather divide the Church, who ordered your
presbyters at Bethlehem, that they should not give baptism to our can
didates at Easter, whom we therefore sent to Diospolis to Bishop
Dionysius to be baptised."
Here is indeed a plain account of adult persons baptised in those
times ; and that they used to be catechised all the Lent before their
baptism. But he that shall conclude from hence, that they only were
baptised, and then shall quote the place and set it down as St Hierom's
10 ch. v. § I. n Treat, of Bapt., p. 56.
12 Epist. 6 1 ad Pammachium de erroribus, &c., props medium.
6 The History of Infant Baptism.
words, "That in the Eastern Churches they only were admitted to
baptism," is by no means to be trusted with the quoting of authors.
§ 5. Fifthly. Some of the quotations brought in this case are absolutely
false ; and neither the words cited, nor any like them, are at all to be
found in the books mentioned.
So Danvers in his said treatise 13 cites St Hilary for three several say
ings. The first whereof is found in the book mentioned : the second is
not; but there is a sentence to the same purpose in another book.
These two are not so material as to need reciting here. The third
(which is very material, if it were true) is, that St Hilary should say,
"That all the Eastern Churches did only baptise the adult." The
book he seems to refer to is St Hilary's Second Book de Trinitate ; for
that only is mentioned. But neither there nor, as I am very confident,
anywhere else does St Hilary say any such thing.
Both these last quotations out of St Hierom and Hilary are amended
in a postscript by Danvers;14 and for Eastern he says we must read
Western. But this mends not the matter, but makes it worse, for there is
no such thing said of either of them. Indeed, if either Hierom or Hilary,
or any other author of those times, had said that it was the custom either
of the Eastern Church or Western Church, or any Church at all, to
baptise only the adult, and the places where they said so could be pro
duced, it would be a quotation more for the purpose of the antipsedo-
baptists than any they have yet brought.
And for Mr Danvers (after that Mr Baxter and Mr Wills had so pub
licly challenged him for a forger of quotations, and Wills had put in an
appeal to his own party against him) to amend in a postscript to the
answer to the said appeal these quotations by putting WESTERN for
EASTERN, as if the authors had really said so of one of them : this, if
joined with a great many other instances in the said book, was the
boldest attempt upon the belief of a reader that ever I knew made.
It would have been a very tedious thing both to me and the reader
to recite all such quotations, and then to show the falseness or mistake
of them. But instead of doing that, I do declare that all that I have
seen that seemed to be to the purpose, I have searched ; and the search
after such as have proved false, spurious, &c., has cost me as much
pains as the collecting of these true ones. And of those that I have so
seen or searched, I have left out none in this collection that make for
or against the baptism of infants, but such as are (and, I think, plainly)
of some of the five sorts before mentioned. And if anyone that meets
with any other which I have not met with, will be so kind as to inform
me of it, by word or letter, I will (if I live to see any more editions of
18 Part I. cent. iv.
14 Postscript to the Baptist's Answer to Wills's Appeal against Danvers.
The Moderns' Opinion of Pcedobaptism. 7
this mean work) add it to the rest ; and that indifferently, as I said,
whether it make for or against paedobaptism : provided it be genuine,
and to the purpose, and out of authors within the time limited.
CHAPTER II.
THE OPINIONS OF MODERN LEARNED MEN CONCERNING THE ANCIENT
PRACTICE OR OMISSION OF P^DOBAPTISM.
§ i. A S for what later authors have said concerning the practice of
-fV. these primitive times, it would be a voluminous work to
collect all their opinions or verdicts. Neither would it answer so much
pains to have the account of the modern writers, as to what they judge
may be collected from the ancient writings, when we, ourselves, have
the writings themselves to recur to. Yet it may be worth the while to
spend a few words on that matter in general.
1. And first, it is notorious] that almost all the learned men in the
world that have occasion to mention this matter, do conclude from
what they read, that it has been the general practice of the Christian
Church from the beginning to baptise infants. To name any par
ticulars were endless and frivolous.
2. Some few (as it happens in all matters) are of a different opinion
concerning the ancient practice. And they are of two sorts.
Some have thought that there was a time in the Christian Church
when no infants were baptised, but that psedobaptism was brought in
after a certain term of years.
Others, that baptism of infants was practised from the beginning,
but not universally, but that some Christians would baptise their
infant children and others would not. And that it was counted
indifferent.
Of the first sort, viz., of those that have thought that there was a time
when no baptism of infants was used, I know of none (beside Mr Tombs
himself) but Walafridus Strabo and Ludovicus Vives : unless we are to
add to them Curcellaaus and Rigaltius.
§ 2. Strabo has some favour shown him, when he is reckoned among
learned men. He lived in a very ignorant age, and for those times
might pass for a learned man. He had read St Austin's book of Con
fessions, and finding it mentioned there that St Austin was baptised
when he was of man's age, he seems to have concluded from thence
that it was in old time the general use for Christians to defer their
children's baptism till they were grown up : though he might with a little
more advertency have found by the same book that St Austin's father
was a heathen when St Austin was born, and for many years after ; and
8 The History of Infant Baptism.
did not turn Christian, nor was baptised himself till a little before he
died.
Of that instance of St Austin, and some others, I shall speak in the
'next chapter. Strabo's words are these, Libra de exordiis et incrementis
rerum Ecclesiasticarum, cap. 26 :
" It is to be noted that in the primitive times the grace of baptism
was wont to be given to those only who were arrived to that maturity of
body and mind, that they could know and understand what were the
benefits of baptism, what was to be confessed and believed, and, in a
word, what was to be observed of those that are regenerated in Christ.
For the Reverend Father Austin relates of himself in his book of Con
fessions, that he continued a catechumen till he was almost twenty-five
years old : which he did with that intention, that during that space being
instructed in all particulars he might be led by his own free-will to
choose what he thought fit ; and that the heat of his youth being now
abated, he might better observe that which he had purposed.
"But when the diligence about our divine religion increased, the
Christians understanding that the original sin of Adam did involve in
guilt, not only those who had added to it by their own wicked works,
but those also who having done no wickedness themselves, yet because
(as the Psalmist says) 'they were conceived and born in iniquity,'
cannot be free from sin, since they spring from a polluted root ; so that
the Apostle had reason to say concerning all persons, ' all have sinned,
and have need of the Glory of God, being justified freely by His
Grace ;' and to say of Adam, ' in whom all have sinned.' The orthodox
Christians, I say, understanding this, lest children should perish if they
died without the remedy of the grace of regeneration, appointed them
to be baptised for the forgiveness of sins.
" Not as some heretics, enemies of God's free grace, maintained, that
there was no necessity for infants' baptism, because they had never
sinned. If that doctrine were true, either they would not be baptised
at all; or, if they were baptised without having any need of it, the
sacrament of baptism would be imperfect in them, and not the true
baptism which we in the Creed confess to be given for the forgiveness of
sins.
" Therefore since all persons do perish by original sin, whom the
Grace of God does not free (even such as have added no increase of
their own wickedness), infants are of necessity to be baptised. Which
both St Austin shows in his book de Baptismo parvulorum, and the
African Councils testify, and is manifested by a great many other proofs
from the other Fathers."
This man, with his little reading, seems to have supposed that both
the doctrine of paedobaptism, and also that of original sin, had their
beginning but about St Austin's time. His mistake in the first may
Ludovicus Vives, and Curcellaus. 9
appear by the quotations here produced ; and in the other, by those
mentioned by Vossius in his Pelagian History, He also invents a
reason for St Austin's delay of his baptism after he was grown up, which
is utterly contrary to St Austin's own account, who relates at large in
that his book of Confessions, that it was because he was in suspense
whether he should be a Christian or a Manichee. He miserably mis
takes the doctrine of the Pelagians, as if they had denied infants' baptism
to- be necessary. He himself owns it to be necessary, and yet says
that the ancients used it not.
But, indeed, there appears through all his book an affectation to show
how all the doctrines and mysteries of the Christian religion have come
to more and more perfection by process "of time ; as he makes the title
of his book to be, Of the Beginning and Advancement of Ecclesiastical
Matters. And he was willing to say some such thing of baptism, that
this chapter might be like the rest.
§ 3. What Ludovicus Vives says of the matter, is in his Commentaries
upon St Austin's book de civitate Dei, 1. i. c. xxvii. :
" In former times no person was admitted to the holy font, till he
were of age, and did understand what that mystical water meant, and
did himself desire to be washed with it, and did express this desire more
than once. A resemblance of which custom we see still in our baptisms
of infants. For an infant born that day, or the day before, is asked the
question, whether he will be baptised? And that question they ask
three times over. In whose name the godfathers answer, that he does
desire it. I hear that in some cities of Italy the old custom is still in
great measure preserved."
Since this Vives lived so little while ago, and produces no proof out
of any author to confirm his opinion, his affirming anything concerning
any old custom is of no more authority than if anyone now living
should say the same without producing his proof. Especially since he
was but a young man when he wrote these commentaries, and, though
learned in philology and secular history, yet confessing himself in his
preface to them, that as for divinity, which was none of his pro
fession, he minded it only so far as his other studies would give him
leave.
It is certain that the occasion given him, from St Austin's words,
on which he there comments, to say any such thing is, very slender.
For St Austin is only speaking of some baptised at the age of under
standing, without the least intimation that they were children of Christian
parents.
And for the cities of Italy that he mentions, I think nobody ever
heard of them before nor since : unless we suppose that some remainders
of the Petrobrusians, who are said about four hundred years before
Vives's time to have been antipasdobaptists, and of whom I shall by-
io The History of Infant Baptism.
and-by give some account,1 might continue that practice in some of
the Valleys of Piedmont. But if it were so, these men were too late for
any opinion concerning the ancient practice to be founded on what
they did.
§ 4. Curcellaeus says the same thing as Vives does. And there is to
be said of him not only what was said of Vives, that affirming a thing
of antiquity, he produces no quotation for proof, but also that he brings
it in to maintain another tenet as paradoxical as this itself is. He has
a dissertation concerning original sin. He denies that there is any
such thing — as most that are inclined to Socinianism do. He
brings as an objection against his own doctrine, the custom of baptis
ing infants for forgiveness of sin. He answers, that "the custom of
baptising infants did not begin before the third century after Christ's
birth ; that in the two first there appears no footsteps of it"2
Whether that be true or no, will be partly judged by what I have
here produced. It is best for anyone that cannot prove what he says,
to affirm it Dictator-like.
§ 5. It is doubtful in which of the two fore-mentioned sorts of those
that have thought the practice of infant baptism to have been — either not
from the beginning, or not universal — one is to place Rigaltius. He, in his
annotations on those places of St Cyprian which I recited in the former
part of this work,3 seems willing to have it believed that in the Apostles'
time there was no paedobaptism, but not willing to speak this plainly.
His discourse of this matter from texts of Scripture is too large to
repeat here : he uses no arguments but those that are common, and
have their answers as common.
But what he speaks plainly of the matter of fact, as he takes it to
have been, is this : — " From the age of the Apostles to the time of Ter-
tullian, the matter continued in ambiguo, doubtful [or various]. And
there were some, who on occasion of our Lord's saying, ' Suffer little
children to come to Me ' (though He gave no order to baptise them),
did baptise even new-born infants ; and, as if they were transacting some
secular bargain with God Almighty, brought sponsors and bondsmen to
be bound for them, that when they were grown up they should not
depart from the Christian faith. Which custom Tertullian did not like.
For, 'what need is there,' says he, 'that the godfathers should be
brought into danger,' &c.," and so he recites at large the place of Ter
tullian, which I produced above,4 and proceeds : " Most men thinking
this opinion of Tertullian unsafe, were of St Cyprian's mind, that even
new-born children ought to be made partakers of the laver of salvation :
which was also pitched upon in the decree of this Synod ; and so the
doubt was taken away." 5
1 Ch. vii. § 5. ' § 56. 3 Pt L ch vi §§ j and „
4 Pt. I. ch. iv. § 5. 5 Annot. in Cypriani Epistolam ad Fidum.
Rigaltius. 1 1
And in his annotations on the other place of St Cyprian,6 he passes
this censure upon the practice of those times : " They gave the sign of
faith to a person before he was capable of faith itself : they made the
sign without the thing, to stand instead of the thing itself."
The zealous Bishop of Oxford, who since wrote annotations on the
same Father's works, and who generally treats Rigaltius with that respect
which his great learning deserves, yet on this account spares not to say,
"-That he has in this matter acted the part, not of an annotator on St
Cyprian, but a prevaricator with him ; and that what he says here is no
other sort of stuff than what some fanatic of the anabaptist crew would
have said."
Indeed, it is a wonder that since he knew that which he would insinu
ate (that there was no baptism of infants in the Apostles' time) to be
contrary to the sentiments of all the learned men in the world, he should
so take it for granted on the ordinary pretences, without taking notice
of what they say in answer. And that he should conclude that in the
next century of years which passed from the Apostles' to Tertullian's
time, it was held and practised variously or indifferently, only because
Tertullian spake against what was then done about it, when almost all
learned men do take that opposition of his for no evidence that the
delay of infants' baptism, or virgins' baptism, or widows' baptism, was
then practised by anybody (neither does Tertullian pretend it was), but
only for an evidence that Tertullian was a man of a singular opinion in
this as well as in forty other things that were then practised or taught.
Neither can Tertullian himself be well understood to have advised that
delay, but only when there is no danger of death,7 which in the case of
infants is very seldom.
This annotator is also partial in the account he gives of the writers of
this century, in that he mentions Tertullian, who wrote at the latter end
of it, and gives his opinion against the ordinary practice of psedobaptism,
without taking any notice of Irenseus, who wrote in the middle of it, and
speaks of infants as being ordinarily baptised or regenerated. Or, of
Origen, who was contemporary with Tertullian, and wrote but a little
after him, and who, having travelled in all the noted churches then in
the world, speaks of their baptism both as being generally practised, and
also appointed by the Apostles.
It is plain that the place on which he there comments does show that
the baptism of infants was then looked on as undoubted, and not, as he
would represent, that the doubt about it was then taken away, or solved.
For Fidus, who doubted whether they might be baptised before the
eighth day, and St Cyprian and his fellow-bishops who resolved that
doubt, had both of them taken it for undoubted that they are to be
baptised in infancy.8
b Lib. de Lapsis. 7 See the place Ft. I. ch. iv. §§ 5, 7.
8 See the place Ft. I. ch. vi. § i, £c.
12 The History of Infant Baptism.
This partiality shown by him for the antipaedobaptists' side, makes
one have the less opinion of his fidelity in that alteration which he has
made in their favour in the text of Tertullian's book of baptism, in his
edition thereof, which does much alter the sense, and of which I gave
an account when I recited the place.9 I, though I knew it was other
wise in Pamelius's edition, and that Pamelius testifies his edition to
agree with Gaigneus's — who first published this book of Tertullian — in
that place, yet was of opinion that so learned a man would not have
altered the words without some good authority from the manuscripts,
and I set them down accordingly. But since he quotes no manuscripts
to confirm that alteration, and, besides, shows himself otherwise to have
such a bias, I do now think it were proper for learned men to examine
better how much credit is to be given to that amendment, which makes
Tertullian advise the delay of baptism absolutely, which in the first and
some following editions was expressed, except in case of necessity.
P.S. — And I find already that Mr Stennet, a learned antipaedobaptist, is
convinced that no credit is to be given to it. For he quotes the place
as it stood in the former editions, "Quid enim necesse, si non tarn necesse,
sponsores," &c. — ' For what need is there, except in case of necessity,
that godfathers,' &c., is his answer to Mr Russen, ch. iv. p. 76.
§ 6. There were no need of mentioning Bishop Taylor among these,
were it not for some importunate antipaedobaptists, who cite him in this
controversy against his will. He, in the times of the Rebellion in
England, when the Parliamentarians, though divided among themselves
into several sects, did all join in oppressing those of the Church of
England, wrote a treatise called The Liberty of Prophesying, in which
he pleaded that they, how earnest soever they were in maintaining the
truth of their opinions, yet ought to grant a toleration to those that
differed from them, because many other opinions had at least a proba
bility such as might well sway the conscience of a great many honest
inquirers after truth.
And among the rest, he undertook to show how much might be said
for two sorts of dissenters, the antipaedobaptists, and the papists, saying
thus : " These two are the most troublesome and the most disliked, and
by an account of these we may make a judgment what may be done
towards others whose errors are not apprehended of so deep malignity." 10
And in his plea for the antipaedobaptists, though he there declares
himself well satisfied with the principles of paedobaptism, of which he
gives a summary account, and says, that he takes the other opinion
to be an errorj yet under pretence "of reciting what may be said for
that error, he draws up so elaborate a system of arguments against
infant baptism, and sets them forth to the utmost by such advantage of
style, that he is judged to have said more for the antipaedobaptists than
9 Pt. I. ch. iv. § 8. 10 sects. 17, 18.
Bishop Taylor and Dr Hammond. 13
they were ever before able to say for themselves. And Dr Hammond
says, " It is the most diligent collection, and the most exact scheme of
the arguments against infant baptism, that he had ever met with." n And
that "he has therein in such manner represented the arguments for
and against it, that the latter have seemed to many to be successful and
victorious." 12
It is generally supposed that he did this with a politic intention
(commonly practised by those of the Church of Rome) to divide the
adversaries of the Church of England among themselves, and to that
end put arguments into the mouths of one sect, in order to puzzte the
others— a sort of prevaricating in the things of God which few Pro
testants or sincere Christians will account justifiable on any account
whatever. Therefore Dr Hammond, who was too great a lover of
sincerity to approve of such a method, quickly wrote an answer to this
piece, solving each objection particularly.18
And afterwards, Bishop Taylor himself, having premised that he was
sorry if anyone had been so weak as to be misled by such mean objec
tions, and that he counted it great charity and condescension in Dr
Hammond to bestow an answer on them, wrote also his own answers
to his own objections, and inserted them in a later edition of the said
treatise ; and in another treatise, called The Consideration of the
Church in baptising the Children of Believers. He does also in his
Great Exemplar, and in his Ductor Dubitantium expressly declare
his opinion, and affirm that "it is necessary that infants be baptised;"
and reckons " infant baptism, and the keeping the Lord's Day, among
those things that are confirmed by this rule : u
" Whatsoever the Catholic Church has kept in all ages bygone, may
rightly be believed to have descended from the Apostles.
" Which," he says, " is a good rule for rituals [among which he
reckons baptism] though not for matter of doctrine." The reason of
which distinction he had given before.15 "Because there is no doctrine
so delivered but what is in Scripture : indeed some practices and rituals
are. Because the public exercises and usages of the Church being
united and notorious, public and acted, might make the rule evident as
the light."
Notwithstanding all which, it is a common thing with the antipaedo-
baptists to cite the passages in that treatise of the Liberty of Pro
phecy that make for them, as if they had been spoken by the author
from his own judgment, and had never been answered by him.
There is not much said either in the objections or answers about this
point of antiquity ; they being chiefly taken from Scripture. What he
has is mostly from Grotius.
11 Six Queries, Infant Baptism, § 49. 12 Ibid., § 139. ls Six Queries.
14 L. ii. c. iii., R. 14, n. 41, it R. 18. n. I. 1J Rule 14, n. 38.
14 The History of Infant Baptism.
He objects that "all arguments from tradition are much decried by
Protestants in other cases, and therefore ought not to be made use of
in this." 16
To which Dr Hammond and he answer, that " Protestants did never
renounce the arguments from tradition in general : but on the contrary,
whatever appears to be the tradition of the Apostles, or to be the prac
tice of the Christians in those first times, they willingly own. And that
what they decry, is either the traditions of later times, or else the false
pretences to the elder ones."
He had objected likewise, that there is but a weak proof of any such
tradition, and that "whereas Origen says that the Apostles gave
order to the Churches that they should baptise their infants, and St
Austin says the same ; yet that probably St Austin took this from
Origen's writings : and so it depends on Origen's single testimony."
At which rate of arguing, if forty had said it, one might pretend that
probably thirty-nine of them had it from the first ; and so there were
but one single evidence.
But he, as well as Dr Hammond, answers, that Irenaeus, and the
author of the questions in the name of Justin Martyr, and abundance of
others (though they do not speak expressly of the Apostles appointing
it, yet) do confirm it to have been the practice in those times. To
which I have added a testimony of St Ambrose, that speaks expressly
of the Apostles' times.17
The bishop also knew, or might have known, that St Austin was no
reader of Origen's works.
He objected, moreover, that psedobaptism was first established by
canon of the Milevitan Council (as he calls it ; meaning that canon of
the Council of Carthage, which I recited part i. ch. xix. § 37) in the
year of Christ 416. So he dates it.
But both he and Hammond answer that, to this effect : that since it
was the known custom of the Primitive Church to make canons only
about points that had been questioned by heretics ; it is a great proof
that this had never been questioned (as St Austin concludes it was from
the beginning, because not instituted by Councils), for none can deny
that it was a common practice long before.
And I think I have shown it also to be a mistake to think that it
was then decreed that infants " should be baptised ;" whereas the decree
was, that they are in a true meaning baptised " for forgiveness of
original sin" (which the Pelagians denied; but their baptism they denied
not), and that they may be baptised before the eighth day, when new
born ; of which some in Africa doubted.18
He had also in his plea for the antipjedobaptists cited the canon of
the Neocassarean Council, which I recited, part i. ch. xiii. § i, and
16 N. 25. " Part L ch< xiii § j is See the canon> Part L ch xix § 37>
Bishop Barlow. \ 5
had drawn from it reasons against infant baptism, such as are there
rehearsed.
And the answer which he and Dr Hammond make, is in substance the
same that is there also given.
Yet after all this, this bishop is to be reckoned among the second
sort, that I mentioned — of those that have denied the practice of infant
baptism to have been general or universal in the primitive times ; as
appears by his later works, which I shall have occasion to cite when I
speak of that second sort of men.
§ 7. It is tedious to spend time in speaking of Dr Barlow, the late
Bishop of Lincoln. What he had said on this subject (of which the
antipaedobaptists do so serve themselves that one shall see his name
brought in twenty times by some one of their writers) he himself fairly
recanted.
He had, in those hopeful times that were in England in the year 1656,
written a letter to Mr Tombs, wherein he had said thus : " I do believe
paedobaptism (how, or by whom I know not) came into the world in the
second century ; and in the third and fourth began to be practised
(though not generally) and defended as lawful from that text grossly
misunderstood (John iii. 5). Upon the like gross mistake of John vi.
53 they did for many centuries, both in the Greek and Latin Church,
communicate infants, and give them the Lord's Supper. And I confess
they might do both as well as either."
This letter being handed among the antipsedobaptists came after
ward to be printed,19 to the said Doctor's great discredit, who was now
Margaret Professor in the University of Oxford, and accounted a very
learned man.
Therefore in the year 1675 he wrote a letter to Mr Wills, with consent
that it should be published, in which he says thus : " I acknowledge that
such words as are cited by Mr D. (and such others, spoken and written
then with more confidence than judgment or discretion) are in that
letter ; which had been secret still, if some had not betrayed that trust
which was reposed in them. . . . Lastly, it is to be considered, that
that letter was wrote about twenty years ago (when I talked more and
understood less), and yet whatever doubts and objections I had then
against infant baptism, I never thought them so considerable as to war
rant any division,^or schismatical disturbance of the peace of my Mother
the Church of England. And therefore I did then, and since, and (when
I have a just call, God willing) ever shall, baptise infants."20
§ 8. I am unwilling to name Bilius among these : because I believe
that was not his steady opinion, which may seem to be the most obvious
sense of an expression of his in his Commentary on the Nineteenth Ora-
19 In Danvers's Treatise of Baptism, cent. 4.
20 Wills's Infant Baptism farther vindicated, p. 87.
1 6 The History of Infant Baptism.
tion of Gregory Nazianzen ; where there is an account of the baptism of
the said Gregory's father, which was after his marriage. And Bilius, there
speaking of the danger of sinning after baptism, says, " I mention this
because in those times persons came later to baptism than nowadays ;
when by a commendable custom they are baptised in infancy, lest delay
should bring danger with it."
What a word did that learned abbot suffer to escape the hedge of his
lips? Was not that Gregory the Father a heathen till that time, and his
parents before him ? I believe if one were to look over Bilius's writings,
one should find that this was not his settled opinion. But I have not
time to do that at present.
Since the first edition of this book, one Antony van Dale, a Dutch
Minnist or antipasdobaptist, has written a tract called, The History of
Baptisms, wherein he has one chapter on infant baptism. And in
that [at p. 375] a quotation of a letter of Salmasius, written to Justus
Pacius under the name of Simplicius Verinus. Where Salmasius says,
" In the first two centuries none received baptism, but such as being in
structed in the faith, and made acquainted with the doctrine of Christ,
could declare their belief of it ; because of those words, ' He that be-
lieveth and is baptised :' so that believing is to be the first. Thence
was the order of catechumens in the Church. There was then also a
constant custom, that to those catechumens, presently after their bap
tism, the Eucharist should be given. Afterwards there came in an
opinion, that none could be saved that was not baptised. And so there
grew a custom of giving baptism to infants. And because the adult
catechumens, as soon as they were baptised, had the Eucharist given
them without any space of time passing between, it was, after that
infant baptism was brought in, ordered that this should be done also
with infants."
Having not any copy of Salmasius's letters, I can judge nothing of the
authenticalness of th is quotation ; nor can give any guess (if Salmasius did
write such a letter) what age he might be of when he wrote it, or whether
he published it himself. I know that many learned men have suffered
much in their memory by having all their letters and posthumous pieces
printed after their death : some whereof were such, as being written in
their youth, they themselves would have been ashamed of afterwards, and
would, upon better information and reading, have recanted — an instance
whereof I gave just now in one that in his youth wrote a letter so like
this, that one may seem to be drawn from the other. And I have
also known several persons who have owned that before their reading
the ancient books they have been inclined to such an opinion against
the antiquity of infant baptism, as is expressed in these two letters, but
afterwards found their own mistake. And this is the more probable in
the case of Salmasius, for that he never did in his conversation or books
Dr Field and Hugo Grotius. \ 7
(;hat I ever heard of) show any inclination to antipsedobaptism. But if
tiis were his steady opinion concerning the beginning of psedobaptism,
then we must add to him those three or four men that have said this
without giving any proof from antiquity of their saying.
I find this very passage quoted by Mr Stennet [answer to Russen, p.
66] as from Suicerus's Thesaurus, sub voce 2uv«£/g, who, it seems, took
it from Salmasius.
§ 9. There is, as I said, another sort of learned men, who, though
they think with the rest of the world, that infant baptism was ever prac
tised in the Church of Christ, yet think that it was not general or uni
versal ; but that in the elder times some Christian parents baptised their
children in infancy, and others not, and that it was counted indifferent.
I take Grotius to be the author of this opinion. For though some
before him did observe that many persons of note in the primitive times
were baptised at man's age, some of whom they took to be born of
Christian parents (which last, whether they did not take to be so with
out due examination, shall be discoursed afterward), yet they supposed
them to be not enow to make any considerable exception to the general
rule and practice of the Church.
So, though Dr Field in his treatise Of the Chiirch?1 do say that
" besides those who were converted from paganism, many that were born
of Christian parents put off their baptism a long time" — an instance of
which he makes St Ambrose, yet these (whom he calls many) he
takes to be so few in comparison, that he still speaks of the other as a
continued practice or tradition. As where he treats purposely of tradi
tion, he says —
" The fourth kind of tradition is the continued practice of such things
as neither are contained in the Scripture expressly, nor the example of
such practice expressly there delivered ; though the grounds, reasons,
and causes of the necessity of such practice be there contained, and the
benefit or good that follows of it. Of this sort is the baptism of infants,"
&c.22
But Grotius from this and some other arguments frames an hypothesis
of the indifferency (libertas, he calls it) of the ancient Church in this
matter.23 And though Rivet do suppose that Grotius was a convert of
Cardinal Perron in this point — for the said Cardinal, in his Reply to
King James, had (as Rivet observes 24) " pleaded the cause of the ana
baptists with all his might;" "and I see," says Rivet, "that he has
brought over Hugo Grotius." Yet I count it proper to reckon Grotius
as the author, because what the Cardinal had said was very probably
not from his real opinion, but from a design to embroil the Protestants
by giving strength to the schism of the antipaedobaptists, who then
began to grow rife in Holland and other places — a design which the
21 Page 719. 22 Lib. iv. c. xx. a Annot. in Matt. xix. 14. M Apology.
1 8 The History of Infant Baptism.
Papists have since earnestly promoted; industriously putting it int«
their books, that infant baptism cannot be proved from Scripture, but
only from the practice of the Church ; and as some of them will have i:,
not from any evidence of the practice of the ancient Church neither,
but only from the authority of the present Church.
I am not willing to think that Grotius had so ill a design. But he
being naturally inclined to trim all controversies in religion that came
in his way, and using that vast stock of learning which he had (as princes
that would hold the balance, do their power) to help the weakest side,
he maintains (not that there was ever any Church or any time in which
infant baptism was not used, but) that in the Greek Churches " many
persons from the beginning to this day do observe the custom of delay
ing the baptism of their infants till they are able to make confession of
their own faith."25
The mistake that he is here guilty of in reference to the modern
practice of the Greek Churches, in which (as all men are now sure) there
neither is, nor lately has been any such thing known as the delay of
infants' baptism (especially if he mean the Greek Churches properly so-
called, for what dispute is raised concerning the Georgian Christians I
do mention hereafter 26) makes one take less notice of what he affirms
concerning the ancient practice thereof. As he produces no proof at all
of what he says of the late times, so what he urges for this indifferency
of the elder times consists in these particulars.
He cites the canon of the Council of Neocaesarea, mentioned above,27
and expounds it to make against infant baptism.
But this, if it proves anything, proves too much, not a liberty, but an
unlawfulness of infant baptism in the opinion of those seventeen bishops.
He himself says that " it is plain that in St Austin's time psedobaptism
was received in all Churches, because the Pelagians being pressed with
that as an argument never could deny it." And was it not obvious like
wise for him to observe, that the Pelagians being pressed with this argu
ment, " That no Christian ever was against psedobaptism," could not
deny it, but expressly granted it ? 28 And could Pelagius and St Austin
too have forgot that a Council of seventeen bishops had determined
against it but eighty years before, if they or anybody else had at that
time gathered any such meaning out of their words ? The paedobap-
tists say that this meaning lay hid for thirteen hundred years after the
men were dead, till he picked it out. But of this, and of the use that
he makes of the words of Balsamon and Zonaras thereupon, was dis
coursed before.29
He observes also that " in the Councils one shall find no earlier men
tion of psedobaptism than in the Council of Carthage." From*whence
28 Annot. in Matt. xix. 14. * Ch. viii. § 2. * Pt.LI. ch. viii. § i."
28 See Ft. I. ch. xix. § 30. » Pt/L ch> viii §§ 6> ;
Grotius and Bishop Taylor. 19
he would infer that " it did not universally obtain, but was more fre
quent in Africa than anywhere else."
And St Austin, as was above cited,30 proves that it must have been
instituted by the Apostles; because it did and ever had universally
obtained, and yet was not instituted by any Council. Mentioned it
was by a Council under St Cyprian,31 which did not enact it, but take it
for granted.
I mentioned before 32 his other argument, which is nothing else but the
perverting of the sense of a few words of Greg. Nazianzen (where he,
speaking of several sorts of persons that die without baptism, names
among the rest " those that are not baptised 5/a wjw/oYjjra, by reason of
infancy "), as if Nazianzen had thereby intimated his opinion to be, that
infancy did incapacitate one for baptism. Whereas, if the reader
please to turn back to Pt. I. ch. xi. § 6, where I have cited the
place at large, he will see that Nazianzen there reckons " those who are
not baptised [or have missed of baptism] by reason of their infancy,"
among those whose own fault it is not that they are not baptised ; and
therefore their punishment shall be less in the world to come. Whoever
has an opinion of Grotius's sincerity must blush to read that place,
together with his annotations on Matt. xix. 14. There can no excuse
be made for him except this, that possibly he might take the quotation
from somebody at second hand.
The most material thing that he brings, is the instance of Gregory
Nazianzen and St Chrysostom, born, as he takes, of Christian parents,
and yet not baptised till of age. Which shall be discussed in the next
chapter.
He concludes, " That all that he has brought, is of no force to prove
that infant baptism should be denied; but only to show libertatem
vetustatem, et consuetudinis differentiam, 'the liberty, antiquity, and
difference of the custom.' "
§ 10. I said before that Bishop Taylor is to be reckoned in this rank ;
if one knows where to reckon him, or can reconcile what I have quoted
from him with that which I am going to quote.
He, in his Dissuasive from Popery, one of his latest works, being
busy in defending the Protestant doctrine against the Papists, who plead
the necessity of tradition to prove infant baptism, and having _ answered
that it is proved enough from Scripture as to the lawfulness of it, goes on
to show that tradition does not do so much service in the matter ; for that
it delivers it to us as the custom of some Christians in all times, but not
of all. His words are these :
" In the first age they did, or they did not, according as they pleased ;
for there is no pretence of tradition that the Church in all its ages did
30 Part I. ch. xv. sect. 4, § 3. 31 Cypriani Ep. ad Fidum.
32 Part I. ch. xi. § 9.
2O The History of Infant Baptism.
baptise all the infants of Christian parents. It is more certain that
did not do it always, than that they did it in the first age. St Ambrose,
St Hierom, and St Austin were born of Christian parents, and yet not
baptised until the full age of a man, and more." 33
And a little after, "That it was the custom so to do in some churches,
and at some times, is without all question ; but that there is a tradition
from the Apostles so to do relies but on two witnesses, Origen and
Austin : and the latter having received it from the former, it relies
wholly on one single testimony, which is but a pitiful argument to prove
a tradition apostolical. He is the first that spoke it : but Tertullian,
that was before him, seems to speak against it, which he would not have
done if it had been a tradition apostolical. And that it was not so is
but too certain, if there be any truth in the words of Ludovicus Vives." 3*
And then he recites what was above cited out of Lud. Vives.35
The most of this is what he said before,36 and on which I did before
make what remarks are necessary, as I shall do in the next chapter on
what he says of Ambrose, Hierom, Austin, born of Christian parents,
and yet not baptised in infancy. From the whole, one may here see
some of the workings of that singular fancy that this bishop had about
original sin. I forgot when I saw his Dissuasive from Popery, to
look the date of the edition of it, and to see if it were not a posthumous
one : which I suspect, because what he says in it of this indifferency is
contrary to what I quoted before, § 6, out of his Great Exemplar and
Ductor Dubitantium ; and is more agreeable to what he had said in
his youth, but afterwards recanted.
§ ii. Mr Thorndyke also in the third book of his epilogue (which is
of the Laws of the Church) yields, that the Eastern Church, though
they held infant baptism necessary in case of the danger of death, yet
did sometimes defer it when there was no such danger. But that the
Western Church enjoined it, as the present Church does, to be given
presently.
He, as well as Grotius, Taylor, etc., seems to be moved to this
concession by the instances of Nazianzen, Nectarius, etc., baptised at
man's age ; of which I shall speak in the next chapter, and show the
most of them to be mistakes.
§ 12. Monsieur Daille has also something to this purpose. He says,
" In ancient times they often deferred the baptising, both of infants and
of other people, as appears by the history of the Emperors, Constantine
the Great, of Constantius, of Theodosius, of Valentinian and Gratian out
of St Ambrose.37 And also by the orations and homilies of Gregory
Nazianzen 38 and of St Basil on this subject.39 And some of the Fathers,
33 Part II. lib. ii. sect 2, page 117. M Page 118. K § 3.
36 § 6. ^ De usu Patrum, 1. ii. c. vi. M Orat. 40.
39 et's
Mr Baxter and F. Garner. 21
too, have been of opinion that it is fit it should be deferred ; as namely,
Tertullian, as we have formerly noted out of him."
I shall have occasion in the next chapter to discourse concerning
those instances of the emperors. And whereas he speaks of the
delay of the baptism of infants and other people, it is fit for the reader
to 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 baptised themselves did
ever delay the baptising 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
baptise them out of hand. The place I have set down at large, Pt. I.
ch. xi. § 7.
§ 13. Mr Baxter also, who has shown a great deal of zeal, and spent
a great deal of pains in maintaining the cause of paedobaptism, 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 baptised, 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." 40
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 baptising 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 Centura Censura in their twenty-third chapter.
§ 14. 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 Nestorius 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."41 .
This race of men at first pretended to no more than this— that mtant
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
*> Defence of Principles of Love, p. 7- " Pa£e 79, Ed. 1673-
22 The History of Infant Baptism.
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 antipsedobaptists. But now that the Protestants have largely
shown 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 : " When the Apostle writes to the Romans, of whom several
had been baptised in infancy, and yet says, ' So many of us as have been
baptised into Christ Jesus, have been baptised into His death,' &c., under
those general words he comprehends those that were baptised before the
use of reason." 42 By making some that were grown men at the time of
this epistle, viz., twenty-three years after Christ's death, to have been
baptised 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. vii., produces one Boemus, who should say
that in the Christian Church, and Mr Stennet, Answer to Russen, page
85, one Macaire, who should say that in the Church of Alexandria,
no infants were in the first ages baptised. It is the unhappiness 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 chap
men. For Boemus, I could never hear who he was, nor when he lived.
Macaire, as Mr Stennet says, was Bishop of Memphis in Egypt, anno
756. But we have no account from him how or when this new-found
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 five or six hundred 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
*• Notes on the gth chapter of Mercator's Subnotations, page 63.
Mr Tombs, Colonel Danvers, and Mr Wilh. 23
Dnly 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 who 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 Dr Holland, the translator, has inserted abundance
of his own additions. And, among the rest, he has in Cumberland in
terpolated 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 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 baptised : " for
which he quotes in the margin Paulinus. Then follows in the text
this addition of Dr Holland's : — " For in the first plantation of Chris
tianity amongst the Gentiles, such only as were of full age, after
they were instructed in the principles of Christian religion, were
admitted to baptism."
Camden's words quoted from Paulinus, do intimate 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.
But it appears since by a more accurate view taken by the present
Bishop of Carlisle of the inscription, and of those which Camden calls
images, on the said font-stone, that the contrary to what Dr Holland
thought, is proved from them. . For he, in a letter to Sir William Dug-
dale (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 child into the water, and a dove (the emblem, no doubt, of the Holy
Ghost) hovering over the infant," &c.
§ 15. Of the professed antipa;dobaptists (for all that I have yet
mentioned were-psedobaptists, notwithstanding some of their sayings
concerning the ancient use), Mr Tombs was a man of the best parts in
our nation, 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.43
Mr Danvers has heaped together a vast rhapsody of quotations ;
48 Pt. I., ch. iv. § 8 ; ch. v. § 7 ; ch. vi. § I, 2, &c. ; ch. xxi. § 5, &c.
44 Treatise of Baptism.
24 The History of Infant Baptism.
but having seldom consulted the authors themselves, but taken them at
second hand, and out of any sort of writers, such as he calls by the names
of Twisk, Frank, &c., and a book called Dutch Martyrology, 6-v., books
of no kind of credit, he has for the most part strangely misrepresented
them.
He was publicly accused by Mr Baxter 45 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 his best advantage
of the charge that might have been brought against him : for he
instanced in some of his false quotations that were of the least conse
quence ; 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 pur
pose ; provided they meet with adversaries so weak as to let it so pass
over.
§ 1 6. I have produced all the modern learned men that I know of,
that have thought that infant baptism either was not from the beginning,
or was not universal. And though I proposed to manage impartially,
yet I hope no reader that is a psedobaptist will expect that I should do
the like with those learned men that give their verdict for it. Instead
of that I must declare that all the rest that I have seen that have
occasion to speak of this matter, are of opinion that the sayings of the
Fathers are a sufficient evidence that it was always in use, and that as
the general practice of the Church of Christ.
Indeed, they will many of them say thus : that there may, perhaps,
be produced here and there a singular instance of a person that did
omit it through carelessness, or some accident, &c., and that Tertullian
also is an instance of one man that advised the delay of it till the age
of reason, in case there appeared no danger of death in the meantime ;
and that this is ordinary in all customs, however allowed and established,
that some one in an age happens to speak or act against them ;
and that a few. such straggling instances are not to be esteemed of force
sufficient to weaken the authority of a general rule.
But] it seems to me that the instances which the antipaedobaptists
46 Confutation of the strange forgeries of H. Danvers.
Christians not baptised in Infancy. 25
give of persons not baptised in infancy, though born of Christians, are
not (if the matter of fact be true) so inconsiderable as this last plea
would represent.
On the contrary, the persons they mention are so many, and such
noted persons, that (if they be all allowed) it is an argument that leaving
children unbaptised was no unusual, but a frequent and ordinary thing.
For it is obvious to conclude that if we can in so remote an age trace
the practice of so many that did this, it is probable that a great many
more, of whose birth and baptism we do not read, did the like. This I
will own, that it seems to me the argument of greatest weight of any that
is brought on the antipsedobaptists' side in this dispute about antiquity.
And I believe the reader has observed in the places I have last quoted,
that it is that which has most prevailed, both with Strabo and Vives, to
think it was once the general practice to leave infants unbaptised ; and
with Grotius, Bishop Taylor, and the others, to think it was once counted
indifferent. It deserves, therefore, not to be so slightly passed over,
but, if one had time and opportunity, to be thoroughly examined.
The worst is, it is a business of a great deal of dust and tediousness
to search after the birth and parentage of so many men (who, though
they were conspicuous persons, yet many of them sprang from obscure
originals), and not to be well done by any who has not a good library
at hand. I have in my reading taken some observations of this matter,
which I shall communicate in the next chapter.
CHAPTER III.
OF THOSE WHO ARE SAID TO HAVE BEEN BORN OF CHRISTIAN PARENTS
AND YET NOT BAPTISED TILL OF MAN'S AGE.
SECT. i. An account of the persons, and state of their case.
§ i. The instances of this that are commonly given, are the
five emperors mentioned before by Mr Daille, viz., Constantme,
Constantius, Gratian, Valentinian the II., and Theodosius the I., and
also four noted persons of the Greek Church, viz., St Basil, St Gregory
Nazianzen, Nectarius, and St Chrysostom ; and three of the Latin, S
Ambrose, St Hierom, and St Austin. Mr Tombs mentions also Alypiu
and Adeodatus ; one the friend, and the other the base son of St Austin;
and both baptised at the same time with him.
Many of the psedobaptists make but weak answers to the argurr
that is drawn from the example of these men. They content them
selves to say, that it was from some erroneous or corrupt principles that
many in those times thought fit to defer baptism a great while ; and
26 The History of Infant Baptism.
some till just before death : either that they might gain a longer time
for their lusts, or because they thought that wilful sins committed after
baptism could not be forgiven.
That many new converts did do this, is too plain, and is a thing
grievously complained of by the preachers of those times; and the
granting of it to be true does not at all affect the question in hand ;
which is, not whether adult persons did defer their own baptism, but
whether such adult persons as were come to a full resolution of being
Christians, and were accordingly baptised themselves, did use to baptise
their children in infancy or not. And to grant this latter, that they
who were once baptised did frequently use to let their children grow
up without baptism, is to weaken in great measure the argument for
infant baptism that is drawn from the practice of these ancients. For
if many did omit it, though upon erroneous grounds, the argument from
the general practice is lost.
But some others have attempted a better answer, by showing these
instances, or some of them, to be mistakes ; and that not all the persons
mentioned were born of Christian parents, particularly Constantine and
Austin have been excepted ; as it was indeed easy to show that those
two ought to be. I shall make some particular search concerning each
of them.
And the thing to be inquired concerning each of them is,
i st. Whether his baptism were delayed till years of age. And if so,
then,
zdly. Whether his parents were baptised Christians at the time of his
birth. I say, baptised : because it was, as I said before, a very common
thing for men in those times to be Christians in their intention and in
their conscience, i.e., they were convinced that that was the truth, and
did resolve sometime or other to be baptised into it ; and yet did put
this off from time to time (as lukewarm men do nowadays their repent
ance, or their receiving the other sacrament), knowing that baptism
would engage them to a very strict course of life. And in this state
many lived for a long time after their conversion : being, in some sense
Christians, i.e., they declared for that religion as the truth, they favoured
it, they spoke for it, and in many things lived according to the rules of
it ; but for all that, were not as yet baptised, and so not accounted in
the phrase of those times, fideles, faithful, or brethren.
These men, while they were in this state, had oftentimes children
born to them : and for such, it cannot be expected that they should
bring their children to baptism before they could find in their heart to
be baptised themselves.
Also many such children (being not baptised in their infancy, because
their parents, though believers, were not yet baptised), when they grew
up, delayed their baptism as their fathers had done ; and so the mischief
Some Ancient Christians not baptised in Infancy 27
was continued. To these it often happened that they were instructed
from their youth in Christian religion, and yet not baptised. Of such
St Basil speaks in the place cited — Pt. I. ch. xii. §§ 3, 4.
Therefore you see I had reason to say that our inquiry is of infants
born of parents that were at that time baptised Christians. And that is
all that any psedobaptist would have to be done now, viz., that when any
man is baptised himself, he should baptise his infant children.
Mr Walker, endeavouring to show that the instances brought by the
antipsedobaptists do them no service, because the ancients that delayed
their children's baptism did it not on the same principles that they do
now, viz., of the unlawfulness of it ; reckons up several reasons which
moved some formerly to delay the baptism of their children : whereof
the first is doubtless a plain and true one, viz., " That some were as yet
heathens themselves when their children were born ; and no marvel if
they would not make' their children Christians, &c. And the same is
the case of such as though in heart and purpose Christians when their
children were born, yet kept off from being baptised." l But he gives
three reasons more, for which some that were baptised themselves might
delay the baptising of their children.
Any reader would from what he says conclude or suspect that many
did this ; at least that for these three reasons there were an account of
three persons that had done it. But upon search, I believe, it will
appear that there is no proof of so many as three ; and that there is but
one, viz., the father of Gregory Nazianzen, that makes an instance for
this : and he not a plain one ; for it depends on an obscure point in
chronology, whether the son were born before his father's Christianity,
or after ?
In making this inquiry I shall begin with the emperors. Of whom it
is proper to note, that whereas Mr Daille, having, as I cited before,
spoken of the frequent deferring the baptism of children and of other
people, names the emperors, I suppose he means them among the
other people, not among the children whose baptism was deferred.
For all take him to be a man of another pitch of reading, than that he
should think Constantine's father, for example, to have been a Christian.
But the antipasdobaptists take this from him ; and they understand it
so, and do very tenaciously maintain that it was so.
Sect. 2. Of Constantine and Constantius, his son ; that they were not
born of baptised parents.
§ i. That Constantine was not baptised in infancy, but, on the con
trary, in his old age, is a plain case. Eusebius, who was familiar with
him, tells us 2 when and how it was, viz., that when he thought himself
1 Preface to Modest Plea. J De Vita Constantini, 1. iv. c. 62.
28 The History of Infant Baptism.
near death, he went to Nicomedia, and having assembled the bishops in
the suburbs, he spoke thus to them :
" This is the time which I have long expected with earnest desire and
prayers, to obtain the salvation of God. It is time that I also should
enjoy the badge of immortality ; time that I should be made partaker of
the seal of salvation. I purposed once to receive it in the waters of the
river Jordan, in which our Saviour is recorded to have been baptised for
our example. But God, who knows what is fittest for me, is pleased to
grant it me ndw in this place. Therefore let me not be delayed : for if
He that is Lord both of life and death, be pleased to continue my life
in this world, and if He have determined that I shall any longer hold
assemblies with the people of God, and shall once in the church com
municate in the prayers together with the congregation ; I will hence
forward keep myself to such courses of life as become a servant of
God.
" This he spake. And they performing the ceremonies, put in execu
tion the Divine ordinance, and made him partaker of the unspeakable
gift, requiring of him the professions that are usual. And so Constan-
tine, the only man of all the emperors that ever were, being regenerated
by Christ's ordinance, was initiated ; and being made partaker of the
Divine seal, he rejoiced in spirit, and was renewed and filled with the
divine light," &c.
It is not material to mention the story which Nicephorus,5 a thousand
years after, sets on foot, that he was baptised at Rome, by Pope Syl
vester, near the beginning of his reign : because it is all one to our pur
pose. Baronius4 greedily embraces this latter account; I suppose,
because it makes for the credit of the Church of Rome, and helps to
dress up the fable of the Donation. But Perron, Petavius, and others
forsake him in this, as being too improbable, since it was so lately
invented.
§ 2. But since both by the one and the other of these accounts he was
not baptised in infancy ; we must inquire of the religion of his parents ;
and first of his father Constantius Chlorus.
To think that Constantine, whose name all people, both learned and
unlearned, remember by the token that he was the first Christian em
peror (at least of his race), should have a Christian emperor to his
father, does appear so great and so palpable a blunder, that anyone
would pass a severe censure on it, were it not that the learned Camden
has let drop an expression sounding that way. He having occasion, in
his account of the city of York, to speak of Constantius, the father of
Constantine, calls him " an excellent emperor, endowed with all moral
and Christian virtues — after his death deified, as appears by the old
coins."
8 Hist. Eccl. 1. vii. c. 33. « Ad annum 324.
Constantine the Great. 29
The latter part of this sentence does not suffer one to think that
Camden did in the former part of it mean that Constantius was really
a Christian (but only that he favoured the Christians, and had himself
virtues something like those of a good Christian), for no Christian
emperor was ever deified by the heathens. And accordingly, when
Fuller had, in his Church History, at the year 305, reflected on this
saying of Camden, as "going too far ; " since Constantius was no other
wise a Christian than by that rule, " he that is not against us, is on our
side : " Heylin in his animadversions on that book, though he rebuked
Fuller as being too tart upon so great a man as Camden, yet grants the
thing — viz., that Constantius was not a thorough-paced Christian.
What Camden spoke, he spoke only by-the-by. But some antipsedo-
baptists do go about seriously to justify this, and make an argument
of it for their tenet. And if only Danvers had done so, I should not
have taken any notice of it, for he is used to such arguments. But Mr
Stennet also has not shown the candour to throw away such a false prop
to their cause ; but reckons Constantine among those whose " not sub
mitting to this ordinance till they were adult, though born of Christian
parents, shows," he says, " that infant baptism was not universally re
ceived." — Answ. to Russen, p. 47. Of the rest that he there reckons up,
I must speak in the following sections ; but Constantine they ought of
their own accord to have left out : for it does but hurt their cause to
build on a supposal which almost everyone knows to be a mistake in
matter of fact.
Yet something Mr Danvers has to say for this too, that Constantius
was a Christian. He takes out of the Magdeburgenses a piece of a
sentence of Eusebius, where, speaking of Constantine, he, says he, was
" bonus a bono ; pius a pio," ' a good man, son of a good man ; a pious
man, son of a pious man.' It is not worth the while to look whether
this be truly quoted or not. It is certain that Eusebius, out of his
desire to honour Constantine, and all that belonged to him, did stretch
his expressions to farther reaches than this : as where he says, " Con
stantine became a follower of his father's piety [or pious favour, or res
pect] towards our religion." 5 And at another place, " He considered
unto what God he should address," &c., " and so he resolved _to
reverence his father's God only." 6
These places being picked out by themselves, would make one think
that Constantius had professed Christianity. Butwhoever reads the whole
account will (whether he be prejudiced for one or the other side of this
controversy) agree that all that is meant by these compliments amounts
but to this : that at the time when his fellow- emperors did bitterly per
secute the Christians, he on the other side favoured them, and screened
them as much as he could, and on all occasions showed a good opinion
B Hist., 1. viii. c. xiii. 6 De vita Const., 1. i. c. xxi.
The History of Infant Baptism.
of them and their religion. And so it is in the places themselves
plained, not that he ever made it his own religion. He died a heathen,
and that he was by the heathens deified after his death, appears not
only by the coins, but also by Eusebius's words.
And besides, Eusebius himself determines this matter clearly and
fully (as far as concerns our purpose) in the place before recited, when
having related Constantine's baptism, he adds, " That he was the first
of all the emperors that ever were, that being regenerated," 7 &c. And
again, " That he only of all that had been, did profess the Gospel of
Jesus Christ with great liberty of speech,"8 i.e., did make open profes
sion of it.
So little do some scraps of sentences picked here and there out of
authors for one's purpose signify to give an account of their true
meaning.
Beside that, if Constantius had embraced the Christian religion when
he was emperor, yet there is no appearance that he had any inclina
tion to it when his son Constantine was born, which was thirty years
before.
As for Helena, Constantine's mother, though the inquiry concerning
her religion be not very material, because not many, especially great
men, suffer their wives to choose what religion their sons shall be
entered into ; yet I made some inquiry. And after I had, in order to
discover her religion, searched into the accounts of her condition and
parentage, which are so variously given (some making her a Bithynian,
others a Briton (but these last mar their own story by relating her to be
a king's daughter ; whereas all about that time speak of her as one of a
mean quality, she being in scorn called Stabularia), some taking her for
a wife, others for a concubine,9 others for an absolute harlot to Constan
tius ; 10 and those that call her a wife, must consequently grant that he
had two at a time, or else that Helena was divorced when he married
Theodora), I found it was needless to inquire any farther, when I saw
that Eusebius, a witness unquestionable in this matter, says that " her
son Constantine first brought her to be a godly woman [or Christian]
which she was not before." u In her old age all agree that she proved a
very zealous Christian. And it does something excuse her former way
of living, that it was before her Christianity.
§ 3. And as for Constantius, the son of Constantine, what has been
said of Constantine's late baptism does without more ado satisfy us of
the reason why his son Constantius was not baptised in infancy. Con
stantine probably was not resolved what religion to be of, but certainly
was not baptised when Constantius was born, nor a long time after.
And concerning Fausta, the mother of this Constantius, the daugh-
7 De vita Const., 1. iv. c. Ixii. 8 Ibid. c. Ixxv. 9 Oros., 1. vii. c. xxv.
10 Nicephorus, 1. vii. c. xviii. u L. iii. de vita Const., c. xlvii.
Constantine the Great. 31
ter of Maximianus Herculius (the bloodiest enemy the Christians
ever had) whom Constantine was forced to marry for reason of State :
there is no probability that she was a Christian when this son was born,
and very little that she was ever so at all ; for Constantine put her to
death not long after. On the contrary, some histories speak of her
endeavours to alienate her husband's mind from that religion.12
So Constantius not having been baptised into the Christian religion in
infancy (as it was impossible he should), but coming afterwards to the
knowledge of it, and approving it, yet he did as his father had done
before, i.e., he deferred his baptism to the end of his life, for it was just
before his death that he was baptised by Euzoius, the Arian Bishop of
Antioch.13
About five or six years before, Lucifer, Bishop of Caralis, had wrote
his mind very plainly and bluntly to him in defence of Athanasius, whom
he grievously persecuted ; and told him that instead of abusing Athan
asius, he had " great need to desire that holy priest of God to pray to
God for him for the forgiveness of his impieties, as Job's friends desired
Job ; and to procure himself to be baptised by him or some of his fellow
bishops." u And St Hilary had complained that he, " credendi formam
ecclesiis nondum regeneratus imponeret " — ' should pretend to prescribe
a form of Faith to the Churches, when he was not yet regenerated [i.e.,
baptised] himself.' 15
Indeed, both he and his father Constantine were guilty of such
wickedness, even after their declaring for Christian religion (Constantine
in murdering so many of his kindred ; and he in doing the like, and
also in persecuting the Catholic Christians), that it is no wonder if a
guilty conscience kept them from baptism till they could find in their
heart to repent of such barbarities. And when the papists object to us,
our reformation begun under such a king as Henry VIII., they may
reflect that Constantine, by whose means the allowed profession ot
Christianity itself was brought into the world, has not a much better
character ; and that it does not please God always to choose good
men, but sometimes to make wicked kings instruments of bringing His
purposes to pass.
But yet there is, I think, no Christian writer that presses so hard upon
the credit of Constantine in this matter as Baronius, and they of the
Church of Rome that follow him. They strike in with that scandalous
story which the heathen writers of that time did dress up on a purpose
of spite and slander to the Christian religion, and to Constantine for
embracing it. Which was that he, after the murder of his son Crispus,
and his wife Fausta, and his sister's son Licinius, &c., was terrified in
conscience, and sought among the heathen priests for somebody that
12 Mic. Glycas, 1. iv. Hist. 1S Athanas. de Synodis Socrat., H.E. 1. ii. c. ult.
14 Lucifer pro Athanasio, 1. i. 15 De Synodis prope finem.
32 The History of Infant Baptism.
would expiate him, and give him hopes of pardon. But that these told
him that they had rites of expiation for very great sins, and for ordinary
murders, but none for such parricide as his was, and so left him in
despair. And that then it was that he was informed what large offers
of pardon the Christian religion made to all comers that would be
baptised ; and embraced that, not out of any liking to its doctrines, but
because no other would receive him.
It is questionless no discredit to any religion (but the excellence of it)
to have such sacraments to which is annexed the promise of forgiveness
of the greatest sins, provided it does lay severe injunctions against practis
ing the same for the future. Yet since this story is set on foot by Zosimus16
and other heathens out of spite to Constantine and the Christian religion;
and is false ; and is showed to be so by Sozomen,17 and other Christian
historians (for Constantine favoured Christianity, and made laws in
favour of it before this time), it discovers an ill bias in Baronius, who (to
make the fable of his baptism at Rome more probable) embraces it.
But the men of that Court make no scruple to advance the repute and
pride of it, by treading not only on the necks of present emperors, but
also on the credit of the most ancient ones. For, according to this
character, what difference is there between Constantine and Julian ;
save that the one did actually go over to heathenism, and was willingly
received by the pagan priests ; the other would have done the same, but
was not admitted by them ?
Sect. 3. Of Gratian and Valentinian the Second.
There is no proof that their father, Valentinian the First, was a baptised
Christian when they were born.
§ i. The import of some sayings of the authors which I shall have
occasion to produce in the case of these two emperors will not be so
well understood by the ordinary reader, unless I first give a short history
of their father and them, as far as concerns this matter.
Valentinian the First came from a mean original18 to the imperial
dignity. He gained his preferment by degrees in the army. He is not
taken notice of by the historians till such time as being an officer in the
guards, when Julian came to the crown, he lost his place for his religion.
For Julian being resolved to set up the old religion again, gave order
that none should serve (especially in those places nigh his person) but
such as would go to the heathen sacrifices and partake of them.
There were a great many in the army, by this time well instructed in
the Christian religion, who rather than go to this sort of mass, would
leave their places. Among the rest, this Valentinian and Valens his
16 Zos., 1. ii. " H< Et> ], }, c- y is Socrat, 1. iv. c. i.
Valentinian the First. 33
brother, threw away their sword belts.19 Three years after, both these
brothers came to be emperors. For Valentinian being chosen by the
army, chose his brother his partner ; and leaving him to govern the east,
went himself to govern Rome and the western parts.
A reader that is not well acquainted with the custom, that persons
converted in those times had, of delaying their baptism, would think by
the zeal for Christianity that they showed under Julian, that they both
had been at that time baptised. But it is certain they were not both ;
for 'we find Valens baptised afterwards. His baptism is mentioned by
the historians because of an unusual and wicked circumstance of it.
He was by his wife, who was an Arian, persuaded to be baptised by
Eudoxius, the Arian Bishop of Constantinople ; and they together pre
vailed on him to swear at his baptism,20 that he would always continue
to be on the Arian side, and expel the Catholics out of the churches.
An impious practice ! Instead of baptising into the Christian religion,
as Christian, to baptise into a sect.
But Valentinian's baptism is not mentioned at all by the historians :
neither should we be sure whether he was ever baptised, were it not for
a passage in a letter of St Ambrose, which I shall have occasion to cite
by-and-by. He was born in Pannonia, a country where Christianity
had at that time but little footing ; and probably of heathen parents.
Who, or what they were, we hear no more than that his father's name
had been Gratian, that he was nicknamed Funarius, and that he had
been an officer in Britain, in the time of Constantine.
§ 2. Now as to his sons : Gratian was born to him before he was
emperor,21 and in the fourth year of his reign was taken by him into
partnership. But Valentinian, his younger son, was born to him the
third year of his reign ; so that he was nine years old when his father
died. Ammianus Marcellinus says he was but four. But it must be
a mistake, both because Socrates 22 names the consuls of the year in
which he was born, which were Gratian and Dagalaiphus, for the year
of Christ 366 ; and also because the third year after, 369, this young
Valentinian was consul himself (according to the custom of those times),
which was before the year in which Ammianus makes him to be born.
When Valentinian the Elder died, the army proclaimed this young
Valentinian emperor together with his brother. So they ruled the West,
and their uncle Valens the East. And when Valens died, Gratian
quickly afterwards chose Theodosius to govern the East._
Four years after, the usurper Maximus set up in Britain for emperor.
And when Gratian marched against him, his army deserting, he was
overcome by Maximus, and slain. Valentinian kept Italy and some
other countries for a few years ; during which time being ruled by his
19 Socrat., 1. Hi. c. xiii. " Theodoret Hist., 1. iv. c. xi. xii.
21 Socrat., 1. iv. c. x. ^ L. iv. c. ix.
II. B
34 The History of Infant Baptism.
mother Justina, a bitter Arian, he favoured the Arians, and persecuted
the Catholics, particularly St Ambrose, Bishop of Milan.
Among other indignities, he summoned St Ambrose to come and
dispute before him concerning the faith with Auxentius the Arian ; and
he with his courtiers would judge between them. To which summons
St Ambrose answers in a letter to him ; K which has this passage in it to
our purpose :
" When did you hear, most gracious emperor, that laymen have passed
judgment on a bishop in a matter of faith? Do we then by a sort of
fawning so debase ourselves, as to forget what is the privilege of the
sacerdotal office? And that I should commit that into the hands of
another, which God has intrusted with me myself? If a bishop must
be taught by a layman, what will follow ? Then let a layman preach,
and the bishop give attention ; let a bishop learn of a layman.
" This is unquestionable, that if we search either into the tenor of the
Holy Scriptures, or into the account of past times, there is none can
deny that in matters of faith, / say in matters of faith, bishops are
wont to judge of emperors that are Christians, and not emperors of
bishops.
" You will, by the grace of God, arrive to a better ripeness of age ;
and then you yourself will pass an estimate, what sort of man for a
bishop he must be, that will put the sacerdotal right under the judgment
of laymen.
" Your father, a man, by God's mercy, of a more advanced age, said,
' It does not belong to me to judge between bishops.' Does your Grace
now say, ' It does belong to me to judge ' ? And he, though at that
time baptised in Christ, yet thought himself unable to bear the weight
of so great a judgment. Does your Grace, for whom the Sacrament of
Baptism is yet reserved to be obtained by you, take upon you the deter
mination of -matters of faith, when as yet you are not partaker of the
sacrament of faith ? "
This scuffle between the court on one side standing for the Arians,
and the major part of the people on the other for their religion, their
Church and their bishop, increased so far (the emperor demanding the
Church for the Arians, the people continuing day and night in it ; the
court giving out that Bishop Ambrose meant to set up for an usurper,24
St Ambrose declaring, that as he abhorred the thoughts of resistance 25
or of stirring up the people, so he could not on the other side run away
from his Church and flock in that danger of their souls, but was ready
to suffer death quietly, that Maximus the Usurper, who had already,
since the defeat and death of Gratian, settled himself in Britain and
•ance and gaped for an opportunity of invading Italy, took his ad
vantage of these discontents ; and he published a DECLARATION in be-
83 Epist. xxxii. « Ambrosii, Epist. xxxiii. » Idem Oratione in Auxentium.
Valentinian the Second. 35
half of the true religion, and threatening war to Valentinian if he did not
forbear to persecute the Catholics.26
The court, for all their anger against St Ambrose, yet could not find
a fitter man to avert this storm than he, because of the influence which
they thought he might have upon Maximus. They sent him therefore
on an embassy of peace, which he performed with all that fidelity that
became a good Christian who would show himself loyal to his prince
that had despitefully used him and his religion.
But as to his errand, he could do no good ; for usurpers, when they
find their advantage, do not use to be kept back by reasons of conscience.
On the contrary, when Maximus saw that St Ambrose would not com
municate with him, nor with the bishops that communicated with him, he
commanded him to be gone. And St Ambrose sent an account of his
embassy to Valentinian,27 advising him to look to his safety : " Adversus
hominem pacis involucre bellum tegentem," ' Against a man that under
pretence of peace [or doing good offices] covered his design of war,' [or
invasion].
And so it proved ; Maximus invaded Italy, and Valentinian had
nothing to do but to fly.
But Theodosius, who had, ever since he heard of the death of Gratian,
resolved to revenge it, having now his army ready, came from the east ;
and though the usurper had strengthened himself by humouring all
parties of Christians, Jews, and Pagans, yet he overcame him, slew him,
and resettled Valentinian, and brought him off from his fondness to
the Arians (his foolish mother being now dead), and reconciled him to
St Ambrose, whom he ever after honoured as a father.
This quietness had lasted but three years when a new usurper,
Eugenius, started up, with whom Argobastes, one of the greatest men
at court, traitorously joined. Valentinian being then in France, was
seized by Argobastes, and, after a while, murdered by him. This was in
the year 392, so that he was, when he died, twenty-six years old.
§ 3. He had, a little before this treason broke out, resolved to be
baptised before he went for Italy. He had a particular desire to receive
it from the hands of St Ambrose, and had lately sent to Milan to him
to desire him to come and give it him. St Ambrose was on his way to
France when he heard the fatal news, which rendered his journey now
too late.
One shall hardly read a more compassionate lamentation than St
Ambrose makes on this account in his funeral sermon for Valentinian.
What with the object that was present, and what with the occasion it
gave to remember Gratian, he says all that could be said by a man that
had lost his own children by a like fate. He persuades himself that, if
he could have arrived before the murderous blow was given, he might
36 Theodoret, Hist., 1. v. c. xiv. 27 Ambrose, Epist. 27.
B 2
36 The History of Infant Baptism.
have prevailed with the tyrants to spare his life at least. I doubt he was
mistaken in that, for who ever read of an Oliver that did that ?
But as to Valentinian's dying unbaptised, he comforts his sisters that
were present at the sermon by assuring them that in such a case God
accepts of a sincere faith joined with a hearty desire of baptism, as if the
person had been actually baptised, which saying of his is often cited for
the resolution of like cases. " I hear," says he, " you are troubled that
he did not receive the holy rites of baptism. Tell me, what is there in
our power but the will and desire? And he both a good while ago had
a purpose of being baptised before he returned into Italy, and also lately
expressed his desire of being baptised by me, and it was for that reason
especially that he would have me sent for.
" Hath he not then that grace which he desired, and which he en
deavoured to have ? Inasmuch as he desired it, he has received it."
Upon the news of this rebellion and murder, Theodosius came once
more from the east, and obtained a victory over Eugenius, (which, count
ing the numbers that sided with Eugenius, the historians count almost
miraculous), and slew him. As for the traitor Argobastes, he saved the
hangman a labour.
And this was one of the last good acts of that noble emperor. He
died quickly after. And St Ambrose had the sorrow of preaching his
funeral sermon too.
I cannot but observe from that sermon the different grounds on which
St Ambrose, from those on which Baronius does condemn Maximus.
Baronius's way is when any great man in history comes to an ill end, or
other calamity, to find something in his life which may be supposed to
be the cause for which that judgment fell on him, and it is commonly
something done against the Church of Rome. And speaking of the ill
end of Maximus, when he looks backward for the cause of it, he takes
no notice of his rebellion and usurpation, and murder of his prince —
like the man, who, pretending to tell the faults of a horse that he sold,
forgot to mention that he was blind — and observes how once on a time,
a great while before, being appealed to by some bishops, he had meddled
in ecclesiastical matters more than became him.28
But St Ambrose, in the foresaid sermon,29 having spoken of Gratian
and Theodosius as being then in heaven, adds, " Contra autem Maximus
et Eugenius in inferno, docentes exemplo miserabili quam durum sit
arma suis principibus irrogare." ' But Maximus and Eugenius are now
in hell, teaching by their dreadful example how heinous a thing it is for
men to bear arms against their sovereigns.'
§ 4. From this whole relation it appears —
1. That Valentinian the younger was never baptised.
2. That Gratian probably was baptised some time of his life, or other.
28 Ad Annum 385. & Qrat. in funere Theodosii.
Valentinian the First. 37
Because St Ambrose, in Valentinian's funeral sermon, makes frequent
comparisons between the two brothers, and often mentions Valentinian's
want of baptism, but observes no such thing of Gratian. Besides, he
calls him there J&&//V, which is a term never given by the ancients but
to a baptised person.
But yet it is probable his baptism was not in infancy. For what
should make Valentinian, the father, baptise his eldest son in infancy,
and not his youngest? Unless we may judge that Justina, the mother
of the youngest, being an Arian (for the mother of the eldest was not
so), and the father himself being a Catholic, they could not agree into
which faith he should be baptised. For the Arians were like the
Donatists for that ; that they had so ill an opinion of baptism given by
the Catholics, that they baptised such over again, as may be seen by
St Ambrose's discourse against Auxentius.30 And therefore,
§ 5. 3rdly. The chief question is, whether Valentinian, the father,
were baptised himself at the time when his youngest son was born?
We have heard already,31 that he was a baptised Christian at a certain
time, when he said, that "he did not think himself fit to judge between
bishops." But what time of his reign this refers to, we have no way to
know certainly. The passage that looks most like it in all that we read,
is that which happened at the election of St Ambrose himself to the
bishopric of Milan ; "and St Ambrose was more likely to know that, and
to refer to that, than any other. For then, as Theodoret tell us,32 the
Bishop of Milan being dead, the people were much divided about
the choice of a new one, some setting up one, and some another : so
that to avoid confusion, Valentinian ordered the neighbouring bishops
that were in that city to choose one for them. The bishops desired
that he himself would pitch upon some person. But he answered,
" This is a thing too great for me to undertake. You that are filled with
the grace of God, and illuminated by the light thereof, may much better
do this office of choosing a man for a bishop."
If this were the time that St Ambrose means, at which he was then
" a baptised person," this was but a year, or thereabouts, before his
death : for St Ambrose was made bishop in the year of Christ 374, as
Baronius, or the beginning of 375, as Petavius, computes; and Valentinian
died November the i7th, 375.
So that he might for all that be unbaptised when his son Valentinian
was born, which was, as we said,33 nine years before, viz., A.D. 366.
Sect. 4. Of Theodosius the First
His father was not a baptised Christian when he was lorn.
§ i. Theodosius (of whom we had occasion to speak in the last
section), who was chosen by Gratian to be his fellow-emperor, is another
30 Orat. in Auxentium, in fine. 31 § 2. 32 Hist., 1. iv. c. vi. 33 § 2.
38 The History of Infant Baptism.
of the instances of persons not baptised in infancy. What I have to say
of him, may be despatched in a few words. He was baptised quickly
after he was chosen emperor,34 and in a fit of sickness, by Acholius (or,
as the Greeks write his name, Ascholius), Bishop of Thessalonica : being
then thirty-four years old, as Victor counts; forty-four, as Socrates
reckons; or about fifty, if the Chronicom Alexandrimim be to be
relied on.
§ 2. His father, who .was also named Theodosius, had been put to
death by order of Valens nine years before. Whether he [the father]
had ever been baptised, I think we should not have known but for
Orosius, who (because he was a Spaniard, his countryman) speaks more
particularly of his concerns. So that we know by him that he was
baptised before he died : but not till twenty-five years (by the lowest
account) after this, his son, was born. And whether he was, at that
time of his son's birth, a Christian in intention, or an unbeliever, is not
to be known.
Orosius's account is this,35 that he, being a commander in the army,
had done good and faithful services : but yet that on a sudden, and, for
what reason nobody knew, there came an order that he must be put to
death. Which, when he understood, "he desired to be baptised first,
for the forgiveness of his sins. And when he was made partaker of that
sacrament of Christ, as he desired, being, after a laudable life in this
world, secure also of an eternal life, he willingly offered his neck to the
executioner."
Other authors, though not mentioning his baptism, give the same
account of his death. And the occasion of it they relate to be such as
gives us an idea of the mischief that superstitious jealousies do, when
they get into the head of a cowardly prince. Valens had had some
attempts made to dethrone him. And there was a report ran up and
down that some that used curious arts had found that he should quickly
have a successor : and the first letters of his name should be T H E o D.
The names of Theodorus, Theodoret, Theodosius, Theodulus, &c.,
were then very common names. And this fancy cost a great many of
them their lives ; and this captain among the rest. His son Theodosius
was not, it seems, at that time a man noted enough to come into danger.
When he came to the throne, he managed his affairs so well both in
peace and war, that none that went before, or that came after, did ever
excel him.
The reason why he was not baptised in infancy, must have been
because his father was not then baptised, and perhaps not a believer.
I know that Socrates (at the forecited place, 1. v. c. vi.) says, that he
(the said emperor) had Christian parents [or ancestors] i* vpoywuv
vbg lirdp^uv. But this was a phrase commonly used in the case
34 Socrates, 1. v. c. vi. ™ Hist., 1. vii.
St Basil. 39
of those whose parents became Christians at any time before their death,
though they were not so at the time of the birth of those their children :
as I shall, out of many instances that might be given, have occasion to
give some presently.
Sect. 5. Of St Basil.
There is no proof to the contrary but that he was baptised in infancy.
§ i. I did in the tenth chapter of the first part of this work produce
the evidences that are in antiquity, that St Basil was baptised in infancy.
But it is necessary to consider those also that are brought to the con
trary.
I know of but one man of the antipaedobaptists that does pretend
him for an instance of one baptised in his adult age, though born of
Christian parents : and he does it very unfairly. He found in Osiander's
epitome of the Magdeburgenses,36 that Vincentius in his Speculum tells
a story of St Basil's going to Jerusalem", and being baptised in Jordan
by Maximus, the bishop there. But though Osiander and the Magde
burgenses 37 too do, when they mention this, declare that this is a story
of no credit ; and that Vincentius's collection, being of late years, is of
no repute ; and that there is no historian of credit or antiquity that
speaks of any such thing ; yet Mr Danvers,38 sets down the quotation
in such manner and words as if they had recited it as a credible history :
whereas they do both of them at the places cited, declare, that it seems
to them that he was baptised in infancy by his father (of which I also
have in the chapter fore-mentioned, given some confirmation) or by
some other minister.
He quotes also at the same place and for the same thing, Socrates,
1. iv. c. xxvi., and Sozomen, 1. vi. c. xxxiv., who neither there nor any
where else have any word tending that way.
§ 2. As Vincentius made his collections of historical matters without
any judgment, taking them out of any sort of books, genuine or spurious ;
so the author, out of whom he 39 owns to have this, is Amphilochius's
Life of St Basil. And that is known by all to be a Grub Street paper,
a gross forgery; and is sufficiently detected to be such by Rivet,40
Baronius,41 Bellarmin,42 Possevin, and before them all by Bishop Jewel.43
The author thereof had, I suppose, read or heard that Amphilochius,
Bishop of Iconium, had wrote an account of St Basil's life (as he did
indeed, and Greg. Nazianzen and Greg. Nyssen did the like ; but that
which was written by him is lost, as are most or all his other works).
He therefore put forth his stuff under the name of that great man. But
38 Cent. IV., 1. iii. c. xlii. 37 Cent. IV., c. x. 38 Treatise, Part I. c. vii.
89 Vincent, spec. Hist., 1. xiv. c. xxviii. 40 Crit. Sac., 1. iii. c. xxvii.
41 A.D. 363. 42 De Script. Eccl. 43 Apolog. Eccl. Angl. Artie. I. Div. xxxni.
4O The History of Infant Baptism.
it betrays itself by many tokens of fabulous miracles, incongruities in
history, &c. And in that fable which he gives of his baptism there are
such silly monkish quibbles and witticisms put into the discourse that
passed between Basil and Maximus, who is made to be his baptiser (as
one asks, " Quis est mundus ? " The other answers, " Qui fecit
mundum, &c. ? "), that one might guess from what shop they come.
F. Combesis has published this piece in Greek and Latin, and en
deavoured to vindicate it by saying the main part of it might be genuine,
though it be interpolated and mixed with some fabulous additions :
but as M. du Pin observes,44 he brings no kind of proof of his opinion.
§ 3. The true account written by Nazianzen, Orat. 30, in laudem
Basilii, nor that by Nyssen, have no mention of any such thing ; nor
that under the name of Ephrsem Syrus. On the contrary, Nazianzen
seems plainly to refer to his baptism in infancy by his own father, as I
showed before.
Their reciting all the remarkable passages of his life after he came
to age, without mentioning anything of his baptism, is a strong argument
that there was no such thing : since in all that are baptised at age, their
baptism makes a considerable circumstance for a writer, whose chief
subject is their Christianity. And therefore the monk who framed a
life for him that might sell well would not omit it : and to dress it up
the better, made it to be in Jordan where Christ was baptised, and
Constantine desired to be.
§ 4. If the ZQth chapter of St Basil's book de Spiritu Sancto be
genuine (which is questioned by Erasmus and others), then it is certain
that the same man that baptised him did also put him into the ministry.
For so he says in that chapter. He is there showing that the custom
used by him and some churches of saying the Doxology, thus, " Glory
be to the Father, and to the Son, with the Holy Spirit (instead
whereof others said, and to the Holy Spirit ") was no innovation. He
quotes several ancient authors that had spoke so, and begins thus :
" I myself, if it be proper to say anything of myself in this case, do
keep the use of this expression uawsp nva. x^pov irarptiov, as an
inheritance left me by my father, having received it from a man who
lived a long time in the ministry of God, by whom I was both baptised,
and also put into the ministry of the church."
This could not be Meletius (whom Dr Cave reckons to be the man
by whom he was ordained deacon), because he afterwards reckons
Meletius as another of his authors for the same usage ; and says, " That
the famous Meletius is of the same sentiment, they that have conversed
with him do affirm."
That St Basil himself did use to baptise children, I showed before in
the first part of this work, ch. xii. §§ 9, TO.
-" Nouv. Bib., t. ii. Amphiloch.
St Gregory Nazianzen.
Sect. 6. Of St Gregory Nazianzen.
He was not baptised in infancy, though probably born of baptised parents.
§ i. When fourteen instances are produced to prove anything, and
one can show that thirteen of them are mistakes, he is apt to suspect
that there is some mistake in the other too, though he cannot find it
out. Yet here can be none in this matter, if this Gregory's Carmen de
vita sua be a genuine piece (as I never heard of any that questioned it),
and if there be no mistake in the reading of it.
I shall represent impartially, and as briefly as I can, the proofs that
are brought of his being born before his father's Christianity, and those
to the contrary.
That he was not baptised in infancy is plain, both from the foresaid
poem de vita sud, and also from the sermon that he made at his father's
funeral,45 and also from the history of his life by Gregorius Presbyter.
For in all these a full relation is given how he, in a voyage by sea from
Alexandria to Athens, was in great danger of shipwreck by a storm ;
"and whereas all the rest in the ship were terrified with the fear of their
bodily death ; I," says he, "did more dreadfully fear the death of my soul.
For I was in great hazard of departing this life unbaptised : amidst the
sea waters that were to be my death, wanting that spiritual water. And
therefore I cried out, intreated, besought, that some space of life might
be granted to me." He goes on to show how his lamentation and
dread on that account were so great and so moving, that the people in the
ship forgot their own danger in compassion to those terrors which they
saw were upon his soul. And how he then vowed to God, that if he
were delivered from that danger, he would offer himself up to God ; and
did so accordingly.
§ 2. That his father was not a Christian when he married, nor for
some time after, is plain from the said funeral oration.46 He was of the
religion called Hypsistarian. These men, as is there related, did so
renounce the worship of idols and sacrifices, as that they retained
nevertheless the worship of fire and torches.
M. Le Clerc,47 being busied in finding contradictions in the Fathers,
thinks he has found one here, because Gregory in another place48
says, his father W J/SwXo/g vdpog riiv ^u>uv which he translates, was sub
ject to the idols of animals, not minding that £wwv there is the par
ticiple of the poetical verb £ww and not the genitive of ^uor though
Bilius had noted that criticism.
He continued in that superstition till the year of the Council of Nice,
A.D. 325, his wife had before used her persuasions and prayers for his
conversion. But then, when Leontius, Bishop of Caesarea, and some
45 Orat. 19. *" Orat. 19. 47 Life of Naz. Bibliot., t. x.
43 Carm. i de rebus suis.
42 The History of Infant Baptism.
other bishops were going by that place for Nice to the Council, she got
them to instruct him in the grounds of Christian religion ; and he was
baptised into it quickly after: and not long after that took priest's
orders. And when the Bishop of Nazianzum died, became his successor.
In which office he lived forty-five years, and died nearly one hundred
years old. All this is clear in the oration aforesaid.
§ 3. Now the question is whether our Gregory, his son, were born
before that his father's conversion in the said year 325, or after?
And the solution of it must be collected by knowing, if one could,
how old he [the son] was when he died. For we know justly the year
on which he died by St Hierom, who wrote the de Scriptortbus Ecdesiast®
the fourteenth year of Theodosius, A.D. 392, and says there 50 that
Gregory Nazianzen had been dead but three years. He died therefore
in the year 389.
The difficulty is to know what age he was of when he died.
Gregorius Presbyter, who wrote his life, says he died very old. And
Suidas (who mistakes the time of his death two years, making him to
live till the thirteenth year of Theodosius) says 51 that he was then ninety
years old. By that account he must have been born in the year 300,
which is twenty-five years before his father was a Christian.
But Baronius 52 finds reason, as he thinks, to correct this chronology
from a passage out of Gregory himself; who in the aforesaid Carmen de
vitd sua, speaking of his studying at Athens, and of his resolution to
leave that place, says, it was then his thirtieth year [or, the thirtieth
year]. This Baronius concludes to be the year 354, by Julian the Apos
tate's being a student there at the same time (for he was made Cassar,
and sent into France the next year). From whence he infers that
Gregory was born in the year 324 (which was the year before his
father's conversion), and that he was but sixty-five years old when he
died.
§ 4. But Papebrochius, in his Ada Sanctorum Mali 8w,53 corrects
this correction, and sets the time of his birth back to the old account :
bringing a great many probable evidences that Gregory's age must be
greater than sixty-five years ; since he himself so often speaks of his
being unfit for business by reason of his great age.
When Maximus the Cynic opposed his being made Bishop of Con
stantinople; Gregory, in his oration on that subject,54 brings in his
adversaries objecting to him his sickliness and old age.
When he desired to resign the said bishopric (which was eight years
before he died), and persuaded the bishops then present at the Council
to consent to his so doing; he used this argument, "Let these my
49 Verb. Hieronymus. M Verb. Gregor. n Verb Fo^-yon
w Ad arm. 354 and 389. M Chronologia vitoe Sancti Greg, expensa et emendate.
w Oral. 28.
5/ Gregory Nasianzen. 43
grey hairs prevail with you:"56 which looks as if he were then more
than fifty-seven years old.
This learned man does also answer the reason that Baronius brings to
the contrary, by endeavouring to show that the foresaid mention of the
thirtieth year is not meant for the thirtieth year of his life (of which it
was the fifty-fourth, as he thinks) but the thirtieth of his studies. And
indeed the words, as they stand, do bear that sense very well : They are
these :
x«/ ydp TroXuj rsrpiKTO 70?$ Xoyotg ^povog"
tfdq rptaxoarbv /J.oi ff%edbv TOUT yv erog.
" For I had already spent a long time in the study of learning :
This was almost the thirtieth year [or, my thirtieth year]."
Gregorius Presbyter, who wrote the life of St Gregory, and took it for
the most part out of his foresaid poem, seems to understand it so : and
yet his words are capable of the other construction too. He expresses it
thus, rpiaxoarbv j$5?j 7rXj)pw<ra£ STOS sv roTs pMtyuMn' ' Having now com
pleted thirty years [or else, his thirtieth year] in the study of learning.' 56
Moreover Rufinus, who was contemporary with him, says, " He died
fessajam estate" ' being spent with age.'57 Which can hardly be said of
one that was but sixty-five years old.
These reasons, joined with some others of less weight, prevailed
with Papebrochius to embrace the old account as the truest, viz., that
he was ninety years old when he died ; and consequently that he was
born A.D. 300. And that was twenty-five years before his father was a
Christian.
M. Le Clerc, who writes a sort of life of this saint,58 manages this
argument of his age, after a heedless and absurd manner. For first, he,
following Pagi, who had followed Papebrochius, says, that he was born
anno 300, which is twenty-five years before his father's conversion :
and accordingly supposes with the foresaid authors, that the year in
which he left Athens was the fifty-fourth year of his age. And the use
he makes of this, is, to " wonder that he would spend so great a part of
his life in studying rhetoric, forgetting in the meantime all care of his
aged parents, and of the Church of God." And yet afterwards in the
same Life, he " wonders why, since it was the opinion of that age, that
those that die unbaptised are damned, his father and mother being such
zealous Christians did not get him baptised in infancy." Which is to sup
pose that he was born after his father's conversion, which he and every
body place at the year 325 ; or else it is the wonder of a man that dotes.
One of these suppositions helps a man that would expose Gregory to
censure ; which seems to be the design of this writer of Lives for this and
some other Fathers. And the other serves to raise objections against the
53 Orat. 32. 56 In vita Gregorii. 57 Hist., 1. ii. c. ix.
58 Bibliot., t. 10.
44 The History of Infant Baptism.
universality of the then practice of paedobaptism. But it is very unfair
to serve both these intentions from this instance : because one of them
supposes him to be born after his father was a Christian, and the other
twenty-five years before.
There is another reason to make one believe that he was born before
his father's conversion : which is this. In the foresaid oration at his
father's funeral, he tells how his mother, being desirous of a son, had
begged one of God in her prayers, and that in answer to those prayers,
he was born to her. And afterwards he comes to speak of those prayers
that she made for her husband's conversion : in which prayers she was
encouraged to the greater hope of being heard, " as having," says he,
" already made trial of the Divine liberality." On which words Bilius
makes this comment, " namely, when she obtained her son Gregory of
God, by her prayers, as he had said a little before."59 And indeed that
is the only instance mentioned before in that oration, to which one. can
suppose him to refer.
Also this reason : he often mentions his mother's pious and Christian
care and dedication of him to God in his infancy and from the womb,60
but never any such thing of his father.
§ 5. These reasons would be sufficient to sway a man to believe that
he was born before his father was a Christian, were it not for one very
plain one to the contrary. And that is a passage in the foresaid poem,
where Gregory the elder earnestly persuades his son, who had more
mind to a private life, to become his assistant in the office of Bishop of
Nazianzum. He uses all the force of paternal authority, requiring him
upon pain of the loss of his blessing, to comply with his desire, and to
relieve his old age. And, among the rest, has these words61:—
'Oinru rogourov sxfjM/Aqrprixas f3iov}
dir)\0s duetuo l/zo/'
rqv
" So many years of life you have not seen,
As I, your father, have in orders been.
Do me the kindness, do."
Papebrochius does take notice of this place, and says it has puzzled
everybody that has read it. He goes about to answer it by supposing
the word turiut is misprinted, and that it should be «Vjj<r/w». But as
he produces no manuscript in favour of his amendment, it appears too
licentious to go down with anyone.
Unless somebody else have more to say of it than I can think of, it seems
so plain and full as to over-sway all the other reasons to the contrary ;
and to prove that Gregory was born not only after his father's baptism,
» Annot. in loc. ^ w Orat Apo]oget et alibi
Larmen de vita sua, vers. 520, circiter p. 6, Ed. Paris, 1610.
,SV Gregory Nazianzen. 45
but even after he was in priest's orders, which were conferred upon him
quickly after his baptism.
Bishop Hall had found out this place 62 when he sought for instances
of clergymen that had made use of the marriage-bed after they were in holy
orders (of which this is the plainest that he can find). And the antipsedo-
baptists have taken it from him, and made use of it for their purpose.
§ 6. If this pass for current, then we must say that Baronius's account
of his age is the truest ; and farther, that he was yet two or three years
younger than he makes him. For if he had been full thirty years old at
the year 354, he would still have been born a little before his father's
baptism, and two years before his ordination. But the words are ff^t^v
rpiaxogTbv, almost the thirtieth, which in a poem may pass well enough,
though he were but twenty-seven or twenty-eight.
We must say likewise that all that he himself, and Rufinus, and Gre-
gorius Presbyter do speak of his old age, must be understood of z.prama-
tura senectus, caused by his sickliness, which he often mentions. And
that Suidas, when he makes him live to ninety years old, mistakes at least
twenty-seven years, which might well enough be, since he wrote six hun
dred years after Gregory was dead. And that what he himself says of his
mother's experience of the divine liberality, before her husband's conver
sion, must refer to something else. And that Gregorius Presbyter (who
also lived near six hundred years after St Gregory), if his meaning be to
speak of the time when he left Athens and went home, as the thirtieth year
of his studies, must be mistaken by taking what Gregory himself had said
of the thirtieth year, for the thirtieth of his studies (as others have since
done), which, according to this supposition, must be but almost the
thirtieth (viz., the twenty-seventh or twenty-eighth) of his life. And that
M. Du Pin (who has gone a middle-way,63 making him to be born anno
183, which falls seven years before his father's baptism) does yet place his
birth eight or nine years too soon. For if he was born after his father's
priesthood, it must be anno 327 or 326 at soonest. And possibly the
numerical figure in the text of M. Du Pin is mistaken by the printer ;
for in the index at the end of the tome it is printed 328. And according
to this account he was but sixty-one or sixty-two when he died. And
his father and mother (for they were much of one age) were about fifty
when he, the son, was born. Which is old for a woman to have children;
and yet she had one, if not more children, after her son Gregory.
And then also we must say that this Gregory the Elder was as singular
in this practice of keeping his children unbaptised, as Mr Johnson64 has
shown him to be in the point of passive obedience ; and as the papists
will say, he was in getting children after his being in holy orders.
I hope the reader will pardon the length of this disquisition, and the
62 Honour of the married clergy, 1. ii. § 8. 63 Nouvelle Bibliot, t. ii.
64 Julian the Apostate.
48 The History of Infant Baptism.
time of danger." " God's judgments come upon us ; let us baptise our
children out of hand."
Sect 7. Of Nectarius.
There is no appearance of his parents being Christians, nor knowing
who they were.
§ i. Though St Gregory Nazianzen, who, after his father's death, was
Bishop of Constantinople, had done more for the restoring the Catholic
faith there, than had been done by any man in so short a time ; yet he
found a necessity of resigning the place. Partly by reason of his age
and infirmity, and partly for that there was such a contention in the
Council of bishops about him. Some said it was not canonical that he
having once accepted another bishopric formerly should remove from
it. Others, that he living as a hermit wholly given to study and prayers,
was not at all dexterous in making his court with the emperor for the
good of the Church ; neither had he any good mien, but a contemptible
presence.
To ally these heats, he did what St Clement 71 had advised in such a
case to be done. He willingly abdicated, and said, " If this contention
be upon my account, I am ready to depart : only let the flock of Christ
be in peace." 72
And when they were in consultation about another to be chosen, who
should they light on but one Nectarius, a layman of Tarsus, of a sena
tor's rank, remarkable for a grave and comely presence, but of no
learning or skill in divinity ? The emperor liked this man so well, that
he was finally chosen. They did the gentleman a great unkindness,
for of a creditable and graceful alderman, they made of him a very
insipid bishop.
But what is to our purpose is this : Nectarius, though he was by
belief and profession a Christian, yet had not been as yet baptised.73
They were forced, having baptised him, to give him ordination a few
days after, notwithstanding the apostolical canon against choosing a
novice for a bishop.
§ 2. The antipsedobaptists would make an argument from hence that
his parents must have been of their persuasion since they had not
baptised him in infancy. But first they ought to show that his parents
were Christians, since, as I said before, half the world at this time were
such as had been since they came to age, converted from heathenism
and liked Christianity ; but the greater part of them did put off their
baptism from time to time for a long while. And one might name
several beside this man that were pitched on by the people for bishops
71 Clemens Romanus, Epist. i. ad Corinth, c. liv. « Naz. Orat. 150 ad Episcopos.
"Socrat., 1. v. ; Soz., 1. vii.
St John Chrysostom. 49
before they were baptised. Some, whose parents are known to be
heathens, and some whose parents are not at all mentioned in history ;
so that it is impossible to know what religion they were of. But they
do not make instances for this purpose, unless they are proved, at least
by probable arguments, to have been born of Christians.
AS for Nectarius's parents, we know nothing of their religion. And I
believe it is as hard to find who- they were, as it is to know who was
Homer's or Job's father.
Sect. 8. Of St John Chrysostom.
His parents were probably heathens at the time of his birth.
§ i. Among all the ancient Fathers there is none that has had so
many to write his life as St Chrysostom. For, besides that Palladius,
who lived together with him, has written his Dialog purposely on that
subject, the ancient historians who lived nigh this time — Socrates,74
Sozomen,75 Theodoret,76 &c. — have given a larger account of him than
of any other man. And in the Middle Ages there are abundance that
have written tracts of the same ; but these later have intermixed several
fables which are disproved by the elder.
Of these, Palladius says " that he was baptised by Meletius, Bishop
of Antioch, after he had been instructed by him three years in the
Christian religion. And though none of the other ancient writers do
mention this his baptism at man's age, yet it is very probable, since, as
far as we can learn, his parents were heathens at the time of his birth.
Georgius, patriarch of Alexandria,78 and Metaphrastes, do say they were,
and they are not in this contradicted by those elder.
§. 2. His father, Secundus, died presently after he was born, as he
himself intimates, Lib. i. de sacerdotio. His mother, Anthusa, was a
Christian when this her son was twenty years old ; but that is no argu
ment that she or her husband were so at the time of his birth. At that
time the heathens turned Christians as fast as the Papists in England
turned Protestants in the time of the Reformation. And even at that
time when her son was twenty years old, though she was then a Chris
tian in belief, yet the aforesaid historians, Georgius and Metaphrastes,
say, that she was not baptised till her son was baptised first. They say
it of his parents in the foresaid life, that they were baptised by Meletius
after their son. But it could be true only of his mother, his father being
dead long before.
I believe the antipsedobaptists would not have conceived that they had
ground enough to make Chrysostom one of their instances, if they had
not been encouraged thereto by Grotius. And what he says,79 is, that
™ Lib. vi. 73 Lib. viii. 76 Lib. v.
77 Dial, de vita Chrysostom. 78 Vita Chrysostom. "9 Annot. in Matt. xix.
5o TJie History of Infant Baptism.
" he being born of Christian parents, as the truer opinion is, and edu
cated by Meletius, yet was not baptised till the twenty-first year of his
age."
That he was born of Christian parents he brings no proof at all. And
it is little to the purpose that he was educated by Meletius. As bishops
do not use to take infants to nurse (though lads or young men to
educate they may), so in this case it appears that Chrysostom was
twenty, or at least eighteen years old, before he came to Meletius. And
then Meletius did with him as any bishop now would do with a young
man that had been brought up in heathenism : he instructed him, and
when he had continued a catechumen three years, baptised him.
That he was so old as I say before he came to Meletius, is plain ;
because, by all the accounts, he came not to him till he forsook the
school of Libanius, the heathen master of rhetoric. And that he con
tinued his hearer till that age, appears by what he himself writes, Ora-
tione i, ad viduam juniorem ; where, speaking in praise of those women
that continue widows, and how they are valued even among heathens,
he tells this story : " For I formerly, when I was young, took notice that
my master, who was one of the most superstitious men that ever lived, did
much admire my mother. For as he asked some that were about him
who I was, and one made answer that I was a widow-woman's son, he
asked me how old my mother was, and how long she had been a widow :
and when I told him she was forty years old, and that it was twenty
years since she buried my father, he was much affected at it, and speak
ing aloud to those that were present, ' Strange,' says he, ' what brave
women there are among the Christians ! ' "
Some chronologers find it more agreeable with the computation of
time to suppose that it was not full twenty, but eighteen, which, by
a round number he here calls twenty. But it is much one to this
purpose.
The saying of Libanius seems to suppose that Anthusa had been a
Christian now for a considerable time ; or, at least, that he took it so.
But as he knew nothing of her concerns till that moment, her profess
ing of Christianity at that time was enough to make him say what he
did, without making any inquiry how long she had been of that
profession.
Some readers also will be apt to conclude that Chrysostom had been
at that time but a little while a hearer of Libanius (from whence it would
follow probably that Anthusa was a Christian when she first sent her son
to this school), because Libanius did not at this time know who he was.
But the nature of those auditories or lectures was, that one from one
part of the city, and another from another, came on the weekly lecture
days to hear, and sent their contributions : so that a lad or a man might
be a hearer for a long time before the master had any personal know-
St John Chrysostom. 5 1
ledge of him. The word school being otherwise used in our time
might be apt to make this mistake. _But it is to be taken in the ancient
sense, as in Acts xix. 9. The school of Tyrannus was not a college of
lads under his care, but a place of public lectures that he kept.
§ 3. There is, on the contrary, reason to think that she was not a
Christian when she consented that her son should hear this master, who
was a spiteful enemy to the Christian religion. And as this is probable
of itself, so it is made more than probable that not only she, but her son
himself also was a heathen when he came first to hear him, by what
Sozomen affirms,80 viz., that " On a time when Libanius was like to die,
some of his friends asked him who he thought fit should be his succes
sor ? And he answered : ' John [meaning this John who came afterward
to be called Chrysostom] should have been the man, if the Christians
had not stole him away from us.' " The word is sffuXqaav ' robbed us of
him.' Which argues that he was a heathen before.
§ 4. M. Du Pin, in the notes he gives upon what he had said of Chry
sostom, says, that " Some writers make his parents to be heathens ; but
that he himself in the first sermon against the ' AVO/AOIQI, says, 'That he
was bred up and nourished in the Church ; ' and that it appears out of
his first book de Sacerdotio, c. i., that his mother was a Christian when
his father died, which was quickly after she was delivered of him." 81
Having a great regard to everything that this excellent author says, I
read over on purpose both those tracts ; and in the sermon found no
thing that seemed to relate anything at all to this matter, so that I
believe there must be some mistake. Also in the first chapter of the
book cited there is nothing at all of the matter. That which I guess the
most probable to be meant is chapter ii., where Chrysostom's mother,
earnestly intreating him not to leave her, recounts to him the great
troubles she had undergone about his estate and education in her
widowhood ; and yet that she had kept herself a widow, and had gone
through the brunt of all these fatigues. " In the first place," says she,
" being assisted by the help [or, influence] that is from above, vvo rijs
civudzv jSorjdovfievq POKES' and then also the comfort which I had by the
continual sight and company of you, my son, did not a little contribute
to it."
But here is nothing but what might be properly said by a Christian
woman in reference to those times in which she had been a heathen :
since God Almighty employs His Providence in relieving the necessities
not only of Christians, but of all men and other creatures that know Him
not. She does not mention, in all that long speech, any praying to God,
or use of His Word, that she had made in those days, which to me is
a greater proof that she was not at that time a Christian, than the
foresaid words are that she was.
80 Hist., 1. viii. c. ii, 81 Nouvelle Bibliot., t. iii. in Chryso.
52 The History of Infant Baptism.
At least here is nothing that can nigh counterveil the argument from
the foresaid words of Libanius concerning this John's heathen profession
at first rehearsed by Sozomen. And Sozomen is a good witness in this
case, having lived part of his time together with Chrysostom. For he
had written several books before that history, and he had completed that
history in 440. So that he must have been born before St Chrysostom
died, which was anno 407.
Sect. 9. Of St Ambrose.
There is no account of his parents being Christians at the time of
his birth.
§ i. St Ambrose's case is just the same with that of Nectarius. And
he himself, after he had heard how Nectarius was chosen Bishop of
Constantinople, said, " I was utterly unwilling to be ordained ; and,
when there was no remedy, desired that at least my ordination might
be delayed for a longer time. But the rule of the Church could not
prevail; the force of the people prevailed. Yet the western bishops
have approved of my ordination by their consent ; and the eastern by
their doing the same thing." 82 The rule or prescription that he speaks
of, is that mentioned by St Paul (i Tim. iii. 6), which canon it seems
the people would by force have to be dispensed with, when they had an
extraordinary opinion of a man.
He was a layman, and was Governor under Valentinian, the emperor,
of some provinces of Gallia Cisalpina ; and when the people of Milan
(which was one of the cities under his government) were, after the death
of Auxentius their bishop, in a tumult about choosing another, he came
to keep the peace, and persuaded them to quietness and concord. He
spoke to them so handsomely and so gravely, that all parties agreed on
a sudden to pitch upon him for bishop.83 He opposed it what he
could : but they sent to the Emperor for his consent, because he was
at that time the Emperor's minister. And he said, " He was very glad
that the men he chose for governors were so well liked by the people,
that they would choose the same for bishops." So he gave his consent,
but yet he would not determine the choice, as being a thing out of his
sphere. He ordered the bishops then present in or about that city to
direct the choice of the people, who continued resolute for Ambrose
But Ambrose was not as yet baptised. He received baptism at the hands
of Simplicianus,84 and within eight days was ordained bishop.
§ 2. Our business being to inquire why he was not baptised in
infancy ; the antipsedobaptists would have it that he was born of Chris
tian parents : and some of them stick not to say, that Paulinus in his
** Epist. 82, ad Vercellens. Eccl.
83 Paulinus in vita Rufinus,J. ii. c. xi. ; Socr., 1. iv. c. xxx. ; Sozomen, Theodoret,
'• lv- c- V1- M Augustin. Confess., 1. viii. c. ii.
St Ambrose. 53
Life says he was. But Paulinus does not say so. What he says of
his father is this, that he was a nobleman of Rome, and Governor
of Gallia. But he was the less likely to be a Christian for that : the
Senate and great men of Rome being the last body of men in
the empire that came over to the Christian faith. Insomuch that
a long time after this, when St Ambrose was an old man, Valentinian
the Second had much ado to withstand the attempt made by the Senate
to bring again into fashion the heathen worship. So says St Ambrose
at his funeral : " Before his death he refused to grant the privileges of
the temples, when such men stood up for them, of whom he might well
be afraid. Whole crowds of heathen men came about him ; the Senate
petitioned. He was not afraid for the sake of Christ to incur the dis
pleasure of men." s5 And if one may guess by circumstances, he lost the
empire and his life in this quarrel ; Eugenius, the usurper that prevailed
against him, having all the heathen party on his side : who restored
those heathen altars which Valentinian had denied, and set up temples
of Jupiter.86 And Argobastes had threatened, if he overcame Theodosius,
to make the great church87 at Milan (the St Paul's of that city) a
stable for his horses, because they would not communicate with Eugenius,
nor receive his offering, as being an usurper. But better news came to
town quickly, as I showed before 88 in the history of Valentinian.
I bring in this to show that when Paulinus makes St Ambrose's father
to have been a great man at Rome, that is no argument that he was a
Christian. But, indeed, Paulinus, or whoever wrote that life (for
Erasmus 89 takes it^to be a forgery of some late monk, as I observed
before), knew so little of his father's concerns, that he did not know his
name. He makes his name to be Ambrosius, because the son's was
so : but his name, if his son knew better,90 was Symmachus, though
the Life-writers, copying one out of another, do to this day call him
Ambrosius. He seems to have died while St Ambrose was young.
But at the time when St Ambrose was come to man's estate, Paulinus
does indeed say, that his mother was a widow, and dwelt at Rome, and
was then a Christian : if that would avail anything to prove that her
husband or she were so formerly, when he was born.
§ 3. On the contrary, a strong proof that they were not, is that which
he says of himself, that he was not brought up in the bosom of the
Church. For in his second book de Po&nitentia, c. viii., speaking of his
own unworthiness and unfitness to be a bishop, he says it will be said
of him, " Ecce ille, non in ecclesise nutritus sinu," &c. ' Lo ! this man
that was not brought up in the bosom of the Church,' &c.
As for what St Ambrose's own thoughts were of the necessity of
85 Orat. in obitum Valentiniani. ^ Paulinus in vita Ambrosii.
87 Aug. de Civ. Dei., 1. v. c. xxvi. * Sect. 3, § 3.
89 Censura prefixa operibus Ambrosii. 90 Ambros. Orat. in obitum Satyri.
54 The History of Infant Baptism.
infant baptism, it appears by his words cited before,91 that he made it a
great question " whether a child could be saved without it."
Sect. 10. Of St Hierom.
There is no proof to the contrary, but that he was baptised in infancy,
§ i. St Hierom, who wrote the lives of several persons of note that
had been before him, found none of the ancients that came after him,
so kind as to write his : for that life which was formerly published with
his works, is a mere fable. Yet he having wrote a great many occasional
letters, which for the goodness of the style, and the learning contained
in them, are preserved, many of the chief passages of his life may be
picked out of them.
In all that he has said of himself, or the anonymous author of the
life aforesaid, or anybody else has said of him, there is no ground to
question his baptism in infancy, except an obscure passage mentioned
twice in the same words, and those ambiguous ones in two letters that
he wrote to Pope Damasus.
The occasion was this : — St Hierom being retired from Rome into
Syria, in order to lead a monk's life there, found the people of those
parts much divided, not so much in opinions of religion, as in disputing
which of several that were set up was the lawful Bishop of Antioch with
whom they ought to hold communion. Some acknowledged Meletius,
others refusing him followed Paulinus, and others adhered to Vitalis.
And another difficulty was, they thereabouts expressed their faith in
the Trinity by acknowledging three hypostases. Being asked by the
Latins what they meant by hypostases, they answered, " Personas sub-
sistentes," ' Persons subsisting.' St Hierom and the other Latins answered
that they had the same faith, and owned three Persons subsisting. This
was not enough ; they would have them express the word itself " three
hypostases." St Hierom scrupled the doing that, because hypostasis
among secular authors had signified substance or essence, and " who,"
says he, " will with a sacrilegious mouth preach up three substances ? "
And again, " If anyone by hypostasis, meaning ousiam, essence [or
being] does not confess that there is but one hypostasis in three persons,
he is estranged from Christ."
About these things he writes to Damasus, who had in the meantime
been made Bishop of Rome,92 desiring to know whether he and the
Church of Rome (for he is resolved to go by their example) do allow of
this word hypostasis for person. And also which of the aforesaid
parties, viz., of Meletius, Paulinus, or Vitalis, they would communicate
with, for he would do the same. " And this I do," says he, " Inde nunc
meae animae postulans cibum, unde olim Christi vestimenta suscepi : "
91 Ft. I. ch. xiii. § 2. 92 Epist J7
St Hierom. 5 5
' desiring now food [or instruction] for my soul from that place where I
formerly took upon me the garments of Christ.'
This letter not procuring, as it seems, an answer so soon as he ex
pected, he writes another, Epist. 58, to the same purpose, desiring him
with greater importunity to give him his answer, in which he uses the
same motive, but expressed in words so just the same, that one gives no
light to the other : " Ego igitur, ut ante jam scripsi, Christi vestem in
Romana Urbe suscipiens," &c., 'I therefore, who, as I wrote before,
took on me the garment of Christ in the City of Rome,' &c.
From this place Erasmus93 raised a conjecture that he was baptised
at Rome. And if so, he could not be baptised in infancy ; for he was
born at Stridon in Dalmatia, and did not come to Rome till he was big
enough to go to the grammar school.
And what Erasmus spoke doubtfully, other following writers of this
Father's life, Baronius, Du Pin, Dr Cave, &c., have, as it happens in
relating matters, told as an absolute unquestioned thing.
That which Erasmus says is this : " He means his baptism by that
taking on him Christ's garments, for I think he does not mean it of his
receiving priest's orders ; but in baptism there was a white garment
given them."
He might have been sure enough that he did not mean it of the habit
of a priest, for St Hierom was not as yet ordained priest when the letter
was writ ; and when he was ordained, it was not at Rome but at Antioch,
by Paulinus, to whose communion Damasus had, it seems, advised him.
§ 2. But there was another sort of habit, or garment, which he had
then already put on, and which he knew to be very much valued by
Damasus, whose acquaintance he now sought, and which he probably
took upon him at Rome (for he took it on him in his younger years,94
and it was at Rome that he spent those), and that was the habit of a
monk, which he then wore when he wrote that letter. And it is a great
deal more likely that he means that, than the albes, which were worn but
a few days. Especially since neither he, nor, I think, any other author,
among all that variety of expressions which they use for denoting bap
tism, do ever use that phrase of " receiving the garments of Christ,"
because the ordinary Christians did not use for constant wearing any
particular garment as a badge of their religion. But the monks and
virgins that had professed perpetual virginity did at that time, as has been
usual ever since, wear a peculiar habit as a token of their profession.
Of which, if any one doubt, it must be one that has never read any
thing in St Hierom ; for he, being given to an overweaning opinion of
that way, mentions it with great eulogiums on every turn. And as he
calls the persons, " Servos Christi," and " Christo sacratos," ' servants
of Christ,' and ' consecrated to Christ ; ' and the virgins, " Virgines Dei,"
93 In vita Hieronymi. y4 See § 5.
56 T/ie History of Infant Baptism.
' God's virgins,' as if married people did not belong to God or Christ at
all— so, what is most to our purpose, he commonly calls that peculiar
sort of coat that the virgins or nuns wore, " Christi tunicam," ' the coat,'
or garment, ' of Christ.' And the veil, " Flammeum Christi," ' the veil
of Christ' Of each of which I will give one instance.
In his Epitaphium, or funeral oration, in praise of Paulla,95 he re
counts how desirous she had been in her life-time that her children and
those that belonged to her should take on them that habit and profession,
of renouncing the world, and leading a single life, as she had done that
of a widow ; and how she had in great measure her desire, for, besides
that Eustochium her daughter was then a professed virgin, her grand
daughter also by her only son Toxotius, being then a child, was, by her
parents, " Christi flammeo reservata," * designed to wear the veil of Christ.'
And in his letter to Eustochium,96 the subject whereof is, " de virgini-
tate servanda," to export her to continue constant and unstained in
her purpose of perpetual virginity ; he says, ' It is not fitting, when one
has taken hold of the plow, to look back ; nor being in the field, to
return home : ' " Nee post Christi tunicam ad tollendum aliud vesti-
mentum tecto descendere : " ' Nor after one has put on the coat of
Christ, to come down from the roof to take any other garment.'
Since these expressions are the very same with those that he used
before of himself ; it is probable that those also are to be understood
of the monk's habit : or at least, it is not at all necessary that they must
be understood of his baptism at Rome. And if they be not, then there
remains no kind of ground to doubt of his being baptised at Stridon,
in infancy, as other Christian children were. For neither Erasmus nor
any of those that have followed him, have brought any other proof but
these words ; and had it not been for them no man had ever had such
a surmise.
§ 3. Baronius does indeed say,97 that " after he was baptised, he pre
sently reformed his life, which before he had led in some lewdness :
and whereas he had lost the first virginity, he kept undefiled that which
he calls the second, which is after baptism."
If this were true or could be proved, the question were at an end.
But there seems to be no more ground for it than that Baronius, having
first taken for granted from Erasmus's conjecture that he was baptised
at man's age, thought it more decent to lay that fornication of which
he is known to be guilty, rather before his baptism than after.
The tract of St Hierom to which he refers for the proof of this, is
his " apology made for his books that he had wrote against Jovinian."
In which there is indeed mention of those two sorts of virginity, and
there is also a confession of his own loss of virginity. But it is in several
clauses or paragraphs that he mentions these two things, and not so as
96 Epist. 27. M Epist. xxii. w A.D. 372.
to affirm or intimate that he could claim either of the said sorts of
virginity himself. I think not, yet it may be proper to lay before the
reader the places themselves.
He had been accused by a great many, that in the said books against
Jovinian he had so excessively commended virginity, that he had in
some expressions represented all marriage as sinful, for which accusa
tion he had indeed given too much occasion. Yet he vindicates and
explains the places excepted against as well as he can. And then says,
" This therefore I protest, and make it my last declaration ; that I
did not then condemn marriage, nor do now condemn it Virginity I
do extol to the sky ; not that I am possessed of it, but that I the more
admire a thing that I myself have not. It is an ingenuous and modest
confession to commend highly that in others which one has not one's
self. Must not I, because being of a gross body I am fain to go on the
ground, admire that faculty that the birds have of flying in the air, and
envy the pigeon which
" ' Radit iter liquidum, celeres neque commovet alas.'
" ' With stretched-out wings glides through the yielding sky? '
" Let no man deceive himself: nor let him undo himself by hearken
ing to a soothing flatterer. The first virginity is that which is from
one's birth : the second is that which is from one's second birth. It is
none of my saying, it is an old rule. ' No man can serve two masters,
the flesh and the spirit. The flesh lusts against the spirit, and the
spirit against the flesh. These are contrary one to the other, that we
cannot do the things we would.' When anything in my book seems
severe, regard not my words, but the Scripture from which the words
are taken. Christ is a virgin. The mother of our virgin Lord is a
virgin," &c.
Here after he had confessed and apologised for himself, he passes to
the other theme of commending virginity, and showing the incon
veniences of an encumbered and secular state. Here is nothing
affirmed that he himself had either of the two sorts of virginity. And
if anyone judge, as Baronius seems to have done, that the chain of
thought leads one to think he meant so ; that conjecture will be much
overbalanced by what he says plainly and expressly of his own case in
another place,98 where he speaks of his ill life, and aggravates the guilt
of it as being the defiling of his baptism. For commenting on that
expression of Isaiah concerning himself, that he was ' a man of unclean
lips,' he says, ' He, as being a just man, had sinned only in word, and
therefore had only unclean lips, not a foul conscience. But I, as using
my eyes to lust, and being offended by my hand, and sinning by my
foot and all my limbs, have everything unclean. And because having
98 Explanatio Visionis Isaise, Epist. cxlii.
56 Tlie History of Infant Baptism.
' God's virgins,' as if married people did not belong to God or Christ at
all — so, what is most to our purpose, he commonly calls that peculiar
sort of coat that the virgins or nuns wore, " Christi tunicam," 'the coat,'
or garment, ' of Christ.' And the veil, " Flammeum Christi," ' the veil
of Christ' Of each of which I will give one instance.
In his Epitaphium, or funeral oration, in praise of Paulla,95 he re
counts how desirous she had been in her life-time that her children and
those that belonged to her should take on them that habit and profession,
of renouncing the world, and leading a single life, as she had done that
of a widow ; and how she had in great measure her desire, for, besides
that Eustochium her daughter was then a professed virgin, her grand
daughter also by her only son Toxotius, being then a child, was, by her
parents, " Christi flammeo reservata," ' designed to wear the veil of Christ.'
And in his letter to Eustochium,96 the subject whereof is, " de virgini-
tate servanda," to exjiort her to continue constant and unstained in
her purpose of perpetual virginity ; he says, ' It is not fitting, when one
has taken hold of the plow, to look back ; nor being in the field, to
return home : ' " Nee post Christi tunicam ad tollendum aliud vesti-
mentum tecto descendere : " ' Nor after one has put on the coat of
Christ, to come down from the roof to take any other garment.'
Since these expressions are the very same with those that he used
before of himself; it is probable that those also are to be understood
of the monk's habit : or at least, it is not at all necessary that they must
be understood of his baptism at Rome. And if they be not, then there
remains no kind of ground to doubt of his being baptised at Stridon,
in infancy, as other Christian children were. For neither Erasmus nor
any of those that have followed him, have brought any other proof but
these words ; and had it not been for them no man had ever had such
a surmise.
§ 3. Baronius does indeed say,97 that " after he was baptised, he pre
sently reformed his life, which before he had led in some lewdness :
and whereas he had lost the first virginity, he kept undefiled that which
he calls the second, which is after baptism."
If this were true or could be proved, the question were at an end.
But there seems to be no more ground for it than that Baronius, having
first taken for granted from Erasmus's conjecture that he was baptised
at man's age, thought it more decent to lay that fornication of which
he is known to be guilty, rather before his baptism than after.
The tract of St Hierom to which he refers for the proof of this, is
his " apology made for his books that he had wrote against Jovinian."
In which there is indeed mention of those two sorts of virginity, and
there is also a confession of his own loss of virginity. But it is in several
clauses or paragraphs that he mentions these two things, and not so as
* Epist. 27. "o Epist. xxii. w A_D 2.
vS/ Hicrom. 57
to affirm or intimate that he could claim either of the said sorts of
virginity himself. I think not, yet it may be proper to lay before the
reader the places themselves.
He had been accused by a great many, that in the said books against
Jovinian he had so excessively commended virginity, that he had in
some expressions represented all marriage as sinful, for which accusa
tion he had indeed given too much occasion. Yet he vindicates and
explains the places excepted against as well as he can. And then says,
" This therefore I protest, and make it my last declaration ; that I
did not then condemn marriage, nor do now condemn it. Virginity I
do extol to the sky ; not that I am possessed of it, but that I the more
admire a thing that I myself have not. It is an ingenuous and modest
confession to commend highly that in others which one has not one's
self. Must not I, because being of a gross body I am fain to go on the
ground, admire that faculty that the birds have of flying in the air, and
envy the pigeon which
" ' Radit iter liquidum, celeres neque commovet alas.'
" ' With stretched-out wings glides through the yielding sky? '
" Let no man deceive himself: nor let him undo himself by hearken
ing to a soothing flatterer. The first virginity is that which is from
one's birth : the second is that which is from one's second birth. It is
none of my saying, it is an old rule. ' No man can serve two masters,
the flesh and the spirit. The flesh lusts against the spirit, and the
spirit against the flesh. These are contrary one to the other, that we
cannot do the things we would.' When anything in my book seems
severe, regard not my words, but the Scripture from which the words
are taken. Christ is a virgin. The mother of our virgin Lord is a
virgin," &c.
Here after he had confessed and apologised for himself, he passes to
the other theme of commending virginity, and showing the incon
veniences of an encumbered and secular state. Here is nothing
affirmed that he himself had either of the two sorts of virginity. And
if anyone judge, as Baronius seems to have done, that the chain of
thought leads one to think he meant so ; that conjecture will be much
overbalanced by what he says plainly and expressly of his own case in
another place,98 where he speaks of his ill life, and aggravates the guilt
of it as being the defiling of his baptism. For commenting on that
expression of Isaiah concerning himself, that he was ' a man of unclean
lips,' he says, ' He, as being a just man, had sinned only in word, and
therefore had only unclean lips, not a foul conscience. But I, as using
my eyes to lust, and being offended by my hand, and sinning by my
foot and all my limbs, have everything unclean. And because having
98 Explanatio Visionis Isaiae, Epist. cxlii.
58 The History of Infant Baptism.
been once baptised with the spirit, I have defiled my garments again,
I deserve the second baptism, which is that otfire"
It was some great and mortal sin that he speaks of (for they do not
use to speak so of sins of daily incursion), and we read of no such that
he was guilty of but his fornication. His words also are such as to
particularise that
And besides, he professes in a great many places " (in the foresaid
letter to Damasus for one) that he undertook the monk's life as a state
of voluntary penance for his sins; whereas they that in those times
were baptised in their adult age, would have been counted greatly to
undervalue the grace of baptism, if they had thought any such thing
necessary for the sins they had committed before. They always speak
of baptism as giving a person a free, total, and absolute discharge from
all guilt of sin, original or actual, before that time.
§ 4. One thing that will stick as an objection in the minds of those
that are acquainted with the ecclesiastical discipline of that age, is this :
that if he had been baptised in infancy, or any time before his forni
cation, that sin being after his baptism, would have rendered him
incapable of holy orders. Because the canons of that time, those of
Nice,100 those of Eliberis,1 and those of Neocsesarea,2 do enact that if
anyone after his baptism did fall into fornication, or any other of the
great crimes, such a man, though he might by penance be restored to
lay communion, must never be ordained to the holy functions. And so
strict it was, that if such an one were ordained by mistake, his crimes not
being known, when they came afterwards to be known, he was to be de
posed by the Nicene canon ; but the Neocaesarean admits him to con
tinue in the name, and some part of the office, but not to offer, as they
called it, i.e., to consecrate the holy elements. And this they will have
to be observed, " because (as the words of the Nicene canon are) the
holy Church does in all things keep to that which is blameless," or,
without scandal. But as for heathens, or men unbaptised, they judged
that no sin whatever committed in that state was to be an impediment of
their promotion after they came to be baptised. In a word, they reckoned
that penance, or, a long course of repentance, would cure a mortal sin,
but so as to leave a scar ; but that baptism did perfectly wash off all
the stain and discredit of sins committed before it. So that St Hierom's
being ordained presbyter (as we said before he was) by Paulinus, will
make an argument that his baptism was after his fornication.
But then they that know that the canons ran thus, know also that the
practice was not always so strict and regular as the canon ; but that on
the contrary these and some other such strict rules were frequently dis
pensed with in the case of such men as came afterwards to be of great
merit or abilities, which the Church could not well want : and that St
99 F.pist. 61, 58, &c. 100 Can. 9, 10. 1 Can. 30. 2Can. 9, 10.
St Hieront. 59
Hierom was, without controversy, the most learned and best skilled
in interpreting the Scripture of any man then living ; and also was a
great favourite of Pope Damasus, whose interest was great in all the
Church.
And besides, an observation which retorts the force of this argument
strongly to the other side, is this ; that these canons had in great mea
sure their force upon St Hierom. For he not only protested, when he
was made presbyter, as he tells us himself,3 that if Paulinus, who or
dained him, " meant thereby to take him out of his state of monachism
[or, penance] that he would not so accept it ; " but also, after he was
ordained, refused, out of a deep humility and sense of his sin, to execute
the priestly office, at least in the principal parts thereof. Of which there
are these proofs.
1. That in all his letters and works one finds no mention or instance
of his acting in that office. Of this I am no farther confident, than that
having taken notice as I read, I remember none.
2. That Epiphanius affirms this of him and of Vincentius, another
monk that had been ordained. The occasion was this. Epiphanius
had in a case which he judged to be of necessity, ordained Paulinianus,
St Hierom's younger brother, priest ; though the place in which he did
it was out of his own diocese. Being blamed for this encroachment by
John, Bishop of Jerusalem, he makes this apology, " Though no man
ought to go beyond his own measure, yet Christian charity, in which
there is no guile, is to be preferred before all. Nor should you consider
what is done, but at what time, and in what manner, and for what rea
sons, and upon whom the thing was done. For when I saw that there
was a great number of holy brethren in the monastery, and the holy
presbyters Hierom and Vincent, by reason of their modes ty and humility,
would not execute the offices proper for their title, nor labour in that part
of the ministry in which consists the chief salvation of Christians," 4 &c.
His being made priest after his sin is not so great a proof of his bap
tism coming between, as those severe censures of himself are that his
sin was after his baptism. He that in that age should have spoken of
his sins committed before baptism, as he does of his, " I came into the
fields and wilderness, that there bewailing, durescentia peccata, ' my sins
that lie so hard upon me,' I might move the pity of Christ towards me,
•would have been censured to derogate from that article of the creed, I
believe one baptism for the remission of sins." '° And he himself says in
other places, " All fornications and lewdnesses of the most scandalous
nature, impiety against God, parricide or incest, &c., are washed away in
this Christian fountain or laver." 6
In how different a strain does St Austin confess his sins, which, though
8 Epist. 61. contra errores Joannis Hierosol. 4 Epist. ad. Joann. Hierosol.
5 Epist. 6l. 6 Epist. ad Oceanum de unius uxoris viro.
60 The History of Infant Baptism.
much greater than St Hierom's, viz., a continued course of fornication
with several harlots, yet because his baptism came after them, he says
thus of them, " What praise ought I to give to the Lord that my memory
recounts these things, and yet my soul is in no terror for them?"7
§ 5. I said he entered into a monk's life young (when I was showing
that it was probable he took the habit at Rome). He himself says so in
several places.8
The vulgar reader is not to imagine, that this monastic life was then
of the same sort with that which is now for the most part in use in the
Church of Rome. On the contrary, the first institution and primitive
practice of it was commendable. It is time, and the corruption of the
age, and superstitions added to it, and the great revenues that have been
settled on the monasteries, that have perverted it. They professed
virginity ; and they did accordingly with wonderful hardships of diet,
lodging, &c., keep under the body. They sold all they had, and gave it
to the poor. They renounced all the affairs of secular life, but at the
same time used daily labour for their living : they had not then the fat
of the land, nor one politic head, whose interest they were to promote.
If anyone endeavoured to live at ease, or indulge himself, he was not
counted a monk. St Hierom speaks of some few that he had seen of
this sort. " I have seen," says he, " some that after they have re
nounced the world, vestimentis duntaxat, 'in their garments or habit only,'
and by a verbal profession, not in deeds, have altered nothing of their
former way of living. They are richer, rather than poorer, than before.
They have as much attendance of servants," 9 &c. So that we see all
monks, good or bad, wore the garments of a monk.
Yet, as commendable as it was in the practice then, St Hierom has
been under some censure for his excessive urging it on people, not only
in his own time but ever since ; and not only among Protestants, but
among those of the Church of Rome, that are anything impartial. M.
Du Pin, who is highly to be valued for that quality, says of him,
" Concerning virginity and the monks' life, he often speaks so, as if he
would have one think they are necessary for salvation." 10
Where shall one meet, even among the late monks, an expression in
praise of this sort of life more exorbitant than one that he has in his
letter to Eustochium, a lady that professed that state ? Where, address
ing himself to Paulla, her mother, he says, " Your daughter has procured
you a great benefit. You are now become God's mother-in-law, Socrus
Dei esse coepisti." This is something worse than calling the habit " the
garments of Christ." He means that the daughter, by professing a
ehgious virginity, was become the spouse of Christ, and so the mother
must be His mother-in-law. But such allegories, carried too far, border
\ Confess., 1. iii. c. vii. 8 Epist> iit it> 62> &c>
tpist. iv. ad Rusticum. w NOUV. BibL, t. iii. p. I.
upon impiety. They are not to be so easily pardoned to a man of a
cool head. But St Hierom having had the spleen to a high degree must
be allowed some favour in the censure of his expressions. Those men
when they are in, at commending or disparaging anything, are carried to
speak more than they mean at their sedate times.
§ 6. But it was not during the times of Damasus that St Hierom fell
under any censure for this his over-lashing ; but afterwards in the times
of Siricius. Damasus had been so much of the same temper, that it is
likely he approved of him the better for it ; and that one reason of his
using those high-flown expressions was to ingratiate himself with him.
And we find him, in his writings, during this later popedom, frequently
appealing to the times of Damasus. " I wrote," says he, " while
Damasus of blessed memory lived, a book against Helvidius of the per
petual virginity of the blessed Mary, in which I had occasion, for the
setting forth the advantage of virginity, to say many things of the incon
veniences of marriage. Did that excellent man, and learned in the
Scriptures, that virgin doctor of the Church, which is a virgin, find any
fault with that discourse ? And in my book to Eustochium, I said some
things harder yet concerning marriage ; and yet nobody was offended at
it. For Damasus, being a lover of chastity, heard my commendations
of virginity with a greedy ear." n
This last is the book which he complains is now lapidatus — stoned,
or generally condemned.
He says, also, in another place, " that Damasus did himself write in
commendation of virginity both in prose and verse."12
It is the less wonder that in letters between these two, that did so
magnify this state of life, the habit or garment by which the continent
life of a monk was professed, should be called the " garment of Christ."
And if what I have produced be sufficient to make this probable, then
I have cleared St Hierom's parents of an imputation that has been laid
on them ever since Erasmus's time, even by learned men ; and which
St Hierom himself would have counted a heinous one. For when he
declares " how sinful it would be if any parents that are Christians
should suffer their children to die unbaptised " (as I have shown 13 he
does), he must judge that his parents had run a very sinful hazard if they
had let him continue so long, and then take so long a journey, before
they had procured him baptism.
Sect. ii. Of St Austin.
His father was a heathen when this his son was born, and a long time after.
§ i. There is no instance of this nature more commonly urged than
that of St Austin, and yet none that is a more palpable mistake.
II Apol. pro lib. contra Jovin. 12 Epist. ii. ad Nepotian. 13 Pt. I. ch. xv. I.
62 The History of Infant Baptism.
That he was about thirty-three years old when he was baptised, is
clear. He himself gives a large account of it in his book of Con
fessions.14' As he observed 15 that that book was in his life-time more
generally read than any other of his works ; so it has happened ever
since. That, of all others, having had the fortune to be translated into
many vulgar languages, everybody has observed the story of his baptism.
And it has cast scruples into the heads of many unlearned readers to
think if infant baptism were then practised, why he was not baptised in
infancy ?
§ 2. As for his parents : Possidius, who, a little after his death, wrote
his Life, says, in the beginning thereof, " that he was born of creditable
and Christian parents." So here matters are brought to a fair issue.
St Austin, in his books which I quoted,16 makes us to understand that
he never knew, heard, or read of any Christian that was an antipsedo-
baptist. And Pelagius, his adversary in the question of original sin,
whose interest it was to have found some, if there had been any, con
fesses that he knew of none. And yet now, it seems, St Austin's own
father was one.
And this must have passed for current, if St Austin himself had
not given us a truer, or at least a more particular, account of his
parents than Possidius has done. But this he does in the forementioned
book of his Confessions. Only there is this difference : that the story
of his baptism being set down at large, is taken notice of by everybody ;
but his father's want of Christianity being mentioned but briefly, and by-
the-bye in one or two places, has escaped the notice of many readers.
Marshall, in his Defence of Infant Baptism?1 or rather a friend of
his whom he made use of to search into matters of antiquity, " having
himself," as he there says, " but just leisure enough to look into these
authors now and then : " he was taken up, I suppose, with much higher
authors ; Calvin, Twiss, &c. But his friend has cleared this matter very
well ; which was easy to do. He has produced the particular places
where St Austin tells us that his father was no baptised Christian, nor
so much as a catechumen, nor did believe in Christ, till a good while
after he [St Austin] was born. Which are these :
In the first book of his Confessions, chap, xi., speaking of the time
when he was a child (about eight or nine years old, one must guess by
the story) he says of his father, " Ille nondum crediderat," ' he did
not yet at that time believe.'
In the second book, chap, iii., speaking to God of the state of his
father and mother at that time when he was, as himself mentions,
ixteen years old, he says, " In my mother's breast thou hadst already
begun thy temple, and made an entrance for thy dwelling-place. But
he [my father] was yet but a catechumen, and that but newly."
" L. ix. c. vi. « Retractat, 1. ii. c. vi. » Pt. i. ch. xix. §§ 17 and 30.
17 Page 58.
vSV Austin. 63
In the ninth book, chap, ix., reckoning up in a speech to God
Almighty the good deeds of his mother, who was then lately dead : he
says, " Finally, she also gained over to Thee her husband in the latter
end of his life. And had no more occasion to bewail that [crossness
and ill nature] in him after he was fidelis, a baptised Christian, which
she had endured in him before he was so."
Yet notwithstanding all this, the Life writers, copying out of Possidius,
and one out of another, do to this day write him " parente utroque Chris-
tiano natum, ' born of parents both Christians.' If he, or they, mean
that his parents were both Christians at the time of his birth, it is a
plain mistake. But if they mean that they became so before they died,
it is true, but ought to have been explained so : at least by the modern
writers, because of the occasion of mistake that it lays in the way of the
antipaedobaptists, of which there was formerly no fear.
His mother indeed was a Christian (in heart and belief at least :
whether baptised or not, we are not certain) at the time of his birth.
But what could a woman do against the will of such an imperious and
choleric husband as St Austin in many places 18 declares his father to
have been in those times ? She did what she could or dared : he says
of himself, "I was signed with the sign of Christ's Cross, and was
seasoned with His salt (ceremonies then used by Christians on their
children) even from the womb of my mother, who greatly trusted in
Thee." 19 But so solemn a thing as baptism she could not, or dared not,
it seems, procure to be administered against her husband's will. For it
was not a thing 20 then used to be huddled up in a private parlour, or
in the woman's bed-chamber, or without godfathers, &c., but had many
solemn circumstances, and was performed by putting the child into the
water in presence of the congregation, &c., except in some particular
cases of extreme haste and necessity.
It was contrary to her husband's inclination that she taught her child,
as she nursed him, the principles of Christian religion. As he plainly
intimates when he says, " So I then believed, and so did all our family,
except my father only ; who did not however so far over-rule the power
of my mother's godly love toward me, but that I believed in Christ,
though he did not." 21
St Paul persuades a believing wife to stay with an unbelieving
husband,22 partly for the hopes there is of gaining [or converting] him ;
and partly, because the unbelieving party is seldom so obstinate or
averse to Christianity, but that the children are allowed to be made
holy [or baptised] into it. Which I showed 23 to be the sense which the
most ancient writers give to his words. But still this must be under-
18 Confess., 1. ix. c. ix., &c. 19 Confess., 1. i. c. xi.
20 See Pt. I. ch. xv. Sect. 7, § 3. 21 Conf. 1. i. c. xi.
22 I Cor. vii. 23 pt- i. ch. xix. § 19, it. ch. xi. § II.
64 The History of Infant Baptism.
stood to hold for the most part, not always. There has been seldom
known any husband that would yield so little to the desires or petitions
of a wife as this man would, while he was a heathen. He used her not
as a companion, but as an absolute servant : even by the account which
the son gives of the father after his death.
In a word, St Austin's case was the same with that of Timothy, whose
mother was a Jewess ; and yet his father being a Greek, i.e., a heathen,
and probably a hater of the Jewish religion, as St Austin's father was of
the Christian, he had not been circumcised : as appears (Acts. xvi. i, 3).
" Him Paul took and circumcised him because of the Jews that were in
those quarters : for they knew all that his father was a Greek : " and there
fore, probably would be inquisitive whether he had been circumcised or
not.
Indeed, when St Austin was a child not yet big enough to go to
school, but capable to express his mind, and it happened that he fell ill
of a sudden pain in his stomach, so violent that he was like to die : and
he had, as he tells himself,24 " the motion of mind and the faith to beg
earnestly of his mother to get him baptised." She in that case would
have ventured to do it, and did in great haste bestir herself in providing
for it. And it had been done if he had not quickly mended of his pain.
But there are several things considerable in his case. i. It was a case
of great extremity : it must be done now or never. 2. It was at his own
desire, so that his father could not blame his mother. 3. In that case
a private and clinical baptism was sufficient. 4. It is probable that his
father was now mollified in that averseness that he had for the Christian
religion, in which he himself in a few years after thought fit to become
a catechumen, or hearer.
§ 3. Afterwards the scene altered in the family of Patritius, St Austin's
father. For when he began to believe in Christ, and to fear God, his
son Austin began to be estranged from religion and all good inclinations
by the heat of lust and fornication.25 And when his father now joined
with his mother in persuading him to associate himself with the Chris
tians, and of all the sorts of them to join with the Catholic Church ; this
advice had no effect upon him at that time, for he quickly after ran into
the blasphemous sect of the Manichees,26 who derided all baptism and the
Scriptures, and were no more Christians than the Mahometans are now.
Yet it had its effect afterwards. For twelve or thirteen years after,
when his father had now been dead a good while, and he disliking the
Manichees, turned a sceptic, or seeker, or (as they now call them) a
Deist, not knowing what religion to be of, he remembered the advice of
his parents which he had formerly despised : " And I resolved," says
he,27 " to be a catechumen in the Catholic Church, which had been re-
•4 L. i. c. xi. •» L. ii. c. i., ii., &c. * L. iii. c. vi.
87 L. v. c. ult. it. 1. vi. c. xi.
Monica, Adeodatus, Alipius, Tec/a, &c. 65
commended to me by my parents, so long till some certainty should
show itself to my mind which way I were best to take." And this
proved an occasion of his final conversion.
I the rather recite these words here, their meaning being explained by
the circumstances ; because taken by themselves they might strengthen
that opinion (which has been proved a mistake) that his father was a
Christian when this his son was born.
Sect. 12. Of Monica, Adeodatus, Alipius, and some others.
They do none of them make instances for this purpose.
•
§ i. Some (I think one or two) have named Monica, St Austin's
mother, among their instances, but without any kind of ground, since
there is no knowing whether she were born of Christian parents and
baptised in infancy, or of heathens, and baptised at years of discretion.
She had never been known if she had not been mother to St Austin.
Nobody mentions her but he, and he says nothing, that I remember, of
the state of his parents, but a great deal of her goodness and her care
of him.
§. 2. Adeodatus, St Austin's son, begotten in fornication, who being
fifteen years old,28 was baptised together with him, is likewise mentioned
without any reason. St Austin was a Manichee when this son was born
to him ; and they condemned all Christian baptism of infants or others,
as I shall show by-and-by 29 concerning them and some other sects. It
were absurd to expect that he should have procured him to be baptised
before he himself had renounced that opinion and thought fit to be
baptised himself. He says of him : " We [I and Alipius] joined him
with us of the same age of ourselves in Thy grace [the grace of baptism]
to be educated in Thy discipline, and were baptised," 30 &c. As Ishmael
was circumcised, so this youth was baptised the same day with his
father. Which was at Easter, anno 388.
§ 3. When I have spoken of Alipius, whom St Austin mentions as
baptised together with him, I hope I have done. It is only in com
pliance to Mr Tombs, that he need be mentioned at all. He had
observed that he was baptised when he was adult, and so makes him an
instance for this purpose,31 without giving him any proof or pretence of
it, that his parents were Christians. He might in a week's time have
collected a hundred such instances of persons baptised at man's age,
whose parents are utterly unknown, as Alipius's are, only people have
generally concluded that they were heathens, because they did not
baptise their children.
And there happen to be also some more particular proofs in his case.
88 Confess., 1. ix. c. vi. M Ch. v. § 3. so Confess., 1. ix. c. vi.
31 Exercit., p. 28, it. Examen. p. 14.
66 The History of Infant Baptism.
As that, before his conversion he abhorred or scorned the name of Christ;
as St Austin gives to understand, when after having given God thanks
for His grace in recovering him himself, he adds, " Thou didst also sub
due Alipius the brother of my soul, to the Name of Thy Only Begotten
our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, which he before took in disdain to
have inserted in our letters." K
And also that he was so ignorant of what the Christians believed or
held concerning the person of Jesus Christ. For having heard some
Christians maintain that He as a man had no soul, but that His Divinity
was in the stead of a soul to His body ; and thinking this to be the com
mon opinion of the Christians, and judging it to be absurd ; " he was,"
as St Austin says, "the more hardly brought over to the Christian
religion. But afterwards understanding this to be the mistake of the
Apollinarian heretics, he congratulated the Catholic Faith," ^ &c. So
improbable is it that he had Christian parents.
§ 4. There is one Den, an antipaedobaptist writer, and Danvers
from him,*4 that mentions a great many more names yet — viz., Pan-
cratius, Pontius, Nazarius, Tecla, Luigerus, Erasma Tusca, the three sons
of Leonilla. But they do but just mention them, and if the reader
would know who they are, and upon what grounds they are brought in
here, he must look to that himself.
For Tecla, if they mean the famous Tecla that is said to be baptised
by St Paul, there is no doubt but she was baptised in her adult age ; but
there is as much probability of St Paul's parents having been Christians,
as of hers. For the rest, nobody knows who they mean, for as some
of those names have had several persons called by them, so some have
had none at all that I know of.
What I have to add in this second edition to this and the foregoing
chapter, is, that whereas one Mr Delaun, in a Plea for Nonconformists,
written in King Charles II.'s time, had heaped together a great number
of quotations out of modern authors who had reported the ancient
opinions or usages to be, in any respect whatsoever, different from the
tenets or usages of the Church of England; and among the rest had
(though himself a paedobaptist, yet to puzzle matters) brought in at p
i i all that he could rake together against infant baptism— taking them,
I suppose, out of Danvers-viz., the sayings of Bishop Taylor, Grotius,
Lud. Vives, Daillb, Dr Field, Mr Baxter, Wai. Strabo, Boemus, which
nong several others I recited in the last chapter; and whereas there
TLTi6 . <luotations about infant baptism or the other subjects
t had been considered and answered by learned men of the Church
ough not in any particular answer to Delaun's pamphlet, but on other
is), and consequently, unless the nonconformists could produce
11 Confess., 1. ix. c. iv. » TK-J i ••
" Treatise of Baptism, Part I. ch.vii.
77*6' British Church. 67
some new matter, there seemed to have been said all that was necessary
to restore peace and union. Now the other day a certain busy writer
for dissension, instead of offering any new thing, reprinted Delaun's
book, with a pompous preface, as a piece that never was answered, a
finished piece, &c., which called for an answer from the churchmen.
As for infant baptism, there is not one word or quotation in it but
what had been fully answered, nor, as I think, on any other subject
Now at this rate we must never be at quiet ; if after objections fully
proposed, and all of them publicly answered, the method be, instead of
a fair reply, to reprint in a challenging way the very same objections
again.
The reason I have to think that he took all the quotations he has
against infant baptism out of Danvers, is, because where Danvers has
mixed any forgery of his own with the quotation, there Delaun has done
the like. As they do both quote Grot, in Matt. xix. 14, in the same
words, but forged ones, as where they make him say : " Infant baptism
for many hundred years was not ordinary in the Greek Church," and
where they make him speak of Constantine as an instance against infant
baptism, which he was never ignorant enough to do.
CHAPTER IV.
OF THE CHURCH OF THE ANCIENT BRITONS, AND OF SOME ANCIENT
SECTS, VIZ., THE NOVATIANS, AND THE DONATFSTS, WHICH ARE BY
SOME THOUGHT TO HAVE BEEN ANTIP^DOBAPTISTS, AND OF THE
ARIANS.
§. i. A BOUT twenty-six years ago a certain antipaedobaptist writer l
-ti- lighted upon an argument to prove, as he thought, the ancient
Christians in Britain, before the coming in of the English, to have been
against infant baptism. It is an evidence how great mistakes may arise
from the misprinting of two or three words in a book, and that in a book
of so little regard as Fabian's Chronicle. The account of the matter is
this.
.Venerable Bede wrote in the year 731 the Church History of Hie
English Nation, and tells how Austin the monk, after having made some
progress in planting Christianity among the English, made a proposal
to the Britons, desiring them to join in communion with him and his
new converts, and to assist in converting the English to the Christian
faith. But whereas the Britons held and practised rites and traditions
in many things different from those that he then brought from the Church
of Rome, he insisted that they should leave off their own and comply
1 Danv., Treat, of Bapt., Pt. II. c. vii.
C 2
8 The History of Infant Baptism.
with his ceremonies and customs. This they refused. And after many
altercations he at last made them this final proposal : " You practise in
many things contrary to our custom, and indeed contrary to the custom of
the universal Church. And yet if you will comply with me in these three
things— that you keep Easter at the right time, that you perform the office
of baptising (by which we are regenerated unto God) according to the
custom of the Holy Roman Church and the Apostolic Church, and that
you together with us do preach the Word of the Lord to the nation of
the English, we will bear patiently with all the other things which you
practise contrary to our customs. But they answered that they would
do none of these things, nor own him for their archbishop," 2 &c.
This same passage is related by several others of our English historians
in the after ages, who, taking it from Bede, relate it to the same sense.
Among the rest, one Fabian, a sheriff or alderman of London in King
Henry the Seventh's time as I take it, wrote a chronicle of the English
history, in English. There are two editions of his book which I have
seen in the Oxford Library. There may be more : In one of them
(which is the first I know not : I think the title page in one was torn)
his words are to the same sense as Bede's, being these ; at fol. 56.
®hen be sapa to them, 5>en w tool* not assent to ms hestes gener=
allg, assent pe to me especially in thre thpnges. &he first is that pe
fcepe <EsterDap in Due fourme ana tgme as it is orDegneD, ®he scconD
that pe gibe Christendom to the chiiDren in the manner that is useto in
the Cbptcbe of Rome. 2HnU trje tbBrUe that pe preche unto the Anglis the
ORorft of <£>oD3 &c.
But in the other, these words, in the manner that is usefc in the
Cbprche Of Rome, are omitted : so that the condition stands thus, that
£e gi&e Christendom to tbc CbtlDren. And this last-mentioned edition
our author having lighted on, concluded that the British Church before
these times had not been used to give Christendom to, or baptise,
children.
But he should have considered that the account of such a thing
should be taken from Bede and the other ancient historians, and not
from Fabian : especially since Fabian in his preface acknowledges (as
Mr Wills says,3 for I did not read that) that what he relates of the
ancient affairs, he has from Bede ; and consequently his meaning must
be to express Bede's sense ; and so that edition first mentioned must be
as he meant it, and the omission in the other must have been by mistake,
of himself, or the printer.
Fox 4 and other authors that have wrote since Fabian, recite the matter
as Bede does.
This argument taken from Fabian is endeavoured to be confirmed by
3 Beds, Eccl. Hist., 1. ii. c. ii. 3 Infant Baptism Asserted, p. 124.
4 Martyrology at the year 600.
Novatians and Donatists. 69
some other collateral ones : of which none is worth the mentioning, but
that from Constantine's being born among the Britons and not yet bap
tised in infancy. And that is not worth it neither, considering that very
few nowadays believe that he was born in Britain, and none at all but
this author, and one more, that his father was a Christian.5
Pelagius was certainly born in Britain. And since he owns (as I have
produced his words 6) that he " never heard of any Christian, Catholic,
or sectary that denied infant baptism," it is certain his own countrymen
did not.
The man brings this for one of his arguments to prove that the British
Church must have opposed the baptising of infants, " because they so
fully prized and adhered to the Scriptures, and rejected human tradi
tions, especially all Romish innovations," &c. If this be any argument,
then for certain the psedobaptists' cause is in a bad case.
§ 2. The Novatians and Donatists are also brought in by the same
writer as adversaries of paedobaptism. Though both these parties of
men were schismatics, and forsook the communion of the established
Churches in those times : yet their differences having been rather in
points of discipline than of faith, and they having been at some times of
the Church very numerous, and the time of their flourishing within our
limited period of four hundred years, an argument from their practice of
keeping infants unbaptised would be considerable. But it would be
withal a very strange discovery : since there are so many books extant,
written at the same time by Cyprian, Eusebius, Optatus, Austin, &c.,
containing a ventilation of all the disputes between the Catholics and
these men, in which nothing has ever been observed that should intimate
that they had any such practice or opinion. For among all the reasons
that the Donatists (who rebaptised such as, having been baptised by the
Catholics, came afterwards over to them) gave, why the baptism of the
Catholics was null, there is none that lays any blame on their giving it
in infancy. But, on the contrary, St Austin does often make use of the
instance of infant baptism, as granted by them, to overthrow some other
errors that they had about baptism.
It would, I say, be a strange discovery to make now. But the proofs
brought for it do fail one's expectation. For as for those out of St
Austin against the Donatists, Osiander, Fuller, Bullinger, &c., they are
all by Mr Baxter 7 and Mr Wills 8 shown plainly to be nothing to the
purpose. And what he would prove out of Austin de Anima and Wal-
densis, that the dispute between Vincentius Victor and St Austin was,
whether infants ought to be baptised, will appear a great mistake by
reading what I have produced of the opinion of Vincentius in this col-
5 See ch. iii. sect. 2. § 2. 6 P. I. ch. xix. § 30.
7 More Proofs for Infant Bapt., Pt. II. § 2. ch. iv.
8 Infant Baptism Reasserted, p. 139.
~0 The History of Infant Baptism.
lection.9 For it was only whether infants that happened to die unbap-
tised might ever enter into the Kingdom of Heaven.
Yet he quotes some writers that do indeed say the thing that he would
prove. But they are only Sebastian Frank, and one Twisk. It is an
artifice that may take with some very ignorant people, but I believe
not approved by the more knowing or candid of his own opinion, to
quote for some matter of ancient history an author that is but of yester
day, and of no note or credit. When a vulgar reader sees such a quota
tion he thinks it as good as the best, because he knows not the author ;
but one of any reading slights it for that reason, because he knows him
not It is this man's way through all his book to quote, for the prin
cipal things that are in dispute concerning antiquity, such books as the
foresaid Frank and Twisk, and one Merning, and a book that he calls
Dutch Martyrology. They are all, as it seems, Dutch writers of late
years, of the antipaedobaptists' way ; and if they say all that he quotes
them for, they say things without any regard whether they be true or
false. It is a known rule, that any modern writer affirming anything of
ancient history, without referring to some ancient author, is not at all to
be heeded. These men might as well have quoted him as he them, and
it had been a like authority.
One shall not see Mr Baxter in such a passion as he is in this place :
to premise to the answers that he gives to the several quotations about
these Novatians and Donatists, such sayings as : " Utterly false. False
again. This is something were it true : but it is such a kind of false
hood as I must not name in its due epithets. Not a word of truth ; no
such matter in that chapter, or the whole book. Blush, reader, for such
a man. Mr Bagshaw is now quite overdone in the quality of un
truths," » &c.
I produced in the collection 12 a canon of a Council of Carthage,
wherein they decree what is to be done in reference to that question,
whether they should admit to any office of the clergy those who in
their infancy, before they could judge of the error, had been baptised
by the Donatists, and afterwards came over to the Church. Cassander
and Mr Cpbbet had brought this as a proof that the Donatists, as well
as Catholics, baptised infants. This writer says: "That is but a
supposition at best that they might do so." 13 But I doubt anyone else
will take it for a plain supposition that they ordinarily did so.
That challenge of St Austin, and confession of Pelagius, produced
efore,14 that they never knew nor heard of any heretics or schismatics
t were against the baptising of infants, must be an undeniable proof
that neither of these two sects were so : since a considerable body of
'/': \ ch/ xx'.§§ 2> 3, 4- » Page 249, &c., 241, &c.
Pt. I. ch. xvi. fc§ i, 2 is Treat of B t pt n ch yii
14 Pt. I. ch. xix. §§ 1 7 and 30.
Novatians and Donatists. 7 1
each of them were remaining in those parts where these two men lived ;
and all their particular opinions were the subject of every day's dis
putations. And St Austin in his Book of Sects, wrote a particular of
their tenets u as well as of all the rest.
§ 3. The Arians are by some Catholic writers styled anabaptists.
These also made a considerable body of men in some part of our period
of, time, viz., of the first three hundred years after the Apostles.
Especially in the time of the Emperors Constantius and Valens ; who
took almost the same methods to force their subjects to turn Arians, or
at least to hold communion with the Arians as the French king does at
this day to force his to turn papists or go to mass. If the writer whom
we have been following for some time, had ever heard of, or lighted on
those places where the Arians are called anabaptists ; I am persuaded
he would have increased the catalogue of his friends with one sect
more. I would not have the antipaedobaptists claim any acquaintance
with so ill company ; and therefore do give them an account of the
reason why they had that name. It was not for that they had anything
to say against infant baptism : but because they, as well as the Donatists
before them, did use to baptise over again, such as came from the
Catholic Church to them ; not for that they had been baptised in
infancy (for if they had been baptised at man's age it was all one), but
for that they had received baptism from the Catholics, whom the Arians
did so hate, that they would not own any baptism given by them to be
good. This is evident both from St Austin, who recites their tenets,16
and also from an oration of St Ambrose which I mentioned before,
against Auxentius the Arian : where he says, " Cur igitur rebaptizandos,"
&c., ' Why does Auxentius say that the faithful people who have been
baptised in the name of the Trinity, must be baptised again?' And
this is all that the word anabaptist signifies : 'One that baptises over
again those that have been baptised already.' And therefore those of
the antipasdobaptists that know the signification of the word, do not
own the name : they denying theirs to be rebaptising.
The instance of the Emperor Valens that I gave before 17 (whom St
Basil exhorted to have his child baptised by the Catholic bishops, but
he chose to have it done by the Arians) is a clear proof that Arians as
well as Catholics baptised infants.
15 De Hseres., c. xlix. 16 De Heres., c. xlix.
17 Pt. I. ch. xii. §§ 9, 10.
7 2 The History of Infant Baptism.
CHAPTER V.
OF SOME HERETICS THAT DENIED ALL WATER BAPTISM. AND OF OTHERS
THAT BAPTISED THE SAME PERSON SEVERAL TIMES OVER. THE
DISPUTE IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH CONCERNING REBAPTISING.
OF THE PAULIANISTS, WHOM THE NICENE FATHERS ORDERED TO BE
BAPTISED ANEW IF THEY WOULD COME INTO THE CHURCH.
§ i. TT THAT St Austin and Pelagius said of all heretics (that they
V V had ever heard of) allowing infant baptism, must be under
stood of such as allowed any baptism at all. For otherwise, they knew
there were some sects that renounced all use of it to any persons,
infants or others. And St Austin had himself been of one of them.
And he does indeed express a limitation that is of the same effect,
when he says, "All that do receive the Scriptures of the Old and New
Testament, do own infant baptism for the remission of sins : " a for
those that denied all water baptism, did also generally renounce the
Scriptures.
It may be worth the while to gratify the Quakers with a short catalogue
of all their ancient friends in that point of denying baptism that were
within our period.
The historians that have given us the tale of all the heresies they had
heard of have been much too liberal of that name. For they have given
the name of heretics to some that deserved a worse, and should have
been called infidels ; and also to some that deserved one not so bad,
and should have gone for distracted people.
Of the first sort were the Valentinians, who made use of the name of
Christ only to mock and abuse the religion ; their own religion being a
mixture of idolatry, magic, and lascivious rites. They blasphemed the
Scriptures as false,2 and the Catholics as carnal ; and both as giving a
wrong account of Jesus Christ, of whom they made quite another sort
of being.
Of these Irenseus reckons up several sorts, which had their several
opinions concerning baptism. I gave a general account of them before 3
out of the eighteenth chapter of Irenaeus's first book. And here you
shall have Irenseus's words.
Having premised that " In this sect there are as many u<jro\vrpu<rei$,
redemptions [or, ways of baptism] as there are ringleaders," he adds :
" Some of them dress up a bride-chamber, and perform mystical cere
monies with certain profane words to those whom they initiate, and call
this a spiritual marriage, which they say is made according to the like
ness of the heavenly conjugations.
1 See the words, Pt. I. ch. xix. § 17. 2 Irenes, 1. iii. c. ii.
3 Pt. I., ch. xxi. § 2.
Qtiintilla, The Manichees, The Messalians. 73
" Others bring the party to the water, and as they are baptising, use
these words, ' In the Name of the unknown Father of all things ; in the
Truth, the Mother of all things ; in Him that came down on JESUS ; in
the union and redemption and communion of powers.'
" Some that they may amuse those whom they initiate, use certain
Hebrew words, Basema, Chamasi, Basenaora, &c.
'" Others of them again express their redemption [or, baptism] thus :
' The name that is hidden from every deity, dominion, and truth, which
JESUS of Nazareth put on in the zones of light,' &c.
" And he that is initiated [or, baptised] answers, ' I am confirmed and
redeemed ; and I redeem my soul from this ^EON and all that comes of
it, in the name of IAO,' &c.
" Then they anoint the baptised person with balsam ; for they say this
ointment is the type of that sweetness which surpasses all things. [Note,
that this is the first mention of Chrism that is anywhere read of. And
since I shall show presently, at chapter ix., that it was used by the
Catholics from testimonies of near the same date as this, one may con
clude that it came from some principle universally received by all
Christians, Catholic or heretic.]
" Some of them say that it is needless to bring the person to the water
at all : but making a mixture of oil and water, they pour it on his head,
using certain profane words much like them before-mentioned ; and they
say that that is redemption [or baptism]. This sort use balsam also.
" But others of them, rejecting all these things, say, 'That the mystery
of the unspeakable and invisible power ought not to be performed by
visible and corruptible elements ; nor that of incomprehensible and in
corporeal things be represented by sensible and corporeal things. But
that the knowledge of the unspeakable majesty is itself perfect redemp
tion [or, baptism].' " These last, I suppose, will be owned for friends.
§ 2. Tertullian wrote his book of baptism that he might put a stop to
the heresy that had been set on foot by one Quintilla, a woman preacher,
that had been at Carthage a little before, and had, as he says,4 seduced
a great many. The main of her preaching was against water-baptism :
" That it was needless, that faith alone was sufficient," &c. She had
come out, as he understood, from the sect of the Caians. That sect, as
impious as it was in other things,5 did not deny baptism that we read of.
She had, it seems, added that herself. He there largely sets forth the
falseness of her doctrine, and also her masculine impudence in usurping
the office of a preacher of it, though it had been never so true.
§ 3. The Manichees are the next. As little deserving the name of
Christians as the rest, and less than the Mahometans do. They made
the same account of their Manes as these do of Mahomet. They owned
Christ to be a true Prophet, as these do ; and Peter, Paul, John, &c., to
4 De Baptismo, c. i. 5 Epiphan. de Caianis. hoer, 38.
~4 The History of Infant Baptism.
have been his true Apostles. But they said (as these also do) that the
books which we have of theirs are no true records, but had been falsified.
And the same absurdity which the Christians now do urge against these
St Austin urged against them : " That if they plead our copies are falsi
fied, they ought at least to produce such as are truer." And he, who
had' been once seduced by them, tells us what they held as to baptism,
"They say that baptism in water does nobody any good; neither ^ do
they baptise any of the proselytes whom they delude into their sect." e
Yet St Cyril of Jerusalem 7 intimates that they had something instead
of baptism. " Their baptism," says he, " is such as I dare not describe
before men and women. I am afraid to tell in what matter it is that
they, dipping a fig, give it to their wretched people." Yet he intimates
what it was ; but it is so beastly that I will not do that.
§ 4. The Messalians seem to have been no other but a sort of enthu-
siastical people, who, leaving off their employments, thought it necessary,
or at least pleasing to God, to spend all their time in prayer and
rapture ; and thereby became subject to many hypochondriac conceits.
Epiphanius and St Austin, speaking of them in their catalogues, say
nothing of their denying baptism to infants. But Theodoret s and the
Historia Tripartita* out of him, repeats their sense thus : "That there
is no profit accruing to the baptised by baptism : but that fervent prayer
alone expels the devil." And says, " that the most noted men of their
sect were, Dadoes, Sabbas, Adelphius, Hermas, Symeonis."
What does Mr Danvers do, but put down these men 10 for " eminent
persons that in the fourth century bore witness against infant baptism " ?
And he cites for authority the foresaid place, Hist. Tripart., 1. vii. c. xi.,
into which whoever looks, will see that the error there laid to their
charge is in the words that I have set down, and no other : which
express the opinion of the Quakers, not of the antipaedobaptists.
But he quotes also Sebast. Frank (one of the Dutch blades I men
tioned a little above) n to confirm that this Dadoes, Sabbas, &c., were
eminent witnesses against infant baptism. So that it is to be hoped for
Danver's credit that he had never looked into Hist. Tripart., but had
taken the quotation on the credit of Frank, which must be very small.
But if one read the whole passage in Theodoret, Hist. Ecd., \. iv. c. x.,
and Haretic Fabul, 1. iv. cap. de Messalianis : it is plain that the men
were distracted. For they pretended that by force of their prayer they
could bring the devil out of themselves, sometimes by spittle, and
sometimes by blowing their nose : they would dance about, and say
they were treading upon him : they would imitate archers, and then say
they had shot him. And that after the devil was gone from them, they
could see the Holy Trinity with bodily eyes. They were also full of
6 De h;er., c. xlvi. 7 Catech. vi. « L. iv. c. x.
9 L. vii. c. xi. M Treat, of Baptism, Pt. II. ch. vii. u Ch iv. § 2.
usco
prophecies and revelations. And St Hierom, who had lived in Syria
among them, says,12 that they said of themselves, that " when they were
come to the top of their perfection, they were beyond any possibility of
sinning, in thought, or by ignorance."
The historians that have encumbered the church registers with these,
and some other such sorts of sects, would at the same rate, if they had
had in any country at any time a dozen or two of our Muggletonians,
have made a considerable sect of them, to be talked of in church history
to the end of the world. Whereas such men, especially when incon
siderable for number, should be pitied in their life time, and kept dark :
and their wild opinions forgot after they are dead. And this method
would have lessened the catalogues of sects almost by one half.
Some do reckon besides these, the Ascodryti, and the Archontici : 13
as sects that used no baptism. But Theodoret says, " that the Asco
dryti were a branch of the Valentinians ; and the Archontici of them."14
Which I am very glad of, being weary of reckoning any more.
St Austin says, " A sect called Seleucians, or Hermians, do not
admit of water-baptism, nor of the Resurrection. These are the sects
that have renounced all use of baptism." 15
§ 5. Some on the other extreme have administered it several times to
the same person : and are therefore properly called anabaptists. I speak
now of those that practised formal anabaptism, i.e., what they themselves
owned to be anabaptism or re-baptising of the same person. And of
such I remember no more in ancient times, but the Marcionites.
Marcion taught, as Epiphanius tells, that " it is lawful to give three
baptisms : so that if any one fall into sin after his first baptism, he may
have a second : and a third, if he fall a second time."16 And here it
seems he stopped his hand. Yet Epiphanius says that he had heard,
that his " followers went farther, and gave more than three, if any one
desired it."
He that writes the Present State of Muscovy, says, "their way is,
that persons of age who change their religion, and embrace the
Muscovite faith ; nay, even Muscovites, who having changed their reli
gion in another country, are willing to return to their own communion,
must first be re-baptised." 17 He speaks also of some vagabond people
among them, called Chaldeans, who do customarily, and by a sort of
license, practise great extravagances from the i8th of December to
Epiphany ; during which time they are excluded the Church : but " on
twelfth day, when their license is expired, they are rebaptised (some of
them having been baptised ten or twelve times) and looked upon as
good Christians." But Brereword, ch. xxiii. says (and quotes Passevin
12 Prolog, ad. Dialog, contra Pelag. 13 Epiph. de Archonticis.
14 Hgeret. fab. 1. i. c. xiii. 15 De Hcer. c. lix.
16 Haer. xlii. Marcionitae. 17 Dr Crull, c. xi.
76 The History of Infant Baptism.
for it), " that they use not this baptism on Twelfth Day, as a sacrament,
or as any purification of themselves ; but only as a memorial of Christ's
baptism received on that day in Jordan : and that the Abassens do the
same thing upon the same day upon the same account." So that it is
to be hoped that Dr Crull may be mistaken in the reason of their
practice. And for what he says here of their rebaptising all that came
over to their religion ; I have occasion to note something on it at ch.
ix. § 2.
Mr Thevenot also tells a story of some people called Sabeans living
at Bassora in Arabia, that are, as he there says, improperly called Chris
tians, that do reiterate the baptism which they use.18 But it is not the
Christian baptism, nor given in that form. " They have," he says, " no
knowledge of Jesus Christ, but that He was a servant to John Baptist,
and baptised by him : and of the books of the Gospel no knowledge at
all." But however it be with any late sects ; in ancient times there
were, as I said, no sects that did this but the Marcionites.
I know that the name of anabaptists, or rebaptizers, was then by the
Catholics imputed to several heretics, and by some Churches of the
Catholics to other Catholic Churches. But they that were so censured
did none of them own, as the Marcionites did, that what they did was
re-baptising. They all pleaded that the baptism which the party had
received before was null and void, as being administered in a corrupt
Church, or by heretical bishops, &c.
The antipsedobaptists now hold the same plea : but the ground of the
plea is very different ; for I never read, and I believe they cannot produce
any instance of any one that pleaded baptism to be void because it was
given in infancy. And as they disown the name of anabaptists or
re-baptisers, so I have nowhere given it to them. As, on the contrary,
I do not give them the name of baptists, nor of the baptised people ;
for that is to cast a reproach upon their adversaries, as concluding that
they are not so. Every party, while the matter continues in dispute,
ought to give and take such names as cast no reproach on themselves
nor their opponents, but such as each of them own, and such are the
names that I use.
§ 6. The dispute about re-baptising, or the imputation thereof, was
one that troubled the Church in former times as much as any. Many
sects of heretics and schismatics were so bitter against the Catholics,
that they said : " All things were so corrupt among them that baptism
or any other office done by them was null and void, and therefore they
baptised afresh all that came over from the Church to them. And
many Churches of the Catholics were even with them, and observed
the same course with all that came over from them. But others would
not, but said, that baptism (though given by the schismatics, was valid.
18 Voyage. T. ii. p. 331.
The Paulianists and Photinians. 7
And this came at last to be a bone of contention between the Catholics
themselves ; each party finding fault with the others way of receiving
schismatics into the Church."
In St Cyprian's time the Christian world was divided into halves on
this point. For he, and all the Churches of Africa, some of Egypt,
and many in Asia, received not heretics into the Church with a new
baptism. But the Christians at Rome, and most in Europe, used only
to give them a new confirmation, or laying on of hands ; and so admit
them.
Afterward, this came to be a rule, that "they that came to the Catholic
Church from such sects as used not the right form of baptism [in the name
of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit] must be baptised
at their admission : but they that in any sect had been baptised with
those words should be adjudged to have already true baptism."19
§ 7. Yet the Paulianists were excepted from this general rule : though
they, as Athanasius informs,20 used the said form of baptising, yet the
council of Nice expressly decreed " that they must be baptised anew if
they would come into the Catholic Church." 21 The reason seems to be
that they, though using the same words, of Father, Son, and Holy
Spirit, yet meant by them so different a thing (for they took the Son to
be a mere man) that they were judged not to baptise into the same faith,
nor in the name of the same God, that the Catholics and others did.
This shows the abhorrence that the Christians at that time had of an
opinion that would now grow fashionable. And Photinus, a little after,
in the time of Constantius, did no sooner make an attempt to revive
this heresy, but that both the Catholics and Arians (though they could
hardly agree in anything else) agreed in condemning him and his
opinion: "which act of theirs," says Socrates the historian, "was approved
of all men both at that present, and also in times following." 22 He
means that all the most differing parties or opinions agreed that such a
doctrine was abominable. And Theodoret, who lived at the same time
with Socrates, having reckoned up in one book all the sects that had
attributed to our Saviour no other nature than human, says in the last
chapter thereof, " That they were at that time all extinct and forgotten ;
so that the names of them were known to but few." 23 And so they have
continued till of very late years : unless the modern abettors of them
will plead that the succession of their doctrine has been preserved from
the year 600 in the Churches of Mecca and Medina.
§ 8. It appears how conscious these men are that all antiquity is
against them, by their setting themselves so bitterly against it. There
is no sect of men now in the world that do use such endeavours, and
some of them very unfair ones, to bring all the ancient Christians and
19 Basil, de Spiritu Sancto, c. i. w Orat. 3, contra Arianos. 21 Can. xix.
22 Lib. ii. c. xxiv. 23 Hreret. Fab., lib. ii.
7 8 The History of Infant Baptism.
their writings into a general disrepute. They employ and encourage
some persons to read the Fathers only to weed and cull out of them
some sayings which, taken by themselves, may be represented either
ridiculous, insipid, or heterodox. They also collect out of history
all the faults or miscarriages, that any ancient writer has been charged
with : and making a bundle of this stuff, part true, part false, they
present it to their proselytes, and even to the world, as the Life of such a
Father, or as a specimen of such a Father's works. They give a great
many reasons why it is not worth the while to read, study, or translate
the discourses of these ancients : that time is much better spent in reading
the modern criticisms upon the text of Scripture, which do often give
the sense thereof such a turn, as to make our religion to be a very
different thing from that which has been all along the religion of
Christians. If they can gain this point to alienate people from any
regard to the doctrine and faith of the primitive times, they make a
good step, not only for their own turn to overthrow the doctrine of
the Trinity, but also for the advantage of their next successors, the
Deists, who can with a much better grace argue against a religion
that has been altered in its most fundamental points, than against one
that has continued the same since the time that it was once delivered to
the saints.
But among all the reproaches cast on the Fathers there is none so
scandalous and destructive of the credit both of the Fathers and of
Christianity itself, as is one that they have lately set abroad, viz., that
the Doctrine of the Trinity, or of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, in
whom we believe, and in whose name we are baptised, is (as it is under
stood, explained, and held by the said Fathers) a doctrine of Tritheism,
or of believing in three Gods. I may repeat their sayings, for they
are industriously handed about in the English tongue. One of them
says thus :
" They [the Fathers] thought the three Hypostases [or persons in the
Trinity] to be three equal Gods, as we should now express it." 24 And
again, "Not to recur to the Fathers, whose opinion was quite different
from that which is now received : as who, properly speaking, affirmed
that there were three consubstantial Gods, as has been shown by
Petavius, Curcellseus, Cudworth, and others."25 And again, "Who, to
speak the truth, were Tritheists rather than asserters of the present
opinion ; for they believed the unity of substance, not the singularity of
number, as Tertullian speaks : That is, that the substance of the
Father, Son, and Holy Ghost was specifically one, but numerically
three. As the learned men I before mentioned have clearly shown, and
might more largely be demonstrated."
This spittle of an outlandish author our English Socinians greedily
1 Supplement to Dr Hammond's Annot. on i John 5, 6. - M Ibid. Preface.
The Fathers no TritheistS. 79
licked up. And to anything that was offered out of the Fathers they
have in their late books opposed this ; 2G that " the Fathers held only a
specifical unity of the divine nature, and the persons to be as so many
individuals." This they repeat often, and refer to Curcellaeus's un
deniable proofs of it. Of which Bishop Stillingfleet, taking notice, did
in his " Vindication of the Doctrine of the Trinity," ch. 6, answer and
refute, particularly all the instances brought by Curcellaeus, in a large
discourse, from page 76 to page 100, bringing, as he expresses it himself,
undeniable proofs that Curcell?eus had mistaken their meaning.
§ 9. Notwithstanding this, what does the foresaid author do, but
three years after the publication of Stillingfleet's book, writing some
"Critical Epistles," load them with the same slanders repeated, without
taking any notice that they had been answered? Saying, "That the
Nicene Fathers thought the Divine nature is no otherwise one than
specifically, but that it is in number threefold. As Petavius, Curcel-
Iseus, Cudworth, and others, have proved by such arguments as that there
can nothing be said in answer to them." 27
In another of the said epistles28 he repeats the same slander, and
would father it on some learned men in England. He says : " Learned
men in England and elsewhere do not forbear to say openly that the
Nicene Fathers believed three eternal and equal essences in God, and not
one God in number." And having mentioned that several Protestant
churches have received the Nicene Creed into their public confessions,
he adds : "If then they will stand to this part of their confession, they
must own that they believe three eternal natures, and renounce the
numerical unity of God. Or if they will not do that, they must expunge
that Article of their Confession in which they own the Nicene Faith."
And these letters he ventures to send into England, directed to
bishops there, who he must needs think abominated such exorbitant
sayings, and who could easily, if he had had the prudence to consult
them first, have satisfied him that one of their brethren had long ago
answered all those proofs of Curcellaeus with which he made such a
noise ; Petavius's and Cudworth's instances being not so considerable
nor so maliciously urged.
Our Church is not wont to take such affronts and continue silent
under them, unless when the party is accounted of so little credit as to
be not worth the answering. The learned men therein (and especially
the most learned person against whom these epistles were directed)
would probably have spent some pains to vindicate the Church of Christ
from so foul a slander, but that they thought the falsehood of this
imputation on the Fathers had been already sufficiently shown.
26 " Defence of Hist, of Unitarians," p. 5. Answer to La Moth. Letter to
Universit. , p. 13.
-7 Epist. iii., ad Episcop. Sarisb., p. 108.
-8 Epist. v., ncl Episcop. Vigorn, p. 177.
8o The History of Infant Baptism.
Here I did in the first edition take notice that some passages written
a great while ago by a Right Reverend Bishop (of which others also
had taken notice before), did seem to incline to this opinion of
M. le Clerc concerning the Fathers, of which I have no more to say than
what I have said in the preface of this second edition.
§ 10. M. Le Clerc brings some pretended proofs of the Tritheism of
the ancients of his own collection, of which Bishop Stillingfleet took no
notice, they being not in Curcellaeus. They are sayings, or pieces of
sayings, of the Fathers, so partially picked out and unfairly represented,
that at that rate one might abuse and misrepresent any writer, even the
Scripture itself. He mentions in the words before recited a scrap of a
sentence of Tertullian in his book against Praxeas, c. xxv. The whole
sentence runs thus : " Ita connexus Patris in Filio, et Filii in Paracleto
tres efficit, cohserentes alterum ex altero ; qui tres unum sunt, non unus :
Quomodo dictum est, Ego and Pater unum sumus : Ad substantial
unitatem, non ad numeri singularitatem." "Thus the connexion of the
Father in the Son, and the Son in the Holy Spirit, makes that there are
Three that cohere in one another ; which Three are Unum, One Sub
stance, not Unus, One Person : as it is said, ' I and the Father are
Unum, One Substance ' : to denote the unity of substance, not the
singularity of number. That is (as M. Le Clerc says), the substance
of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, is specifically one, but numerically
three." But that ,is (as anyone else will say), to denote the unity of
substance, not the singularity of number of the persons : or, that the
persons are not numerically one, though the substance is. For it is to
be noted, that this book was written against that error of Praxeas,
whereby he taught that Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one Person :
to confirm which he brought that place of Scripture, " I and the Father
are One." Tertullian tells him, our Saviour's word there is unum,
which denotes one substance; not unus, which would have denoted
one person.
And though the design of the book be, as I said, to maintain that
side of the question, that there are in some sense three in the Godhead
(as Praxeas had maintained the contrary, carrying the arguments for
the unity farther than he ought), yet even in this book there are more
than twenty passages in which Tertullian aims to express as well
as he can (for they had not then so determinate a use of words)
a numerical unity of the substance, or essence. Particularly this
passage : —
"Igitur unus Deus Pater, et alius absque eo non est: quod ipse
inferens non Filium negat, sed alium Deum : C^terum alius a patre
ihus non est. Atqui si nominasset ilium, separasset, ita dicens ; alius
pneter me non est nisi Filius meus. Alium enim Filium fecisset, quern
e alus excepisset. Puta solem dicere; Ego Sol et alius prater me
he Numerical Unity of Essence in the Trinity. 81
non est, nisi radius meus. Nonne denotasses vanitatem, quasi non et
radius in sole deputetur ? " 29
' So there is one God the Father, and there is no other beside Him :
which He affirming does not exclude His Son, but any other god ; and
the Son is not another from the Father. It would have been to
separate [or distinguish] Him, if He had named Him, and had said,
" There is no other beside Me, except My Son." It had been to make
His Son another, whom He had excepted out of those that are others.
Suppose the sun should say, "I am the sun, and there is no other
beside me, except my light [or ray]," would you not judge it absurd ?
As if the light were not counted to the sun itself? '
To mention one passage more of the said book (chap. 29), where he
is answering the argument of Praxeas, who had said, that since the
essence [or substance] of the Father and the Son is one and the same,
the Son could not suffer but the Father must suffer too. And where
Tertullian, if he had thought the essence of the Son to be only specifically
the same with that of the Father, and not numerically, could not have
forborne to answer so. But he answers thus : that the divine nature did
not suffer at all : but if it had, that argument would not have concluded,
" Nam et fluvius, si aliqua turbulentia contaminatur ; quanquam una
substantia de fonte decurrat nee secernatur a fonte : tamen fluvii injuria
non pertinebit ad fontem. Et licet aqua fontis sit quas patiatur in
fluvio : dum non in fonte patitur sed in fluvio ; non fons patitur, sed
fluvius qui ex fonte est. Ita etsi spiritus Dei quid pad posset in Filio :
quia tamen non in Patre pateretur; sed in Filio ; Pater passus non
videretur. Sed sufficit nihil spiritum Dei passum suo nomine."
' For if a stream be puddled with any disturbance : though it be the
same substance that runs from the spring, and be not distinct from
the spring, yet the hurt of the stream will not affect the spring. And
though it be the water of the spring which suffers in the stream ; yet so
long as it suffers in the stream, and not in the spring, the spring does
not suffer, but the stream which is derived from the spring. So though
the Spirit [or Deity] of God suffer anything in the Son, yet so long as it
suffered not in the Father, but the Son, the Father would not be said
to suffer. But it is sufficient [to take off your argument] that the
Divinity suffered not at all in its own nature.'
If he had thought the essence to be only specifically the same, he
would not have gone so far for an answer ; the aim thereof is to show,
that though it be numerically the same in both persons, yet something
might be said of one of them which could not be said of the other.
But in other books the same writer affirms the numerical unity
of essence more plainly and in the terms of the question, though not
then in common use. For in his Apology ', ch. 21, he says, that the Xo'yoc;
is " de Spiritu Spiritus, et de Deo Deus : modulo alter, non numero."
-3 Ch. xviii.
82 The History of Infant Baptism.
'Spirit of Spirit, and God of God: another in mode, but not in
number.' The same expression of modulo alius ab alio is also in the
book against Praxeas, ch. ix., and to the same purpose, ch. xiv.
It is therefore plain that Tertullian thought that in some sense the
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are numerically one : which must be in
respect of the substance ; for as for the persons, the design of his
whole book against Praxeas is to maintain that they are three in
number.
§ n. M. Le Clerc does also endeavour to make his advantage of
Gregory Nazianzen, with whom Curcellseus had not meddled. He pre
tended to write the Life of this Father.30 One may easily see through
his pretended reasons for it, and perceive that the design was to repre
sent him as a Tritheist : there are so many sayings of his wrested,
and some false translated for that purpose. It is true, that Gregory in
those voluminous disputations of his against the Arians and Sabellians,
having no adversaries of the tritheistical opinion, and not fearing to be
himself suspected of it, has some expressions in his arguments and
explications unguarded on that side : yet so as that he still speaks with
abhorrence of the belief of three Gods. And it is a known rule of
charity that no consequences drawn from an author's expressions are to
fix on him an opinion contrary to his own express declaration ; but that
what he says at one or two places seeming to favour any opinion must
be explained by others, if he have any other that are plain, full, and
purposely written to the contrary.
What M. Le Clerc had produced from this Father was not answered
(which can no way so well be done as by translating his works entire, a
thing useful if the modern readers of books had so much regard to
antiquity as they ought ; but such a regard is much lessened by such
lives) and therefore he concluded in another piece, that " Gregory was
undoubtedly of that opinion. The thing is so clear that it cannot be
questioned by those that have considered it." 31 He mentions also in the
Critical Epistles I spoke of before, his performance in proving this upon
Gregory. Yet of all the passages produced in that life to justify this
accusation, this is the hardest: that he in a certain sermon32 being
busy in showing the unfitness of all those examples of natural things
which are commonly made use of to explain the Trinity, how they are
all deficient and unapt in one respect or another ; says, " that He, as well
as others, had thought of the vein of water that feeds the spring, the
spring or pond itself, and the stream that issues from it. Whether the
first of these might not be compared to the Father, the second to the
Son, and the third to the Holy Spirit. But he was afraid that by this
similitude there would seem to be represented something numerically
'"' liihliot. T. 19. "I Supplement to Dr Hammond's Ann. Preface.
32 Oral. 37, de Spirttu Sancto.
Gregory Nazianzen. 83
one, for that the vein, the spring, and the stream are numerically one
though diversely modified or represented."
This indeed plainly shows that Gregory was afraid of representing
the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as numerically one in some sense :
but how ? As having an essence numerically one ? Not so : for he does
in a hundred places show that to be his real meaning. But in the
Sabellian sense, which taught the persons to be numerically one, or, that
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are several names of one person ; and con
sequently that it may properly be said that the Father was incarnated,
suffered, &c. He had the more reason to be cautious of saying any
thing that might seem to favour that sense, because the Catholics were
slandered by the Arians to hold that opinion.
The hundred places that I spoke of might be produced out of
Gregory's works. But there happen to be enough in that very sermon, or
oration, where there is this for one. He is there answering those that
thought that from the confession of three persons in the Godhead
would follow by consequence the doctrine of three Gods. He answers
thus : that though there be three in whom the Godhead is, yet there is
in them three but one Godhead, t7g o &sos, ou pia QsoTq^ and again :
aij,spiffro$ h {AS{tspia/j,!vot$ q (dsorris. But then he brings in an exception
which they made against this answer of his.
Obj. — "But they will say that the heathens (such of them as had
the most advanced philosophy) held that there is but one Godhead.
And also in the case of men, all mankind has but one common nature.
And yet the heathen had many Gods, not one only, and also there are
many men.
This objection comes home to the point. And here it is that Gregory
must declare whether he hold a specific or a numerical Unity. There
fore observe how he answers. To the case of the heathen gods he
makes a separate answer, that concerns not this question. But to that
of mankind having one common nature, and yet being many men, he
answers thus :
Sol. — " But here [viz., in the case of men] the several men have no
other unity than what is made by the conception of our mind, TO lv
l-/tt fj,6vov emvoiq, 6mpv\Tov. He goes on a while to show that men do in
reality differ from one another : and answers to the objection about the
heathen gods : and then adds, " TO ds rt^Tspov ou TOIOVTOV, ovfri
TU laxojft, <pri<siv 6 t/J,bg dtcikoyog" *AXXd TO ev sK&aTOV UVTU
auyx'siusvov ov-£ r/TTOV rj Kpig taurb: TUI TO.UTW TT\$ oiff/aj xai Trig
But our Deity [or God] is not so : nor is the portion of Jacob like them
as our Theolog [meaning Jeremy x. 16] says: ' But everyone of them
[the persons of the Trinity] has an unity with the other no less than
that which he has with himself, by reason of the identity of essence and
power."
84 The History of Infant Baptism.
It is impossible anything should be fuller to the purpose than this.
For the proper difference between a numerical and a specifical unity, is
this, that a specifical unity is only by our conception : and the numer
ical unity is the only real unity. In the several men that differ in age,
in shape, &c., there is something alike — viz., the essence or nature of
man. This our mind abstracts from the rest, and conceives it as one in
them all But this common nature so abstracted from the individuals
subsists only in our mind : and in reality every man has his own essence
distinct in number from the rest : and if all other men were destroyed,
he would have his own essence just as he has it now. And that which
Gregory answers is : that several men have no other unity or sameness
than what is by the conception of our mind, i.e., no other than a speci
fical unity. But each of the three — viz., Father, Son, and Holy Spirit,
has an unity with the other as much as with himself, by identity [or
sameness] of essence and of power, which must be a numerical one.
M. Le Clerc does indeed recite some of this answer, but in such a
fashion as shows he had a mind to mar it in the reciting. And the
like he does in several other passages of Gregory. In the forementioned
comparison of the three persons to the vein, the pond, and the
stream ; because the Greek word used by Gregory for the vein, is
o<pQct\fj.l;, he translates it, / oeil, an eye. Who ever went about to repre
sent the Trinity by an eye, a fountain, and a stream ? So great a critic
should not have been ignorant that it signifies there (as Elias Cretensis
in his comments on the place had noted) the vein that feeds the pond,
or the hole or opening of that vein into the pond. And this yet is not
so absurd, as where a little after the same words are translated, " an eye,
a fountain, and the sun." There are a great many other places in that
Life where Gregory is made, by curtailing or altering his words, to speak
nonsense : and I wish the main design of it were not to make him speak
something that is by many degrees worse. For to hold three Gods is
not to be a Christian, nor any worshipper of Jehovah, but a Pagan.
The very same oration furnishes us with several more proofs of the
contrary. A little after the fore-mentioned passage he quotes and
approves of a rule of Christian worship given by his namesake, Gregory
Thaumaturgus (or else by St Basil, for the words are ambiguous), «/3t«
&fov rlv Uarspa, Qslv rba vibv, Qslv TO nviufj.a ciyiov : rpt% idi6rr,rag, ®s6rr,ra.
/j.iav. « That we are to worship God the Father, God the Son, and God
the Holy Spirit : three properties, one divinity."
And at another place in the same oration, " The Three are one in the
Godhead [or essence], and the one three in properties [or persons], that
there may be neither one in the Sabellian sense, nor three in that
wicked sense now set up, viz., the Arian."
I desire the reader to compare the account of this oration or sermon,
which he will conceive by these passages, with the account given by M.
Heresies about the Trinity. 85
Le Clerc of the same oration : and if he doubt which is the truest, to
read the oration itself, and some other of the same Father's works, and
so pass his judgment. This may be sooner done than to read the
squabbles pro and contra about them. And indeed, if people would
choose to read the Fathers and ancient writers themselves, rather than
the scraps and quotations out of them, it were the only way to defeat the
purpose of those that would defeat us of that strength and corroboration
of the Christian religion which accrues by the constant succession of its
fundamental doctrines in all ages.
I will mention but one passage more of Gregory, and that out of his
oration concerning baptism,33 out of which I recited before what pro
perly concerns baptism : but he there speaking of the Father, Son, and
Holy Spirit, in whose name they were to be baptised, explains their way
of subsisting in the Godhead, so as anyone will perceive he means a
numerical unity of the essence. Always provided that we make allow
ance for this, that they had not, as I said, any such settled use of words
of a determinate meaning, specificcd, numerical, &c., as we use now, but
expressed their sense by paraphrasing as well as they could. But you
will see that he means that though they are in some sense three, yet that
their essence, or nature, is one, and that numerically one : not three
natures or essences all alike (as three men have), but one in number.
" They are each of them God as considered singly, viz., the Father,
the Son, and the Holy Spirit, each having his property : but the three
together are God when considered conjunctly. The first of which say
ings is true because of the consubstantiality, the other because of the
monarchy [or unity]. I no sooner go to think of one, but I am in my
mind surrounded with the three shining round about me. I no sooner
go to think distinctly of the three, but I am carried back to the unity [or
to consider them as one]. When I am thinking of one of the three, I
conceive him as the whole, and my mind has no room for anything
else : I find myself unable to comprehend the greatness of him, so as
to leave anything for the other. When I think of the three together,
I see them as one lamp whose compacted light cannot be divided or
measured."
§ 12. People's meaning about a doctrine is never better perceived
than by observing in some dispute about it, how and with what reasons
one side attacks, and how the other answers. Let us therefore observe
in some heresies that were about the doctrine of the Trinity what argu
ments the sectaries used, and which way the Churchmen answered. It
will appear that the doctrine of the Church was such an unity of essence
in the divine persons as we call numerical.
I shall mention one heresy before the Council of Nice, and one after
it, because the pretence is for the time of that Council, and for some
33 Orat. 40.
86 The History of Infant Baptism.
time before and after it, that the Christians held the persons in the
Trinity to be so many different beings, and to be one in essence no
otherwise than as three men have the same common nature among them.
If this were true, then farewell Fathers and the Church of Christ for all
that time. For this would never justify them from an imputation of
Tritheism. But the contrary, God be thanked, has been fully shown
both by Bishop Stillingfleet, as I said, and by many other learned
men, and needs no showing to any one that will read the books
themselves.
i. The first notable heresy that rose about the doctrine of the Trinity
was that of Praxeas, against which Tertullian wrote the book we spoke
of : and it was after his time carried on by Noetus and Sabellius, from
the year 200 to 260 : after which time the men of that sect were called
Sabellians. They held that there is but one Person in the Godhead, as
I said. And this they pretended not to be any new doctrine set up by
them (for they and all people at that time owned this for a certain rule,
as it undoubtedly is, that whatsoever is new in the fundamentals of reli
gion is false), but they maintained stiffly that it was the very sense of
the Christian Church before them. Now I say, that these men could
never have so far mistaken the Church's sense as to assert one Person
in number, unless the general doctrine had owned that there is but
one essence in number. For if the Church had held, that Father, Son,
and Holy Spirit had each a distinct numerical essence, as three men
have, the Sabellians could never have run into that mistake of the
Church's meaning as to think it to be that there is but one person, and
consequently that the Father suffered, which they did, and were there
fore called Patripassians. And on the other side, the Church would have
had no difficulty in answering the objections of the Sabellians, who
argued that since there is but one God, there can be but one Person in
the Godhead. For if the Church had held as before that the three
Persons have only the same specific or common essence, and not the
same numerical essence, it had been no more a mystery that the Son
should take flesh and the Father not, than it is that of three men that
have all the same common nature of man one should do or suffer any
thing and the other not. And they could not have avoided answering
so. Whereas on the contrary the Fathers find it a very operose and
difficult thing to answer the objections of those men (witness Tertullian's
book against Praxeas), and do always fly to the incomprehensible nature
of the divine essence.
And when the Arian disputes arose, the Catholics that maintained
the clause of one substance were constantly by the Arians reproached
with Sabellianism, i.e., of holding but one person in number ; which
could not have been but that they explained themselves so as to show
that they meant but one substance in number. This was the first and
Philoponus the first Tritheist. 87
main ground of Arius's falling off from the Church. For so Socrates
relates the matter :
" Alexander the bishop, sitting on a time with his presbyters and other
clergy, discoursed something nicely of the Holy Trinity, how there is in
the Trinity (tow;, a unity [or singularity]. But Arms, one of the presby
ters of his Church, a man not unskilful in logical quirks, thinking that
the bishop did set up the doctrine of Sabellius, did himself out of con
tention set up the directly opposite extreme to that of that Libyan."34
And a little after that the Council of Nice had inserted into the Creed
that phrase, that the Son is opoo-jaio:, co-essential [or, of one substance]
with the Father; the same historian tells how there were great con
tests about the import of that word. And he says : " They that dis
liked that word thought that the approvers of it did set up the opinion
of Sabellius, and so called them blasphemers, as if they had gone about
to take away Z--ap ?tv the subsistence [or, distinct personality] of the Son
of God. And they, on the contrary, that approved that term, reckoned
that their opposers brought in polytheism [or, several Gods]." K
This plainly shows that the Catholics who owned the word jtfMoutfuc
explained themselves so as to mean one substance in number. For else
the accusations ought to have run quite contrary, and not the deniers
of that phrase ; but the approvers of it would have been accused of
polytheism or tritheism, as they are now by these men. But they were
then upbraided with Sabellianism, the direct contrary extreme ; and the
defenders of the Nicene Creed against the Arians do take most pains in
vindicating themselves from that imputation, which could have had no
appearance if they had not been understood to hold one substance in
number.
This made them to be accused of taking away the substance [or dis
tinct personality] of the Son of God, because they teaching that there is
in the Trinity but one substance in all, and the others extending what
they said of ouff/a, substance, to :J--ap^i:, subsistence, concluded that
they thereby made but one subsistence in all, and so the Son could have
none. Whereas if they had meant, as these late slanderers represent
their meaning, three substances in number, or anything that would have
amounted to what that foul mouth calls three consubstantial Gods,63
they would have been so far from taking away his 'vrap%,$} that they had
given him a distinct ouff/a, essence or divinity, and had made him a
distinct God from God the Father.
If there were time to enter into any of the particulars of the history
of the men of that time, such as Eustathius, Meletius, &:c, and other
chief defenders of the Nicene faith, that would plainly show the falsehood
of this accusation. For if this accusation were true, these men would
have been by the Arians hated and deposed under any pretence sooner
w Hist. 1. I, c. 5. K L. I, c. 25. * Above at § S.
88 The History of Infant Baptism.
than that of Sabellianism, which, as Socrates 37 and Theodoret 38 tell us
was the chief pretence against them.
2. Now to come to some later times, and the heresies then arising.
We shall see how directly contrary to history that opinion is that pre
tends that it was after the fifth century that the doctrine of one individual
essence was received. For it places the beginning of the Catholic religion
in opposition to tritheism just at the time when tritheism in opposition
to the true religion was first of all vented. For Joann. Philoponus in
the sixth century was the first man of all that owned the Son and Holy
Spirit to be God, that ever offered to deny the doctrine of one individual
essence in the Godhead, and to affirm that each person in the Trinity had
his own essence or substance distinct, and so that there were three
substances or natures in number as well as three persons.
The quotations concerning him, and concerning his being condemned
for this doctrine might be easily produced, being a piece of history so
well known and uncontroverted. It is only to spare time (having too
far digressed already) that I desire the reader to take the account of
his heresy in the words of the learned Dr Cave,39 who giving a short
account of him (as he does of all other writers), relates the ordinary
history concerning him thus : " He vented several doctrines contrary to
the faith. Having taken for granted from Aristottts Philosophy, of
which he had been a great student, that Hypostasis is the same with
Natura, he thence concluded that there is but one nature in Christ,
and rejected the council of Chalcedon. And afterward, when the
Catholics objected to him that there are in the Trinity three Hypostases,
and yet but one Nature, to get clear of that objection, he ventured to
maintain that there are three natures or substances in the Trinity : yet
still positively denying that there are three Gods, or Deities. He was
for this reason accounted, and is to this day accounted the author and
ringleader of the sect of the Tritheists."
The Socinians themselves, when they think it for their purpose, do
instance in the condemnation of this man ; saying of an opinion which
they would represent the same as this, that " it was condemned by the
ancients in the person of Philoponus : and in the middle ages, in the
person or writings of Abbot Joachim," &c.40 And can there be anything
fouler than to impute to the ancients an opinion which they condemned
as soon as they heard it vented ? Would they have condemned him for
expressing that which was their own meaning ?
All that has any appearance of truth in this accusation of the Fathers,
is this ; First, that they being used to a style that is fitter for an honest
» L. 2, c. 9, de Eustathio. ^ L. 2, c. 31 de Meletio.
Hist. Literaria Part I. verb Joann. Philoponus.
Considerations on the Explication of the Trinity, p. 12.
Socinians vilify the Fathers. 89
plain man to signify his meaning, than for a logician to hold a dispute
in, and yet being forced to speak much of the Trinity, do many times
express themselves so, and use such comparisons, paraphrases, &c., as
a captious man may take his advantage of, if he will single out some
particular places : and, secondly, that their disputes being against Arians,
Eunomians, &c., who not only denied the numerical unity, but even the
specifical unity or equality of essence in the Trinity, do sometimes use
such arguments as prove a specifical unity ; not that that was all they
would have, but to overthrow one error first. And on this head they
sometimes use the instance of three men being bpoovaoi " of one sub
stance : " such is that place of Gregory Nyssen which Curcellseus urges,
and Bishop Stillingfleet confesses to be the hardest place in all antiquity.
But in such places their aim is to argue thus ; if three men, though
differing as three individuals, yet having all the same sort of essence,
are in some sense styled "of one substance with one another," how
much more may the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit be so styled, who do
not differ as three men, but have an essence that is ar^rog, a^spiaTos,
"unparted, undistinguished;" and that is ay^pteruc, xa,} adtaiperug, "in
separably and indivisibly " one and the same in them all ? They used
these last words to express that which we now express by numerically
one, or one in number. And they thought these words did it more
effectually ; because a thing may be one in number (as there is but one
world in number), and yet not uncompounded, indivisible, &c., as God's
essence is. In a word, to say that they sometimes used the instances
of a specific unity, is true : but to say that they pleaded for no more
than that in the Trinity, is false.
§ 13. These answers and defences are necessary only in the case of
those Fathers whose style is more loose and Asiatic, and so their words
more capable of being perverted from their true meaning. But other
Fathers, as St Austin, St Hierom, St Ambrose, &c., who lived at the
same time and held the same faith and communion, being brought up
to some use of logic, have placed their words concerning the numerical
unity so, as that no file or tooth can touch them. This Bishop Stilling
fleet has shown of St Austin : and it is proved incontestably by these
words of his L. vii. de Trinitate, c. iv. "If the word essence were a
specific name common to the Three, why might there not be said to be
three essences ; as Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are three men, the word
man being a specific name common to all men ? " And a little after ;
Quia hoc illi est Deum esse, quod est esse, tarn tres essentias quam tres
Deos did fas non est. " Since with him it is the same thing to be God
as it is to be ; we must no more say three essences [or Beings] than
three Gods." St Hierom cannot well speak more home than he does
in the place I quoted on another occasion, " If any one by Hypostasis
meaning Essence, does not confess that there is but one Hypostasis in
90 The History of Infant Baptism. .
three persons, he is estranged from Christ." 41 And St Ambrose argues,
" How can the Unity of the Godhead admit of plurality, when plurality
is of number, and the Divine Nature admits not of number ? " 42 There
would be no end of repeating the sayings of these and other Fathers that
are full and home to this purpose.
§ 14. What then can be done with these Fathers? They are point
blank against the Socinians ; and they cannot be made Tritheists, but
must be owned to be Unitarians in respect of God's essence. They
must be blackened some other way. As for St Hierom, he is proud,
unconstant, &c.,-and the rest have other faults. What shall be said of
St Austin, whose piety, humility, and caution in writing has obtained a
great repute? Set M. Le Clerc upon him ; he'll prove him to be "one
that has promoted some two doctrines which have taken away all good
ness and justice both from God and men," 43 and will find a way to lay
the odium of that tyranny with which the French king persecutes his
Protestant subjects at his door. Upon what grounds? Because he
held the doctrine of predestination an inextricable point in which good
men in all ages have differed : and because he was convinced by the
unquiet and contentious humour of the Donatists and Circumcellians,
and by the good effect which the emperor's edicts afterward had upon
them, that moderate penalties inflicted on turbulent schismatics are
useful.
It is not only the Christians at the time of the council of Nice, and
near before or after it, that have incurred the displeasure of these men
by their branding the Paulianists in the manner I mentioned : it is all
the ancients of whom we have any remains. Socrates44 tells how
Sabinus, a writer of the Macedonian sect (these were akin to the
Paulianists), found it for his purpose to cast dirt on the Fathers of the
Nicene Council, making them a pack of ignorant and silly men. Yet he
left a handle whereby himself might be refuted : for he had acknow
ledged (as he durst not deny) that Eusebius was a man of great judg
ment and learning. Socrates, by producing Eusebius's testimony45 in
commendation of the rest, rebukes the falsehood of that slanderer.
But these have taken a more effectual course : they have put them all
into the indictment, not leaving us one by whose evidence we might
retrieve the credit of the rest. The reason is, they can find never a
Paulianist among them.
The Apostles chose the best men they could find to succeed them in
the ministry ; such as Timothy, Titus, Polycarp, &c. They also gave
them this charge, " The things which you have heard of us before
many witnesses, the same commit you to faithful men, who may be fit
41 Ch. iii. Sect. 10. § i.
42 Lib. iii. de Spiritu Sancto. ch. xiv.
'Supplement to Dr Hammond's Annot., Preface. « L i c viii
44 De vita Constant. 1. iii. c. ix.
The Mischief to Religion by vilifying the Primitive Church. 9!
to teach others also."40 They knew how much it concerned the good of
the Church and the credibility of the doctrine in future times, to have
it handed down by faithful, prudent, and judicious men. We have all
the reason in the world to believe (unless the contrary could be proved)
that this charge was obeyed by their deputies ; and that the succession
was for the first ages generally carried on in good hands. This race of
men would persuade us the contrary : for they spare not any that are
left of those that were nigh the Apostles. Take Irenseus for example.
He received the doctrine from Polycarp, who was chosen by St John.
He has left some books against the heresies that were then, and some
other pieces. These were much valued by the men of the next ages.
They call him the mauler of heresies and false doctrines, a skilful con
veyer of the history and traditions of the Church. We pick out of his
works the completest catalogue by far of the books of the New Testa
ment of any that is so ancient. Yet in so large writings he has here
and there (as it happens to a man) some sayings and sentences of small
force or weight ; some particular observations of little moment, some
arguings weak, and some mistaken. These they cull out, would have
us judge of the whole garden by these flowers ; that they may represent
the man a silly and credulous fop, and his works not worth the pains of
reading.
Next to the undervaluing the authority of , the Scripture, there is no
so mischievous way to undermine the Christian religion, as thus to vilify
the ancient professors of it. For it is they that have handed down the
Scripture and the interpretation and confirmation thereof to us. It is
from them that we know which books are canonical, or were truly the
writings of such or such an Apostle. One of the assurances that we
have that the miracles recorded were really wrought, is, that they who
lived so near the time that they might easily inquire, did believe and
were really convinced of the matter of fact. And the more injudicious
they are represented to be, the weaker that argument is. Therefore
though we know them to be but men, and liable to mistakes, yet it is
an unnatural impiety to make it one's business to represent them worse
than they are.
But as their credit has held now so many hundred years in all the
Christian world, when all the books of those that have nibbled at them
have been slighted and forgotten : so the attempts made by these men
are too void of strength and truth to give us any reason to fear that
they should overthrow it. It is a poor piece of spite to set one's self
to be revenged on the credit of men dead 1300 or 1500 years since,
because their words will not be brought to favour some alteration of
the Christian faith that we would set up. And it is also an impious
thing to be so far in love with such an alteration as to go about to build
it upon the ruins of the credit of Christianity in general. For what an
46 2 Tim. ii. 2.
92 Ttte History of Infant Baptism.
ill face does this put upon the Christian faith to maintain that it has
been conveyed down to us by a Church made up of silly and credulous
men, and such as believed there were three Gods ?
§ 15. After I had finished this chapter, there came over another
book from Holland, written by the same spiteful enemy of the Fathers,
whose cavils against them I have been here answering : where he brings
in St Austin also among the Tritheists. He could not have taken a
more effectual course to hinder anybody from believing his slanders of
the other Fathers. He calls his book Bibliotheque Choisie, intending it
for a continuation of his Bibliotheque Universelle. And himself he
styles here " John Phereponus," that is, one that takes a great deal of
pains to do mischief.
First, he labours by all ways to vilify St Austin, as one that was no
such linguist as Phereponus is : " He understood (he says, p. 406)
v neither Greek nor Hebrew. He was not fit to expound the Scripture.
His reasonings popular, such as might please the Numidians and other
Africans, who were of all nations the most ignorant and most corrupt."
This he says, though he knew that St Austin was, not only for his
preachings but writings, the most celebrated bishop (as St Hierom says)
not only in Africa, but in the whole world. But he says (p. 407), " The
churchmen of this age were hardly any better in the other provinces
of the Roman Empire." The question, whether one that understands
not Hebrew nor Greek (which yet is not altogether true of St Austin)
may not for all that be fit to expound the Scripture, we will let pass ;
but this is certain, that one that does not believe the Divinity of our
Saviour Christ, is not fit to write harmonies, annotations, or paraphrases
on it, nor translations of it. And all that abhor that heresy, will be care
ful how they read them.
He proceeds (p. 410) to say, without any proof there given, " That
St Austin, as well as the other Fathers, has followed the doctrine of that
time, which established a specific unity between the Father, Son, and
Holy Spirit, and a distinction of the numerical essence ; so that, speak
ing properly, they believed three essences perfectly equal and strictly
united in will " (which very mention of three essences is what St Austin
spoke of with abhorrence in the words I quoted just now). Then having
mentioned a book written against himself by the Abbot Faydit, entitled,
"A Defence of the Doctrine of the Fathers concerning the Trinity
against the Tropolatres and Socinians ; " or, " The Two New Heresies
of Steven Nye. and John le Clerc, Protestants." He answers, " That he
holds no heresy ; he does not approve of the Tritheism of the Fathers,"
&c. And if it be said that the Fathers were not Tritheists, then he
refers to the authors he uses to do, Petavius, Curcellseus, Cudworth (as
if they had not been answered), and to the piece that I mentioned, The
Life of Greg. Nazianzen, written by himself. Where does this man think
The Mischief to Religion by 'Vilifying the Primitive Church. 93
the Catholic Church was at that time ? For he not only makes the
Fathers to be heretics (and Tritheists, which is indeed to be pagans), but
calls it also " the doctrine of that time."
But to show us from how envenomed a spirit all this rises, and how
he employs himself; he tells us (p. 409), that " he has found a way to
make a comedy of five acts out of the stories of certain miracles done at
Hippo, of which St Austin speaks in his three hundred and twenty-second
sermon, and the following." Now the things there related by St Austin
are (if not proper miracles in the modern sense of the word, yet) wonder
ful and gracious providences of God, which the word miracula well enough
signifies, and which all pious men think themselves bound to lay to heart
and commemorate, though this man makes a mock of them. This adver
tisement he gives, to see, I suppose,- whether this copy too will yield any
money ; and whether, as he has found booksellers that would stand out at
nothing, so he can find any players profane enough to act this his comedy.
And if they be so inclined, it is pity but they should do it, that they
may fill up the measure of their impiety, and that all Christian princes
and states may follow the good examples of the French King in exter
minating them, and of the King of Prussia in prohibiting his books.
§ 1 6. Since the first edition of this book, M. le Clerc does, in an
encomium which he writes on Mr Lock, Bibl. Choisie. T. vi., own that
he has seen Bishop Stillingfleet's Vindication of the Trinity. And after
having passed a very slighting and contemptuous censure on what the
bishop has there, and in some other pieces, written against Mr Lock's
notions, and on the other side as much magnified his hero (the solidity
of his doctrine, the exactness of his thought, &c.; whereas Bishop Stil-
lingfleet understood neither his adversary's meaning, nor the matter
itself, and was never used either to think or to speak with any great
exactness. See the saucy arrogance of this critic) he pretends at last to
be surprised to find there a confutation of Curcellseus's proofs of the
Tritheism of the ancients. He had reason to be surprised, if he had not
seen it before ; because he had, since the publication of it, cast vile
reproaches on all the ancient Christians on the credit of those proofs,
which he might see here all overthrown.
What does he do upon, this surprise? Does he pretend to show by
any particulars that Curcellseus had not mistaken the sense of his own
quotations, as the bishop pretended to show that he had ? Or, if he
cannot do this, does he acknowledge his own slanders ? Neither of
these. But instead of vindicating those quotations from being wrested,
he throws in one more of his own to them, which is more apparently
wrested than any of them. It is out of St Hilary de Synodis, " Which
book," he says, " Mr Stillingfleet had not read very carefully, or else did
not remember distinctly. For there is hardly any book from which one
may more plainly prove that the orthodox of that time believed one
94 the History of Infant Baptism.
God in specie [i.e., as to the sort or kind of Gods], but three in number."
Is not this horrid? Three Gods in number? Did ever any Christian
own this ? Then he produces the passage.
It must be noted that St Hilary there, in disputing against the Arians,
does labour to show that the term 6/xo6<r/oj, of one substance, is the most
clear and the most significative of the Catholic's meaning ; but yet that
the term o/io/ouff/of, of like substance, as also the term, of equal substance,
may be borne with and admitted as being capable of being explained in
an orthodox sense, and as being so explained and used by many Catholic
writers, viz., that "in divinis," 'likeness' or 'equality,' are all one with
identity or sameness. Speaking thus : " Si ergo [Pater] naturam neque
aliam neque dissimilem, ei quern invisibiliter [1. indivisibiliter] generabat,
dedit ; non potest aliam dedisse nisi propriam. Ita similitudo proprietas
est, proprietas aequalitas est," 47 &c. ' If then He [God the Father] gave
[or, communicated] to him whom He, without any division, begot, a
nature which is not another nor unlike ; it must be so that he gave him
no other than his own. So likeness and sameness [or, ownness] and
equality are all one.' And then a few words after comes the passage at
which M. le Clerc carps: "Caret igitur, fratres, similitudo naturae con-
tumeliae suspicione : nee potest videri Filius idcirco in proprietate
Paternae naturae non esse, quia similis est : cum similitudo nulla sit nisi
ex aequalitate naturae ; aequalitas autem naturae non potest esse, nisi una
sit; Una non Personae unitate, sed GENERIS." 'So that there is no
need, brethren, that you should suspect this phrase, likeness of nature,
of any reproachful meaning : nor will the Son seem not to have the
Father's own nature for that reason, because he is said to be like him.
Whereas there is no likeness but by equality of nature ; and equality of
nature cannot [in this case, speaking of divine nature] be, unless it be
one. One, not by unity of person, but of GENUS.'
Whereas M. le Clerc observes here, that supposing the numerical
unity of the divine essence, it is not proper to say, the nature of the
son is like or equal to that of the father ; it is true, if St Hilary had not
explained himself so, as by equality to mean identity. And whereas
he observes that by the word genus, St Hilary shows his meaning to be
of a generical or specified unity only ; this also would have some sense
according to the ordinary use of the word genus. But St Hilary had
declared in that very book in what sense he took the word : as at the
beginning of the book, in these words : " But seeing I must often use
the words essence and substance, we must know what essence signifies :
lest we should use words and not know the meaning. Essence is that
which a thing is, &rc. And it may be called the essence, or nature, or
genus, or substance of anything." And a little after, " Whereas therefore
we say that essence does signify the nature, or genus, or substance," &c.
47 Prope. finem.
The Rule of our Saviour ever understood of Baptism. 95
And constantly afterward he uses those words as synonymous. And
accordingly Erasmus in the dedication of his edition of St Hilary's
works had said : " Of the same essence, or as St Hilary often speaks, of
the same genus or nature with the father, which the Greeks express
lifto-jaibv" So that to say, " Unitate non personas sed Generis," is to
say, " not one person, but one substance : " or as he himself expresses
it in the page before, " Non persona Deus unus est sed natura." " God
is not one in Person, but in Nature."
So unfair and pedantic a thing it is to catch hold of some single
phrase or expression, whereby to account for an author's meaning
through a whole book. The contrary appears by many passages in the
book. Particularly by this. He as well as the other Fathers does often
say that he that should preach that the Son as well as the Father, is
unbegotten, and without any cause, fountain, origin, or principle [which
the Greeks express ayzwqrov xaj avap^ov, ' unbegotten' and 'unofiginated,'
or self-originated] would inevitably make two Gods. Or, "that God is one
by virtue of the innascibility : " ' autoritate innascibilitatis Deus unus
est.' Because though there are three Persons, yet one only of them is
the fountain and origin of the Deity. Or, as Tertullian expresses it,
" they are all One, inasmuch as all are of One, that is, as to unity of the
substance." — Contra Prax, ch. ii.
Now he that speaks thus plainly denotes a numerical unity. For a
specifical unity might as well or better be conceived between three co
ordinate ayewrjra xat avap^a. But a numerical unity cannot be con
ceived without conceiving the Father as the fountain of the Deity.
CHAPTER VI.
THE OPINIONS OF THE ANCIENTS CONCERNING THE FUTURE STATE OF
INFANTS, OR OTHER PERSONS, THAT HAPPENED TO DIE UNBAPTISED.
§ i. HpHE account of their opinion in this matter will be best given
-L in these particulars.
i. All the ancient Christians (without the exception of one man) do
understand that rule of our Saviour (John iii. 5) : " Verily, verily, I say
unto thee, Except a man [it is in the original lav py r!$, ' except a per
son,' or ' except one '] be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot
enter into the kingdom of God," of baptism.
I had occasion in the first part to bring a great many instances of
their sayings: where all that mention that text from Justin Martyr
down to St Austin do so apply it : and many more might be brought.
Neither did I ever see it otherwise applied in any ancient writer. I
96 The History of Injant Baptism.
believe Calvin was the first that ever denied this place to mean baptism.1
He gives another interpretation which he confesses to be new. This
man did indeed write many things in defence of infant baptism. But
he has done ten times more prejudice to that cause, by withdrawing
(as far as in him lay) the strength of this text of Scripture (which the
ancient Christians used as a chief ground of it) by that forced interpre
tation of his, than he has done good to it by all his new hypotheses and
arguments. What place of Scripture is more fit to produce for the
satisfaction of some plain and ordinary man (who perhaps is not capable
of apprehending the force of the consequences by which it is proved
from other places) that he ought to have his child baptised, than this
(especially if it were translated in English as it should be) where our
Saviour says that no person shall come to heaven without it ? meaning,
at least in God's ordinary way. It is true that Calvin does at other
places determine this to be so, as I shall show presently at § 8. But
his dictate is but a poor amends for the loss of a text of Scripture.
Since his time those parties of the Protestants that have been the
greatest admirers of him, have followed him in leaving out this place
from among their proofs of infant baptism, and diverting the sense of it
another way : which the antipaedobaptists observing, have taken their
advantage, and do aim to shut off all the Protestant psedobaptists 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, page 73, having said that the
" Custom of baptising infants seems to have taken its rise from the mis
interpretation (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 inter
pretation, 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
terms 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. vi., 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 mis
chance dying unbaptised, 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, show that not all the Protestants, if any, have aban-
1 Instit. 1. iv. ch xvi. § 25.
The Rule of our Saviour ever Understood of Baptism. 97
doned 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 peremptory 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 antipsedobaptist 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
groundlessness of this new interpretation of Calvin's, which was then
greedily embraced by Cartvvright 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
ancients 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 now
disguised with a toy of novelty ? — God will have the Sacrament used
not only as a sign or token, 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 unbaptised 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, 1. v. §§ 59, 60.
2. By those words, " the Kingdom of God," in this text, they do all of
them understand (as anyone would naturally do) the Kingdom "of
Glory hereafter in Heaven."
This is confessed by the right reverend author of the late Exposi
tion of the Thirty-trine 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." For,
ii. r>
9g The History of Infant Baptism.
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
baptised," 2 &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 3 before, where I think it is so taken. But it
is far more 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 :
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 here brought, 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 4 of people entering this kingdom after their
death. Tertullian5 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 ancients should expound it right.
2. Mr Walker, who had consulted as much on the exposition of this
text as any man, takes the antipaedobaptists 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.6
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.' " 7 Now for the Church here ; one
that is not baptised may see it. It is therefore plainly meant of the
kingdom of glory.
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 little more than this :
3 Art. 27. 3 Pt. It ch xix § 2I
* See Part I. ch. 5. § 2. 5 Ib. ch. iv. § 3.
• Modest Plea, c. xii. § 8. 7 Lib. 3, de anima et ejus origine, c. xi.
The Antipcedobaptists* Explication of John Hi, 3, 5- 99
hat without baptism one cannot be baptised. For to be baptised, and to be
entered into the Church, are terms much about equivalent.
Neither does it appear what the antipaedobaptists 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
ancients particularly, how far they expounded them so, and how
far not.
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 baptised at all.
The Church of England, together with the whole ancient Church,
does apply and make use of this text as a ground of baptising 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 afterwards, "Seeing now, dearly
beloved brethren, that this child is regenerate," &c. And they do in all
the three offices of baptism, as soon as the party is baptised, whether he
be infant or one of riper years, give thanks that he is regenerated, and
grafted into the body of Chris -fs Church.
And whereas some people have expressed a wonder at St Austin,
that he should hold, "that all that are baptised are also regenerate ;" no
man living can read him without perceiving that he uses the word
regenerate as another word for baptised, and that this with him
would have been an identical proposition : as if one should say nowa
days : " All that are baptised are christened." If some of late days
have put a new sense on the word regenerate, how can St Austin help
that? And 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 baptised, is it not natural to admit of the
same smsixsia, and allowance in these words as we do and must do in
many other rules of Holy Scripture, namely, to understand them thus :
that this is God's ordinary rule, or the ordinary condition of salva
tion ; but that in extraordinary cases (where His providence cuts off all
8 L. i. de peccat. merit, c. xxx.
D 2
I00 The History of Infant Baptism.
our opportunity of using it) He has also extraordinary mercy to save
without it. The ancients, as I shall show, did hope, and even con
clude so, in case of a convert believing ; and many in the following ages
of an infant.
If the objection be that it is not easy to conceive how an infant can
be born or regenerate of the Spirit (which is mentioned in the text as
well as of water) since he is not capable of any operations of the Spirit
on his will, &c. It is not only owned by all other Christians that the
Holy Spirit, besides His office of converting the heart, does seal and
apply pardon of sin, and other promises of the covenant ; but also by
the antipredobaptists, that the Spirit of Christ is given or applied to
infants. So says Mr Danvers, "That they are capable of salvation by
Christ's purchase, and the application of Christ's blood and spirit to
them, who doubts it ? I am sure I never affirmed the contrary." 9 And
Mr Tombs, " The Grace of God electing them, putting them into Christ,
uniting them to Him by His Spirit.'" 10
The antipaedobaptists do themselves make use of this place of
Scripture against the Quakers and other antibaptists (and that with
good reason) to prove the necessity of baptism. Some of them also,
that can read no other than the English translation, will sometimes very
unwarily urge it against the paedobaptists, and will observe, that it is
said, " Except a man be born," &c., it is not said a child : concluding
from the word that he that is so born must be "a man grown." But
these, you will say, are right English divines. This may be retorted
on them : for the original is not iuv py avftp, or lav py avfyuxos :
" except a man " ; but sav pi r/$, " except anyone." And so the text
is understood by the ancients, and by all that can read the original.
It is a common thing with the antipaedobaptists, when they are
attacked with that argument, that women's receiving the communion is
no more plainly expressed in Scripture than infant baptism, to answer
by citing the text, Aoxi/Aa^sru 'tawl>\> civdpuvog, &c., "Let a man examine
himself, and so let him eat," &c., and to urge, that the v?ord"Av6pu-o:,
being of the common gender, includes women as well as men. And
they will frequently boast, and say, " Do but produce as good proof for
baptising infants, as this text affords for women receiving, and we will
comply." Nevertheless, it is not advisable for them to venture any
more on this challenge than they can be content to lose. For the word
rl( used here, lav ^ rlf, does (much more naturally than the word
u*6pu*oi) signify any ' one,' or any ' person,' man, woman, or child. It is
only an Anglicism to say, " except a man," instead of, " except a person
be born of water," &c.
§ 2. Though the ancients understood the foresaid text to mean
baptism, and though the words are peremptory, yet they were of opinion
• Answer to Appeal, p. 9. w Examen} § 10.
Case of Martyrs dying Unbaptiscd. 101
thai God Almighty did in some extraordinary cases, when baptism could
not be had, dispense with His own law. And one case, which they all
agreed to be exempted, was that of martyrs. If anyone had such faith
in Christ, as willingly to sacrifice his life for the testimony of His truth,
they concluded that such a man, whether he had as yet been baptised
or not, was received into the kingdom of heaven. For this they called
" baptismum sanguinis," ' a being baptised in blood : ' referring to
that of our Saviour (Matt. xx. 22), "You shall be baptised with the
baptism that I am baptised with."
So Tertullian, " We have also another baptism (which, as well as
the other, can be used but once), namely, that of blood. Hie est
baptismus qui lavacrum et non acceptum reprcesentat, et perditum
rcddit. ' This is a baptism which will either supply the place of water-
baptism to one that has not received it, or will restore it to one that has
lost [or, defaced] it.' " n The same thing is owned by Cyprian.12
St Cyril, who says thus, " If one be never so upright, and yet do
not receive the seal of water, he cannot enter the kingdom of heaven :
this is a bold speech, but it is none of mine ; it is Jesus Christ that
has made this decree." 13 Yet afterwards in the same oration, excepts
martyrs.
So likewise Fulgentius, as positive as he is, that none can be saved
without baptism, yet puts it, " Exceptis iis qui pro Christi nomine suo
sanguine baptisantur." 14 ' Except those who are for the name of Christ
baptised in their own blood.' Gennadius speaks to the same purpose.15
And yet St Austin says, " Ever since the time that our Saviour said,
' Except anyone be born again of water,' &c., and at another place,
' He that shall lose his life for My sake, shall find it : ' no person
is made a member of Christ, but either by baptism in Christ, or by
death for Christ." 16
§ 3. Beside the case of martyrs : if a heathen man was arrived to
some degree of belief of the Christian religion and confession of it, and
yet died without baptism, they judged of his case with some distinction.
For if the man had shown a contempt or gross neglect of baptism as
a needless thing, and then were cut off by death without receiving it,
they judged such a case to be hopeless. Tertullian himself calls that a
wicked doctrine : "to think that baptism is not necessary to those that
have faith." His words you. have before, Pt. I. ch. iv. § 3. And St
Ambrose speaks of it as a received opinion, that " a catechumen,
though he believe in the Cross [or, death] of the Lord Jesus, yet unless
he be baptised in the name'of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, cannot
receive remission of sins, nor be partaker of the gift of spiritual grace." 17
11 De Baptismo, c. xvi. 12 Epist. 73, ad Jubaianum. 13 Catech. 3.
14 De fide ad Petrum, c. xxx. 15 De Eccl. dogmatibus, c. Ixxiv.
16 L, i. de anima et ejus origine, c. ix. 17 Lib. de his qui initiantur, c. iv.
IO2 The History of Infant Baptism.
He must mean of those that refuse or contemn baptism, as will appear
by what I shall quote from him by-and-bye. And Gregory Nazianzen,
speaking of three sorts of persons that die unbaptised, reckons these the
worst, and likely to have the greatest punishment. His words are recited
in Pt. I. ch. xi. § 6. St Austin's words also I produced before, Pt. I.
ch. xv. sect. 4 § 3. " But when a man goes without it by his wilful
neglect of it, he is involved in guilt: for that must not be called a con
version of the heart to God, when God's sacrament is contemned." So
that the learned Vossius in his book of baptism, Disp. vi. Th. vi.,
having spoken of some points of baptism in which the opinions of the
Fathers differed, owns them to have been unanimous in this. " This
is," says he, " the judgment of all antiquity, that they perish eternally,
who despise baptism, i.e., will not be baptised when they may."
If it were one that intended to be baptised some time or other, but
put it off from time to time, either out of a negligent delay, or out of
a desire of enjoying unlawful lusts some time longer, and then happened
finally to miss it, as St Chrysostom says he had known it happen
too often, they judged such an one lost, though not liable to so great
punishment as he that had absolutely despised it. So Gregory Nazianzen
determines in the place last mentioned ; and their sayings to that pur
pose are too common to need repeating. I shall recite only one of
Hermas's for its antiquity, being writ in the Apostles' time. He speaks 1S
of a vision which he saw of the building of the Church Triumphant,
under the emblem of a tower built with several stones : and he saw 19
many sorts of stones rejected and cast far from the tower. And among
the rest, some "cadentes juxta aquam, nee posse volvi in aquam, volen-
tibus quidem eis intrare in aquam," ' that fell nigh the water [on which
the tower was built], and though they seemed desirous to go into the
water, could not roll into it.' And in the explication 20 he asks, " What
are those other, that fell nigh the water, and could not roll into the
water? " Answer is made, " They are such as heard the Word, and had
a mind to be baptised in the name of the Lord ; but considering the
great holiness which the truth requires, withdrew themselves and walked
again after their wicked desires." And I think it very probable that St
James means this sort of men, ch. i. ver. 6, 7, 8, where he speaks of
some that were " double-minded, wavering, unstable, tossed to and fro "
in their resolutions ; and he says there, that " such shall receive nothing
of the Lord."
Some put off their baptism a long time, fearing lest after it they might
into sin again. These Tertullian commends, and advises to stay till
ie danger of lust is over ; and says at one place,21 that to such men, if
icy should happen to miss of baptism, " an entire faith is secure of salva-
" Pastor, lib. i. vis. 3. » Cap. ii. » Cap. vii. » See Pt. I. ch. iv. § 5.
Those that Missed of Baptism by Delay. 103
tion." But all the rest do much discommend this practice, as appears
at large in the sermons made to the catechumens by St Basil, St Gregory
Nazianzen, St Gregory Nyssen, St Chrysostom, and others.
Nazianzen says, this is the " deceit of the devil counterfeiting holi
ness, and cheating men of the grace of baptism by persuading them to
an over-caution : that by means of their fear of staining their baptism
they may altogether miss of it." 23
Nyssen says,23 that of the two it is better to receive it now, though
one should fall into sin after, than to hazard the loss of it by this caution.
For to those that sin afterwards, he allows hopes of pardon upon repent
ance ; but of those that die without being baptised at all he says,
" When I hear that peremptory sentence, ' Verily, verily, I say unto thee,
Except one be born again/ &c., I dare not forebode any good to those
that are not initiated."
Chrysostom 24 brings in these men arguing, and answers them. " ' I
am afraid,' says one. ' If you were afraid, you would receive baptism
and preserve it.' ' But I therefore receive it not, because I am afraid.'
' But are you not afraid to die in this condition ? He that sins after
baptism (as it is like he will, being but a man) will, if he repent, obtain
mercy. But he that making a sophistical use of the mercy of God, de
parts this life without the grace, will have inevitable punishment.' " And
afterwards, " In what anguish of mind am I, think you, when I hear of
anyone that is dead that was not baptised, considering those unsuffer-
able torments?" And in another tract, "If sudden death seize us,
which God forbid, before we are baptised, though we have a thousand
good qualities, there is nothing to be expected but hell."25
Firmilian, Bishop of Csesarea, in Cappadocia, who was of the same
opinion as St Cyprian was, that baptism given by heretics is null, asks (by
way of objection to himself) this question,26 what should be said of the
case of those who, having come from the heretics to the Church, and
having been received without a new baptism, were since dead without
it ? He answers, " They are to be accounted in the same state as those
that have been catechumens among us, and have died before they were
baptised." But what he thought that state to be cannot be plainly
known, because the next words are very obscure ; yet Rigaltius, by an
amendment of the words (without the authority of any MS.), makes them
favourable for the case of such deceased persons; and Bishop Fell
allows of his opinion.
If any of the foresaid sorts of men did put off their baptism till some
dangerous sickness seized them, and then were baptised in their sick
bed, and died. Though they did give hopes that such a baptism was
available to salvation, yet they counted these no creditable sort of
22 Or. 40. K De Baptismo. w Horn. I in Acta Apost.
25 Horn. 24 in Joann. x Apud Cyprian, Epist. 75, prope finem.
I04 The History of Infant Baptism.
Christians, because they seemed to come to it no otherwise but by mere
constraint. Nay, Nyssen "" reckons these among such as shall not be
punished, but, on the other side, shall not go to heaven. There were
ancient canons, that such, if they recovered, should never be admitted
to holy orders: as appears by the epistles of Cornelius recited by
Eusebius.28 Though it appear by the same that Novatian was dispensed
with for this incapacity.
But there is one case of a man's dying unbaptised, on which they
generally put a favourable construction, though with some difference of
opinion concerning his future state. And that is, if a man, while he
was in health, were come to a steadfast resolution of being baptised
the next opportunity, but were hindered by sudden death, or some other
unavoidable impediment. Nazianzen's opinion of such is, that they
shall not be punished, and yet neither on the contrary shall they be
glorified. He, as well as Nyssen and many other of the Greek Church,
seems to have thought that there is a middle state, not partaking, or not
much, either of happiness or misery. You have his words Ft. I. ch. xi.
§ 6. He showed also by that anguish of soul which he himself felt
when he was like to die without baptism,29 that he feared either hell, or
at least the loss of heaven.
St Ambrose speaks at one place doubtfully of these men's escaping
punishment, but more doubtfully of their obtaining any reward, in the
words which I cited in Pt. I. ch. xiii. § 2 : " But suppose they do
obtain a freedom from punishment, yet I question whether they shall
have the crown of the kingdom." But yet afterwards he gives his
opinion positively in the case of Valentinian (who missed of baptism in
the manner we now speak of), that his desire of baptism was accepted
instead of baptism, not only for pardon but also for glorification, as was
showed in ch. iii. sect. 3, § 3.
St Austin embraces this opinion of St Ambrose last mentioned, and
gives a proof of it out of the Scripture from the example of the penitent
thief, " Which," says he, " when I consider thoroughly, I find that not
only martyrdom for the name of Christ may supply the want of baptism,
but also faith and the conversion of the heart, in a case where by reason
of the straitness of the time the sacrament of baptism cannot be cele
brated. For that thief was not crucified for the name of Christ, but for
his own ill deserts, neither did he suffer for his belief; but while he was
suffering, he came to believe. So that in his case it appears, how much
that which the Apostle says : ' With the heart we believe unto righteous
ness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation,' does
avail without the visible sacrament of baptism. But it is then fulfilled
invisibly when not the contempt of religion, but some sudden exigent of
necessity keeps one from baptism." 30
17 Or. in eos qui differunt baptisma. w H. E., 1. vi. c. xliii.
» See ch. iii. sect. 6, § i. » Contra Donatistas, 1. iv. c. xxii.
State of Infants dying Unbaptised. 105
Since this thief had a promise of Paradise, it is plain that St Austin
means that a man dying in that case must have hopes not only of im
punity, but of reward. Besides that, he thought there is no middle place.
In his Retractations^- he considers this matter over again, and says
the example of the thief is not absolutely fit for this purpose, " because
one is not sure whether he were baptised or not," i.e., some time in his
life before, which is very improbable. Yet he insists on the probability
of it in his writings against Vincentius Victor.
§ 4. One might have thought that they should have as good hopes of
the state of an infant dying unbaptised, as of a heathen convert who
believed and sincerely desired baptism dying likewise unbaptised ; since
it may be said of the infant, as well as of the other, that it is not his
fault but mischance that he is not baptised. And Nazianzen, and the
others that do allot a middle state to the one, do allot the same to the
other. But St Austin, and those who allow of no state absolutely middle,
have hopes of the convert's (such as the thief was) going to Heaven,
though unbaptised, but no hopes of an unbaptised infant's escaping
some degree of condemnation.
The reason of the difference as they seem to understand it is, that
whereas God ordinarily requires both faith and baptism, yet that either
of them (when the other cannot be had) may suffice to salvation. As
the thief having no baptism, but having faith and the desire of baptism,
was saved ; and infants having not faith, but having baptism, are saved ;
but infants dying unbaptised, having neither faith nor baptism, cannot
escape some degree of condemnation for original sin.
To this purpose are St Austin's words, " As in the case of the thief,
who by necessity went without baptism corporally, salvation was ob
tained because he spiritually was partaker of it by his godly desire. So
where that [baptism] is had, salvation is likewise obtained, though the
party go without that [faith] which the thief had."32 And so likewise St
Bernard 33 resolves the case from St Austin. Having said that a man
having faith, and the desire of baptism, may be saved though he miss of
baptism, he adds : " Infants, indeed, since by reason of their age they
cannot have faith nor the conversion of the heart to God, consequently
can have no salvation if they die without baptism."
The ancients had not all of them the same opinion concerning the
death that is brought on mankind by original sin. The author of that
Comment which has been ascribed to St Ambrose, but has since been
thought to be Hilary the Deacon's, and by others to be mixed out of
several ancient works, thinks it to be only temporal death. The words
that are two or three lines before those I am going to recite are for
certain Hilary's, for St Austin quotes them under his name.34 The
81 L. ii. c. xviii. ffl De baptismo contra Donatistas, 1. iv. c. xxiii.
33 Epist. 77. ad Hugonem de sancto victore. M L. iv. ad Bonifac. c. iv.
106 The History of Infant Baptism.
words to this purpose are these, Comment, in Rom. v. Haying spoken
of the death which St Paul says came on all by -Adam's sin, he adds :
" There is also another death, which is called the second death in hell,
which we do not suffer for the sin of Adam, but by occasion thereof it
is brought on us by our own sins." It is plain this man would not have
sentenced infants to the second death in hell. But the more common
opinion I think, especially in the western parts, was, that the death
threatened to Adam, and coming by original sin on all by nature, is eternal
death. Pacianus teaches so in his Sermon of Baptism. " Mind, oh
beloved, in what death a man is before he be baptised. You know that
received point, that Adam was the head of our earthly origin, whose
condemnation brought on him subjection to eternal death, and on all
his posterity, who are all under one law."
Accordingly they differed concerning the future state of infants dying
unbaptised; but all agreed that they missed of heaven.
Those of the Greek Church do generally incline to the opinion of
that middle state. Their words are cited in the first part, viz., Nazian-
zen's, ch. xi. § 6. Those of the author of the questions in Justin Martyr,
ch. xxiii. § 3 ; and those of the author of the Questiones ad Antiochum,
ibid. The opinion of Pelagius (who conversed most in the Greek
Church), ch. xix. passim. The words of St Ambrose (who transcribed
most that he wrote from Greek authors), ch. xiii. § 2.
But St Austin and most of the Latin Church in his time, holding no
such middle state, do believe such infants under some degree of con
demnation : whose words you have in the xv., xix., and xxth chapters.
Both one and the other agree in this, that infants dying unbaptised
cannot come to the kingdom of heaven.
How hard soever this opinion may seem, it is the constant opinion of
the ancients : none ever having maintained the contrary in these times,
nor a great while after, except that Vincentius Victor mentioned in the
xxth chapter of the first part, who also quickly recanted. St Austin in
a letter to St Hierom says, " Whoever should affirm that infants which
die without partaking of this sacrament shall be quickened in Christ,
would both go against the Apostles' preaching, and also would condemn
the whole Church : universam Ecclesiam" 35 And of the Pelagians, who
believing no original sin, had therefore the most favourable opinion of
any that was then held, of the natural state of infants he says, " that
even they, being awed by the authority of the Gospel, or rather, Chris-
tianorum populorum concordissima fidei conspiratione perfracti, ' being
overswayed by the agreeing consent in the faith of all Christian people,'
sine ulla excusatione coneedunt quod nullus parvulus, nisi, &c., do without
any tergiversation own, that no infant that is not born again of water
and of the Spirit does enter into the kingdom of God." 86
M I':Pist- 28- * Epist. 105, ad Sixtum, prope finem.
St Aitstin's Opinion of their State. 107
Tertullian himself, who at one place advises to keep children un-
baptised till the age of reason, is thought by the paedobaptists, and
confessed by some of the other side, to mean " when there is no danger
of death before : " because he owns it for a standing rule, that "without
baptism there is no salvation for any person." 37 And Nazianzen, who
advises to defer their baptism till they are three years old or thereabouts,
expresses himself with this limitation " if there be no danger of death."
And if there be any danger, advises it to be given out of hand, as a
thing without which they will, he says, "not be glorified."38 And
except these two, none speak of any delay of it at all.
§ 5. But that party that believed no middle state, and thought that
the Scripture obliges us to confess that infants are under some degree
of condemnation, and that they are by nature children of that wrath
mentioned Ep. ii. 3, yet believed that it is a very moderate and mild
punishment which they shall suffer, if they die unbaptised. This I
speak of the times of our period of the four first centuries : for afterwards
the opinion grew more rigid, as we shall see.
St Austin does very often assert this mild degree of their condemna
tion ; because the Pelagians did not fail to represent the doctrine of
original sin odious upon the account of such infants as missed of baptism,
sometimes not by their parent's fault, but by some unavoidable accident.
He thinks it necessary to maintain against these men the doctrine itself,
though it be severe ; but he takes care not to represent it more severe
than he thought the plain words of Scripture enforced. Therefore as
in one place of his book de peccat. merit, he says, " Let us not therefore
of our own head promise any eternal salvation to infants without the
baptism of Christ, which the Holy Scripture that is to be preferred to
all human wit does not promise." 39 So in another chapter of that book
he has these words :
" It may well be said that infants departing this life without baptism
will be under the mildest condemnation of all. But he that affirms that
they will 'not be under condemnation, does much deceive us, and is
deceived himself: whenas the Apostle says, 'Judgment came on all
men to condemnation,' " 40 &c. To the same purpose he speaks in his
Enchiridion, ch. xciii.
In another book of his it appears how mild he thought this condem
nation might be : even so mild, that to be in that state might be better
than to have no being at all. For Julian the Pelagian had objected,
that if the doctrine of original sin were true, it were a cruel and wicked
thing to beget children, who would be born in a state of condemnation,
and consequently in such a state as that it were to be wished they had
never been born : citing that of our Saviour, " Well were it for that man
37 See Ft. I. ch. iv. § 3. x See Pt. I. ch. xi. § 6. 39 Cap. xxiii.
40 Cap. xv.
io8 The History of Infant Baptism,
that he had never been born." To this St Austin answers,41 that God
is the author of being to all men ; many of whom, as Julian must con
fess, will be eternally condemned : and yet God is not to be accused of
cruelty for creating them. And farther, that all godly parents will take
all care possible for baptising their children, which will take off that
original guilt, and make them heirs of a glorious kingdom. And as to
those infants that yet die unbaptised, answers thus':
" I do not say that infants dying without the baptism of Christ will
be punished with so great pain, as that it were better for them not to
have been born : since our Lord spoke this, not of all sinners, but of the
most profligate and impious ones. For if in the day of judgment some
shall be punished in a more tolerable degree than others ; as he said of
the men of Sodom, and would be understood not of them only : who
can doubt but that infants unbaptised, who have only original sin, and
are not loaded with any sins of their own, will be in the gentlest
condemnation of all ? Which as I am not able to define what or how
great it will be ; so I dare not say that it would be better for them not
to be at all, than to be in that state.
" And you yourselves who contend that they are free from all con
demnation, are not willing to consider to what condemnation you make
them subject, when you separate from the life of God and the Kingdom
of God so many images of God ; and also when you separate them from
their pious parents, whom you expressly encourage to the begetting of
them. If they have no original sin, it is unjust that they should suffer
so much as that Or if they suffer that justly, then they have original
sin."
He shows that the future state in which the Pelagians thought such
infants would be is not so different from that in which he judged they
would be, as they did invidiously represent. For they confessed that
without baptism they could not come to the Kingdom of God, but must
eternally be separated from God and from their parents; but they
would not call this condemnation. He judged that they were under
condemnation, but so gentle, that probably that state would be better
than no being at all : and consequently that they or their parents would
have no reason to wish that they had never been born.
St Austin does so generally observe this rule of speaking with great
caution and tenderness of the degree of their condemnation, that when
Erasmus came to revise his works, he quickly found that the book, de
fide ad Petrumvzs none of his,42 for this reason among others, because
the author (who is since known to be Fulgentius) does express the
condemnation of infants that die unbaptised in such rigid terms as that
whether they die in their mother's womb, or after they are born,43 one
41 L. v. contra Julianum, ch. viii. « Erasmi censura ad istum librum.
43 Cap. xxvii.
Opinion of Fulgentius, Gregory, &c. 109
must hold for certain and undoubted that they are ignis aterni semp-
iterno supplido puniendi, ' to be tormented with the everlasting punish
ment of eternal fire;'" and again, " interminabilia gehennas sustinere
supplicia : ubi Diabolus," 44 &c., 'to suffer the endless torments of hell ; .
where the devil with his angels is to burn for evermore.' "This," says
Erasmus, " I never read anywhere else in St Austin : though he does
frequently use the words punishment, condemnation, perishing."
Erasmus's observation is true for the general. Yet it must be con
fessed that in one sermon 45 of his, where he is eagerly declaiming against
the Pelagians, who taught that infants were baptised not for eternal life
but for the kingdom of heaven, and that if they die unbaptised they will
miss of the kingdom of heaven indeed, but have eternal life in some
other good place : he confutes their opinion thus : " Our Lord will
come to judge the quick and the dead ; and He will make two sides, the
right and the left. To those on the left-hand He will say, ' Depart into
everlasting fire,' &c. To those on the right, ' Come, receive the king
dom,' &c. He calls one, 'the kingdom;' the other, 'Condemnation
with the devil.' There is no middle place left, where you can put
infants." — And afterwards : " Thus I have explained to you what is the
kingdom, and what everlasting fire : so that when you confess the infant
will not be in 'the kingdom,' you must acknowledge he will be in
'everlasting fire.'"
But these words came from him in the midst of a declamatory dispute.
He would, if he had been to explain himself, have said, as in other
places, that this fire would be to them the most moderate of all. Though
he speak of this matter a thousand or two thousand times, yet he never,
as I know of, mentions the word eternal fire in their case but here.
So that we must either conclude that the heat of controversy carried him
in that extempore sermon beyond his usual thought : or else we must
conclude, by Erasmus's rule, that that sermon is none of his.
It was the foresaid book of Fulgentius (which asserts this dogmatically,
and over and over), being commonly joined with his works, and taken
for his, that fixed on him in after ages the title of " Durus infantum
Pater," ' The father that is so hard to infants.' It was Fulgentius, that
lived one hundred years after, and not he, that most deserved that
name.
Whereas Grotius observes 46 that St Austin never expressed anything
at all of their condemnation, not even to those lesser pains, till after he
had been heated by the Pelagian disputes — seeming to intimate that he
was not of that opinion before ; but took it up then in opposition to the
Pelagians. I have showed before 47 what St Austin himself says to that
imputation : for it was objected by some in his life-time.
44 Cap. iii. 43 De Verbis Apostoli, Serm. 14.
w Annot. in Matt. xix. 14. 47 Pt. I. ch. xv. sect. 3, § 2.
1 10 The History of Infant Baptism.
§ 6. I shall here make a short excursion beyond my limits of four
hundred years ; and see how the opinions of men did come to some
abatement of this rigour after the times of Fulgentius, who died anno
533-
in Pope Gregory's time, A.D. 600, the opinion of their being tor
mented continued. For he speaks thus : " Some are taken from
this present life before they come to have any good or ill deserts by
their own deeds ; and having not the sacrament of salvation for their
deliverance from original sin, though they have done nothing of their
own here, yet there they come adtormenta ' to torments.' " 48 And a little
after, " Perpetua tormenta percipiunt," ' they undergo eternal torments.'
The same, or at least the opinion of moderate torments, continued
down to Aflselm's time : for he speaks thus on the subject :
" Though all shall not be equally tormented in hell. For after the day
of judgment there will be no angel nor human person but what will be
either in the Kingdom of God, or else in hell. So then the sin of
infants is less than the sin of Adam ; and yet none can be saved without
that universal satisfaction by which sin, be it great or small, is to be
forgiven." 49
Thus far it continued. But about this time the doctrine of the
Church of Rome and the Western world took a great turn in this point ;
and they came over to the opinion of the Greek doctors that I men
tioned. For Peter Lombard, A.D. 1150, determines50 that the proper
punishment of original sin (where there is no actual sin added to it) is
"poena damni, non pcena sensus," 'the punishment of loss (viz., loss of
heaven and the sight of God), but not the punishment of sense, viz., of
positive torment.'
Pope Innocent the Third confirms this, by determining that the
" Punishment of original sin is carentia lisionis Dei, ' being deprived
of the sight of God ; ' and of actual sin the punishment to be gehenme
perpetua cruciatus, ' the torments of an everlasting hell.' " 51
Then Alexander de Ales,52 and Aquinas,53 and so the whole troop
of schoolmen do establish the same by their determinations. They
suppose there is a place or state of hell or hades, which they call
" limbus " or " infernus puerorum," where unbaptised infants will be in
no other torment or condemnation but the loss of heaven.
But they did not know what to do with that authority of the book
defide ad Petrum, which I mentioned, and which they took to be St
Austin's, which says : "We must believe most firmly, and make no
question of it, that they are tormented with eternal fire." Yet see the
48 Lib. i. Exposit. in Job c. xvi.
8 Lib. de concept. Virginis et peccat. originali., cap. xxii.
co Lib. i. Sentent. Dist. xxxii. ^ Uecret. lib. iii. cap. de baptismo.
" P. II., g. 105, M. 10. si Tertia, Q. i, Art. iv..
The Schoolmen's Limbiis Puerorum, 1 1 r
power of distinctions. Alexander de Ales answers : " To be punished
with that fire may be understood two ways : either on account of the
heat of it, or of the darkness of it. They that have actual sins will be
punished with the heat : but the other, only with the darkness of it, as
wanting the sight of God," 54 &c. Now darkness without heat is, one
would think, but improperly expressed by fire. But he says (and true
enough), " that if we do not understand it so, it will be contrary to what
St Austin says at other places of the mildness of their punishment."
This was, as I said, the general opinion of the schoolmen. Yet
Gregorius Ariminensis 55 (who is called the tormentor of children) and
Dreido 56 endeavoured to revive the opinion of Fulgentius ; but found
no followers, after that the other opinion had been countenanced.
The doctrine of eternal torments finds a difficulty in sinking into men's
belief (if they have considered what eternity is) when it is applied to
the case of wicked men. Much more in the case of infants, who have
in their own person not known or committed good or evil, and have
only the stain of nature. And our Saviour, speaking of grown men,
says, " They shall be beaten with few stripes, if they be ignorant persons,
and such as knew not their Master's will." How much more must that
rule hold in the case of infants who never were capable of any sense at
all about it ?
Dr Field in his book of the Church,57 is pleased to call this opinion
of the schools a Pelagian conceit. But I have proved that it is older,
especially in the Greek Church, than Pelagius ; and was held by those
that acknowledged original corruption : which corruption, they con
fessed, carried with it, in unbaptised persons, condemnation. But they
thought the loss of heaven for ever was that condemnation ; and that
when there was no actual sin in the case, there would no positive
punishment, or a very gentle one, be added. They thought that that
alone made a mighty difference between infants baptised, and those
that die unbaptised ; that the one should enter the Kingdom of Heaven,
the other eternally miss of it : according to that sentence of our Saviour
before mentioned (John iii. 5).
This opinion of no positive punishment, or a very gentle one, was
afterwards so general, that when the contrary one was anew set up by
the Protestants, it was by some adjudged to be heresy. For Father
Paul, in giving an account how the Council of Trent prepared 58 their
decrees about original sin (which were determined in the fifth session,
June 17, 1546) mentions their disputes among themselves, whether
they should condemn as heretical that proposition of the Lutherans :
"That the punishment for original sin is hell fire:" and says it missed very
54 Loc. citat. 55 L. ii. Disk xxxi. Q. 3.
56 Lib. i. De gratia et lib. arbitrio. tract, iii. 57 Lib. iii. Appendix.
58 Hist, of the Council of Trent, lib. ii.
! r 2 The History of Infant Baptism.
narrowly being anathematised : it was only out of respect to St Austin
and Gregorius Ariminensis that they forbore. The good Fathers doubt
less mistook, as well as other men, Fulgentius's book for St Austin's ;
so that the blow had in great measure missed him : but by what I pro
duced before out of Pope Gregory the First, " They shall undergo
eternal torments," it appears that they were nigh doing a greater mis
chief. There wanted but an ace, but they had branded one of the
renowned bishops of the infallible See for a heretic. A shot that would
have recoiled on themselves.
§ 7. All mentioned hitherto have taken for granted that there are no
hopes of such infants entering the Kingdom of Heaven : only they
differ about their positive punishment, or the degree of it. But some
others have conceived hopes of their obtaining that also in one case ;
which is, when the parents being good Christians do in heart and
purpose dedicate their child to God, and pray for it, and do their best
endeavour to get it baptised, but are prevented by its sudden death.
I have taken some pains (more perhaps than such a particular thing
deserves) to find who was the first that ventured to declare this chari
table opinion, after it had been so decried by the ancients, and recanted
by Vincentius. I find none elder than Hincmarus, Archbishop of
Rheims, A.D. 860, who expressed such hopes; but it was in a
case that was very particular. A certain rash and stubborn bishop in
his province, named Hincmarus too, Bishop of Laudun, had excom
municated all his clergy, so that there was nobody to give baptism,
absolution, or burial. The archbishop writes a severe reproof to him,59
and in it takes occasion to speak of the fate of such infants as had in the
meantime died without baptism ; hoping that they, by God's extraordin
ary mercy, might be saved, though he had done what lay in him for their
perishing. He argues thus : " As in the case of infants that are under
the guilt of the sin of nature, that is, the sins of others ; the faith of
others, that is, of their godfathers that answer for them in baptism, is a
means of their salvation. So also to those infants to whom you have
caused baptism to be denied, the faith and godly desire of their parents
or godfathers, who, in sincerity, desired baptism for them, but obtained
it not, may be a help [or profit] by the gift of Him whose Spirit (which
gives regeneration) breathes where it pleases." I have occasion to men
tion this Hincmarus of Laudun again in the next chapter, § i, because
Danvers, reading somewhere that his metropolitan reproved him for
suffering infants to die unbaptised, concluded that he was doubtless a
bishop for his turn.
Then for the case of an infant dying in the womb, the schoolmen before-
mentioned, Alexander de Ales and Aquinas 60 do say : " That such an
infant being subject to no action of man, but of God only, He may have
59 Opusculum 55 capitulorum, cap. xlviii. w P. 3, Q. 68, Art. n.
Wickliff's Opinion of Unbaptised Infants. I \ 3
ways of saving it for aught we know." They extend this no farther than
to the case of a still-born infant, though the reason seems much the same
for one that dies before he can possibly be baptised.
Vossius 61 brings in St Bernard, Petrus Blesensis, Hugo de Sancto Vic-
tore, and even St Austin himself, as asserting a possibility of salvation
and the Kingdom of Heaven without baptism ; and he seems to under
stand this, their assertion, to extend to the case of infants. But the
places of St Austin and Bernard are no other than those I recited, § 4
of this chapter, which do expressly exclude infants, and speak only of
grown men, whose actual faith and desire of baptism makes amends for
the want of it where it cannot be had. And the places in the other
two, Blesensis and Hugo, do, if one examine them, speak to no other
purpose.
The next, therefore, that I know of that has any favourable opinion,
or rather suspends all opinion, of the case of such infants, is our
Wickliff, whose words are these : " When an infant of believers is
brought to Church, that according to Christ's rule he may be baptised,
and the water or some other requisite is wanting, and the people's pious
intention continuing, he dies in the meantime naturally by the will of
God, it seems hard to define positively the damnation of such an in
fant, when neither the infant nor the people have sinned, that he should
be damned. Where, then, is the merciful liberality of Christ ? " &c.62
Then he discourses some things preparatory to his answer, too large
to repeat here ; but his answer is this, cap. xii. : "And by this, I answer
your third objection, granting that God, if He will, may damn such an
infant, and do him no wrong, and if He will, He can save him ; and I
dare not define either part. Nor am I careful about reputation, or get
ting evidence in the case, but as a dumb man, am silent, humbly con
fessing my ignorance, using conditional words, because it is not clear to
me whether such an infant shall be saved or damned. But I know that
whatever God does in it will be just, and a work of mercy to be praised
of all the faithful." Then he calls them presumptuous that of their own
authority define anything in this case. He counts it rash to determine
their damnation, and on the other side says : " He that says, ' That in
this case put, an infant shall be saved as is pious to believe,' puts him
self more than needs, or will profit him, upon an uncertainty." In the
next chapter he handles the degree of their punishment in case they be
damned, and he determines it contrary to the Schools that it will be not
only loss of heaven, but sensible punishment.
It is to be noted that he had spoke his mind before of the state of
infants that are baptised, as being out of danger. For in cap. xii., hav
ing discoursed of three sorts of baptism, viz., of water, of blood, and of
61 De baptismo, Disp. vii., thesi. xxii. xxiii. 6a Trialog. , 1. iv. c. xi.
1 14 The History of Infant Baptism.
the Spirit, and that the third is the chief, and that God, for aught we
know, may sometimes grant that without the other. He adds : " Repu-
tamus tamen absque dubietate quod infantes rectk baptizati flumine, sint
baptizati tertio baptismate, cum habeant gratiam baptismalem." ' But
we hold that to be without doubt, that infants that are rightly baptised
with water, are baptised with the third baptism [viz., that of the Spirit],
whenas [or seeing that] they have the baptismal grace.'
This last I note, because Mr Danvers 63 had brought this man for one
of his witnesses against infant baptism, taking a great deal of pains to
show how great a man Wickliff was. And what is worse, he had cited
some passages out of this book and these very chapters, taking here and
there a scrap, which by itself might seem to make for his purpose.
Mr Baxter,64 to answer him and vindicate Wickliff, transcribed the
whole passage of the length of several pages ; a thing that is tedious,
but yet necessary in answering such quoters. "And now reader judge,"
says Mr Baxter, " what a sad case poor, honest, ignorant Christians are
in, that must have their souls seduced, troubled, and led into separa
tions, &c., by such a man. . . . When a man as pleading for Christ
and baptism dare not only print such things, but stand to them in a
second edition, and defend them by a second book."
But all this did no good upon him. For that he might show himself
the most tenacious man that ever lived, of what he had once said, he
does in another reply after that, go about with a great many words
to maintain his point.
I shall be so civil to my reader, as to take for granted that the words
of Wickliff here given, though but a small part of those produced
by Mr Baxter, do satisfy him : for if an author give his opinion in plain
words, that all baptised infants are in a state of salvation, but make
a question of those that die unbaptised, whether they can be saved or
not, and do also speak of the baptising of an infant as being accord
ing to Christ's rule, and do call the people's intention of doing it, a
pious intention, one needs no plainer account of his approving it. If
Wickliff had ever spoke a word against the baptising of infants, the
Council of Constance would not have failed in those forty-five articles
drawn up against him after his death, to have objected that, for they
commonly overdo that work : whereas they object nothing about
baptism, and what others object is, that he gave hopes that some
unbaptised infants might come to heaven.
The same thing appears in the tenets of WicklifTs scholars that
survived him. For Fox in his Martyrology^ recites out of the Register
of the Church of Hereford, a declaration of faith made by one Walter
Brute, a scholar of Wickliffs, examined before the Bishop of Hereford,
« Treat, of Bapt., page, 280, ed. ii. 64 More Proof -
• Second Edition, vol. i. p. 453.
The Lollards' and Hussites' Opinion. 115
A.D. 1393, in which he says, "I greatly marvel at that saying in the
decrees which is ascribed to Austin, that little children that are not
baptised, shall be tormented with eternal fire, although they were born
of faithful parents, who wished them with all their hearts to have been
baptised. . . . How shall the infant be damned that is born of faithful
parents that do not despise, but rather desire to have their children
baptised ? " &c. And afterwards, in the time of Henry IV., one of the
articles usually enjoined for the Lollards, who were the disciples of
Wickliff, to recant, was, as Fox GG recites it, this : " That an infant, though
he die unbaptised, shall be saved." But there is no such thing in Fox,
as Danvers 6T would prove out of a book he calls Dutch Martyrology, that
one Clifford informed the archbishop that a Lollard, if he had a child
new-born "would not have him be baptised." Fox does indeed tell,68
how a good while after, in the time of Henry VI., some Lollards of
Norfolk had among other articles, this objected to them ; that they
held, or taught, " That Christian people be sufficiently baptised in the
blood of Christ, and need no water; and that infants be sufficiently
baptised if their parents be baptised before them ; and that the sacra
ment of baptism used in the Church by water is but a light matter, and
of small effect/' But he shows at the same place, that in all probability
both this and several other of the articles charged on them were
by the informers altered in words from what they had said, on purpose
to make them odious ; which was the constant vein of the Popish
accusers of those times. Wickliff had said, that the water itself without
the baptism of the Spirit, is of little efficacy. And he and his followers
had said, that if the parents be good Christians, and pray for their child,
there are hopes that it may be saved, though it do by some sudden
chance die before it can be baptised. And if these men said no more
than so, yet that was enough for their adversaries to frame such a
slanderous information. But if we suppose that they did really hold
what was objected, then they were not of the antipsedobaptist opinion
(as Danvers,69 by altering the words something the other way, would
represent), but of the humour of the Quakers to slight all water-baptism.
The Hussites also, in Bohemia, had the same hopeful opinion, viz. :
that infants dying unbaptised may be saved by the mercy of God
accepting their parent's faithful desire of baptising them for the deed,
as appears by their history, both in Fox 7° and the writers from whom
he copies. And this was objected to them as an error by the Papists
there, as it was to the Lollards here. Indeed, they were disciples of
our Wickliff, as well as the Lollards. For John Huss, the first reformer
there, imbibed the sense of religion which he had from Wickliff s books,
and took this principle among the rest.
™ Ibid., p. 485. 67 Treat, Pt. II. ch. vii. <» Ubi prius, p. 608.
6U Treat., Pt. II. ch. vii. 70 At the year 1415.
! £6 Tlie History of Infant Baptism.
Nay, even in the Church of Rome, some doctors have shown a great
inclination to this opinion, and have expressed it as far as they durst.
Cassander quotes Gerson, Biel, Cajetan, and some others, as expressing
some hopes in this case, and encouraging the parents of such children
to pray for them. But I doubt that Gerson and Biel do mean only
such infants as die in the womb, which amounts to no more than what
the old Schoolmen had said, as I showed. Yet Gerson's words are
ambiguous : I will set them down. He had been observing that God
does not always tack His mercy to the Sacraments, and thereupon
advises "Women great with child and their husbands to use their prayers
for their infant that is not yet born, that (if it be to die before it can come
to the grace of baptism with water) the Lord Jesus would vouchsafe
to sanctify it beforehand with the baptism of His Holy Spirit For who
knows but that God may perhaps hear them? Nay, who would not
devoutly hope that He will not despise the prayers of His humble servants
that trust in Him ? This consideration is useful to raise devotion in the
parents, and to ease their trouble of mind if the child die without bap
tism, forasmuch as all hope is not taken away. But yet there is, I con
fess, no certainty without a revelation." n
This is part of a sermon preached before the Council of Constance,
where Huss was condemned and martyred. And one error whereof
Huss was accused, was, that he held the salvation of infants that by mis
chance die unbaptised. Therefore if Gerson mean this of children
born alive, it shews that he was of another temper than the rest of that
bloody popish council.
Cardinal Cajetan was another of the better sort of papists ; and he
ventures to say of children that die after they are born and yet before
they can be baptised, that " it is not unreasonable to say that baptism
in the desire of the parents is in such case of necessity sufficient for
their salvation,"72 but says, he speaks " under correction." And he has
been corrected. For some doctors have called him heretic for this ; ~'A
others that are not so severe yet say it is an erroneous and rash opinion
to think this to be possible. Indeed the Council of Florence had
determined that " the souls of all that die in actual mortal sin, or even
in original sin alone, do go ad infernum ' to hell.' " I suppose they mean
that infants go to that part of hell which they call limbus pueronun,
where there are no torments.
But above all, Cassander74 himself has shown a very compassionate
temper in the pains he has taken to encourage parents to some hopes,
and to earnest prayers for their child so dying, but withal a very
modest one, when he adds these words : " This opinion of mine con-
71 Scrm. de Nativitate Marine Consid. 2.
74 In tertiam partem Thomac, Q. 68, Art. I and 2.
73 Vasquez in tertiam, t. 2, Disp. 141, c. iii. 74 De baptismo infantium.
Some Doctors of the ChurcJi of Rome. 1 17
cerning infants I will not defend with contention or obstinacy, nor
rashly condemn those who, being persuaded by the authority of the
ancients and of almost the whole Church, do allow salvation to those
infants only to whom God in His secret but just judgment does vouch
safe the sacrament of regeneration and baptism."
§ 8. Upon the Reformation, the Protestants generally have denned
that the due punishment of original sin is, in strictness, damnation in
hell. I suppose and hope that they mean with St Austin a very moderate
degree of it in the case of infants in whom original corruption, which is
i\\Qfomes or source of all wickedness, has not broken out into any actual
sin.
But if their doctrine has in this respect been more rigid than that of
the Church of Rome, or of the ancient Greek doctors, they have in
another respect, viz., in the case of Christian people's children, given
such a mitigating explication of our Saviour's words as to allow better
hopes than either of them. For they do generally incline to think that
if a child by misfortune die before it can have baptism, the parents'
sincere intention of giving it, and their prayers, will be accepted with
God for the deed, and will be available to procure of God's mercy pardon
of original sin, and even an entrance into the Kingdom. Whereas the
Schoolmen and Fathers have thought that Christ at the Day of Judgment
will proceed by that sentence, (John iii. 3, 5), " such an one cannot enter
into the Kingdom of God," in the manner that a judge in a court of
common law proceeds upon the words of a statute, having no power to
make allowance for circumstances; the Protestants do hope that He
will act in the manner that a judge of a court of equity does, who has
power to mitigate the letter of the law in cases where reason would have
it. The Fathers themselves thought this allowance would be made in
the case of a grown man, who had a personal desire of baptism, and
that if it was an invincible necessity that kept him from water, he might
enter the Kingdom without being born of water. The Protestants think
the same in the case of the desire of the parent for his infant. They
think thus : the main thing in God's intention in this case is that a
parent as he dedicates himself to God, so he should likewise dedicate
his child and get him entered into that covenant made in Christ, with
out which there is no hopes of Heaven ; and that he should accordingly
make use of that symbol or outward sign which God has appointed to
be the way of admission into that covenant, if he can possibly, and that
his refusal to do the latter will be looked on as a refusal of the covenant
itself. But that if, notwithstanding his sincere desire and endeavour of
obtaining the outward symbol, he be by some accident disappointed of
it, God will yet grant the same favour that He had promised upon the
use of it, because it is the heart that God regards ; and where that is
ready, outward things are accepted according to what a man has, and
1 1 g The History of Infant Baptism.
not according to what he has not, especially it' some act of God Him
self—as the sudden death of the infant, &c. — do render it impossible
for him to have them.
Luther and his followers do indeed speak more doubtfully of this, and
do lay so much stress on actual baptism as that they allow a layman to
do the office in times of necessity, rather than that the infant should die
without it
But Calvin and those that follow him (who to the great prejudice of
religion made a needless schism from the others, or else the others from
them, I know not which) sunk the doctrine of the necessity of baptism
a pitch lower. They own that baptism is necessary not only necessi
tate pracepti, by God's command, but also thus far, necessitate medii,
that it is God's ordinary means to regenerate and give salvation.75 But
they determine it as a thing certain that the child of a godly believing
parent shall obtain the kingdom of heaven, though he do by sudden
death, &c., miss of baptism, " provided this happen by no negligence
or contumacy of the parent." And they deny that there is or can be
any such necessity as to justify a layman's giving it. And Calvin takes
an occasion to jeer some Papists that had said, " that if a child be like
to die, and no water to be had but what is in the bottom of a deep well,
and nothing to draw with, the best way is to throw the child down into
the well that it may be washed before it be dead."
The Church of England have declared their sense of the necessity by re
citing that saying of our Saviour (John iii. 5) both in the office of Baptism
of Infants, and also in that for those of riper years. And in the latter
they add these words : " Beloved, you hear in this gospel the express
words of our Saviour Christ, that ' except a man be born of water and
of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.' Whereby you
may perceive the great necessity of this Sacrament, where it may be
had." And Archbishop Laud, showing that infant baptism is proved
from Scripture, and not from the tradition of the Church only (against
the Jesuit, his adversary, who, to cast in a bone of contention, had
asserted the latter) gives his sense of it thus : " That baptism is neces
sary to the salvation of infants (in the ordinary way of the Church, with
out binding God to the use and means of that Sacrament to which He
has bound us) is expressed in St John iii. — Except," 76 &c.
Concerning the everlasting state of an infant that by misfortune dies
unbaptised, the Church of England has determined nothing (it were fit
that all churches would leave such things to God), save that they forbid
the ordinary office for burial to be used for such an one : for that were
to determine the point, and acknowledge him for a Christian brother.
And though the most noted men in the said Church from time to time,
K Calvin Antidot. ad Synod. Trident. Seff. 7, Can. 5, it. Antidot. ad Artie. Paris
\rt. i, it. Institut. 1. iv. c. Ixxv. § 22. « Reiatjon of Conference, § 15, num. iv.
CJnircli of England Presbyterian Antipcedobaptists. 1 19
since the Reformation of it to this time, have expressed their hopes that
God will accept the purpose of the parent for the deed, yet they have
done it modestly, and much as Wickliff did, rather not determining the
negative than absolutely determining the positive that such a child shall
enter into the kingdom of heaven. Archbishop Laud's words we see are,
" We are not to bind God, though He has bound us." And Archbishop
Whitgift, disputing with Cartwright, says, " I dislike as much as you the
opinion of those that think infants condemned that are not baptised." 77
All this is modest. But there are indeed some that do make a pish at any
one that is not confident, or does speak with any reserve about that matter ;
and they despise him and his scruples as much, and with as much success,
as Vincentius the talkative did those of St Austin on the same point.78
For the opinion of the English Presbyterians, I shall content myself
with citing these words of Mr Baxter : " I have hereby been made
thankful that God has kept me from the snare of anabaptism. For
though I do not lay so much as some do on the mere outward act or
water of baptism (believing that our heart-consent and dedication
qualifies infants for a covenant right before actual baptism which yet is
Christ's regular solemnisation and investiture) yet I make a great matter
of the main controversy. Notwithstanding that I hereticate not the
anabaptists for the bare opinion's sake," etc.79
The antipsedobaptists, as they allow no advantage to an infant by its
baptism, nor yet by its being the child of a godly and religious parent,
so they do not all agree about the state of infants dying before actual
sin. One sort of them determine with great assurance that all infants,
of heathens as well as Christians, of the wicked as well as of the godly,
shall be saved, and shall enter into the kingdom of God. And they
dissuade men from having their children baptised, or born again of
water, etc., seeing by this determination they are secure of heaven
without it. To which the other commonly answer that they desire such
a safety for their children as has some ground in God's word, and not
in their determination only, since an infant has no promise, right, or
expectation of the kingdom of heaven, merely as it is a human creature,
or born of human race, but only as being entered and interested in the
covenant of Christ, by which is promised an eternal life after this ; and
the said covenant does require, as a condition of all that are to enter
into the kingdom, that they be born again of water, etc.
Another sort of antipsedobaptists have not this assurance concerning
all infants, but do suppose a different state of them on account of the
decrees of election and reprobation.
§ 9. Concerning the state of a baptised infant dying before actual
sin, the whole Christian world has agreed that it is undoubtedly saved
77 Defence of Answ. to Admonition, tr. ix. ch. v. div. 2.
78 See Ft. I. ch. xx. 79 Reply to Hutchinson, p. 39.
1 20 The History of Infant Baptism.
and will be admitted to the joys of heaven, since it has all that the
Church of Christ can give it. St Austin says, as I showed before,
"He that does not believe this is an Infidel."8 And, "God forbid
that we should doubt of it." It is certain there was never any doubt
made of it till the times of the late managers of the doctrine of Pre
destination. Some of these have added several limitations and provisos
to this proposition relating to the election or sanctification of the par
ents, or their right to church membership; and some of them have
used such expressions, as that they seem to think that even among the
infants of faithful parents, some are so reprobated by the eternal decree
of God, that though they be baptised, and die in infancy, yet they will
be damned. Some sayings of Paraeus, Perkins, Zanchius, &c., are by
their adversaries produced to this purpose.81 And it is known what
exceptions some have taken to the rubric of the last edition of the
English Liturgy at the end of the office of baptism ; that " it is certain
by God's Word that children which are baptised, dying before they
commit actual sin, are undoubtedly saved."
What enemies soever that assertion may have now, it had none in
those times of which I am writing. The maintainers of predestination
in those days spoke thus of the case of an infant dying before actual
sin : that if he was baptised before he died, it was thence manifest that
he had been elected ; if not, it appeared that he was not elected. Or
thus : that those infants which were predestinated to salvation came by
God's providence to obtain baptism, but the others missed of it.
This is plain in the discourses of St Austin, Prosper, Fulgentius, &c.,
"There are," says St Austin, "two infants born : if you ask what
merit they have, they both are of the lump of perdition. But how
comes it that the mother of the one brings him to the grace [viz., of
baptism], the mother of the other in her sleep overlies it ? You will
ask me, What merit had one that he should be brought to the grace ?
What merit had the other that was overlaid by his sleeping mother ?
Neither of them deserved any good. But ' the potter has power over
his clay, of the same lump, to make one vessel to honour, another to
dishonour.' "82
And he puts a harder case yet. The Pelagians, who held that the
grace of God is given according to men's merits, were urged by St Austin
to tell what foregoing merit one infant that was baptised and then died
could have above another that died without the grace of baptism. " If
you should say," says he, " that he merited this by the piety of his
parents, you will be answered : Why then do the children of godly
parents sometimes miss of this benefit, and the children of wicked
80 Pt. I. ch. xv. sect. 5, § 6.
* See Acta Synodalia Dordracena Remonstrantium Dogmatica, pp. 45, 46.
• berm. De Verbis Apost. , xi.
Prcedestinarians and Semipelagians. 1 2 1
parents obtain it ? Sometimes a child born of religious parents is taken
away as soon as it is born, before it be washed with the laver of re
generation, and an infant born of the enemies of Christ is, by the com
passion of some Christian, baptised in Christ. A baptised and chaste
mother bewails her own son dying unbaptised, and yet finding another
child left in the street by some strumpet, takes it up and procures it to
be baptised. Here for certain the merits of the parents can have no
place," 83 &c. He goes on to show by several other reasons or instances
that it was impossible to assign any other ground of difference, except
the free purpose of God, " Why some infants being baptised should
obtain, and others dying unbaptised should miss of, so excellent a benefit
of being made the sons of God, without any merit of their parents, or of
their own."
So Prosper (or be it Hilarius or Pope Leo that was the author of the
book De Vocatione Gentium, lib. i. c. vii.,) challenges those who attri
buted the difference that God makes in calling one nation or one person
to the means of salvation, and not another, to the different use that
they had made of free-will, to give any tolerable account of the case of
infants : " Why some being regenerated, are saved ; others not being
regenerated, do perish. For I suppose," says he, " that those patrons
of free-will will not be so shameless as either to say that this difference
happens by chance, or to deny that those that are not regenerated do
perish."
And those who were at that time (from the year 420 to 500) the
opposite party in the Church to those that held this absolute election
and reprobation, and were called by the others Semipelagians, as in
reference to the adult, they maintained that God had elected those who
He foresaw would be faithful. So for infants that die in infancy, they
said, that those of them which God foresaw would have been godly if
they had lived, those He in His providence took care should be
baptised ; and those that would have been wicked if they had lived, He
by some providence causes to miss of baptism. So that both these con
trary parties agreed in this ; that of infants so dying all the baptised
ones were saved, and (as the opinion then was) all the unbaptised
missed of it.
Of the modern Prsedestinarians or Calvinists, if some have been so
rigid as to think that some baptised infants dying in infancy do perish,
yet they are not all of that opinion. Vossius allows it to be an infal
lible rule which is expressed in the rubric aforesaid. " It is," says he,84
" not the judgment of charity only, but of charity that cannot be mis
taken, that we account baptised infants go to heaven, as many of them
as die before the use of reason, and before they have defiled themselves
with actual sins."
83 Lib. ii., "Contra duas Epistolas Pelagianorum," c. vi.
M De Baptismo, Disp. iv. , th. iv.
1 2 2 The History of Infant Baptism.
§ 10. From the last quoted place of St Austin, one may observe,
that the ancients did not, in the baptising of children, go by that
rule which some modern Calvinists would establish, viz., that none
are to be baptised but the children of parents actually godly and
religious. For he speaks of the case of a strumpet's child, or a child
" born of the enemies of Christ," viz., of heathens, found in the streets
and baptised, as a common instance. And in his epistle to Auxilius 85
a young bishop that had rashly excommunicated a whole family for
the parents' crimes, he desires him to show a reason, if he can, how
a son, a wife, a slave, can justly be excommunicated for the fault of the
father, husband, and master. And then adds : " Or any one in that family
that is not yet born, but may be born during the excommunication ; so
that he cannot, if in danger of death, be relieved by the laver of
regeneration."
Bishop Stillingfleet has fully shown the absurdity and inconsistency of
this opinion of the Calvinists, and how they can never, in many cases
that may be put, come to a resolution or agreement what children may
be baptised, and what not ; and has cleared the grounds of baptism
from such scruples.86 And as for the text, i Cor. vii. 14, on which
they build those scruples.87 I have shown that the ancients do understand
it in a sense much more plain and natural, and more agreeable to the
scope of St Paul's arguing there, which gives no foundation for any such
scruple. And we see by the instances here brought, and many other,
that they willingly baptised any infants, if the parents or any other that
were owners or possessors of such infants showed so much faith in
Christ as to desire baptism for them.
CHAPTER VII.
AN ACCOUNT OF« THE STATE OF THIS PRACTICE FROM THE YEAR 400
TILL THE RISE OF THE GERMAN ANTIP^DOBAPTISTS. OF THE
WALDENSES, AND THEIR CHIEF ACCUSERS, ST BERNARD, PETRUS
CLUNIACENSIS, REINERIUS, PILICHDORF, ETC. THE CONFESSIONS
OF THE WALDENSES THEMSELVES.
§ i. T GAVE before a note of reference to the books of some authors
that lived after the year 400, for the use of those that would
trace this practice for one century farther.1 The general account of
them is, that they speak of infant baptism as a thing uncontroverted.
And so it holds for all the following times till after the year 1000. The
antipaedobaptists who do put in their plea for the first three hundred or
* Epist. 75. 86 Unreasonableness of Separation, Part III., sect. 36.
Part I. ch. xix. § 19, ch. xi. § n i part I. ch. xxii.
No Quotations from 400 to 1000 can be controverted. 123
four hundred years, yet do (so many of them I mean as have any
tolerable degree of learning and ingenuity) confess that in all these
following ages the baptising of infants did prevail. Mr Tombs says,
" The authority of Austin was it which carried the baptism of infants in
the following ages almost without control."2 And though it appear
plainly by St Austin's writings which I have largely produced, that there
was no Christian in the world that he knew or heard of, that denied it
(except those that denied all baptism), so that he need not say St
Austin's authority carried it ; yet it is, however, a confession of the
matter of fact for the after-times.
Only whereas he puts in the word almost, as if some, though few, did
oppose it, there is, on the contrary, not one saying, quotation, or
example that makes against it, produced or pretended, but what has
been clearly shown to be a mistake. As in the first four hundred years
there is none but one Tertullian, who advised it to be deferred till the
age of reason, and one Nazianzen, till 1;hree years of age, in case of no
danger of death. So in the following six hundred there is no account
or report of any one man that opposed it at all.
Some places of authors have been cited indeed, but there wants
nothing but looking into the books themselves to see that they are
nothing to the purpose. So Mr Danvers created to Mr Wills and Mr
Baxter a great deal of trouble in sending them from one book to another
to discover his mistakes and misrepresentations of several authors
within this space; but withal a great deal of discredit to himself,
for there is not one of his quotations that seemed material enough to
need searching but proved to be such. Mr Wills had at first yielded
him two authors as being on his side ; but Mr Baxter coming after (and
Mr Wills himself upon a second review) rectified that erroneous con
cession, as was easy to do by consulting the original authors ; for it
was taking the scraps and breviats of things out of the Magdeburgen-
sian epitomisers which occasioned that there was any possibility of
mistake.
One of the two I spoke of was Hincmarus, Bishop of Laudun, whom
I had occasion to mention in the last chapter on another account. He
had upon a quarrel 3 excommunicated all the clergy of his diocese, so
that there was for a time none to baptise, bury, absolve, &c. Some
children died by that means without baptism. Complaint was made to
his metropolitan : he reproves him, shows him the pernicious conse
quences, hopes that the children that died, and others that died without
absolution, the communion, &c., may by God's mercy be saved (I
quoted his words for that before), but adds, " But as for you, you can
not be secure, if any by your order have died without the said sacraments,
2 Examen, part I, § 8.
3 Hincmari Rhem. Opus., 55 capit., c. xxviii., &c,, ad 40.
1 24 The History of Infant Baptism •
that you shall not be severely judged (though the mercy of Almighty
God make it up in them) unless your true humility do procure your
pardon," &c. The stubborn bishop would not obey, but recriminated :
he sent word to the archbishop,4 saying, " You gave me an example. I
have a village in your diocese, &c., and you excommunicated them,
and I have an account of how many infants died without baptism, and
men without the communion," &c. The archbishop denied this ; the
matter is brought before the Synod held in the Attiniacum ; they con
demn the Bishop of Laudun.
Now see what Mr Danvers makes of this (which I set down as a
specimen, not that I mean to trouble the reader with tracing him any
farther, whatever I have done myself), he relates it thus :5
" Hincmarus, Bishop of Laudun, in France, in the ninth century, re
nounced children's baptism, and refused any more to baptise any of
them, &c. For which he and his diocese were accused in the Synod of
Accinicus, in France, in these words : Ne mt'ssas celebrarent, aut infantes
baptisarent, aut pcenitentes absolverent, aut mortuos sepelirent (which he
translates contrary to the idiom of Latin phrase and to the tenor of the
history), ' that they neither celebrated mass, baptised children, absolved
the penitent, or buried the dead.'" Whereas the accusation was not
against the diocese, but against the bishop only, that he had excommu
nicated them and interdicted his clergy, ne missas celebrarent, &c., ' that
they should not [or, could not] say mass, baptise children, absolve peni
tents, or bury the dead.' And he quotes for this Bib. Patrum, torn. ix.
Part II. p. 137 ; Magd. Cent. ix. c. iv. pp. 40, 41, 43 ; Dutch Marty r-
ology, P- 244, Part I.
Now for Dutch Martyrology I will by no means answer. But this I
will undertake, that whoever looks into Hincmarus's Opusculum, which
is recited in Bib. Patrum, torn. ix. Part II., p. 93, &c. (p. 137 seems to
be a mistake of the printer], ed. Colon, 1618, or into Magd, Cent, ix.,
c. ix., p. 443 [which is the place that must be meant, though his print
be c. iv. pp. 40, 41, 43], edit. Basil, 1547, will find the account of the
matter as I have told it, and no other.
Now at such a rate of quoting, reciting, translating, and altering he
may find antipaedobaptists in every age and at any place. It is abun
dance of the quotations that he has brought which I, as well as Mr
Baxter and Mr Wills, have searched, and never found any, not so much
as one (of those I mean which are for the centuries aforesaid from 400
to 1000, and seemed to be anything material), but what had some such
mistake as this, or a worse, in the applying of them. But I shall not
go on to recite them, especially since the foresaid writers have done it
already.6 One would wonder what he meant to make of this Hinc-
I J>bid>' P^fatio' 6 Treat. Pt. II. ch. vii. p. 233, edit. 1674.
Baxter, More Proofs, &c.; Wills's Infant Bapt. Asserted, it. Inf. Bapt. Reasserted.
Berengarius is accused falsely. 125
marus. If we can conceive that he thought his opinion to be against bap
tising children, did he think that he judged burying the dead unlawful too?
§ 2. But about the year of Christ 1050 there are quotations that have
better foundation, and a greater appearance of truth, and do at least
deserve an examination ; concerning Bruno, Bishop of Angers, and
Berengarius, Archdeacon of the same Church ; and about one hundred
years after, some concerning the Waldenses of yet greater credit.
Bruno and Berengarius seem to have aimed at a reformation of some
corrupt doctrines then in the Church of Rome. They had an oppor
tunity more advantageous than ordinary, one being bishop and the other
archdeacon of the same place. They are said to have begun their
attempt about 1035, when Berengarius was but a young man, for he
lived fifty years after that time. They opposed transubstantiation, for
which they had a great many mouths open, and many pieces wrote
against them. Among which many, there is one (not written by one of
the same nation, but a foreigner, who owns that he speaks by hearsay)
that charges them with some error that did overthrow infant baptism.
It is a letter written by (Durandus, Bishop of Liege, as Baronius and the
editors of the Bib. Pair, had supposed ; but as Bishop Ussher 7 and F.
Mabillon 8 have fully proved, by) Deodwinus, Bishop of Liege, to Henry
I. King of France. The words are :
" There is a report came out of France, and which goes through all
Germany, that these two do maintain that the Lord's body [the Host] is
not the body, but a shadow and figure of the Lord's body. And that
they do disannul lawful marriages, and as far as in them lies, overthrow
the baptism of infants."9
Of Bruno we hear no more : probably he died.
But of Berengarius, the report that Deodwinus had heard was so far
certainly true, as that he did deny the real presence of the Sacrament
in that proper and corporal meaning in which a great many then began
to understand it. And there are a little after this a great many tracts
written, and a great many councils 10 held against him and others of his
opinion for that supposed error. But none of those tracts, nor any of
those councils, do object any error held by him in reference to matri
mony or infant baptism. And since he is found three or four several
times to have been received to Communion by his adversaries upon his
recantation of that his opinion of the Eucharist, without mention of any
other, it is probable, and almost certain, that the report which Deod
winus had heard of his holding those other opinions was a mistake : or
else that (as Bishop Ussher n guesses) he had denied that baptism does
7 De Succes. Eccl., p. 196. 8 Analect., t. iv. p. 396.
8 Bib. Patr., t. xi., ed. Col., 1618, Durandi Epist.
10 Concil. Turonense, anno 1055, Romanum 1063.
11 De Succes. Eccl., cap. vii. sect. 37.
126 The History of Infant Baptism.
confer grace ex opere operato : which was enough at that time to make
his adversaries say he did overthrow baptism. And that is Deodwin's
word : he did not say they denied it ; but his words are " quantum in
ipsis est, parvulorum baptismum evertunt: " — 'They, as far as in them
lies, overthrow the baptism of infants.'
Guitmund, indeed, who is one of those many that I said wrote against
Berengarius toward the latter end of his life, about his opinion of the
other sacrament, does take notice of Deodwin's letter, and of the report
therein mentioned of his holding those other opinions : but he speaks
of them as of tenets which Berengarius, if he ever held them, never did
think fit to own or publish ; for his words 12 are, that " Berengarius,
finding that those two opinions [of marriage and baptism] would not be
endured by the ears even of the worst men that were, and that there
was no pretence in Scripture to be brought for them, betook himself
wholly to uphold the other [viz., that against transubstantiation], in
which he seemed to have the testimony of our senses on his side, and
against which none of the holy Fathers had so fully spoken, and for
which he picked up some reasons and some places of Scripture mis
understood," &c.
This is what he says as by report from Deodwin's letter. And for his
other adversaries,13 Lanfranc Adelman,14 Algerus,15 and others, they do
not at all, as I can find, mention anything about baptism.
One thing I do here note, by the by : that both this Guitmund, and
the others mentioned, do so maintain the Doctrine of Transubstantia
tion against Berengarius, as that they say nothing of worshipping the
Host, nor anything from whence one may gather that it was then practised
in the Church of Rome itself. I believe they then held Transubstan
tiation, as the Lutherans do now Consubstantiation, so as not to worship
the Host as the Papists do now.
Now for the next age after this : The author of the acts of Bruno,
Archbishop of Triers, cited by Bishop Ussher,16 says that the said Bruno
taking on him to expel those that were of the Berengarian sect out of
his diocese, there were some found among them who, upon examina
tion, confessed their opinion to be, that " Baptism does no good to
infants for their salvation." And the said author tells it upon his credit,
that he was present at their confession and heard them say so.
§ 3. But it is probable that these were a sort of people that have been
since called Waldenses. For it must be observed that in this age, viz.,
the 1 2th century, several societies of men began to make a figure in the
world, whoj differing from one another in some other matters, all agreed
in renouncing the Pope and See of Rome, and denying Transubstantia-
' De Veritate Corporis et Sang., lib. i. 13 De Corpore et Sanguine Domini.
Epistola ad Berengar. de Veritate, &c.
18 De Sacramento Corporis et Sanguinis, &c. 16 De Sucess. Eccl,, c. vii. p. 207.
onfessions of the Waldenses. 127
tion, and the worship of images, and some other grosser corruptions
lately brought into that Church. These were at first in several places
called by several names and nicknames, but have been since denoted
by the general name of Waldenses. And one of the nicknames in use
at this time was to call them Berengarians. Now, whether those in
Bruno's diocese, that were so called, did mean by that saying of theirs,
that baptism itself is a thing of no use to infants or anyone else, or
whether they put the emphasis on the word infants, does not appear :
and there were about this time some sects that would say the one, and
some that would be apt to say the other, as I shall show.
Beside the name of Berengarians, other names that were severally
used at several places and times, were these : Cathari [or Puritans]
Paterines, Petrobrusians, Lyonists, Albigenses, Waldenses, and several
more. And these, though differing many of them very much one from
another, have been of late confusedly and by one general name called
Waldenses.
And of these Waldenses so taken in a lump, the peedobaptist and
antipaedobaptist writers do at this time hotly dispute whether they held
for or against infant baptism.
The antipaedobaptists produce the evidence of the Popish writers of
that time, who wrote against them, some of which do plainly and fully
charge some of them with denying it.
The Protestant psedobaptists say this was one slander of many with
which those their adversaries endeavoured to blacken them, because they
condemned the errors and corruptions of the Church of Rome, and
produce for evidence several confessions of the Waldenses themselves,
wherein they own infant baptism. Now such confessions were doubt
less more to be relied on than any of the accusations of their adver
saries, if they were as ancient as they.
The present Waldenses, or Vaudois, in Piedmont, and Provence, who
are the posterity of those old, do practise infant baptism, and they
were also found in the practice of it when the Protestants of Luther's
reformation sent to know their state and doctrine, and to confer with
them ; and they themselves do say that their fathers never practised
otherwise. And they give proof of it from an old book of theirs called
the Spiritual Almanack?-1 where infant baptism is owned : and Perin
their historian, gives the reason of the report that had been to the
contrary, viz., that their ancestors " being constrained for some hundred
years to suffer their children to be baptised by the priests of the Church
of Rome, they deferred the doing thereof as long as they could, because
they had in detestation those human inventions that were added to the
sacrament, which they held to be the pollution thereof. And foras
much as their own pastors were many times abroad, employed in the
17 Pevin, Hist, of Waldenses, 1. i. c. iv.
I28 The History of Infant Baptism.
service of their Churches, they could not have baptism administered to
their infants by their own ministers. For this cause they kept them
long from baptism, which the priests perceiving and taking notice of,
charged them with this slander." There are many other confessions of
theirs of like import, produced by Perin, Baxter, Wills, &c. This is
the account the Waldenses give of themselves in those confessions,
some of which seem to have been published about two hundred years
ago. One of the Bohemian Waldenses is dated 1508.
But the antipaedobaptists (some of them) say, this was by a corrupt
compliance, for that "about this time they made a great defection
from their former principles and integrities, and have too much gendered
since into the formalities of the Huguenots." As if they had done it
in compliance with Luther, who did not begin till 1517.
Yet they can produce no other or elder confession of theirs, that
speaks contrary to these. There are extant several of their elder con
fessions which express particularly the points in which they protested
against what they held to be corrupt in the Romish doctrine and way,
as against transubstantiation, chrism, extreme unction, &c., but do
mention nothing, one way or other, about infant baptism : which is a
sign that that was none of the things they disowned. They do in
several of their old books, copied in Perm's history of them, speak of
baptism and the other sacrament (for they owned but two). And in
them they oppose themselves against the popish doctrine of the sacra
ments ; and particularly they blame the papists for relying too much
on the outward or visible part of them (as the Protestants do now to
the same purpose blame that tenet of theirs, that "Sacraments do
confer grace ex opere operate, 'by the outward work done'"). And there
is one of them also that does mention the baptising of children, but so
as to leave the main question still ambiguous. It is their Treatise
concerning Antichrist, written, as is pretended, A.D. 1120. But I do
not believe that, not having found any other account of this people so
early. In it they say (as Perin recites it at the end of his history),
" He [Antichrist] attributes the reformation of the Holy Spirit to a dead
outward faith, and baptises children into that faith, that thereby bap
tism and regeneration must be had, and gives and receives orders and
other sacraments by that, grounding therein all his Christianity, which
is against the Holy Spirit." One party say, " They do hereby condemn
all baptising of children as a dead outward work." The other say,
" They ought by these words to be understood to own baptising of
children, and to except only against the foresaid popish tenet ; for
whether it be in children or grown persons, it is an Antichristian or
popish abuse to ascribe the regeneration to the ' dead outward work,'
or mere outward act, which ought especially to be ascribed to the
grace or mercy of God sealing and confirming the covenant to them.
The Waldenses. 129
Perin himself, who produces it, understands it so. And there is a
Catechism of theirs, which, Perin 1S says, is composed out of their old
books, that does expressly mention and own infant baptism. But of
what date that Catechism is, I know not.
Bishop Ussher19 quotes out of Hoveden's Annals in Henry //, fol.
319, ed. London, a confession of faith made by the Boni homines of
Toulouse (this was one name given to one of those sorts of men that
have been since called Waldenses), who being summoned and examined
before a meeting of bishops, abbots, &c., repeated it before the assem
bly ; but being urged to swear to it, refused. In the body of which
confession they say : " Credimus etiam quod non salvatur quis, nisi
qui baptisatur : et parvulos salvari per baptismum," ' We believe also
that no person is saved, but what is baptised ; and that infants are
savett by baptism.' Mr Baxter having been called upon by Danvers
to produce any confession of theirs of any ancient date that owned
infant baptism, produces this,20 which was about the year 1176, and
says, " Would you have a fuller proof? " But the other answers,21 that
this confession was not what they naturally and usually held, but what
the court forced them to say by way of recantation : which proves
rather, that they usually held the contrary, or were suspected so to do.
This latter appears by the story to be the truth of the matter ; and it is
wonder Mr Baxter would urge it. But, however, it signifies nothing to
the purpose. For these men were Manichees (as appears by the other
opinions the court made them recant, viz., that there were " two gods,
whereof the evil god made the visible world," &c.), and consequently
the opinions they held against baptism were against all baptism of old
or young, that it is good for nothing ; and so when they denied " that
infants are saved by baptism," their meaning was, that no person is ever
the more saved for being baptised. This they then recanted. And
this is a known 22 tenet of the Manichees, of whom there were many in
these parts whose story is confounded with that of the other Waldenses,
as I shall show by-and-by.
It is to be noted that they that write against them do accuse them
of abundance of heresies and monstrous doctrines ; and that with great
variety. One writer, of one time and place, accuses those that he
writes against (whom he calls by such or such a name, as Puritans,
Apostolics, &c.), of one set of false doctrine ; and another writer, of
another time and country, lays to the charge of those that he writes
against, whom he names perhaps by some other name, as Albigenses,
Arnoldists, &c., another catalogue of heterodox opinions. But one
18 Pt. III. 1. i. c. vi. 19 De Success. Eccl., c. viii. p. 242.
20 More Proofs, page 380. 21 Second Reply.
" See ch. v. § 3.
». B
, 30 The History of Infant Baptism.
general thing that they were all guilty of, is their renouncing and defying
the Church and Pope of Rome.
And for the other opinions (such, I mean, as are really false ones, and
not only by the papists so accounted), they run for the most part on
the vein of the old Manichean heresy ; and they do often expressly call
them Manichees. The old Manichees held two principles, or gods ;
the one good, and the other evil : and that the evil god made the
material world; they renounced and blasphemed the Old Testament,
and part of the New ; they denied the resurrection of the body, believ
ing that a man survives after death only by his soul ; they had no use
of baptism nor of marriage ; they abhorred the eating of any flesh, &c.
These same opinions, and others of the old Manichees, are generally
the chief ingredients in the heresies imputed to these men.
There is also great variety in the account of their morals. Some give
to those they describe the character of sober, just, and conscientious
men, though of heretical opinions. Others paint those they write
against as men of lewd lives as well as doctrines. Most of the books
against them are between the year 1140 and the year 1400. What was
done against them afterwards was chiefly by fire and sword. Several
armies were, by the instigation of popes and the forwardness of princes,
sent against them ; which sometimes dispersed them, but could never
extirpate them.
The countries that were fullest of them, were the south parts of
France, and the north parts of Italy, and the valleys between the Alps ;
which last place proved so good a refuge for them, that they have con
tinued, and do continue, there to this day : save that the French king
has lately driven out those that lived within his limits and forced them
to seek habitations in Germany and elsewhere. Yet some say that the
inhabitants of the Cevennes that are now in arms, are also the offspring
of this people.
It must be noted farther, as to the matter of baptism, that some of
the foresaid writers do represent those against whom they write, as deny
ing all baptism : some others do so speak of them whom they oppose,
as if they allowed baptism to the adult, but not to infants. And others,
among all the false doctrines which they charge on those they write
against, mention no error about baptism at all.
Now, see the power of prejudice, which it has to make each party
construe and interpret the same relations of matter of fact to the sense
that their side would have to be true. The papists believe that all
the accusations of these people are true, and that they were such in
all points as those old monks and inquisitors have painted them. The
Protestant paedobaptists think that they really held those tenets against
the Church of Rome : but that all the rest are false and malicious
accusations, among which they reckon that of their denying infants'
Many different sorts oj the Waldenses. 131
baptism for one. And this is what the present Waldenses themselves
do affirm. The antipsedobaptists say, that all the Protestant doctrines
are truly imputed to them, and so is their denial of infant baptism : but
all the rest are false.
§ 4. I shall by no means undertake a recital of all the particular
quotations, partly because they are so numerous, confused, and contrary
to- one another ; but especially because they are so far below the date
of those times which I have set myself to examine. Whatever the tenets
of these men were, they are much too late to give us any direction
about the sense of the Primitive Church. I shall only take hold of
a handle which some of each of our opposite parties do give of an
expedient to reconcile this historical difference. Which is by slitting
the matter in dispute, and supposing that some sects of these people
did deny infant baptism, and others not.
For, as Mr Baxter says at one place, " Now I leave it to the reader
among many uncertainties which of these he will believe most probable :
— (i) Whether all the parties were slandered; (2) Or whether Peter
and Henry were slandered, by occasion of the mixed Manichees, or by
the vulgar lying levity, or popish malice ;1 (3) Or whether Peter and
Henry were guilty, as some now, though the rest were not ; (4) Or,
&c. . . . Believe which of these you find most cause." 23
So likewise, on the other side, Mr Tombs says : " As for the
Albigenses and Waldenses, it might be that some might be against
infant baptism, yet others not ; or it may be, in the beginning held so,
but after left it."24 And Mr Danvers : "Neither would I be thought
to assert such an universal harmony among the Waldenses in this thing,
but that it is possible there might be some difference among some of
them even in this particular." 25
So far they come towards a compliance. And there is nothing in so
obscure a matter and so perplexed an account more probable than this.
And to evince it, I shall —
1. Show that there were many several sects of those men whom we
now call by one general name, Waldenses.
2. Produce what proofs there are that some of them denied infant
baptism, and what probability they carry.
3. Show how it appears of the most of them that they did not
deny it.
First. However later writers have agreed for method's sake to call them
by one general name of Waldenses (because that is the name that those
which now remain call themselves by), yet it is plain that at the begin
ning they were of several sorts, names, and opinions. Bishop Ussher, in
his book De Successionc Ecclesict, has proved by good historical evidences
23 More Proofs, p. 411. M Precursor, p. 30.
25 Treat., Pt. II. ch. vii. p. 321, eel. 2.
E 2
132 The History of Infant Baptism.
that there were some real Manichees that crowded in amongst them,
which, as he supposes, gave occasion to the papists to slander the whole
body. For the Manichees did really contemn all baptism, as the Quakers
do now, and held many other of the worst opinions which are now affixed
to the Quakers.
Ecbertus Schonaugiensis 2t$ wrote, anno 1160, a treatise against a
people then spread in many countries, " Whom," says he, " our Germans
call Cathari, Puritans; the Flemish call them Piphles; the French,
Texerant, (I suppose it is misprinted, he interprets it) weavers." Their
tenets, which he repeats, show them to-be Manichees: such as, the
unlawfulness of marriage ; of eating any flesh, as being the creature of
the devil ; that Christ had no true human nature, &c. He had disputed
with several of them, and he says, serm. i : "They are also divided
among themselves ; for several things that are maintained by some of
them are denied by others." And of baptism particularly, he says : " Of
baptism they speak variously : that baptism does no good to infants,
because they cannot of themselves desire it, and because they cannot
profess any faith. But there is another thing which they more generally
hold concerning that point, though more secretly, viz., that no water-
baptism at all does any good for salvation ; and, therefore, such as come
over to their sect, they rebaptise by a private way which they call
baptism with the Holy Spirit and with fire."
And in serm. 8, which is a chapter on purpose to prove to them the
use of water-baptism (as the seventh is to prove infant baptism), he tells
how this baptism with fire was, as he says he had heard it from one that
had been at their secret meetings. It is in short thus : In a close room
they light candles or torches, as many as can be placed round by the
walls and everywhere. The company stand in order with great rever
ence. The person that is to be baptised, sive catharisandus, or puritan-
ised, is placed in the midst. The archicatharus, standing by him with a
book used to this purpose, lays the book on his head, and pronounces
certain benedictions, the rest praying the while. This is called baptism
with fire, because of the lights around which make the room look
almost as if it were on fire. But he tells them: "This is not the way,
you heretics; nor to the purpose that you pretend. You ought to make
a good roasting fire, and put him in," &c.
What he says of their slighting all water-baptism, but especially infant
baptism, does help to make one understand many passages that we meet
with in the writings against these men. The sayings of many sorts of
them that are quoted as speaking against infant baptism, ought not to
be so taken as that they approved baptism of the adult, and denied it to
infants ; but they really looked on all water-baptism as a superstitious
thing, only they thought it yet more absurd in the case of infants. They
28 Serm. I, B. P., t. xii. ed. Col., 1618.
Ecbert and Reinerius, of 'the Cathari. 133
laughed at the Christians for two things : one, that they placed religion in
washing people at all ; and the other, that they did it to infants. When
their arguments failed against baptism in general, they took the advan
tage of the incapacity of infants. And so do now the Quakers, some of
the Socinians, the Deists, and such other sects as would have men go
by reason rather than by Scripture. They undervalue this sacrament in
general ; but they particularly deride the applying of it to infants.
Pilichdorf, also writing against these men,27 gives an account of the
difference of their several sects. He says : "The Waldenses do dislike
and even loathe the Runcarians, Beghards, and Luciferians. And that
whereas all Catholics from the four quarters of the world agree in the
unity of the faith, the heretics do not so, but some of them condemn the
rest," &c.
But above all the rest, this is clearly made out by Reinerius. He
knew all the sorts, differences, and circumstances of those people that
have been since styled Waldenses, better than any man. He had lived
among them, and had been one of one sort of them for seventeen years,
and then after his renouncing of them was made an inquisitor against
them. It is pity that he had neither a style to write clearly, nor the
candour to express their tenets fairly. He, in representing their opinions,
frequently gives a turn to the expressions which shows that his aim was
to paint them as odious as he could ; and that especially in the case of
the Lyonists. For the others, they could not well be painted worse than
they were. But these had gained such a repute by the innocence of their
lives, and the soundness of their faith, that they did more hurt to the
Church of Rome than all the rest ; therefore he does, as anyone will
perceive, endeavour to blacken their opinions in the recital.
He gives an account of seven sects of these men : 2S the Lyonists, or
poor men of Lyons, the Runcarians, the Siscidenses, the Ortlibenses,
the Paterins, the Ordibarians, and the Cathari or Puritans. It was of
these last that he had been : which held the worst and most blasphemous
opinions: "That the devil [or, evil god] made this world and all
things in it ; that all the sacraments of the Church, viz., the sacrament
of baptism of material water, and the other sacraments, profit nothing to
salvation, and are no true sacraments of Christ and His Church, but
vain and devilish. Also, that all infants, etiam non baptisati, 'even
those that are not baptised,' are punished eternally, no less than
murderers and thieves."29 After a great many horrid opinions, he
describes a practice which they used instead of baptism. They called
it the consolation and the spiritual baptism, or the baptism with
the Holy Spirit. It had no use of water, nor of the Christian form of
baptism.
27 Contra sectam Waldensium, c. xii.
28 Lib. adv. Waldenses, c. v. vi. ; Bib. P., t. xiii. Colon. 1618. ffl C. vi.
1 34 TJie History of Infant Baptism.
It is remarkable what he says of one sect of these Cathari : that
they held " that Christ did not take on Him human nature of the blessed
virgin, but took on Him a body that was heavenly [or, from heaven]."
This was the opinion of some old heretics, and is said to be held by
the present Minnists.
He says, the first of this sect came from Bulgaria and a country
that he calls Dugranicia. They were doubtless an offspring of the old
Manichees j who, as well as these later, made use of the name of Jesus
Christ, but denied the true history of Him, and framed a notion of
Him more enthusiastical than that which the worst sort of our Quakers
do by the name of Jesus Christ within them.
These Cathari, it seems, thought water-baptism a devilish thing ; but
that even without it infants (and men, too, that were not initiated in, and
rescued by their rites) would be damned as being of the devil's make.
Yet here, the Albanenses, one sect of the Cathari, dissent, Reinerius
says; "and say, no creature of the good God. shall perish." I suppose
they meant that their body shall be damned ; but their soul, because
that is made by the good God, shall be saved.
The Runcarians and Paterines say likewise, that Lucifer created all
visible things. One would think these should be the same that others
call the Luciferians ; but that Pilichdorf in the place I mentioned,
distinguishes them. These (and the Ortlibenses and Siscidenses, of
whom he says little) have nothing about baptism. The Siscidenses, he
says, hold the same as the Waldenses, save that they receive the
communion. Now, who he means by the Waldenses, I know not ;
for this is the only place where he uses the name. This man wrote
anno 1254.
The Ordibarians say, " The world had no beginning : that Christ was
a sinner till He became one of their sect. They deny the resurrection
of the body, but not the immortality of the spirit [or soul] : they say
baptism is of no further value than are the merits of the baptiser ; and
that it does no good to infants, unless they be perfect in that sect." So
the words are : " nisi sint perfecti ilia secta." I think they mean, unless
they be initiated in that sect, nXsiouptvoi.
Of the Lyonists he says thus : 30
" There is no sect more pernicious to the Church than they," &c.
Of the sacraments he says, " They condemn them all." This appears
to be invidiously expressed. For, by his own account of the particulars,
they did (to say the worst) only hold some heterodox opinions about
them.
First, for baptism : " they say that catechism is nothing." This also
must be maliciously worded, for no people ever, that believed the
articles of the Creed, would hold catechising of children to be useless.
30 Ch. iv.
The Petrobrusians deny Infant Baptism. 135
But I guess by catechism here is meant the interrogations and answers
at the baptising of an infant. " Also that the washing that is given to
children does no good." By words so short one cannot tell which of
these three tenets he would accuse them to hold, either — i. That all
baptismal washing is good for nothing. For so a Quaker now would
say, " The washing you give your children is good for nothing," when his
meaning is that all baptism is so. But these people do not seem to
have been Manichees. Or, secondly, That baptism is of no force when
it is given to infants. But then it would have been plainer expressed,
and he would have used the word baptismus, and not ablntio, which is
spoken in disdain, and signifies an ordinary washing. Or, thirdly, That
in baptism, the washing itself or outward act taken by itself, is not that
which saves, but God operating saves by it, as St Peter says, "It is
not the washing off the dirt of the flesh that saves."31 This last I take
to be what they might be likely to say. And this was a great heresy in
those times, to deny that the sacraments do confer grace, ex opere
operate, ' Even by the mere outward work done.' " Also that the god
fathers do not understand what they answer to the priest. Also, that the
offering which is called Atnvegung, is an invention. Also they dislike
all the exorcisms and benedictions of baptism."
Here is evidence more than enough that there were several sects of
this people. Which is what I proposed to prove by these passages.
§ 5. And now, secondly, that some of them (I do not say any of the
Waldenses strictly so called, but some of these sects which about the
same time and the same places opposing the Church of Rome, are
therefore by late writers huddled together under the name of Waldenses —
that some of these, I say) did deny infants' baptism, there is this
ground of probability —
First. One Evervinus, of the diocese of Cologne, a little before the year
1140 writes to St Bernard a letter (which is lately brought to light by
F. Mabillon, Analect., torn, iii.) giving him an account of two sorts of
heretics lately discovered in that country. One sort were by his descrip
tion perfect Manichees. Of the other sort he says : " They condemn
the sacraments, except baptism only, and this only in those who are
come to age, who they say are baptised by Christ Himself, whoever be
the minister of the sacraments. They do not believe infant baptism,
alleging that place of the Gospel, ' He that believeth and is baptised,' &c.
All marriage they call fornication, except that which is between two
virgins," &c.
Then at the year 1146, Peter, abbot of Clugny, writing against one
Peter Bruis and one Henry, his disciple, and their associates,32 charges
them with six errors, the first of which was their denial of infant baptism.
The other five were : "2. That churches ought not to be built ; and, if
81 i Ep. iii. ch. v. 21. 32 Epist. contra Petrobrusianos,
136 The History of Infant Baptism.
built, ought to be pulled down." If we were to credit all the reports that
come now from France, the Cevennois would seem to be of this opinion
by their destroying so many churches ; but I hope that those reports
are not true. " 3. That crosses ought not to be worshipped, but broken
and burnt." Peter Bruis had been, a little before the writing of this,
taken and burnt himself. This writer says it was a just judgment on
him who had burnt so many crosses. " 4. That not only what Beren-
garius had said, viz. : ' That there is no transubstantiation in the sacra
ment,' was true ; but also that that sacrament is no more to be ad
ministered since Christ's time. 5. That dead men receive no benefit
from the prayers, sacrifices, &c., of the living. 6. That it is a mocking
of God to sing in the church."
He also says that they were reported to " renounce all the Old Testa
ment, and all the New, except the four Gospels." But this he was not
sure of, and would not impute it to them for fear he might slander them.
So it appears that he did not certainly know what they held. Yet to
make his proofs unquestionable, he first proves the truth of the Acts of
the Apostles and the Epistles by their agreement with the Gospels, and
then the Old Testament by the New. And then out of the whole pro
ceeds to refute their tenets, bestowing a chapter on each. The first of
them was, as I said, against infant baptism, and is thus expressed :
" The first proposition of the new heretics. They say — ' Christ sending
His disciples to preach, says in the Gospel: "Go ye out into all the
world, and preach the Gospel to every creature. He that believeth and
is baptised shall be saved, but he that believeth not shall be damned/'
From these words of our Saviour it is plain that none can be saved
unless he believe and be baptised — that is, have both Christian faith
and baptism. For not one of these, but both together, does save. So
that infants, though they be by you baptised, yet since by reason of their
age they cannot believe, are not saved. It is therefore an idle and vain
thing for you to wash persons with water at such a time, when you may
indeed cleanse their skin from dirt in a human manner, but not purge
their souls from sin. But we do stay till the proper time of faith ; and
when a person is capable to know his God and believe in Him, then we
do (not, as you charge us, rebaptise him, but) baptise him. For he is
to be accounted as not yet baptised who is not washed with that baptism
by which sins are done away.' "
This is, as to the practice, perfectly agreeable with the modern anti-
paedobaptists, but, as Cassander observes,33 it is upon quite contrary
grounds. For the antipsedobaptists now do generally hold that all that
die infants, baptised or not, of Christian, or of heathen parents, are
saved, and so it is needless to baptise them : whereas these held
that, baptised or not, they could not be saved, and so it was to no
33 De baptismo infantium.
They Thought no Infant Saved. 137
purpose to baptise them. And this writer does accordingly spend most
of the chapter, which is in answer to this tenet of theirs, in proving that
infants as well as grown men are capable of the Kingdom. " Abate,"
says he, " of that overmuch severity which you have taken upon you ;
and do not exclude infants from the Kingdom of Heaven, of whom
Christ says, 'Of such is the Kingdom of Heaven.'" Also he argues
that the infants of the Jews had a possibility of being saved, viz., if they
were circumcised ; and if the children of Christians have no means to be
saved, we are in much worse case than they ; and at last he concludes that
chapter : " Oh the difference that is between mercy and cruelty, between
a tender regard to one's children and unnaturalness, between Chirst
lovingly receiving infants and the heretics impiously repelling them," &c.
It is to be noted that this author speaks of this opinion as then lately
set on foot, and says it might have seemed not to need or deserve any
confutation, " were it not that it had now continued twenty years.34
That the first seeds of it were sown by Peter de Bruis," who was living
when the book was written, but put to death before it was published, of
which mention is made in the preface. It was first vented in the moun
tainous country of Dauphine, and had had there some followers, from
whence being in good measure expelled, it had got footing in Gascoigne
and the parts about Toulouse, being propagated by Henry, who was a
disciple and successor of the said Peter.
This writer aggravates this charge of novelty by urging that if baptism
given in infancy be null and void, as they pretended, then " all the world
has been blind hitherto, and by baptising infants for above a thousand
years has given but a mock baptism, and made but fantastical Christians,"
&c. " And whereas all France, Spain, Germany, Italy, and all Europe has
had never a person now for three hundred or almost five hundred years
baptised otherwise than in infancy, it has had never a Christian in it."
The next year, 1147, Bernard, Abbot of Clairvaux, commonly called
St Bernard, was desired by Pope Eugenius to accompany some bishops
whom he sent into those parts, to stop the spreading of these doctrines,
and to reduce those that had been led into them. And when they were
come nigh to the territory of the Earl of St Giles's, Bernard writes a
letter to the said earl,35 who at that time harboured the foresaid Henry
in his country, recounting what mischiefs that heretic, as he calls him,
had done. " The churches are without people, the people without
priests, &c. God's holy place is accounted profane, the sacraments are
esteemed unholy, &c. Men die in their sins, their souls carried to that
terrible judicature, alas ! neither reconciled by penance, nor strengthened
by the Holy Communion ; the infants of Christians are hindered from
the life of Christ, the grace of baptism being denied them; nor are
they suffered to come to their salvation, though our Saviour compassion-
34 Prsefatio et initium libri. 35 Epist. 240.
, 3 g The History of Infant Baptism.
ately cry out in their behalf, saying, ' Suffer little children to come to
Me ' &c " He tells the earl that it is little for his credit to harbour
such a man that had been expelled from all places of France where he
had come. The issue was, Henry was banished.
I know not whether it was before this, or after (I think it was after), that
St Bernard, writing his sixty-fifth and sixty-sixth sermon on the Canticles,
takes occasion to discourse largely against a sort of heretics, whom he
names not, but says they called themselves apostolical men. He
describes them thus in several places of those two sermons : — " ist. That
they held it unlawful to swear in any other case ; but being examined
of their tenets, they would swear and forswear in the denial of them."
And that " to conceal their opinions, they would give Catholic answers
to all questions of the faith : they would go to church, show respect to
the minister, offer their gifts, receive the sacrament," &c. He shows
by Scripture that all true religion owns itself. And this receiving the
communion in dissimulation, is what Reinerius, about one hundred years
after this time, observes, that the Siscidenses would then do, and the
Lyonists, he says, would, but the Waldenses would not. " 2. That they
held marriage to be a wicked uncleanness (only some of them said that
virgins might marry, but none else), and yet they kept company with
women in a way that gave great scandal ; and women used to run away
from their husbands and come and live with them. That they held
uncleanness to be only in the use of a wife : " whereas that is, as he
shows, the only case which makes it to be none. " 3. That they held
the eating of all flesh and milk, and whatever is generated of copula
tion, unlawful." He says, if they did this out of a desire to keep under
the body, he would not blame them ; but if it was out of a Manichean
principle (for this, as well as the foregoing, was a tenet of the old
Manichees), they fell under that censure of the apostle : " Teaching
doctrines of devils, forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain
from meats," 36 &c. " 4. That they owned not the Old Testament, and
some of them none of the New, but the Gospels. 5. That they
denied purgatory. 6. They laugh at us," says he, " for baptising
infants, for our praying for the dead, and for desiring the prayers of the
saints." So he gives in opposition to them the grounds of infant baptism,
as well as of the other doctrines by them denied.
The heretics he speaks of here, appear plainly to have been of
Manichean principles ; and so probably to have derided all baptism :
whereas Henry, as well as Peter Bruis, allowed of water-baptism to the
adult. So that probably these mentioned in the sermons are not the same
with those in the letter; for Peter and Henry are charged with no
Manichean doctrine, save that Peter of Clugny had heard some say
that they denied all the Scripture but the Gospels ; but he owns that
36 I Tim. iv. 3.
Manichees with the Petrobmsians. 1 39
he had no certain account of that : and probably the report that imputed
it to them arose by mistaking the tenets of these for those.
Then, at the year 1 192, one Alanus, reckoning up the opinions of the
Cathari, says some of them held baptism of no use to infants ; others
of them to no person at all.
It is to be noted, that neither Petrus nor Bernard do call them that
they write against, VValdenses, nor do so much as mention the name ;
nor was there, I believe, any such name then known.
These are the only four writers that I know of that do plainly accuse
those they write against, of denying baptism peculiarly to infants. And
the only persons they mention are that Peter and Henry and their
followers : for those of Cologne seem to have rambled thither from
Dauphine, where Bruis had begun to preach about twenty years before.
Mr Stennet, in his Answer to Russen, ch. iv. p. 84, would, indeed,
have us believe that there were above one hundred years before this
time, viz., anno 1605, some that denied baptism peculiarly to infants,
namely, the followers of Gundulphus. For this, he quotes a passage
reported by Dr Allix from the history of a synod held at Arras that
year, which is lately brought to light by Dacherius. Spidleg., t. xiii.,
where these men being examined by the Bishop of Cambray, do indeed
deny that baptism can do any good to infants. But in the same
examination, being farther interrogated, the men confessed that they
thought water-baptism of no use or necessity to anyone, infant or adult.
Now, is this fair quoting, to take the first of these, and leave out the
latter part which follows in Dr Allix' book? These men whom Mr
Stennet represents as antipsedobaptists (and if they had been so, they
would have been the earliest that any history mentions), were as to the
point of baptism, Quakers or Manichees.
And so all the other writers that I have seen (except the four afore
said) do, if they have anything at all about the denial of baptism,
impute to the heretics they speak of, the denial of all water-baptism.
As the fragments of the history of Aquitain, cited by Pithseus, Joannes
Floriacensis, cited by Massonius, Radulph, Ardens, and many more
whose sayings are produced by Bishop Ussher.37 The words of Ecbertus
I gave before,38 " That infants ought to have no baptism, and grown
persons no water-baptism." Reinerius, as I said, about the Lyonists
speaks ambiguously. Erbrardus and Ermingardus are cited by Danvers 39
as witnesses that some of whom they write, denied infant baptism ; but
Mr Baxter, having searched them,40 says, that they speak of those people
as denying the law and the prophets ; maintaining the two gods, where
of the evil one made the world ; denying the resurrection, and all use
of marriage, or the lawfulness of it. So that they must have been
37 Lib. de Success. Eccl. M § 4. 39 Treat., Ft. II. ch. vii. page 250.
40 More proofs, page 394.
I4o The History of Infant Baptism.
Manichees, who do all of them deny all baptism, but especially
infant baptism.
William of Newburgh, who lived then in England, describes some of
these men by the name of Publicani, and by their being Gascoigners,
and says : " About thirty of them came out of Germany into England
under Henry II. about 1170, and being examined of their faith, they
denied and detested holy baptism, the Eucharist, and marriage." 41 Fox,
out of Historia Guisburnensis, mentions the same men, and that the
chief of them were Gerardus and Dulcinus. He gives no account of
any opinion they had against baptism. But Hollingshead says they
derogated from the sacraments such grace as the Church, by her
authority, had ascribed to them.
Several Councils and Decretals made about this time do establish
the doctrine of baptism both in general, and also particularly that of
infants: in opposition, as it seems, to some that denied all baptism, and
to others that denied that of infants. As for example, the Lateran Council
under Pope Innocent the III., anno 1215, c. i. : "The sacrament of
baptism performed in water with invocation of the Trinity is profitable
to salvation, both to adult persons and also to infants, by whomsoever it
is rightly administered in the form of the Church." And the said Pope
has in the Decretals a letter in answer to a letter from the Bishop of Aries,
in Provence, which had represented to him that, " Some heretics there
had taught that it was to no purpose to baptise children, since they could
have no forgiveness of sins thereby, as having no faith, charity," &c.42
Also the Lateran Council under Innocent the II., 1139, did condemn
Peter Bruis, and Arnold of Brescia, who seems to have been a follower
of Bruis, for rejecting infants' baptism.
These proofs do, I think, evince that there were some about this time
that denied all baptism, and some others that denied peculiarly infant
baptism, amongst those parties of men that have been lately called
Waldenses.
I know many paedobaptists believe neither of these ; and Perin, their
historian, does endeavour to clear them of this as of a slander. Two
things the psedobaptists say to this matter, which are very considerable,
i. That it is common for men to slander their adversaries about the
opinions they hold — as appears not only by many instances in that
ignorant age, in which the monks, who were then the only writers, veri
fied in themselves that character quoted by St Paul, "Always liars,
evil beasts, slow bellies," 43 more lively than ever the Cretians, for whom
it was made, could possibly do ; but also by too many in this age, as
Vicecomes, a learned papist, has in this very matter, to his own shame,44
left on record that Luther, Calvin, and Beza were adversaries of infant
baptism.
! i1.'51'1 lib- "• c- xi»- 12 Opera Innocent, tertii, t. ii. page 776, ed. Col., 1575.
Tlt- >• xu- 41 De Kit. Bapt., 1. ii., c. i.
Most of the Waldenses Practised Infant Baptism. 141
2. That we ought, in all reason, either to deny credit to these popish
writers concerning these men, or else to believe them in one thing as
well as another. If we allow them for good witnesses, then those that
they describe were men of such unsound opinions in other things as that
no Church would be willing to own them for predecessors. But if we
account them slanderers, we ought not to conclude from their testimony
that any of these men denied infant baptism ; which does not appear by
any of their own confessions, and which the present Waldenses do account
as a slander cast on their ancestors.
These considerations do, in great measure, justify those paedobaptists
who maintain that there is no certain evidence of any Church or society
of men that opposed infant baptism till those in Germany about one
hundred and eighty years ago. The proof concerning any sort of the
Waldenses is but probable, I owned before that the probability is such
as does weigh with me. But for the main body of them there is no
probability at all.
§ 6. And now, thirdly, that there were several sects or societies of them
that did not deny the baptism of infants, is proved from this, that a great
many writers against them, diligently reciting the erroneous opinions of
those they write against, and that often in smaller matters, yet mentions
nothing of this.
Lucas Tudensis writes largely against the Albigenses that were then in
Spain ; but among all the accusations of them, true or false, has nothing
of this. Petrus de Pilichdorf (in the year 1395, as he himself gives the
date, cap. xxx.) writes a book of confutation of the several pretended
errors of the Waldenses of his time in thirty-six chapters ; but has nothing
of baptism : though he descends to speak of many lesser matters, and
aggravates all with very railing words ; yet he finds nothing to accuse
them of, but such things as the Protestants now hold : except one or
two, as the " Unlawfulness of all oaths," &c. ^Enaeas Sylvius wrote in
1458 his Historiam Bohemicam, in which he reckons up the tenets of
the Picards, a sort of these men. But 45 he mentions no difference they
had with the then established Church about infant baptism ; save that
they spoke against chrism, &c. And Fox, reciting their tenets out of
him, mentions only this, " that baptism ought to be administered with
pure water without any hallowed oil." Nauclerus also, in his Chronicon^
written 1500, recites their doctrines particularly,40 and mentions no such
thing as the denial of infant baptism. Yet he also takes notice of so
small a matter as that they affirmed water to be sufficient without oil.
There are in Gretzer's collection 47 of pieces, written against the Wal
denses, six treatises in all (beside Reinerius and Pilichdorf, mentioned
already), reckoning up their heterodox opinions ; but not one word of
45 Ussher de Sue. Ecc. , c. vi. ; Baxter, More Proofs, p. 380.
46 Vol. II. p. ii. p. 265. 47 Bib. Pat., t. xiii., ed. Col., 2618.
1 4 2 The History of Infant Baptism.
this. One of them is a direction to the inquisitors, in the examining of
these men, how to discover and convict them : for it seems they kept
their opinions very close; whereas if they had not baptised their
children, nothing would have been a more ready conviction. The
Magdeburgenses 48 have a catalogue of their opinions, taken, as they
say, out of a very old manuscript, and nothing of this. Bishop Ussher
quotes 40 also Jacob Picolominjeus, Anton. Bonsinius, Bernard. Lutzen-
burgensis, and several others, treating of these sorts of men, who object
nothing of this.
§ 7. I have, more than I ever meant to do, troubled myself in inquir
ing into the history of these men ; and all that I can make of the
inquiry is this :
First. There was a great many among them that really held the
impious opinion of the Manichees. Some of this sect were in these
countries before the Waldenses, whom the Protestants own for pre
decessors, arose or were taken notice of: which was after the year uoo.
These all of them denied all water baptism. So the Quakers may claim
kindred of them if they please : but no Baptist, whether psedobaptist or
antipsedobaptist, can. They had an invention of their own which they
used instead of the Christian baptism, and which they called " spiritual
baptism": and they said, "by it forgiveness of sins, and the Holy
Spirit was given. It contained in it imposition of their hands, and the
saying of the Lord's Prayer. Only one sect of them, the Albanenses,
said the hand did no good ; being, as all other flesh is, created by the
devil. So they used the prayer only." 50
These men were thus far on the antipaedobaptists' side, that this mock
baptism of theirs they gave to the adult only. And they derided the
Christians for two things : one, that they used baptism with water at all ;
and the other, that they gave it to persons that had no sense of it, viz.,
infants. And this, for aught I know, might be all the ground of the
Waldenses (who, by the first writers, are not well distinguished from
these men) being accused of denying infant baptism.
This sort of men continued a considerable time. Reinerius says,
in his time " there were not above four thousand in all the world that
were Cathari, quite pure [or perfect] of both sexes ; but of Credentes (so
they called their disciples that were not yet perfect) an innumerable
multitude."50
Though the authors do not well distinguish the names: yet most
generally this sort that denied all baptism, and held the other vile
opinions, are denoted by these names— Catheri, Apostolici, Luciferians,
Runcarians, Popelicans, alias Publicans.
2. There were another sort that held none of those impious tenets of
48 Cent. xii. p. 1206. « De Success. Eccl., c. vi. p. 255, it p. 306, &c.
50 Reinerius, c. vi.
Petrobrttsians not properly called Waldenses. 143
the M^nichees concerning two Gods, &c. But they joined with the
other in inveighing against the Church of Rome, which in these times
began to be very corrupt. And the Papists do sometimes confound
these with the other, and affix to these some of the opinions of the
other.
If any of these that owned water baptism denied it to infants, and if
P. Cluniacensis did not mistake their opinion upon the occasion afore
said, it was the Petrobrusians, otherwise called Henricians. What
Reinerius says of the Lyonists is very general and obscure. And of the
others no such thing is said. Especially this is constant ; that no one
author that calls the people he writes of, Waldenses, does impute to
them the denial of infant baptism.
3. If there were any such, they seem not to have continued long, but
to have dwindled away or come over to those that practised infant
baptism. For none of the later writers concerning these men do charge
them with anything of this. This the reader will observe, if he mind
the date of the year which I have affixed to each writer. And it is a
manifest sign that either none of those whom we now denote by the
name Waldenses, that owned water baptism, held anything against
infant baptism ; but that the elder writers imputed it to them upon the
mistake aforesaid of taking the Manichees' opinions for theirs ; or upon
vulgar reports which by this time appeared to be false : or else that if
there had been formerly any such sects in that great variety, they were
by this time extinguished.
Pilichdorf writes against them under the name of Waldenses. Reine
rius does but once just mention that name, as denoting one sect : one
cannot tell which. But Pilichdorf entitles his book Against the Sect of the
Waldenses, and calls them at every word Waldensian heretics : but
ascribes no opinion to them that deserves that name, nor any error at
all about baptism. He is the only man of their adversaries, who though
he gave them ill language, yet charges them with no particular opinion
(or no material one) but what they themselves own in their confessions.
He wrote, as I said, anno 1395. By which time their opinions must
be justly and distinctly known. If they had formerly been mistaken to
be of the same opinion with those Manichean sects, they had now had
time to clear themselves from that imputation. And so we find by his
words they did. For he says, " The Waldenses do dislike and even
loathe the Runcarians, Beghards, and Luciferians." 51 And they seem by
his description to have been in the same state of religion that they were
found in, one hundred and thirty years after by the Protestants.
And he also supposes that from their beginning they had been free
from any false doctrine about the sacraments. For in his first chapter
he speaks of their original : that it was from one Peter Waldensis (others
31 Cap. xii.
144 The History of Infant Baptism.
call him Waldus), who in the time of Innocent the Second (so he says,
but others place him at 1160, which was the time of Alexander the
Third) reading that command of our Saviour to the rich young man
Matt. xix. 2 1 (some others also add, that he was also affrighted at the
sudden death of one of his companions), took a resolution of selling all
he had, and giving it to the poor : and was imitated by some others,
particularly one John of the city of Lyons. After a while they took on
them to preach ; and being forbid (for they were laymen), they refused
to forbear, and so were excommunicated. Then they betook themselves
to preaching privately ; and, as he adds, " out of hatred to the clergy
and the true priesthood, they began out of the errors of old heretics,
and adding some new and pernicious articles, to destroy, condemn, and
reject all those means by which the clergy, as a good mother, do gather
their children, except the sacraments only."
He means, as appears by what follows, they rejected indulgences,
pardons, canonical hours, prayers to the saints, &c. But if they had
rejected infant baptism, he would not have failed to have mentioned
that. By which it appears that either this man had never heard of the
Petrobrusians ; or else had not heard that they denied infant baptism ;
or else did not take them to have been'Waldenses.
And in this last mentioned sense Cassander 52 speaks of the Petrobru
sians as a sect that, together with the salvation of infants, denied their
baptism : but of the Waldenses, as practising it.
The Petrobrusians could not properly be called Waldenses, because
they set up their party before Waldus did his. For Peter Bruis had
preached twenty years when Cluniacensis wrote, as I showed before :
which was 1146. And Waldus began, by the earliest account, in the
time of Pope Innocent the Second, whose first year was 1130.
So if we take the name Waldenses strictly, for one sort of men ; as
those old writers generally do : then there is no account that any of
them were antipaedobaptists. But if we take it in that large sense, as
many late writers do, to include all the sorts that I have rehearsed,
then there is probable evidence that one sort of them, viz., the Petro
brusians, were so ; but not that the general body of the Waldenses were.
And that opinion of the Petrobrusians seems to have been in a short
time extinguished and forgotten.
§ 8. Now because I take this Peter Bruis (or Bruce, perhaps his name
was) and Henry, to be the first antipaedobaptist preachers that ever set
up a Church or society of men holding that opinion against infant
baptism, and rebaptising such as had been baptised in infancy ; I will
for the sake of the antipeedobaptists give the history of them so far as it
is upon record. And the same thing may gratify the Quakers : for I
believe they were the first likewise of all that have owned the Scriptures
82 De Baptismo infantium.
The Life of Peter Bruis and Henry. 145
(as I see no reason to conclude but this people did ; though there was
a report that they rejected some books of them) that ever taught that
(he use of receiving the Lord's Supper is not to be continued.
They were both Frenchmen. Both of mean rank or quality : for
Peter of Clugny bespeaks them thus : " Because the darkness of a mean
condition kept you obscure, had you therefore a mind by some very
wicked exploit to make yourselves to be taken notice of? " 53 Yet they
had been in priest's orders, and had had each of them a place or
employment in that office : but the benefices belonging to them were it
seems but small. Because he says : " If the places wherein you minis
tered as presbyters afforded you but little gain, would you therefore
resolve to turn all into confusion and profaneness ? " Peter had had a
church or parish, but was turned out of it ; and, as this writer insinuates,
for some misdemeanour. Henry had been a monk, and had deserted
the monastery. For so he adds : " Because one of you was for a reason
(he knows why) turned out of the church which he had, &c. The other
throwing off the monk's habit, turning an apostate," &c.
The places where Bruis first made a party and gained proselytes, were
in that country which is since called Dauphine. For the book which
Peter of Clugny writes against them, is by way of a letter to three
bishops within whose dioceses this had happened; and the bishops were
Eberdunensis, Diensis, and Wapiensis — the bishops of Embrun, Die,
and Gap. In the preface (which was written some time after the book,
and after Bruis was dead) there is added the Archbishop of Aries, in
Provence. But it is said in the book that the City of Aries itself was
free from the infection, only some parts of his province had been
drawn into this persuasion. It was in the mountainous and wild parts
of the said dioceses that it first took footing, for so Cluniacensis writes,
"I should have thought that it had been those craggy Alps, and rocks
covered with continual snow, that had bred that savage temper in the
inhabitants ; and that your land being unlike to all other lands had
yielded a sort of people unlike to all others; but that I now
perceive," 54 &c.
The time that it began, he mentions to have been twenty years
before. And at the time when the book was writ (which was 1146)
those foresaid dioceses were, he says, clear of it. By the care of the
said bishops it had been rooted out there, but that the preachers, when
expelled thence, had planted it in the plain countries of Provincia
Narbonensis. And there, says he, " the heresy which among you was
but timorously whispered or buzzed about in deserts and little villages,
does now boldly vent itself in great crowds of people and in populous
towns." And the places specified in the book are the places about
the mouth of the Rhone, the plain country about Toulouse,
53 Answer to their Fourth Article. 54 Prope initium Epistolse.
146 The History of Infant Baptism.
and particularly that city itself, and many places in the province of
Gascoigne. About the year 1144, Bruis being then in the territory of
St Giles's, where he had made many proselytes, he was, by the zeal of
the faithful people (so Cluniacensis calls it) taken, and in that city.
according to the laws then, burnt to death. The time I compute thus :
Cluniacensis had wrote that letter to the bishops aforesaid, but under
standing that Bruis was put to death, and the doctrine expelled out of
their dioceses, he suppressed the publishing of his letter ; but hearing
that Henry, whom he calls the heir of Bruis's wickedness, did still
propagate it in several places, and that there was danger of its reviving
where it seemed to be extinct, he put a new preface to his work and
published it. Which was in the year 1146.
Of the morals of Peter Bruis this writer gives no account, save that
he describes in how tumultuous and outrageous a way things were
managed by him and his party, where they prevailed : " The people
rebaptised ; the churches profaned ; the altars dug up ; the crosses
burnt ; the priests scourged ; monks imprisoned," 55 &c. And he tells
how they would, on a Good Friday to choose, get together a great pile
of crosses which they had pulled down, and making a fire of them,
would roast meat at it, on which they would make a feast in defiance of
the fast kept by Christians on that day.
As for Henry, after he had gone about preaching in many cities and
provinces of France, he was in the year 1146 or 1 147, found in the said
territory of the Earl of St Giles's, when St Bernard and some bishops
came to those parts to confute these new doctrines. And of him
Bernard does give a character in his letter to that Earl, and it is a very
scurvy character for a preacher.
" The man," says he, " is a renegado, who, leaving off his habit of
religion, (for he was a monk), returned as a dog to his vomit, to the
filthiness of the flesh and the world, and being ashamed to stay where
he was known, &rc., he became a vagabond ; and being in beggary, he
made the Gospel maintain him (for he is a scholar), and setting to sale
the Word of God, he preached for bread. What he got of the silly
people, or of the good women, more than would find him victuals, he
spent in gaming at dice, or some worse way; for this celebrated
preacher, after the day's applause, was at night often found in bed with
whores, and sometimes with married women. Enquire, if you please
noble sir, how he left the city Losanna, what sort of departure he made
out of Mayne, and also from Poictou, and from Bourdeaux : to none of
which places he dares return, having left such a stink behind him." If
any one shall think that in the credit one is to give to this description
there ought to be some allowance made for the malice of his enemies, I
have nothing to say against that.
55 Trope ab initio.
All National Churches are Padobaptists. 147
He that writes the life of St Bernard 56 says that upon this mission
Henry fled, and lying hid for some time, but nobody being willing to
receive him, was at last taken and delivered chained to the bishop (the
Bishop of Ostia, I suppose, who was a Cardinal, and the chief man of
the mission), but what was done with him, it is not said. But of the
people it is said, " that those who had erred were reduced, the wavering
were satisfied, and the seducers so confuted that they durst nowhere
appear." And a little after this, Bernard has a letter to the people of
Toulouse 57 congratulating their recovery from the confusions that had
been among them on account of those opinions.
Their way of preaching against the other Sacrament of the Lord's
supper is thus represented by Cluniacensis : " Your words as near as I
can learn them are these : ' Oh good people don't believe your bishops,
presbyters, and clergymen that seduce you. As they deceive you in
many other things, so they do in the office of the altar ; where they tell
you this lie, that they do make the body of Christ and give it you for the
salvation of your souls. They lie notoriously. For the body of Christ
was only once made by Himself at the Supper before His Passion, and
was once only, viz., at that time, given to His disciples. Since that
time it was never made by anyone, nor given to anyone."58
As the people of this way were from Peter Bruis commonly called
Petrobrusians, so they were from Henry sometimes called Henricians.
CHAPTER VIII.
OF THE PRESENT STATE OF THE CONTROVERSY. THAT ALL THE NATIONAL
CHURCHES IN THE WORLD ARE P^EDOBAPTISTS. OF THE ANTIP^EDO-
BAPTISTS THAT ARE IN GERMANY, HOLLAND, ENGLAND, POLAND, AND
TRANSYLVANIA.
§ i. A LL the opinions that had any great number of abettors in the
•**• ancient times, though they may have been condemned by
general councils, yet have so contained or sprung up afresh that they
have in some country or other become the general opinion. So Nes-
torianism, Eutychianism, &c., have each of them found some place in
which to this day they do prevail as the national constitution.
As for antipsedobaptism, whatever be judged of the proofs brought to
show that there have been some societies of men that have owned it,
as the Petrobrusians lately mentioned, &c., there is no pretence that it
has been or is now the opinion of any national Church in the world.
Wherever there are at present any Christians of that persuasion, they
are as dissenters from the general body of Christians in that place. If
c6 Gaufrid., 1. iii. c. v. 57 Ad Tolosanos., Epist. 241. n8 Ad Artie, quartum
148 The History of Infant Baptism.
this admit of any exception, it is in the country of Georgia or Circassia,
of which I shall speak presently.
This, for all Europe, is notorious. The papists do not only own in
fant baptism, but do generally still hold that an infant dying unbaptised,
though by misadventure, cannot come to the Kingdom of Heaven, but
must go to the region of Hades called limbus infantum. And they have
scarce any antipaedobaptists mixed among them in the countries where
they have the government.
In many of the Protestant or reformed countries there are some of
this persuasion, in some more, in some fewer, and in some none at all.
But in none of them has it prevailed to be the established religion. And
though the contrary be not at all pretended, yet Mr Walker has taken
pains to prove this by reciting l their several confessions, wherein they
own infant baptism, and among the rest that of the Waldenses or
Vaudois assembled at Angrogne.
The Church of England is taken notice of by some to speak very
moderately in this matter. " The baptism of young children is in any
wise to be retained in the Church, as most agreeable to the Institution
of Christ."2 Yet they own, as I showed before,3 the "necessity of this
sacrament where it may be had." And they do not think fit to use the
office of burial, in which the deceased is styled a brother, for infants
that die without it.
The Greek Christians also of Constantinople, and other parts of
Europe under the Turk's dominion, are known to baptise infants. Sir
Paul Ricaut among others has given a full account of their manner of
doing it,4 and wherein they differ from the ceremonies of the Latins.
The same may be said of the Muscovites, who were from their first
conversion a part of the Greek Church, but do of late choose a patriarch
of their own. Of their practice in this matter for the last centuries Mr
Walker has recited evidences in the chapter aforesaid, and for their
present practice everyone knows it. They are said formerly to have
baptised none before the fortieth day, except in case of necessity ; but
Dr Crull, who has wrote latest of them, says,5 that now " they baptise
their children as soon as they are born."
§ 2. In all the countries of Asia the Government is either Mahometan
or Pagan. Yet in many of them, and especially of those under the
Turks, the greatest part of the people are still Christian. There are also
many Christians in several of the countries that are under the Persian
Government, and some in those of the Mogul. These have all continued
now a long time under persecution and daily hardships, and in great
want of the means of instruction, yet have kept most of the main articles
1 Modest Plea, ch. xxvii. 2 Article 27. 3 Ch. vi. § 8.
1 Present State of Greek Church, ch. vii.
5 Present State of Muscovy, vol. i. c. xi.
Armenians — Maronites, 149
of Christian religion. They are some of them Nestorians, as those who
acknowledge the patriarch of Mosul ; some Eutychians, as the Jacobites,
the Maronites (and the Armenians, as most say, but Sir Paul Ricaut
judges otherwise of them). An account of their several tenets is given
by Brerewood in his Inquiries, Heylin in his Cosmography, &c. They
do all hold and practise infant baptism.
•Coll. Danvers 6 says that the Armenians are confessed by Heylin,
Microcos., page 573, "to defer baptism of children till they be of grown
years." Heylin in his youth wrote a short tract of geography called
Microcosm, and afterwards living to a more mature age he wrote a large
volume on the same subject called Cosmography, wherein he added a
great many particulars concerning each nation that were not in the
former piece ; also several things he altered and amended upon better in
formation, and he left out such things as he had not found to be con
firmed. Now in that former piece he had divided Armenia into three
parts — i, that which is properly so called; 2, Georgia; 3, Mengrelia.
And of the Christians of Armenia properly so called, had said — that
one of the things in which they differ from the western Christians is
"in receiving infants to the Lord's Table presently after their baptism."
Which he also confirms in the later book.7 Of the Georgians, he had
indeed said in that former piece that " they baptise not their children
till eight years old." But in the later and larger tract, says no such
thing : but on the contrary says, " They are agreeable in doctrinal
points to the Church of Greece, whose rituals also the people do to this
day follow : not subject for all that to the patriarch of Constantinople
(though of his communion) but to their own metropolitan only."
For what he had said of them in his former piece, " that they baptise
not till the eighth year," he had quoted in the margin Brerewood. But.
Brerewood, in the edition that I have (London, 1622) does not say
this of the Georgians : but making one chapter (Chap, xvii.) of the
Georgians, Circassians, and Mengrelians (whom he makes three several
people all bordering together), of the Georgians says the same that
Heylin does in his later book, viz., that they are conformable to the
Greeks: but says, "that the Circassians baptise not their children till
the eighth year, and enter not into the Church (the gentlemen especially)
till the sixtieth, or as others say, the fortieth year, but hear divine
service standing without the temple ; that is to say, till through age
they grow unable to continue their rapines and robberies, to which sin
that nation is exceedingly addicted : so dividing their life betwixt sin
and devotion, dedicating their youth to rapine, and their old age to
repentance."
Concerning these Georgians and Mengrelians [or Circassians], I shall
speak more particularly presently. But for the Armenians ; both Brere-
6 Treat., Pt. I. ch. vii. cent. 16. 7 Lib. iii. in Turcomania.
1 50 The History of Infant Baptism.
wood in his Inquiries 8 and Heylin as I quoted before, and all others,
do agree that they constantly baptise infants. And if the reader need
any larger satisfaction, he may have it from Sir Paul Ricaut, who writes
distinctly of them, not from remote report, but from the converse he
had with them : for many of this people do frequent Smyrna, Constan
tinople, &c. He gives 9 a full account of their baptism of infants ; " and
that they esteem it necessary, as being that which washes away original
sin." And also that (as Heylin and Brerewood had said) " they ad
minister to the child after it the Holy Eucharist, which they do only
by rubbing the lips with it."
The Maronites give baptism to infants with this particularity,10 that
they baptise not a male child till he be forty days old, nor a female till
eighty days : which is the time limited, Lev. xii., for the purification of
the mother. Also they, as well as the Armenians, give the Eucharist
to infants presently after their baptism.
Of all these sorts of Christians the western part of the world has all
along had some knowledge and account : but it is otherwise of those
in India, called the Christians of St Thomas, inhabiting about Cochin,
Cranganor, and all that vast tract or promontory lying between the
Coast of Malabar and the Coast of Coromandel. These were utterly
unknown and not heard of by us of the west for a thousand years and
more, viz., till about the year 1500, when those parts were discovered
by the Portuguese. There were then estimated to be fifteen or sixteen
thousand families of them, living among the heathens to whom they
were subject. They were found in the practice of infant baptism : but
they did not administer it till the child were forty days old, except in
the case of danger of death. An account of the state of religion in
which they were found, and of this among the rest, is given by Hieron,
Osorius de rebus gestis Emanuelis.11 And of the methods by which
they were one hundred years after brought over to a communion with
the Church of Rome, by Mr Geddes in his account of the Synod of
Diamper. The practice of these Indian Christians may convince our
antipaedobaptists of their mistake in thinking that infant baptism began
in the known parts of the world but of late years : for how then should
it have been communicated to these men, who had never heard of such
a part of the world as Europe ?
In short, there can be no question made of the practice of any
Christians in Asia as to this matter, unless it be of those I mentioned
before, that inhabit the countries of Georgia and Mengrelia [or Cir-
cassia]. And therefore I will be a little more particular about them.
Georgia was formerly called Iberia: and Mengrelia [or Circassia]
was called Colchis. They border together, lying in the remote part of
* Cap. iv. 9 Present State of the Armenian Church, ch. viii.
10 Heyhn, Cosmograph, Syria. n Lib iii. prope finem.
The Georgians and Mengrelians, 151
Asia between the Euxine and Caspian Sea : and are in religion much
the same.
It is to be noted that these people were converted to the Christian
faith in the time of Constantine, by the means of a Christian servant
maid ; much after the same manner as Naaman the Syrian was to the
knowledge of God. The maid by prayer to Christ cured the Queen of
Iberia of a sickness : this and some other evidences converted the
King : and he sent messengers to Constantine to desire some preachers
to be sent to instruct the people, which was readily granted : and the
nation became Christian. This is related by authors that lived about
that time, such as Rufinus,12 Socrates,13 &c.
And as they received the faith from that Church under Constantine,
so they are recorded in the succeeding times to have held communion
with the same, viz., the Greek Church. And how that Church (as well
before their division from the Latins, as since) managed in the matter
of baptism, has been already shown. In after times the Saracens, and
then the Turks, possessing those parts of Asia that lie between the
Greeks and them, must needs break off the correspondence in great
measure ; and they themselves as well as the Greeks, have been since
conquered by the Mahometans. Yet they have and do still keep up
some face of Christianity, though in great ignorance. And the gener
ality of late historians and geographers do still speak of them as con
formable to the Greek Church, so far as they practise any Christian
worship at all, as I showed even now that Heylin in his last book does.
But Sir Paul Ricaut, who was Consul at Smyrna, and travelled in
some other parts of the Levant about the year 1677, heard the same
report of them that Brerewood and Heylin at first heard : Heylin of the
Georgians, and Brerewood (as he distinguishes them) of the Circassians.
Sir Paul Ricaut's words are these :
"The Georgians, which in some manner depend on the Greek
Church, baptise not their children till they be eight years of age. They
formerly did not admit them to baptism until fourteen, but by means of
such preachers as the Patriarch of Antioch sends among them yearly,
they were taught how necessary it was to baptise infants ; and how
agreeable it was to the practice of the ancient Church. But these
being a people very tenacious of the doctrines they once received,
could hardly be persuaded out of this error, till at length, being wearied
with the importunate arguments of the Greeks, they consented as it
were to a middle way, and so came down from fourteen to eight years
of age, and cannot as yet be persuaded to a nearer compliance." u
When I read this first, I thought that we had at last found a Church
of antipsedobaptists (though a great way off), and that a national one,
12 II. E., lib. x. c. xi. 13 II. E., lib. i. c. xxi.
14 Present vState of Greek Church, c. viu
1 5 2 The History of Infant Baptism.
as far as it may be called in a nation mostly Christians, though under
Mahometan government. For the words, as they are placed, do
intimate that this people keep off children from baptism by their
principle, and that, as is represented, of a long standing.
But as Sir Paul Ricaut could have this only by report, and that from
a country very remote from the places where he travelled, and very
unfrequented: so it happened that Sir John Chardin was actually
travelling in those countries of Georgia and Mengrelia about the same
time, and also was acquainted there with a missionary called F. Joseph
Maria Zampy, who had lived there twenty-three years, who showed him
a MS. account drawn up by himself of the observations he had made
concerning the religion of the Mengrelians and Georgians, which
account, Sir John says, was perfectly agreeable to all that he himself
observed there.15
Now Sir John and the said missionary both do observe that these
people do indeed, many of them, put off the baptising of their children
for a great while ; and that many of the people there are never baptised
at all. But they speak of this, not as a principle or tenet of theirs, that
so it ought to be done, but as proceeding from a wretched neglect and
stupid carelessness which they show in that and in all other points of
Christian religion. Christianity is there, as it seems, almost extinguished,
and whoever reads the book, sees the most deplorable face of a Church
that is in the world. It may be necessary to recite some passages of
the book and of the manuscript there exhibited.
Sir John Chardin himself says : " Their religion was, I believe,
formerly the same with that of the Greeks." 16 But for the present state of
it, says, " I could never discover any religion in any Mengrelian, having
not found any that know what religion, or law, or sin, or a sacrament,°br
Divine service is."
The MS. says, " This people has not the least idea of faith or religion.
The most of them take eternal life, the universal judgment, the resur
rection of the dead, for fables." 17 And a little after, " God only knows
the deplorable estate of these wretched priests, or the validity of their
priesthood. For it is always uncertain whether they are baptised, and
whether the bishops that have ordained them have been consecrated or
baptised themselves." 18
And of their baptism, gives this account : 19
" They anoint infants, as soon as they are born, on the forehead. The
oil for this anointing is called myrone. The baptism is not administered
till a long time after. No man baptises his child till he has means [or
unless he have ability, sil n'a moyen] to make a feast at the christening.
Hence it comes to pass that many infants die without receiving it.
15 Voyage into Persia, p. 86. i« Page g- 17 Pa™e 86
" Page 89. HI Pa|e 9£
Georg ians — Mengreliaus — CopJiti — A has sens. 153
" When they administer it to any infant they do not carry it to church,
but in a common room the priest, without putting on any priestly
habit, sits him down and reads a long time in a book. After a long
reading the godfather undresses the infant, and washes him all over
with water, and then rubs him over with the myrone which the priest
gives him. This done, they clothe the infant again, and give him
something to eat, &c.
" There is not one priest among them that understands the form of
baptism, so that there is no question but their baptism is utterly invalid.
On this regard the Fathers Theatins baptise as many infants as they
can. They give them baptism under pretence of applying some medicine
to them," &c.
Sir John himself at another place in his book tells how the Romish
priests that are there, do this. A priest that is called to see a sick
child, calls for a basin of water, as it were, to wash his hands, then
before his hands be dry, he touches the forehead of the child with a
wet finger, as if he observed something concerning his distemper, or by
shaking his hand causes some drops of water to fly in the face of a
child that stands by, as it were in sport, saying the form of baptism
either mentally or with a muttering voice. One would think this as
defective a sort of baptising, as that of the ignorant native priests.
Sir John was invited to two christenings there. He went that he
might see the fashion of it. He gives an account of one of them.20
It was much after the manner related in the MS. The priest read, but
talked at the same time to those that came in and out. The people
went irreverently to and fro in the room, and so did the boy that was
to be baptised, chewing a piece of pig the while. " He was," he says,
" a little boy of five years old."
It is to be noted that the manuscript gives this as the common
account of the rites both of the Mengrelians and Georgians. And so
Sir John himself, when he comes to the Georgians, has only this of
their religion. "The belief of the Georgians is much the same with
that of the Mengrelians. The one and the other received it at the same
time, viz., in the fourth century : and by the same means of a woman of
Iberia that had been a Christian at Constantinople. In a word, the one
as well as the other have lost all the spirit of Christianity : and what I
said of the Mengrelians (that they have nothing of Christianity but the
name, and that they neither observe nor hardly know any precept of the
law of Jesus Christ) is no less true of the people of Georgia." 21
This state of the matter, as it is different from what Sir Paul Ricaut
gives (for this people do baptise infants when they think of it, and when
they have got their good cheer ready), so it might give occasion to the
report which he, and Heylin formerly, had heard. For it is probable
20 Page 140. S1 Page 206.
! 54 The History of Infant Baptism.
the Patriarch of Antioch might send to them to be more diligent in
baptising their infants. But the arguments that this people needed to
persuade them to it, were not such as are used to antipsedobaptists ; but
such as we should use to Christians that are falling back into heathenism
or total irreligion.
§ 3. In Africa there are but two sorts of Christians— the Cophti of
Egypt, who are the remains of the old Christian Church there ; and the
Abassens. Both of these baptise their infants, as is clear by accounts
given of them by all historians and travellers. Brerewood,22 Heylin,23
and others speak of their particular observations about it. The Cophti
baptise none till he be forty days old, though he die in the interim.
The Abassens (as we said before of the Maronites in Asia) baptise the
male children at forty days, and the female at eighty days after their cir
cumcision ; for they circumcise their children of both sexes. But these
last do in the case of peril of death baptise sooner. They do both give
the Eucharist to infants after baptism.
But here also a mistake in a late book of travels needs to be rectified.
M. Thevenot tells in his account of Egypt,24 that while he was at Gran
Cair, he had some conference with an ambassador that was there from
the Abassens' country, about the religion and other affairs of those
parts. This ambassador told him that the Abassens circumcise their
children " at eight days old, as the Jews : and fifteen days after, baptise
them. Before that the Jesuits came thither, they did not baptise them
till thirty or forty years."
Whoever reads what all other historians say of this people, viz., that
they baptised forty days after their circumcision, will easily observe that
Monsieur Thevenot has here mistaken in the last word of the sentence,
years for days. Either he misheard the ambassador, or else mistook in
setting it down : or else the French printer mistook it, for it is so in the
French as well as in the translation of the book into English. There
are a great many of those Eastern Christians that put off the baptism
forty days : but if any had delayed baptism till forty years (to which age
half of mankind does never arrive), we should have heard more of it than
from that hour's conference.
§ 4. This is the account of the practice of the national Churches.
But though there be no National Church but what baptises infants, yet
there are, and have been for about one hundred and eighty years last
past, in several countries of Europe, considerable numbers of men that
differ from the established churches in this point. The history of their
beginning and progress in Germany is so well known, and so much
talked of, that I shall say the less of it. It is, in short, this :
No sooner had the Reformation begun by Luther, anno 1517, taken
22 Inquiries, ch. xxii., xxxiii. *» Cosmogr. Egypt. Ethiopia superior.
24 Travels, torn. i. Pt. II. ch, Ixix.
Antipcedobaptism in Germany, anno 1522. 155
good footing in Saxony and some other parts of Germany, great numbers
of people and some princes (who were at this time generally weary of
the abuses and corruptions of Popery and longed for a Reformation)
greedily embracing it : but that within five or six years there arose a sort
of men that pretended to refine upon him. One Nicolas Stork and
Thomas Muncer, seconded within a while by one Baltazar Hubmer,
preached that the baptism of infants was also an abuse that must be re
formed ; and they baptised over again such as became their disciples.
They added also other things : that it was not fit, nor to be endured in
the Kingdom of Jesus Christ, that some should be so rich and others so
poor ; or that the boors should be held to such burthensome services by
their landlords. Abundance of people flocked to them. And the more,
for that there had been before discontents, and some insurrections, of
those poorer sort of people, because of their foresaid hardships.
There was this difference between Luther's method and theirs, that
he and his partners preached up obedience to all lawful magistrates in
temporal things ; but they carried things with a higher hand in defiance
of magistracy : and Muncer called himself " the Sword of the Lord and
of Gideon."
Luther and the Protestants entered their protestation against their
proceedings, as bringing a scandal on the new-begun Reformation.
But they went on ; and after some time (great numbers of disorderly
people joining with them) became masterless, made a sort of army, com
mitted great ravages on the estates of rich men, where they marched.
And at last, anno 1534, a strong party of this sort of men, coming mostly
from Holland, seized on the city of Munster : where one John Becold,
called John of Leyden, being advanced to be their ,king, they pretended
to prophecy and revelation ; and did, under the name of Christ's
Kingdom, practise several tyrannies and enormities, as polygamy,
plundering, &c.
Some regular forces being brought against them, they were subdued :
and the king and some of the heads of them being put to death, the
rest were dispersed into several parts of Germany : and a great many
of them fled into the Low Countries, where there were already great
numbers of them.
The antipsedobaptists that are now, do not love to hear of these
men, nor do own them as predecessors. Neither is there any reason
that their miscarriages should be imputed to them, provided that they
renounce and keep themselves from all such seditious practices. Espe
cially since many of the people professing that opinion did a little after
separate themselves from the tumultuous rabble, and made a declaration
of better principles under better leaders, as I shall show by-and-by.
Almost all alterations in religion, either for better or worse, have at the
beginning some disorders. It is happy where magistrates, pastors, and
1 56 The History of Infant Baptism.
people do all at one time agree and conspire in any reformation that is
thought necessary : but it is seldom known.
That which is more material to the history of infant baptism, is to
inquire whether this Stork, Muncer, Hubmer, &c., did at that time, viz.,
anno 1522, set up this tenet as a thing then new, or newly revived;
or whether it had been continued and handed down by some dispersed
people from the times of the Petrobrusians (of whom I spoke in the last
chapter, § 5), to this time. Danvers says, that " the present Belgic ana
baptists do with one mouth assert and maintain the latter" 25 The chief
reason he brings either of his own or of theirs, is because it appears
that there were great numbers of them in several parts of Germany in
Luther's time : and that he and others of the first Protestants had dis
putations with them in Saxony, Thuringia, Switzerland, &c., "whereby
it is evident that they had a being in those parts before Luther's time :
for it cannot rationally be supposed that they should all of a sudden be
spread over so great a territory as the upper Germany."
But of the sudden increase, both of the Protestants and of these men,
I gave some account before. He brings also some authorities. But
they are out of books of no credit for anything before their own time.
Dutch Martyrology, Frank, Twisk, Merning, &c. If there were any
continuation of the doctrine for the said two or three hundred years,
it must have been very obscure, and by a very few men : because there
is in all that interval no mention of them in any good author. The
only authority that I remember to have read after 1260 and before
1522, which may seem to make anything to the purpose of antipaedo-
baptism, is a letter written to Erasmus out of Bohemia by one Joannes
Slechta Costelecius, dated October 10, 1519, a part whereof is published
by Colomesius in his Collection of Letters of Men of Note, Epist. 30.
This letter, as it is dated three years before Stork and the rest are said
to have begun, so it speaks of a sect that had been then in being in
that country for some time. I will recite that part of the letter entire :
because, though it be not all to this purpose, yet it is all worth the
reading ; that we may see what schemes of doctrine were abroad in
the world a little before Luther began to oppose the Church of Rome.
" The third sect is of those whom we call Pyghards : they have their
name from a certain refugee of the same nation, who came hither ninety-
seven years ago, when that wicked and sacrilegious John Zizka declared
a defiance of the churchmen and all the clergy." This was 1420.
" These men have no other opinion of the Pope, cardinals, bishops,
and other clergy, than as of manifest Antichrists : they call the Pope
sometimes the beast, and sometimes the whore mentioned in the
Revelations. Their own bishops and priests they themselves do choose
for themselves, ignorant and unlearned laymen that have wife and
Treatise, Pt. II. ch. vii. p. 257, ed. 2.
The Pighards of Bohemia. 157
children. They mutually salute one another by the name of brother
and sister.
" They own no other authority than the Scriptures of the Old and New
Testament. They slight all the doctors, both ancient and modern, and
give no regard to their doctrine.
" Their priests, when they celebrate the offices of the mass [or
communion], do it without any priestly garments : nor do they use
any prayer or collects on this occasion, but only the Lord's Prayer ; by
which they consecrate bread that has been leavened.
" They- believe or own little or nothing of the sacraments of the
Church. Such as come over to their sect must everyone be baptised
anew in mere water. They make no blessing of salt nor of the water ;
nor make any use of consecrated oil.
" They believe nothing of divinity in the sacrament of the Eucharist :
only that the consecrated bread and wine do by some occult signs
represent the death of Christ. And accordingly, that all that do kneel
down to it, or worship it, are guilty of idolatry. That that sacrament
was instituted by Christ to no other purpose but to renew the memory
of His Passion ; and not to be carried about or held up by the priest
to be gazed on. For that Christ Himself, who is to be adored and
worshipped with the honour of latreia, sits at the right hand of God, as
the Christian Church confesses in the Creed.
" Prayers of the saints, and for the dead, they count a vain and
ridiculous thing, as likewise auricular confession, and penance enjoined
by the priest for sins. Eves and Fast Days are, they say, a mockery,
and the disguise of hypocrites.
"They say, the holidays of the Virgin Mary, and the Apostles
and other saints, are the invention of idle people. But yet they
keep the Lord's Day, and Christmas, and Easter, and Whitsunday,"
&c. He says there were great numbers of this sect then in
Bohemia.
Where it is here said that they rebaptised, it is not certain whether
they did it as judging baptism in infancy invalid, or as judging all bap
tism received in the corrupt way of the Church of Rome to be so. The
coherence of the words seems to incline to the latter ; and Ottius, Hist.
Anabap., anno 1521, affirms the latter to be true.
There is, I think, no doubt but these Pyghards were the same that
^nseas Sylvius gives an account of in his Hist. JBohem., written sixty
years before, and calls Picards. He, in that history, says nothing of
their denying infants' baptism, as I observed in the last chapter, § 6.
Baltazar Lydius and Burigenus do both of them recite the confessions
of these men, offered by themselves to King Uladislaus, in which they
expressly own it. John Huss, whose doctrine these men followed, is
never said to have denied it ; only he is accused to have consented to
158 The History of Infant Baptism.
that opinion of Wickliff, that a child that misses of baptism may possibly
be saved.28
These Pyghards do in their confessions say that they are falsely called
Waldenses. I am apt to think they had this name of Picards or Pyg
hards from the old Beghards, which was one of the sects that we do now
comprehend under the name Waldenses, though the Waldenses, so
called by Pilichdorf, did, as he says, abominate the Beghards.27 One
of the authors in Gretzer's collection of writers against the Waldenses,
called Conradus de Monte Puellarum, says, "That this sect was then
rife in all Germany, and that the men of it were called Beghards, and the
women Beguines," but has nothing about their baptism. And I have
heard that there are now popish monasteries in Flanders of men called
Beghards, and women Beguines. I know not what signification that name
may have in any language that can make it applicable to such different
constitutions (for the old Beghards did, as all the rest whom we call
Waldenses, abominate the Church of Rome) unless it signify the same
as our English word beggar ; and so they should have their name from
their poverty, as some sorts both of the Friars and also of the Waldenses
had.
I said that the antipsedobaptists dispersed from Munster, fled some
into several principalities of the Upper Germany, and some into the Low
Countries. They that continued in Germany found but cold entertain
ment ; partly because of their new doctrine, and partly because of the
disorders they had committed during that short time of their reign.
The papists generally reproached the Protestants that they were a sect
sprung from them, and would call all Protestants, in scorn, anabaptists ;
but the Protestants disowned them, and wrote against them. And
Sleidan gives several instances wherein the Protestant princes and
states declared against harbouring them, and made answer to the
reproaches of the papists that they took more care to rid their countries
of them than they themselves did. And there are said to be very few
of them now in either the popish or the Protestant countries of the
Upper Germany.
§ 5. Those of them that retired into the Belgic Provinces found there
more partisans than anywhere else. At Amsterdam particularly they
were near acting the same tragedy they had done at Munster. One
John Geles sent out of Munster by John of Leyden to get supplies of
men, and to stir up other cities, had formed a design to surprise Amster
dam, May 12, 1535, which, by his numbers in the town and some from
other places, he was like to have effected ; but they were defeated and
killed. Also one John Matthew set up for a chief, and chose to him
self twelve apostles, and found a great many disciples to his doctrine.
They prophesied that the end of the world would be within a year, and
w Fox, Martyrol., John Huss, 1415. * See ch. vii. § 7.
Menno of Friezcland, Theodoric, &c. 1 59
filled peoples' heads with many other enthusiastical notions. Being sup
pressed by the magistrates, and some of them put to death, they are said
to have endured it with great constancy.
Cassander mentions 28 also one John Batenburg, who, after the ceasing
of the sedition of Munster, began another. There were several other
disturbances of less moment, which I pass by.
, But Cassander and all agree that a little while after this, one Menno,
a countryman of Friezeland, a man of a sober and quiet temper, that held
the doctrine of antipaedobaptism, did disclaim and protest against the
seditious doctrines and practices of those at Munster and of Batenburg ;
and taught that the Kingdom of Jesus Christ, which they had pretended
to set up by external force, consisted in patience, meekness, and suffer
ing quietly if occasion should be. That one Theodoric succeeded this
Menno in the same doctrine. And Cassander says, that in his time,
which was about one hundred and forty years ago, "Almost all that
continued the profession of that opinion in the Belgic Provinces were
followers of this Menno." And so to this day they generally call them
selves Mennonists, or by abbreviation, Minnists.
He gives them this character : " Most of them do show signs of a
pious disposition, and it seems to be rather by mistake than by any
wilful wickedness that they, carried by an unskilful zeal, have departed
from the true sense of the Scripture, and the uniform agreement of the
whole Church." And says, that "they seem worthy rather of pity and
due information, than of persecution or being undone."
One thing he says29 of this Menno that is particular, viz., that,
" whereas the credit of antiquity and perpetual tradition carries great
authority with it, even with those that set up new doctrines," &c. And
accordingly " some of these men had at first endeavoured to fix the origin
of infant baptism upon some Pope of Rome ; Menno had more sense
[or was more wary, prudentior\ than so. He was forced to own that it
had been in use from the Apostles' time ; but he said that the false
apostles were the authors of it."
Cassander does there confute this nothing with so good reasons, that
I wonder he should call it a more wary one than the other. For as it
had been indeed an unwary thing in Menno to deny that the baptising
of infants was in use in the ages next the Apostles ; when he might, for
aught he knew, be convicted of falsehood by the remaining acts and
records of those times : so to maintain that all the books that were pre
served by the Church were such as were written by the followers of the
false apostles, and none by the followers of the true, is an imagination
rather more absurd than the other. There were false apostles indeed :
but they set themselves to slander and speak and write against the true
ones, as appears by what St Paul and St John do say of them. But the
28 Prsefat. ad Ducem Clivise. * Prsefat. ad Testimonia contra Anabaptistas.
160 The History of Infant Baptism.
books and writings which the Church has preserved are of such as do
own the authority of the apostles.
As for the present state of the Minnists, a late writer of those parts,
an extract of whose book is given by Mr Boval,30 says, "Except Holland,
where they live peaceably, they are almost extinct." By Holland I
suppose he means the United Provinces.
In those provinces there are considerable numbers of them, especially
in Holland and Friezeland. They have the repute of being very fair
traders and very sober men. They use a plainness in their garb to some
degree of affectation, as the Quakers in England do. And they hold
opinions something like theirs, against the lawfulness of oaths of war, &c.
The other tenets attributed to them,31 are, that there is no original
sin. That only the New Testament is a rule of faith. That Christ had
His flesh, not of the Virgin Mary, but from heaven. That it is possible
to live without sin in this life. That departed souls sleep till the resur
rection, &c.
But some that have lived in that country say that all these opinions
are not common to them all : but that some churches of them hold some
of these opinions, and other churches others of them. For their general
humour is to divide into several churches on the least difference of
opinions. Those of the old Flemish way keep a very strict discipline
and excommunicate people on very nice occasions. The Friezelanders
receive all. Some of them allow of no baptism but by immersion, or
putting the baptised person into the water : but the most part of them
admit of baptism by affusion of water. In short, every congregation
of them almost does espouse some particular tenets : only they do all
of them renounce infant baptism.
One cannot impute this as any peculiar fault or folly to the Minnists,
that they are apt to divide and separate from one another on any small
differences of opinion. It is a humour too general and prevailing
among many other people of that country (as well as of ours) to think
that they ought to separate from all that hold anything in religion
different from what they themselves hold. Whereas the great aim and
interest of religion is unity and communion in the worship of God, not
withstanding different sentiments in points not fundamental; and
schisms and parties are forbidden, as courses that will certainly ruin it :
there is no sin that such people think to be a less sin than schism is.
The papists do upbraid the Protestants in general with his humour,
as if it were the natural principle, and the millstone on the neck of
Protestantism. It is too true that the Protestant religion and interest
have been much impaired by it in many countries, where it has grown
and increased in spite of the best endeavours of the ministers in showing
declaring to the people the sinfulness of it. About which the
50 Hist, of Works of Learned, July 1699. si Stoup> Religion of the Hollanders,
Dutch Antipcedobaptists coming into England. 161
papists of all men should make no noise, because they are the only
men that get ground by it : they, and some few designing persons who
propose an interest by heading of parties. But they cannot say that this
is true of all. There are some Protestant countries so happy as to keep
their people in great union and uniformity.
But some of the Minnists do differ from the rest, and from all
Catholic Christians in points more material, and such as are indeed in
consistent with communion. For about the year 1658 the Socinians that
were grown to a considerable number in Poland were expelled thence.
Many of them sought a refuge in these parts. They had most of them
added the opinion of antipasdobaptism to what Socinus had taught them
against our Saviour's divinity : and the common name by which they
had in Poland been called was Anabaptists. So when they came to
Holland they essayed mostly to strike in with the Minnists ; and they
have since brought over many of them to their opinion concerning the
nature of Christ. One sort of the Minnists, called Collegians, are
generally Socinians, believing in nothing but the human nature of Jesus
Christ, and holding it unlawful to pray to Him ; wherein they surpass
the impiety of Socinus himself. These hold a general assembly twice a
year at Rhinsburg, where it is said they observe this order, that he that
comes first distributes the communion to all the assistants, for they have
no regard to the ordination of ministers.
Others of the Minnists are Arians, of which opinion one Galenus, now
living in Amsterdam, is said to be the chief patron. And so these are
by some called Galenists.
And, generally speaking, the Minnists, though they do not all profess
these opinions derogatory to our Saviour's divinity, yet do refuse the
use of the words Trinity, Person, &c., and such other words concerning
the nature of God, as are not in Scripture, but are used by the Church
to express the sense thereof.
The first Socinians that were in Holland (for there were some few
before the year I spoke of) had, as Socinus himself had, but a slender
opinion of infants' baptism : yet did not absolutely refuse it. For at
the Synod of Dort, anno 1618, "was read the confession of the two
brothers, John and Peter Geysteran, Remonstrant ministers : and was re
jected by all with detestation. For it appeared that they, under the name
of Remonstrants, and under pretence of the five Articles, did maintain
the horrid and execrable blasphemies of Socinus and the anabaptists."
So say the Acts 32 of the Synod. But all that their Confession says of
baptism is, " That infants are baptised not by any positive command of
God, but to avoid scandal." And that " they value the baptism of the
adult more than that of infants."
§ 6. In England there were now and then some Dutchmen found of
32 Acta Synod. Dordrecht, Sess. 138.
II. F
K52 The History of Infant Baptism.
the antipsedobaptist opinion ever since the time that it had taken foot
ing in Holland : but none of the English nation are known to have
embraced it in a long time after. Danvers, indeed, would find some of
this opinion in England even before those of Munster. He would per
suade33 that the Lollards held it. But they held nothing but what I
mentioned before, ch. vi. § 7, that infants dying unbaptised may yet be
saved, as I showed then, and appears more fully by Fox.34
In the year 1533, twenty-fifth of Henry VIII., John Frith (who was
martyred that year) wrote a short tract, which he calls a Declaration of
Baptism (it is published with his other works, Lond. 1573)- In it he
takes notice of the antipaedobaptist opinion as then lately risen in the
world (it was about eleven years' standing in Germany, and was but
lately got into Holland, for this was a year before the outrage and dis
persion at Munster). What he says of it is this, " Now is there an
opinion risen among certain, which affirm that children may not be
baptised until they come into a perfect age ; and that because they have
no faith. But, verily, methinks that they are far from the meekness of
Christ and His Spirit; which when children were brought unto Him,
received them lovingly," &c. And after a short discourse, he breaks off
from that point thus : " But this matter will I pass over. For I trust
the English (unto whom I write this) have no such opinions. And that
the English Lollards had been all along free from any such opinion is
evident from a very ancient tract of theirs which they presented to the
Parliament, which is recited by one Dinmock, who writes an answer to
it, and dedicates that answer to King Richard II., which must be about
or before the year 1390. This tract is brought to light from some
ancient manuscripts at Cambridge by the learned Dr Allix, at the end
of his Remarks on the History of the Churches of the Albigenses. In it
the Lollards, complaining of popish abuses, reckon this for one ; the
forbidding of marriage, and keeping men from women ; from whence
did follow effects worse than those of fornication itself committed with
women. For, they say, though slaying of children ere they be christened
be full sinful ; yet Sodomy was worse.
The Convocation, anno 1536, do take notice of the antipaedobaptists'
opinions, of which they must have heard from Holland and Germany
(the Munster business having been two years before), and do pass some
decrees against them. The rather because some people in England
began to speak very irreverently and mockingly about some of the
ceremonies of baptism then in use.
The Lower House of Convocation sent to the Upper House a pro
testation, containing a catalogue of some errors and some profane say
ings that began to be handed about among some people : craving the
33 Treat., Pt. II. ch. vii. pp. 303, 304. M In Henry VI., p. 608.
Dntcli Antipcedobaptists coming into England, 163
concurrence of the Upper House in condemning them. Some of them
are these : 35
" 17. That it is as lawful to christen a child in a tub of water at home,
or in a ditch by the way, as in a fontstone in the church."
I think it may probably be concluded from their expressions that the
ordinary way of baptising at this time in England, whether in the church
or out of it, was by putting the child into the water.
" 1 8. That the water in the fontstone is only a thing conjured.
" 19. That the hallowed oil is no better than the Bishop of Rome's
grease or butter.
" 63. That holy water is more savoury to make sauce with than other
water, because it is mixed with salt ; which is also a very good
medicine for a horse with a galled back : and if there be put an
onion thereto, it is a good sauce for a gibbet of mutton."
But there is none of all these foolish sayings that reflects anything on
infant baptism. Yet the King and Convocation (apprehensive, I
suppose of what might be), setting forth several articles about religion,
to be diligently preached for keeping people steady in it, have these
about baptism —
" i. That the sacrament of baptism was instituted and ordained in
the New Testament by our Saviour Jesus Christ, as a thing
necessary for the attaining of everlasting life : according to the
saying of Christ, Nisi quis renatus fiierit, &c. : ' Unless one be
born of water/ " &c.
" 2. That it is offered unto all men, as well infants, as such as have the
use of reason, that by baptism they shall have remission of sins," &c.
" 3. That the promise of grace and everlasting life, which promise is
adjoined to the Sacrament of Baptism, pertaineth not only to
such as have the reason, but also to infants," &c. ..." they
are made thereby the very sons and children of God. Insomuch
as children dying in their infancy shall undoubtedly be saved
thereby : otherwise not.
" 4. Infants must needs be christened, because they be born in original
sin, which sin must needs be remitted ; which cannot be done
but by the grace of baptism, whereby they receive the Holy
Ghost which exercises His grace and efficacy in them, and
cleanses and purifies them from sin by His most secret virtue
and operation.
" 6. That they ought to repute and take all the anabaptists' and Pela
gians' opinions contrary to the premises, and every other man's
opinion agreeable unto the said anabaptists' and Pelagians'
opinions in this behalf for detestable heresies, and utterly to be
condemned."
35 Fuller's Church History, 1. v. sect. 4.
F 2
!64 The History of Infant Baptism.
These precautions show, if there were at this time in England no doc
trines held by any against infant baptism, yet that they feared lest such
should be brought over hither. And two years after, anno 1538, Fuller 30
recites out of Stow, that four anabaptists, three men and one woman,
all Dutch, bore faggots at Paul's Cross ; and that three days after, a man
and woman of their sect were burned in Smithfield. And says : " This
year the name of this sect first appears in our English chronicles."
But Fox had spoken of some two or three years before. For, taking
notice of the influence that Queen Ann Boleyn had over Henry VIIL,
he observes,37 that " during her time we read of no great persecution,
nor any abjuration to have been in the Church of England, save only
that the registers of London make mention of certain Dutchmen counted
for anabaptists, of whom ten were put to death in sundry places of the
realm, anno 1535; other ten repented and were saved." This must
have been the year before the said Convocation.
The Bishop of Salisbury, Hist, of Reform, Ft. 1. 1. iii. p. 195, mentions
these men, but not under the name of anabaptists. He says, that in
May this year, 1535, "Nineteen Hollanders were accused of some
heretical opinions, ' denying Christ to be both God and Man, or that He
took flesh and blood of the Virgin Mary, or that the sacraments had any
effect on those that received them : ' in which opinions fourteen of them
remained obstinate and were burned by pairs in several places." Here is
nothing peculiarly about infants' baptism. But the circumstance of time,
May 1535, leads one to think that they were some of them that were to
have made a part in the insurrection at Amsterdam. For the author of
an English pamphlet, written 1747, called A Short History of the Ana
baptists (who has made a good collection out of Sleidan, Hortensius,
&c.), says that many Dutchmen from several parts who had been ap
pointed to assist John Geles in the surprise of Amsterdam before-
mentioned, hearing the ill success, fled into England in two ships. Now
that insurrection was on this very month. And that author reckons
those two shiploads to be the first seminary of Dutch antipaedobaptists
in England. But, however that was, there were no English among
them.
But although during this king's reign (and for a good while after, as
we shall see) there were no Englishmen that held any opinion against
infant baptism ; yet, as I said that in Germany the papists upbraided
the Protestants with the name of anabaptists, so it was done here also
in the latter times of this reign. For this King Henry VIIL, in a
speech made at the proroguing of the Parliament, December 24th, 1545
(recited by the Lord Herbert at that year), complaining of the great dis
cord among his subjects, and of the reproachful names they gave one to
another, says : " What love and charity is there among you, when one
88 Fuller, Church History, 1. v. sect. 5. 37 Martyrol., pag. 956, ed. 2.
Henry VIII. — Edward VL — Queen Mary. 165
calls another heretic and anabaptist, and he calls him again papist,
hypocrite, and Pharisee ? "
In King Edward's time, in the third year of his reign, Heylin says :
" At the same time the anabaptists who had kept themselves to them
selves in the late king's time began to look abroad, and disperse their
dotages ; for preventing which mischief before it grew to a head, some
of the chief of them were convened," 38 &c. He does not say whether
these were Dutch or English. And the same year, 1549, Ottius, in his
Anna!. Anabaptist, recites a letter from Hooper to Bullinger, wherein
he complains that England was troubled with a sort of anabaptists ; but,
reciting their tenets, he mentions nothing of infant baptism, nor does he
say whether they were English or foreigners.
In Queen Mary's time, Philpot had, a little before his martyrdom, an
occasion to write a letter 39 to a fellow-prisoner of his to satisfy him in
some doubts that he had concerning the lawfulness of infant baptism.
This shows that the question was then ventilated in England. Philpot,
besides the arguments from Scripture, brings some of the quotations
from antiquity that I have produced, and concludes : " The verity of
antiquity is on our side, and the anabaptists have nothing but lies for
them, and new imaginations, which feign the baptism of children to be
the Pope's commandment."
But this good man grants a great deal more of the question in point
of antiquity than he should have done, when he says in his letter :
" Auxentius, one of the Arian sect, with his adherents, was one of the first
that denied the baptism of children, and next after him Pelagius the
heretic ; and some other there were in St Bernard's time, as it does
appear by his writings. And in our days the anabaptists," &c.
The ground of his mistake concerning the Arians, that they should
be against infants' baptism, is, that the Arians are by some old writers
called anabaptists ; but that was because they rebaptised all that had
been baptised by the Catholics, in infancy or at age, not that they
disliked infants' baptism : as I showed before.40 And the particular
mistake concerning Auxentius must have been caused by those words
of St Ambrose in his oration against Auxentius : " Why then does
Auxentius say, that the faithful people who have been baptised in the
Name of the Trinity must be baptised again ? " Where anyone that
will read the place will see that Auxentius's reason for saying so was
not any difference that the two parties had about infants' baptism, but
the different faith they had about the Trinity, in whose name baptism
was given.
Pelagius denied original sin : from whence Philpot by too visible a
mistake, concluded he had denied infants' baptism.
38 Hist, of Reformation, p. 73. 39 Fox, Martyrol., page 1670, ed. 2.
40 Ch. iv. § 3.
!66 The History of Infant Baptism.
In the beginning of Queen Elizabeth's reign, as there were no Eng
lish antipsedobaptists, so there were very few left in Holland ; till, after
the revolt of those provinces from Spain, they increased again.
For Bishop Jewel in his Defence of his Apology, written about the
seventh year of this Queen, being twitted by Harding with the anabap
tists, "Are not these your brethren?" And Harding having said that
the Roman Catholic countries were cleared of them (among which he
expressly there reckons Base Almaign, i.e., the Dutch Low Countries),
Jewel replies to him, "They find harbour amongst you in Austria,
Silesia, Moravia, and such other countries where the Gospel of Christ
is suppressed : but they have no acquaintance with us either in England,
Germany, France, Scotland, Denmark, Sweden, or any other place
where the Gospel of Christ is clearly preached."
From whence we may gather, that this sort of people were at this
time (which was about forty years after their rise), almost totally sup
pressed in all these parts of the world.
But yet about the sixteenth year of Queen Elizabeth, a congregation
of Dutch antipaedobaptists was discovered without Aldgate in London :
whereof twenty-seven were taken and imprisoned. And the next month
one Dutchman and ten women were condemned. One woman re
canted : eight were banished : two were burnt in Smtthfield, as Fuller 41
out of Stow relates. Their tenets are recited thus, " Infants not to be
baptised. Christians not to use the sword. All oaths unlawful. Christ
took not flesh of the Virgin Mary." This agrees in every point with the
account given before of the doctrine of the Minnists. These were the
first that that Queen ever caused to be burnt for any opinion in religion.
Fox that wrote the Book of Martyrs was then living ; and he ventured
to intercede with the Queen for the life of those two : but could not
prevail ; she showing such a sense of the necessity of suppressing any
new sect by severity at the beginning. In his letter to her 42 there are
these words : " As for their errors indeed, no man of sense can deny
that they are most absurd. And I wonder that such monstrous opinions
could come into the mind of any Christian. But such is the state of
human weakness ; if we are left never so little a while destitute of the
Divine Light, whither is it that we do not fall ? And there is great
reason to give God thanks on this account, that I hear not of any
Englishman that is inclined to that madness," &c. He entreats the
Queen that these two may be banished, as the rest were ; or otherwise
punished. ." But to roast alive the bodies of poor wretches, that offend
rather by blindness of judgment than perverseness of will, in fire and
flames raging with pitch and brimstone, is a hard-hearted thing, and
more agreeable to the practice of the Romanists than the custom of the
Evangelics."
41 Ch. Hist., 9th Book, sect. iii. "2 Ibid.
The Increase of Antipcedobaptism in England. 167
From his words Fuller concludes that this opinion had not then
taken any footing among the English : for Fox was likely to know if it
had.
At what time it began to be embraced by any English I do not find
it easy to discover. But it is plain that no very considerable number
in England were of this persuasion till about sixty years ago. The first
book (except some books taken in a Jesuit's trunk, which he had
brought over on purpose to spread this opinion, which I must mention
by-and-by : but except them) the first that ever I heard of, that was
set forth in English, upholding this tenet, was a Dutch book, called,
A plain and well groiinded Treatise concerning Baptism. This was
translated and printed in English, A.D. 1618, the sixteenth year of King
James the First. But neither in that King's reign, nor in that of his
son King Charles the First, till towards the latter end of it, have we any
account of any considerable number of people of this way, very little
mention of them, or of that question, in any English books.
Dr Featly, who wrote 1645, says in his preface — " This fire in the
reigns of Queen Elizabeth, King James, and our gracious Sovereign till
now, was covered in England under the ashes ; or if it broke out at
any time, by the care of the ecclesiastical and civil magistrates it was
soon put out. But of late since the unhappy distractions — hundreds of
men and women together rebaptised in the twilight, in rivulets, and
some arms of the Thames," &c. And in his letter to Mr Downham,
mentioning the great increase of monstrous sects and heresies at that
time, especially of papists and anabaptists, he says — " They boast of
their great draught of fish ; the papists of 20,000 proselytes, the ana
baptists of forty-seven churches." Upon which view of sects arising in
such times, he does in another place of his book set forth the mischiefs of
a general toleration in any state: which observation of the doctor's made
upon the first toleration that had ever been in England, the experience
of all times since following has shown to be a just one. None can deny
but that this evil does follow upon it; how necessary soever it may
sometimes be on other respects.
It was during the rebellion against King Charles I. and the usurpation
of Oliver Cromwell that this opinion began to have any great number of
converts to it. In those times of stirs, they boasted in their books that
that prophecy was fulfilled : " Many shall run to and fro, and know
ledge shall be increased."43 That usurper gave not only a toleration,
but great encouragement to all sorts of religions that opposed the
Church of England and the Presbyterians. Neither of these could he
trust : but laboured to weaken them what he could. And the more
dissenters and separaters there were from these, the safer he reckoned
he sat. The event, of these joining afterwards together to vindicate
43 Daniel xii. 4.
1 68 The History of Infant Baptism.
their country from tyranny and utter confusion, showed that he was in
the right.
In these times of general liberty this opinion increased mightily :
many owning it out of conscience (we must in charity judge) as thinking
it to be the truth ; but many also for advantage. For Oliver, next to
his darling Independents, favoured this sort of men most; and his army
was in great part made up of them. You must suppose, then, that they
left out of their scheme of doctrines that tenet of the Minnists, " that
the sword is not to be made use of by Christians," for they had many
of them the places of troopers, captains, major-generals, committee-men,
sequestrators, &c.
It appears by a passage in the life of Judge Hale,44 how much that
party was favoured at that time. For it is there related how that judge,
having the case brought before him " of some anabaptists who had
rushed into a church, and disturbed a congregation while they were re
ceiving the sacrament, not without some violence ; was minded to pro
ceed severely against them. For he said it was intolerable for men, who
pretend so highly to liberty of conscience, to go and disturb others, &c.
But these were so supported by some great magistrates and officers,
that a stop was put to his proceedings. Upon which he declared he
would meddle no more with trials on the Crown side : " yet some time
before the death of the usurper, many of the antipaedobaptists, as well
as of the other separate parties that had raised him, fell into a dislike of
him, and he of them. So far that he, as one Captain Dean relates,
cashiered several of them : and they, as the Lord Chancellor Clarendon
relates, entered into several conspiracies to assassinate him. I have
been advertised that I ought in this second edition to insert, in order to
their vindication, their address to King Charles II., recited by that noble
lord in the fifteenth book of his excellent History of the Rebellion. I
will therefore give the substance of it in short, being sorry that it does
not tend more to their credit than it does. They (as well as all the
other parties of that time except the churchmen) seem to have returned
to their allegiance to the king, not out of conscience, but because they
found themselves undone without him.
Several sorts and sects of men joined in the address : but it was sent
to the king, being then at Bruges, by a gentleman, an antipaedobaptist of
special trust among them. They recount how under King Charles I. there
had been " many errors, excesses, irregularities, &c., as blots and stains
upon the otherwise good government of that king : " whom they own to
have been " of the best and purest morals of any prince that ever swayed
the English sceptre : " that the Parliament had raised war to free him
from evil counsellors : tha,t they among the rest had on this account taken
arms : and that though they are since sensible that under pretence of
44 Burnet's Life and Death of Sir Matthew Hale, p. 44.
The Present State of A ntipcedobaptism in England. \ 69
reformation and liberty the secret designs of " wicked and ambitious
persons" had been hid; yet that they themselves had "gone out in the
simplicity of their soufs," having never had thoughts of " casting off their
allegiance, or extirpating the Royal Family : " but only of " restraining the
excesses of Government." " Thus far," they say, " they had gone right,
and had as yet done nothing but what they thought themselves able to
justify" [strange that they could say this]. But that in all their motions
since, they had been " roving up and down in all the untrodden paths of
fanatic notions ;" and now found themselves " involved in so many laby
rinths and meanders of knavery," that they know not how to extricate
themselves. " Into what crimes, impieties, and unheard-of villainies have
we," say they, " been led, cheated, cosened, and betrayed by that grand
impostor, that loathsome hypocrite, that detestable traitor, that prodigy
of nature, &c., who now calls himself our Protector? — We have trampled
under foot all authorities, we have laid violent hands upon our own
sovereign, we have ravished our Parliaments, put a yoke of iron on the
necks of our countrymen, broken oaths, vows, covenants, engagements,
&c., lifted up our hands to heaven deceitfully, and added hypocrisy to
all our sins. — We were sometime wise to pull down : but we now want
art to build. We were ingenious to pluck up : but have no skill to
plant. Strong to destroy : but weak to restore. Whither shall we go
for help ? If to Parliaments ; they are broken reeds. If to the army,
they are a rod of iron to bruise us. If to him who treacherously has
usurped, and does traitorously exercise power over us ; he says, ' I have
chastised you with whips, and will henceforward with scorpions.' — At
last, we began to whisper among ourselves, why should we not return to
our first husband ? " &c.
And so (after many long turns of canting expressions) they come at
last to this, that they find themselves engaged in duty, honour, and
conscience to make this humble address, &c. But yet declare, that
"lest they should seem altogether negligent of that first good cause,
which God had so eminently owned in them," &c., they think it
necessary to offer the following propositions (which his Lordship
justly calls "extravagant and wild ones"), to which, if His Majesty
would condescend, then they would hazard their lives to re-establish
him.
1. That the King do resettle the Long Parliament, with the excluded
members.
2. That he ratify all the concessions made by his father at the treaty
in the Isle of Wight. [Now those concessions were (as this
noble historian observes in another place. Book xvi., p. 723,
&c. Ed. Ox., 1706), "Such as in truth did, with the preserva
tion of the name and life of the king, near as much establish a
Republican Government, as was settled after his murder. And
1 70 The History of Infant Baptism.
such as His Majesty yielded to with much less cheerfulness than
he walked to the scaffold."] ,
3. That he should set up an universal toleration of all religions.
4. Abolish all payment of tithes.
5. Pass a general Act of Oblivion.
The gentleman added in a letter of his own, that he desired the
sum of £2000 to be remitted to him from the King: which sum
not being at that time in His Majesty's power, this proposal came to
nothing.
It was by reason of the increase which had been of this opinion in
those times, that the Convocation which sat presently after the restora
tion of King Charles II., when they made a review of the Book of
Common Prayer, found it necessary to add to it an office for the baptism
of those who, having been born in those times, had not yet been baptised ;
whereof there were many that were now grown too old to be baptised
as infants, and ought to make profession of their own faith. They give
in the preface to the said book an account of the, occasion that made
this necessary then, though not formerly, in these words : " Together
with an office for the baptism of such as are of riper years. Which
although not so necessary when the former book was compiled ; yet by
the growth of anabaptism, through the licentiousness of the late times
crept in among us, is now become necessary."
The Parliament assembled upon the said Restoration, expressed the
dislike the nation had conceived against the tenets and behaviour of
these men ; when making an Act for the confirming all ministers in the
possession of their benefices, how heterodox soever they had been,
provided they would conform for the future ; they excepted such as had
been of this way.
It is to be noted, that when this opinion began first to increase, they
did not all of them proceed to separation from the Established Church :
they held it sufficient to declare their sentiment against infant baptism,
to reserve their own children to adult baptism, and to be baptised with
it themselves, without renouncing communion in prayers and in the
other sacrament with the paedobaptists. In the year 1645, when
Marshal had in a sermon objected to the antipaedobaptists the sin of
separation ; Tombs answers.45 that this was practised only by some ;
that it was the fault of the persons, not of the principle of antipaedo-
baptism ; that he himself abhorred it ; and he quotes as concurring
with him, " the Confession of Faith in the name of seven churches of
antipaedobaptists in London," Art. 33.
But these that continued in communion were not for Oliver's turn.
There was great care taken to instil into them principles of total separa
tion, which proved too effectual : and within a while they did all, or
43 Examen., Pt. II. § 2.
The Present State of Antipcedobaptism in England. 171
almost all, renounce the settled congregations, and became great
enemies to them. In which separation they do still, almost all,
continue.
The present state of them is this :
They that are now, are as commendable as any other sort of men are,
for a sober and grave, quiet and peaceable way of living. They profess
obedience to magistrates ; and they will commonly express a dislike
and abhorrence of those plunderings and other violences committed by
some of their party, as well as by the rest of the army of that usurper
aforesaid of odious memory. They are particularly commended for main
taining their poor liberally (which is a way that never fails to attract the
good-will of the multitude, and to make proselytes), as also for passing
censures upon such members of their own congregations as live disorderly.
This character of obedient subjects, is what they now own and pro
fess ; and what I hope is the real sentiment of most of them. One Mr
Hicks, did indeed about twenty years ago (if what was informed against
him were true), give a most ugly and reproachful account of the whole
body of this people as to this point.
There was at that time, 1683, a villainous conspiracy headed by
Shaftesbury, Monmouth, &c., against King Charles, either to murder
or at least to depose him. The conspirators sent their emissaries about,
to see what numbers and parties of the people could be drawn in to join
in the rebellion. And amongst other discoveries made afterwards of
this treason, there was this following information given upon oath
by one Mr West of the Temple, which is printed in the account of that
plot. Copies of Information, p. 41.
" This examinant further says, that Mr Roe told this examinant, that
he had discoursed with one Mr Hicks, a tobacconist, an anabaptist
preacher, a great ringleader of the anabaptists ; and that the said
Hicks had told him that the anabaptists could, and he believed upon
good consideration would, make up an army of 20,000 men, and 1500
of the 20,000 would be horse : and though perhaps there would be a
necessity of making use of some great men at the beginning (and this
examinant thinks he mentioned the Duke of Monmouth), yet when the
anabaptists were once up, they would not lay down their arms till they
had their own terms."
If Hicks never did say so, he ought to have publicly disowned it. And
if he did, the antipsedobaptists ought to'have disowned him from being a
leader. Whether either of them were done, or whether Hicks be now
living, I know not. God Almighty keep all sorts of people from such
leaders, as will lead them in a way to which the Scripture expressly
assigns damnation. But, however, there were but two men of the
twenty thousand that appeared then to have been guilty : and those
two were among some of the first that made an ingenuous and voluntary
172 The History of Infant Baptism.
confession. And besides, it is not credible that that party of men could
at that time have made up such a number, if they had been never so
unanimous in the wickedness. P.S. — I hear since that Hicks is dead :
but that he lived in London many years after this ; and that the fore-
said accusation was not made good against him : but that King
Charles II., upon a hearing of his case in Council, discharged him.
The number of them had been considerably abated upon the Restora
tion and the re-settling of the Church of England. Many at that time
returned to the Church, and brought the children which they had had
in the meantime to be baptised according to the order thereof. And
during the remainder of King Charles's reign the number of them stood
much at a stay, or rather decreased. But since the late times of general
liberty and toleration they have increased again. In some of the
counties of England they are the most numerous of any sort of men
that do separate from the Established Church. This is chiefly in the
south-east parts — Essex, Kent, Sussex, Surrey, &c. There are very few
in those parts that make any separation from the Church but they.
Which is the occasion that I, as I am placed in those parts, have the
more minded what I have read in any ancient book relating to that
question : from whence have sprung the notes that make the first part
of this work. In other parts of England they are much over-numbered
by the Quakers. There are also great numbers of them in London and
the suburbs. And it is observed from some late passages, that the
Presbyterians look as if they would court their friendship, and as if they
aimed to add this stick** also to the other two.
Their tenets are, besides the denying of infants' baptism, these :
i. They do many of them hold it necessary, as I said, to renounce
communion with all Christians that are not of their way. Many of
them are so peremptory in this, that if they be in the chamber of a sick
man, and any paedobaptist, minister or other, come in to pray with him,
they will go out of the room. And if they be invited to the funeral of
any psedobaptist, they will go the house and accompany the corpse with
the rest of the people to the church door : but there they retreat ; they
called it the steeple-house. They seem to judge thus : those that are
not baptised are no Christians, and none are baptised but themselves.
So they make not only baptism itself, but also the time, or age, or way
of receiving it a fundamental.
It is strange to see how deeply this principle of division is rooted in
some of them by the care that many of their teachers take to cultivate
it. If anyone that has been one of them, be afterwards prevailed on
to go ordinarily to church, and hold communion in all things that he can,
though he keep still his opinion of antipaedobaptism, they of them that
* A sermon of Mr Mead-, an Independent minister, was printed to recommend the
union of the I resbytertans and Independents, with this title, Two Sticks made One.
\
The Tenets of the English Antipcedobaptists. 173
are of this principle bemoan him as a lost man ; and speak of him as
we should do of one that had turned an apostate from the Christian
religion. If any man, being not satisfied with the baptism he received
in infancy, do desire to be baptised again by them, but do at the same
time declare that he means to keep communion with the Established
Church in all things that in conscience he can ; there are (or at least
• have been) several of their elders that will not baptise such a man. To
renounce "the devil and all his works," &c., has been always required
of persons to be baptised into the Christian religion : but to require
them to renounce communion with all Christians that are not of their
opinion, is to baptise into a sect. It is a clear case from Scripture, and
particularly from Phil. iii. 15, 16, that the duty of Christian unity does
require that they (and the same is to be said of all others that differ not
in fundamentals) should hold communion as far as they can : even
though they do still continue in their opinion for adult baptism. Of
which I shall say something more in the last chapter.
I said before that this scrupulous stiffness is not universal among
them. Tombs, and several more had, and some of them still have,
truer sentiments concerning "the communion of saints in the Catholic
Church ; " and I have received of late a credible account, that the most
considerable men, and of chief repute among them, do more and more
come over to these sentiments.
2. They are, more generally than the antipsedobaptists of other
nations, possessed with an opinion of the absolute necessity of the
immersion or dipping the baptised person over head and ears into the
water. So far, as to allow of no clinical baptism, i.e., if a man that is sick
in a fever," &c. (so as that he cannot be put into the water without
endangering his life) do desire baptism before he die; they will let
him die unbaptised, rather than baptise him by affusion of water on his
face, &c.
They are contrary in this to the primitive Christians. They, though
they did ordinarily put the person into the water, yet in case of sickness,
&c., would baptise him in his bed.
They bring three proofs of the necessity of immersion or dipping.
1. The example of John baptising Christ, of Philip baptising the
Eunuch, and generally of the ancient Christians baptising by
immersion.
2. That baptism ought, as much as may be, to resemble the death
and burial and rising again of Christ.
3. That the word, to baptise, does necessarily include dipping in its
signification ; so that Christ by commanding to baptise, has
commanded to dip.
To which these answers are commonly given.
The first proves what was said before, that in Scripture times and in
The History of Infant Baptism.
the times next succeeding, it was the custom in those hot countries
to baptise ordinarily by immersion : but not that in cases of sickness, or
other such extraordinary occasions they never baptised otherwise. Of
this I shall speak in the next chapter.
The second proves that dipping, where it may safely be used, is the
most fitting manner. But our Saviour has taught us a rule, Matt. xii. 3-7,
that what is needful to preserve life is to be preferred before outward
ceremonies.
The third, which would if it were true be more conclusive than the rest,
is plainly a mistake. The word /3acnr/£fij in Scripture signifies ' to wash '
in general, without determining the sense to this or that sort of washing.
The sense of a Scripture word is not to be taken from the use of it in
secular authors, but from the use of it in the Scripture. What /3a-7rr/£w
signifies among Greek writers, and what interpretation critics and
lexicons do accordingly give it, is not much to the purpose in this case to
dispute (though they also, as Mr Walker in his Doctrine of Baptism has
largely shown, beside the signification immergo, do give that of lavo in
general) when the sense in which it is used by the penmen of Scripture
may otherwise be plainly determined from Scripture itself. Now in
order to such a determination, these two things are plain.
First, that to baptise is a word applied in Scripture not only to such
washing as is by dipping into the water the thing or person washed;
but also to such as is by pouring or rubbing water on the thing or person
washed or some part of it.
Secondly, that the sacramental washing is often in Scripture expressed
by other words beside baptising, which other words do signify washing
in the ordinary and general sense.
For the first there are, besides others, these plain instances.
The Jews thought it a piece of religion to wash their hands before
dinner : they blame the disciples, Mark vii. 5, for eating with unwashen
hands. The word here is vi<xr<a, an ordinary word for washing the
hands. Their way of that washing was this : they had servants to pour
the water on their hands, 2 Kings iii. n. "who poured water on the
hands of Elijah," i.e., who waited on him as a servant.47 Now this
washing of the hands is called by St Luke the baptising of a man ; or,
the man's being baptised, Luke xi. 38. For where the English is :
" The Pharisee marvelled that he had not washed before dinner ; " St
Luke's own words are : on ou irpurov sfiavriadr) <xfi rot apiarou, ' that he
was not baptised before dinner.' And so they are translated in the
Latin. A plain instance, that they used the word, to baptise, for any
ordinary washing, whether there were dipping in the case or not.
Also that Which is translated, Mark vii. 4, " the washing of pots, cups,
47 Dr,J>ocock has largely proved from Maimon and others that this was the Jews'
way. Non lavant inctn»s nisi I vase affns& a»jnd. A ot. Misc. c. ix.
Concerning Separation — Immersion. 175
brazen vessels, tables," is in the original, the baptising of pots, &c. And
what is there said, " When they come from market, except they wash,
they eat not : " the words of St Mark are : " Except they be baptised,
they eat not." 4S And the divers washings of the Jews are called didtpopoi
Pawn's/Ml, 'divers baptisms,' Heb. ix. 10. Of which some were by
bathing, others by sprinkling, Numb. viii. 7 ; xix. 18, 19.
For the second there are these.
Baptism is styled \ovrpbv TO\J udarog, ' the washing of water,' Eph. v. 26 ;
Xourpbv rric, -raX/yygvstr/as, ' the washing of regeneration,' Tit. iii. 5. And
to express this saying: "having our bodies baptised with clean water."
The Apostle words it : XiXou/j,'svot rb ffuaa, ' having our bodies washed?
xal tppavriffpivoi rag xapdtag, 'and our hearts sprinkled/ Heb. x. 22.
These words for washing are such as are the most usual for the ordinary
ways of washing : the same, for example, with that which is used, Acts
xvi. 33, ' He washed their stripes.' No man will think they were put
into the water for that.
They had several words to signify washing. And they used them
promiscuously for the sacramental washing and for other washings.
It is the Christians since, that have appropriated the word baptise to the
sacramental washing : much after the same rate as they have appropri
ated the word Bible, which in Greek is any book, to the book of God ;
or the word, Scripture, which in the Scripture itself signifies any writing,
to the Divine writings. But to proceed with the tenets of the antipsedo-
baptists of England.
3. As exact as they are in imitating the primitive way used in the
hot countries ; they do not baptise naked : which those ancient Chris
tians always did, when they baptised by immersion ; as I show in the
next chapter. They usually spoke of " the putting off the body of the
sins of the flesh " as a thing signified by the unclothing of the person to
be baptised. I suppose it is for preserving modesty, that they dispense
with that custom. So it seems in some cases they can allow of dis
pensing with the primitive custom.
4. But a more material thing, in which some of them do deviate both
from the express command of our Saviour, and the received practice of
the Church, is in the form of baptism. One sort of them do count it
indifferent whether they baptise with these words : " In the Name of
the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit ; " or with these :
" In the Name of the Lord Jesus." And do in their public confession 49
allow either of the forms. And I have heard that some of them do
affectedly choose the latter. But I am told by one who should know,
that, whatever has been done formerly, they that do so now, are very few ;
48 This was not dipping, Lavantes aforo totum corpus non mersabant. Pocock, Not.
Misc. c. ix.
48 Confes. of Anabapt. Reprinted Lond., 1691.
176 The History of Infant P>aptism.
and those, men not well thought of by the general body of them, but
only such as are suspected to be underhand Socinians : for they have
many such among them ; and it is not for the use of those that have a
mind to obliterate the belief of the Trinity, to baptise their proselytes
into the faith and name of it. I believe one reason why Socinus had
such a mind to abolish all use of baptism among his followers was
because persons baptised in " the Name of the Father, and the Son,
and the Holy Spirit," would be always apt to think those names to ex
press the Deity in which they were to believe, which he did not mean
they should do. And some of his followers have been so disgusted
with that form of baptism that they have given profane insinuations 50
that those words were not originally in the Scripture, but were taken
from the usual Doxology into the form of baptism, and then inserted into
the text of Matthew xxviii. 19.
Those that baptise only in " the Name of the Lord Jesus," plead the
examples of the Apostles, Acts viii. 16 ; it. xix. 5. But though in those
passages where the matters of fact are related in short, there be men
tioned in the recital only the Name of the Lord Jesus, because that was
the name that the Apostles found it most difficult to persuade the Jews
to own (" they having already," as St Cyprian says,51 " the ancient
baptism of Moses and of the law were now to be baptised in the Name
of Jesus Christ ") yet interpreters have taken it for granted that in the
conferring those baptisms, the Apostles used the whole form which our
Saviour had prescribed. — Origen in Rom. vi. ; Didymus, 1. ii., De Spiritu
Sancto ; Cyprian, Epist. ad Jubaianum ; Augustinus passim ; Canon
Apostol. 41, 42, aliis 49, 50. And Athanasius says, " He that is
baptised only in the Name of the Father, or only in the Name of the
Son, or without the Holy Spirit, &c., receives nothing." 52 In short, it is
true which St Austin says,53 that in Church history " you shall oftener
meet with heretics that do not baptise at all, than with any that do
baptise with any other words," viz., than those of the Father, Son, and
Holy Spirit.
Yet we dp find one sort of heretics that did so. It was one sect of
the Eunomians, who, Sozomon says,54 were the first that ever did it.
And he gives his opinion that they are in as ill case as if they were not
baptised at all.
5. Some other singular opinions they hold that do not at all relate
to baptism. Some of them (but I think it is but few in England) do
hold that error which has of old been attributed to the antipjedobaptists
of Germany, and is said to be still held by the Minnists of Holland,
that Christ took not flesh of the Virgin Mary, but had it from heaven ;
"> The Judgment of the Fathers, &c., Pt. I. p. 22. 51 Epist. ad Jubaian.
Epist. ad Serapionem. »3 Lib- vi contra Donatist. c. xxv.
ri Lib. vi. c. xxvi.
The Origin of the Flesh of Christ. 177
and only passed through her as water through a pipe, without receiving
any of His human substance from her. The Belgic Confession 57 calls
this the " heresy of the anabaptists."
It is strange to observe in how many heresies, old and new, this odd
opinion, so plainly contrary to Scripture, has made an ingredient. It
was first invented by the Gnostics and Valentinians, for they explained
all that they believed of our Saviour's human nature in this manner, as
we perceive by Irenasus.56 Also by Tertullian 57 we understand that
beside them Marcion and Apelles (that was one of his followers) held
the same, but with this difference, Marcion said our Saviour had no real
flesh at all, but only in appearance : Apelles owned real flesh, but not
of human race, but made of the substance of the stars and heavenly
bodies, which was brought into the Virgin's body only to pass through
her. Athanasius also ascribes this opinion58 to the Marcionites.
Gennadius,59 besides that he also names Marcion, says that Origen and
Eutyches taught that Christ's flesh was brought from heaven. And
Gregory Nazianzen, in an Epistle to Nectarius,60 tells him that he had
met with a book of Apollinarius the heretic, that " maintained this
heretical tenet, that in the dispensation of the Incarnation of the only
Son of God, He did not take flesh from without to repair our nature :
but there was the nature of flesh in the Son of God from all eternity."
But I hear that Canisius 61 has found and published an epistle of his,
wherein he disowns it. I showed before 62 that this of Christ's flesh
only passing through the body of the Virgin, made one of the monstrous
tenets of one sort of the Cathari, spoken of by Reinerius, who were
Manichees in the main. The old Manichees held that He had properly
no flesh at all, that he was not born of Mary, but came from the first
man, which first man was not of this earth.
Most of the old heretics that taught this, did it because they would
not yield that our Saviour did really condescend so far as to take on
Him human nature, and be properly a man made (as St Paul expresses
it) of a woman : so they made use of it to impugn His humanity.
But we have reason to judge that most that hold it now, do it to
impugn His Divinity : for by this subterfuge, that His flesh was
sent originally from heaven, and only passed through the body of
the Virgin, they evade the arguments for His Divinity and pre-existence,
taken from those places of Scripture which speak of His " coming from
heaven, coming forth from the Father, and coming into the world," &c.,
expounding these texts, not of an eternal pre-existence, but of His flesh
made in heaven and sent down. For they do not understand it, as
E5 Artie. 18. >G Lib. i. c. i. circa medium, it. 1. iii. c. xvii.
57 De Carne Christi, c. vi. &c. 58 De Salutari adventu adv. Apollinaristas.
59 De Eccl. Dogm., c. ii. 60 Apud Sozom., 1. vi. c. xxvii.
el Antic. Lect., t. v. 62 Ch. vii. § 4.
178 The History of Infant Baptism.
Apollinarius is said to have done, that this heavenly flesh was from
eternity ; but made at a certain time before the world, as the Arians
said His Divine nature was.
So that this opinion, as well as the former, fits those antipaedobaptists
best that are inclined to Socinianism. But what, then, will these men
make at last of our Blessed Saviour ? The old heretics, some of them
denied Him to be God, and others of them denied Him to be properly
man ; but these deny both, and say that He is neither God, nor pro
perly man, as not being made of a woman, nor the seed of David.
Will they make no more of Him than the Jesus Christ of the Quakers,
many of whom speak of Jesus Christ as being nothing else but some
thing within themselves, a notion of their brains ?
Whereas Gennadius imputes, as I said, this opinion to Origen. I did
suspect it (when, in the first edition, I wrote it down) to be Gennadius's
mistake (having never observed any saying of Origen tending this way),
and I do since find that Huetius has proved it to be so. He must have
mistaken it for another, which Origen did indeed hold, and which is in
the consequence so near akin to this, that they are by Athanasius both
condemned in one sentence. He held a pre-existence (not of Christ's
flesh, but) of His human soul.
He had imbibed from Plato's notions a fancy that all souls were created
at the beginning ; and then he thought it probable that in that pre-ex-
istent state some of these souls behaved themselves better than others,
and so were put into better bodies. And then (according to that ram
bling faculty that he had of building castles in the air, one on the top of
another), he imagined that there might be some one soul among these
that might behave itself far better than any of the rest, and so might be
chosen by God out of the rest to be assumed by the Xo'yog. To which
sense he interprets Ps. xlv. 7, making it to be said to this soul : " Thou
hast loved righteousness, &c., therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed
thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows." After which he finds
out a great many pieces of work for this soul to do before the time that
it was united to the body that was born of the Virgin Mary.
The Christians of those older times took great offence at his thus bring
ing the romantic notions of the heathen philosophers and the fictions of
his own brain into the most sacred points of the Christian faith, the main
property whereof is, that it be kept whole, undefiled, unmixed, and un
altered, and (as Tertullian says), " not to be mended." And when his
works came abroad in the world, there was for several ages a debate
among the Churches whether they should receive his books and honour
his memory as of a Catholic Christian, or hold both in execration as of a
heretic. And though the admiration they had of his great parts, learn
ing, memory, pains, &c. (which were greater than had been in any Chris
tian before, or perhaps have been since), and their love to the piety that
Pre-existence of Christ's Human Soul. 1 79
he had shown, did much prejudice them in his favour ; yet because of
this and other heterodox tenets, he was by the greatest part condemned
(such a zeal the Christians of that time showed against anyone that went
about to bring any alteration into their form of sound words), but many
on the other side did attempt apologies for him. The first and best of
which is, that which was drawn up by Pamphilus, the martyr, assisted by
Eusebius, in six books, which I know not how some come to call Six
Apologies.
Some of his tenets these apologists do endeavour to justify by giving
a qualifying explication of them ; and some that were imputed to him
they show to be imputed wrongfully. But this which I have been speak
ing of, there is not one of them pretends to justify ; but yet they say he
ought not to be accounted a heretic, because he did not affirm it posi
tively, or teach it dogmatically, or hold it obstinately, but only proposed
it to the consideration of the hearers or readers whether such a thing
might not be. So Pamphilus (after he had endeavoured to refute the
rest of the accusations against him from his own words), when he
comes to this (which is the eighth of the nine capital errors there dis
cussed), says, "I must make answer here myself." The answer he
makes is, that " Origen, knowing that that tenet of the soul is not
plainly contained in the doctrine of the Church, did (whenever some
words of Scripture gave him occasion, or a hint rather, of disputing of
it, and he did discuss and handle what seemed probable to him there
on) propose his thoughts to be judged of and approved by the readers,
not denning anything as a plain [or positive] point [dogma] or having
the authority of an article [sententia] and did generally add to it such
qualifying words as these, ' If that account which I give of the soul do
seem to anyone to have any probability in it.' " 63 And that he never
wrote any treatise particularly of the soul (as he had done of almost
everything else), which Pamphilus says is a sign that he "did not
venture to define anything dogmatically about it,"
This part of the apology is true. For whereas there are but two places
in his works where he insists purposely on this pre-existence of Christ's
soul: one Contra Cels., 1. i.; the other nip! "gx^f, 1. ii. c. vi. (in other
places he only touches it by-the-by). In the first of these, he (as soon as
he begins to talk of that matter of the pre-existence of souls, upon which
it is that he proceeds to speak of Christ's soul) admonishes the reader
thus : " I speak this according to the notion of Pythagoras, Plato, and
Empedocles, whom Celsus often quotes." 64 And in the later of them,
where he purposely insists on the article of Christ's Incarnation, he first
confesses it to be a miracle and mystery which it is beyond the power
of the Apostles, or even of the highest angels, to explain. But yet in
the next words ventures on the explication of it (which he gives to the
6:! Pamphili Apolog. prope finem. M C. Cels., I. i pag. 26, eel. Cant.
1 80 The Histoty of Infant Baptism.
purpose aforesaid, of a soul pre-existing and united to the Xo'/oj and
then incarnated) but premises that he will not define rashly \temeritate
aliqua\ but propose rather his own guesses [or imaginations, suspicions
nostras] than any positive affirmations. He does not say : " It is every
whit as clearly revealed as any article of faith whatever ; " or, " No
Christian doctrine is more clearly delivered than is this of my discourse."
These excuses did alleviate, but not quite take off the scandal taken
at this innovation in the faith. When a man in his station, a presbyter
of the Church, does vent any such odd and singular fancy in religion —
though he do it with never so much caution and declaration that he is
not positive in it — yet it always does some hurt because of the inclina
tion and itch that people have to catch at a new-fangled opinion ; and
it cannot be so absurd but that it will meet with some sorts of men or
women at least, whose brains stand awry in that particular enough to
make them embrace it. It is always remembered among the heads of
accusation afterwards brought against him; and in that solemn and
authoritative denunciation of him for a heretic given out by Theophilus,
the patriarch of Alexandria,65 as the pre-existence of souls in general
makes the first, so this pre-existence of Christ's soul in particular makes
the sixth of the thirty-five errors there imputed to him. And the patri
arch is particularly enraged at his perverting the sense of that text, Phil,
ii. 6, 7, txsvuafv iavrbv, by giving a new interpretation of it adapted to
his new hypothesis.
I believe Theophilus must have taken this from some book of his not
now extant, for he never, as I remember, misapplies it so in those that
are. He often appb'es that text, as other Christians do, to the Xoyoj.
I will give an instance in the next chapter, § 10. And so for John i. 10 ;
Col. i. 15, 1 6. He even in the midst of his dreams did never dream
of a Man-Creator.
The place of Athanasius, where he condemns in one sentence, as I
said, both this opinion of the human soul, and the other of the flesh, of
Christ pre-existing, is in his epistle to Epictetus. 'E/xoYwj xarayvuaovTai
rfg irph r^g Mapiag i7vai Tqv !£ aur/jj adpxa, x.ai <irpb
&v6pu<ffiv^v rov ®eov X«yof, Kai sv avrfj vrpb rqg swidqfj,ir»t.$
' So they will all condemn themselves that think Christ's
flesh was before Mary ; and that before her God the WORD had a human
soul, in which He was before His coming into the world.' God Almighty
preserve to us the old Christian religion, and keep us in the love of it,
and deliver us from all new ones, and from any such hankering after
them as may argue our being weary of the old. But to return to the
tenets of the English antipaedobaptists.
6. Another opinion which they hold more generally is the millenary
opinion. They do, many of them, take that prophecy, Rev. xx. 4, 5,
65 Epist. Paschal, i.
TJie Millennium — Eating of Blood — Sleep of Soul. 1 8 1
of the " Souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus," &c.,
"and which had not worshipped the beast," &c., "living and reigning
with Christ a thousand years," in a proper sense. So as to reckon that the
saints shall rise from the dead one thousand years before others shall.
And they think that Christ will then come down and be here upon the
earth (though that be not said in the text) for that thousand years ; and
then, Satan being let loose to deceive the nations for some time, the
general resurrection and end of the world will be.
In the reciting and inculcating this doctrine to other people that are
not of their way, many of them are apt, instead of saying the saints shall
rise before the wicked, to say we shall rise before yoit.
7. Another thing which almost all the antipsedobaptists in England do
hold is, that that decree of the Apostles at Jerusalem, mentioned Acts
xv. 29, " of abstaining from blood and from things strangled," does still
oblige all Christians. So they will eat of no such things.
In these two last-mentioned opinions they have many of the most
ancient Catholic Fathers on their side. And in the later of the two,
the Greek Church has all along been and still is of their opinion.66 The
Council in Trullo, which is accounted a general one, forbids " the mak
ing of the blood of any animal into a sauce."67 And so does one of the
canons called apostolic forbid "the eating of blood, or anything strangled
or torn by beasts." ^
8. They do many of them (but not all) hold the opinion which Calvin
in a treatise on purpose,69 confutes as held by the German antipaedo-
baptists, and which by the foregoing account is said to be still held by
the Minnists of Holland, from whom our antipaedobaptists must have
had it, that the soul sleeps or is senseless from the time of a man's
death till the resurrection of his body.
This opinion is very wide from that of the primitive Christians, yet
many of the most ancient of them held an opinion that is middle
between this and that which is now commonly held. They held that
the soul at death goes not to heaven (at least, none but martyrs' souls)
but to Hades ; and that after the general Resurrection, the soul and
body united again are received to heaven. That the souls of the
Patriarchs were in Hades, and that Christ's soul went to Hades. By
Hades they mean the general receptacle, or state, of souls good and bad
till the Resurrection : save that some few of them make Hades the place
of the bad, and Abraham's bosom of the good ; but generally they speak
of Abraham's bosom as one part of Hades. So that it was counted a
place or state quite different from heaven and from hell, as we English
do commonly now understand the word hell.
It is great pity that the English translators of the creed and of the
66 Sir Paul Ricaut, Hist, of Or. Church, ch. xx. * Can. 67.
68 Can. 63. 69 Psychopannychia.
1 82 The History of Infant Baptism.
Bible did not keep the word Hades in the translation, as they have done
some original words which had no English word answering to them. By
translating it hell, and the English having no other word for Gehenna
(which is the place prepared for the devil and the damned) than the
same word hell likewise ; it has created a confusion in the understanding
of English readers. We say, " Christ descended into hell." We ought
to mean Hades, for so it is in the Greek, xarg/3>j l/e "Adou. And sa
St Peter, Acts ii. 31, "His soul was not left sif'Adou 'in Hades."' But
when we read of hell, Matt. v. 20, 22, 29, 30, and such other places
where the original word is Gehenna, we ought to understand the hell of
the damned. And the import of these two words in the original differs
so much, that whereas all Christians ever believed that Christ descended
into Hades ; yet if any had said he descended into Gehenna, he would
have been accounted to blaspheme'. And yet the English expresses
both by the same word.
To give an account at once of all the places in the Bible where the
word hell is used : where we read hell in these texts following, it is in
the original Gehenna, or else Tartarus ; and ought to be understood the
hell of the damned. Matt. v. 22, 29, 30; Matt. x. 28; Luke xii. 5 ;
Matt xviii. 8, 9; Mark ix. 43-48; Matt, xxiii. 15, 33 ; James iii. 6; 2
Peter ii. 4. But where we read hell or gram in these texts following,
the word is Hades; and ought to be understood only, the state or
receptacle of departed souls, or in some of them, no more than in general
a state of dissolution. Matt. xxi. 23; Luke x. 15 ; Matt. xvi. 18 ; Luke
xvi. 23; Acts ii. 27, 31; i Cor. xv. 55; where it is translated grave.
Rev. i. 1 8 ; it. vi. 8; it. xx. 13, 14. And in the Old Testament, wherever we
read hell, it is to be understood Hades. Jacob, and David, &c., whenever
they speak of their dying, call it their going to Sheol, Hades. Which
words our English translates sometimes hell, sometimes grave, &c. And
this shows St Austin's observation to be a mistake ; for he says 70 that
infernum, which is the translation of Hades in many places, is never
taken in Scripture in a good sense, or as the fate of a good man.
It is plain that Tertullian took it otherwise by the following passages,
beside many other. In his book De Anima, c. vii., he speaks of the
different state of departed souls, receiving either " torment in fire, or
comfort in Abraham's bosom, in carcere sen diversorio inferum, ' in the
prison or receptacle of Hades.' " And in his book De Idololat., c. xiii.,
he speaks of Lazarus being apud inferos in st'nu Abrahce, which, trans
lated into English in our common way of speaking would be, " in hell in
Abraham's bosom." It must be translated Hades.
Note that in all the texts of the Revelation, death and Hades, tidvarog
xa.1 d&ns, are joined together. And that at the general Resurrection,
" death and Hades deliver up the dead that are in them," viz., to be tried
70 Epist. 99.
Sleep of Soul — Hades. 183
at the great judgment, and then "death and Hades are cast into the
lake," &c., i.e., there is to be no more death nor Hades ; but all is to be
either heaven or hell, i.e., an eternal and unchangeable estate of woe or
of bliss.
Beside the places aforesaid, several, if not all, of the most ancient
copies of the Acts of the Apostles, had the word cidqg in ch. ii. 24.
For where we read, " having loosed the pains of death ; for it was not
possible," &c., they for davdrou read rofASov 'the pains of Hades.' So
reads Irenaeus, 1. iii. c. 12 ; St Austin, Epist. 99, and other places, and
Polycarp, Epist. ad Phillipp.
Now the ancients did not think that the state of the soul in Hades
was to sleep, or be senseless. On the contrary our Saviour in the
parable, Luke xvi. 22, 23, represents Dives and Lazarus both in Hades
(or one in Hades and one in Abraham's bosom, if we take Abraham's
bosom as out of Hades), but a great way off from one another, in very
different states ; neither of them asleep, but one in torment, the other
in repose. And all the ancients do instance in this parable as a proof
that before the general judgment there will be a difference made
between the state of good men's souls and those of wicked men.
Tertullian 71 speaks of some who argued that there will be no judgment
before the great one when the soul and body shall be joined : and
answers them, " Quid ergo net in tempore isto ? Dormiemus ? " &c.
" ' What then shall we do in the meantime ? shall we be asleep ? ' Souls
don't sleep, not even when they are in the bodies," &c. And Eusebius 72
tells of some heterodox people in Arabia who held " that the soul for
the present dies together with the body, and is raised to life again
together with it." He says Origen being sent thither presently
convinced those people.
But as the foresaid Christians of these ancient times did not think
that the soul sleeps, so neither were they, generally speaking, of the
opinion that the souls of dying men go presently to heaven or to
Gehenna. I shall for brevity only recite what Irenseus says. He had
been saying "3 that most of the heretics denied the Resurrection of the
body ; but held instead of it, that when they died their souls should
presently fly away up to heaven : and that some erroneous Catholics
held with them in this later tenet, though not in the former. He urges
against them the example of our Saviour, "Who," says he, "observed
in Himself the law of dead persons, and did not presently after His
death go to heaven, but stayed three days in the place of the dead." It
is plain then, by the way, that He took that paradise where the thief
was to be that day with our Saviour, to be not properly heaven, but a
station in Hades. Then a little after he argues thus : " Whenas then our
Lord went into the midst of the Shadow of Death, where the souls of
71 De Anima, cap. ult. 72 H. E., 1. vi. c. vii. 73 Lib. v. c. xxxi.
]84 The History of Infant Baptism.
deceased persons abode ; and then afterwards rose again in the body,
and was after His Resurrection taken up to heaven : it is plain that the
souls of His disciples, for whose sake the Lord did these things, shall
go likewise to that invisible place appointed to them by God, and there
abide till the Resurrection, waiting for the time thereof ; and afterwards
receiving their bodies, and rising again perfectly, i.e., in their bodies, as
our Lord did, shall so come to the sight of God. ' For the Disciple is
not above his Master, but every one that is perfect shall be as his
Master.'
" As therefore our Master did not presently fly up to heaven, but
waiting till the time of His Resurrection that was appointed by the
Father, which had been foreshown by Jonas ; and rising the third day
was so taken to heaven : so we must also wait the time of our Resur
rection appointed by God, which is foretold by the prophets ; and so
rising again be taken up, so many of us as the Lord shall account
worthy."
This, as might be shown by many more quotations, was the most
general opinion of those times. It is true, indeed, that some Fathers
spoke of the soul as going directly to heaven : and that this became
afterwards the prevailing opinion in the Western Church : which is also
affirmed in a homily 74 of the Church of England, set forth in the time
of Queen Elizabeth. So that it seems to have been the general opinion
of the Protestants in England at that time. But before the making of
that homily, several of our first reformers declared against it. As
Tyndal, in his answer to Sir Thomas More, and Frith, in his answer to
Bishop Fisher. And ever since the making of it, there have been, and
still are, some divines of great note and station in that Church who do
plainly enough show their sentiment to be otherwise.
The reasons given by the former, viz., Tyndal, Frith, &c., were to
this purpose : that the placing of the soul in heaven does destroy the
arguments wherewith Christ and St Paul do prove the resurrection of
the body. As when our Saviour proves that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob
shall rise again in their bodies ; because God, who is since their death
called in Scripture their God, " is not the God of the dead but of the
living, for all live to Him : " whereas if Abraham's soul had been then
in heaven, that had been no proof that his body must arise ; for God
then might have been his God though his body had not risen. And
St Paul proves to the Corinthians the Resurrection, because else the
Christians would be of all men most miserable, as having hope only in
this life. And he comforts the Thessalonians concerning their friends
departed, not by saying that they were gone to heaven, but that they
should rise again at the last day, and so go to heaven. That the opinion
of separate souls going to heaven was the invention of the heathen
74 Third part of the sermon concerning prayer.
Of the State of Separate Souls. 185
philosophers, who, knowing nothing of the Resurrection, did so salve
the hopes of a future state; and that some Christians (the papists,
Tyndal says) had confounded and mixed the Christian and the heathen
doctrine together. And again, if the souls be in heaven, "Tell me,"
says Tyndal, " why they be not in as good case as the angels be : and
then what cause is there of the Resurrection ? " All this while these
men would not determine in what state the separate souls really are.
But Frith says, " I dare be bold to say that they are in the hand of
God, and that God would that we should be ignorant where they be,
and not take upon us to determine the matter." And Tyndal speaks to
the same purpose, and adds concerning the souls of good men, " I
believe they are in no worse case than Christ's soul was before His
Resurrection."
To these reasons the later divines, of whom I spoke, do add : that
by the order of the last judgment, in Matt, xxv., and the pleas there
used, and sentence there given, it should seem that the souls had not
as yet been sentenced and sent either to heaven or hell. " Come
ye blessed, inherit the Kingdom prepared for you," &c. " Go ye
cursed into everlasting fire," &c. " For I was a hungry," &c. " Lord,
when saw we Thee," &c. And then afterwards, " And these shall go
away into everlasting punishment : and the righteous into life eternal,"
does not look as if they had been called out of heaven and hell to receive
a sentence to go to heaven and hell ; but that they had been till this time
in expectation of their final sentence. Though the souls had been (as
these men do constantly hold against the antipsedobaptists) the bad ones
in some degree of torment and horror, the good in a quiet repose and
hopeful expectation, and as the office "of burial says, "in joy and
felicity," or, as the ancients express it, in refrigerio.
To this may be added : that whereas the general hypothesis is,
that the souls of the patriarchs were taken by Christ out of Hades,
and carried up with him into heaven at his ascension thither; St
Peter, on the contrary, preaching after Christ's ascension, says ex
pressly, Acts ii. 34, that David was not then ascended to heaven. The
answer to which (being, I suppose, that David was not ascended to
heaven in body, as Christ was ; but his soul might be there) seems
inconsistent with St Peter's reasoning at that place. For he is showing
that that saying of David — " Thou wilt not leave my soul in Hades,"
could not be understood of David himself, who was both dead and
buried, and his sepulchre then extant ; but that David being a prophet,
and " seeing this before, spoke of the resurrection of Christ, that His
Soul was not left in Hades : " where St Peter seems to understand it,
that David's soul was in Hades (as well as his body in the sepulchre)
to that day. The rest of their arguments I leave to be seen in their
books.
1 86 The History of Infant Baptism.
But as to the antipsedobaptists' opinion of the sleep of the soul, a late
writer 75 that lives in a part of Kent that abounds with them, ascribes
to some of them an opinion much worse than the ordinary one of the
sleep of the soul till the Resurrection. For he says, some of that sect
have been heard to say (and he believes it is the private tenet of others
of them), " That infants dying before actual sin, their souls consume
with their bodies : and they die never to be any more. Therefore they
forbear the giving of baptism, as unnecessary for them." I hope and
believe that this can be the opinion of but very few, and those some
ignorant people among them. And I am lately assured by a man of
chief note among them, that he never knew anyone man of any sort
of them that held this. And, indeed, since our Saviour showed such a
concern and tender regard for infants, saying withal, " Of such is the
Kingdom of Heaven ; " and since God and Nature have implanted in
the heart of all pious parents such an earnest desire of the eternal good
of their infants : it is an unnatural thought, that neither that concern
of our Saviour, nor that desire of godly parents shall ever have any
satisfaction in the case of such infants as die ; but that one must despair
of them, as persons that will be lost for ever, notwithstanding any
means that can be used for their salvation. P.S. — One party of the
antipaedobaptists do deny any sleep of the soul. And I have it from
good hands, that they that do now hold it, are but few in comparison,
and such as are accounted of the more ignorant sort.
9. Many of the antipaedobaptists in England are said to be against
any singing of Psalms in Divine worship. I recited before 76 out of
Petrus Cluniacensis, that the Petrobrusians held, that " it is a mocking
of God to sing in the church." And the Lyonists said, "it is a hellish
noise." I believe the disgust taken at that time was against the exces
sive regard then given in the popish churches to the sound and music
which hindered the attention to the sense of the prayers. But to con
demn all singing of praise to God is a thing too contrary to the Scrip
tures, both of the Old and New Testament. Some of them do not
dislike singing in general, but say that the Psalms of David are not so
proper now, as some that may be composed on purpose for the use of
the Christian Church. And some others of them are not at all against
singing, any more than other Christians are. And it grows of late to
be more and more in use with them. Though many of them formerly
have scrupled the use of Psalms, as sung by the whole congregation
jointly ; yet, of late, that humour is in great degree worn off, and the
practice of singing David's Psalms, and in the way that other people do,
has generally obtained among them.
10. The same may be said of the use of the Lord's Prayer. Many
oHhem do out of an odd and unaccountable humour reject the use of
75 Case of an Infant Dying Unbaptised, page 18. ™ Ch. vii. § 5.
The Use of the Lord's Prayer — The Lord's Prayer. 187
it. But, though this be an imputation laid by some people on the
whole body of them, yet I know that some of them, and believe that
most of them do both use it, and teach their children to use it. The
Petrobrusians, as well as all the other sects of the Waldenses, extolled
the use of it.
11. So for extreme unction of the sick, spoken of James v. 14, 15.
Mr Russen of Hythe, in Kent, a place that is full of these people, says :
"I am sure it is both their opinion and practice, as to some, though
probably all do not use it."77 P.S. — This I find to be confessed since
by Mr Stennet. But he tells me, it is but rarely practised : and that
not (as the papists use it) only or chiefly in cases desperate, but mostly
in hopes of recovery, and for that end.
12. Mr Russen mentions also 78 a way of marriage used among them
not according to the use of the Church of England, and so of doubtful
validity in the law of the land. And he says, " This was introduced
to give room for the Jesuits and Romish priests to take women : for
they being prohibited marriage, and accounting marriage one of the
seven sacraments, durst not take a wife, or be married after the manner
of either the Romish or English Church, &c., but would take women
in the congregation of anabaptists or Quakers." But he (though writing
against them something angrily) confesses, and it is a known thing, that
"many of them are married at our churches : but more," he says, "in
their private assemblies." But this, all of them, that I can speak with,
deny to be true in matter of fact. They are for the most part married
in the Church. That scruple diminishes among them.
13. Their way of receiving the sacrament of the Lord's Supper is in
a posture that shows, outwardly at least, less of devotion than the way
of most other Christians. They receive it sitting at a common table,
and (as the foresaid writer expresses it) " with the hat on, and handing
the elements one to another."79 P.S. — I find since that the hat on is
denied, the sitting confessed.
14. Some of them are Sabbatarians, i.e., they hold it still necessary,
even for the Gentile Christians, to keep every Saturday as a Sabbath-
day. One Bampfield, a man of note among them, formerly wrote a
treatise on that subject, wherein he has, they say, said more for it than
one would imagine could be said for so heterodox a tenet. There are
however in the country few or none of this opinion : what are, are at
London. Whether the same men do keep the Lord's day too, I know not.
15. They differ more among themselves about the practice of con
firmation, or laying on of hands after baptism. Some of them do
wholly omit and reject the use of that ordinance, as being popish, or
having no foundation in Scripture, or at least not now to be continued.
And this it seems was the way of those churches or societies of them,
that in the times I spoke of, did first openly set up at London. Others
77 Picture of the Anabaptists, ch. viii. p. 60. 78 Ibid., p. 58. 79 P. 57.
1 88 The History of Infant Baptism.
of them account it a necessary thing. And some of these latter making
it an order among themselves, as the Church of England does, that
none shall be admitted to the Holy Communion, until such time as he
be confirmed (the Church of England adds, " or be ready and desirous
to be confirmed "), there necessarily follows a breach of communion
between the two parties. And therefore Danvers says,80 "All those
Churches of that constitution (which require this ordinance) are founded
in sin and schism, as well as in great error and ignorance." He says,
" It does not; appear that any baptised Church or people did ever in
any age or country own such a principle or practice to this day, except
some in this nation in these late times ; " and gives this account of the
rise of it: "that about the year 1646 one Mr Cornwell, heretofore a
public preacher, then a minister of a baptised congregation in Kent,
coming into that baptised congregation meeting in the Spittle, Bishop-
gate Street, preached that those who were not under laying on of hands ,
were not babes in Christ, &c. Whereupon several were persuaded, &c.,
and made a rent and a separation : and from that very schism propagated
the same principle and practice among many others in the nation ever
since." But this account of Danvers is looked on by the moderate men
that are now among them, to be no just one. They say, that the most
of those that do now use confirmation, admit to the communion and
receive as brethren, those that scruple the using it : and e contra,
1 6. As to the point of predestination : those of them that are of the
Arminian opinion, they call the general men ; as holding a general and
universal redemption by Christ : and the Calvinists they call the par
ticular men, as holding a particular and absolute redemption of some
particular persons. I had said in my first edition that they generally
made a different opinion about this, to be a bar against communion
one with another. Some of them do tell me, that this is not general ;
but only the temper of some hot and eager spirits on both sides : that
the country where I dwell, is full of such of them as are of the least
repute, but that the major part of their elders or rulers all over England
do now admit either sort. I am glad if this last be in fact the truer
account of the generality of them : for (as I said then) if the Church of
Christ be never to be one, till all Christians do explain themselves alike
in the nice disputes that happen in reconciling God's prescience and
predestination with man's free-will : it will never be one in this world.
All Protestants that make divisions on this account, should learn wit
from our common enemies. They, though they do in their books carry
this dispute to the height, yet do keep themselves from separation for
it : in which practice they are, both in point of interest and of duty,
certainly in the right.
The antipaedobaptists may be sure I am not their enemy, when I
80 Treat, of laying on of hands. Conclusion.
Predestination — Orig inal Sin. 1 89
note this their humour of dividing from one another, as an imprudent
thing. For as it is the interest of the great enemy of mankind that
Christians should be divided as much as is possible ; and of the papists
that Protestants should be so : so whoever were an enemy to these men
in particular, would wish to see ten parties or divisions for every one
that is among them.
i 7. Many (but it seems not all) of the general men are Pelagians in
the point of original sin. They own nothing of it. The others do : as
appears both by the Confession of Faith 81 of seven churches of them,
which I mentioned before; and also by their present profession. Some
of the general men say, they wonder how these that own sin in infants,
can be against their baptism. The Pelagians that owned no sin in
infants, yet granted the necessity of their baptism to obtain the kingdom
of heaven : these believe they have sin, yet deny them baptism for the
forgiveness of it.
1 8. Socinians they have some that creep in among them : but I have
not heard of any Church or congregation of them that makes profession
of that doctrine ; but on the contrary, that they that profess it openly
are rejected from their communion. And as much as I have said against
their divisions, I do not see how they that worship and believe in Christ
as God, can join with them that either renounce the worship of Him,
or believe Him to be only a creature lately made, and even still to be,
in the best nature that He has, of finite worth, dignity, and capacity.
A late Confession published in the name of one hundred churches of
them shows those churches to be Catholic as to the faith of the Trinity.
But yet some printed papers of much the same date with that Confession
passing between some of their congregations, do show that there are great
scandals given or taken, by some of them against others on account of
Socinian tenets. There are some of these papers signed by several of
their messengers, elders, and representatives and printed 1699, renounc
ing that assembly of antipsedobaptists, which they call the General
Assembly, held at Goswell Street, London, and persuading others to do
the like, saying that it is to the reproach of Jesus Christ and the pollu
tion of the Churches to hold communion with that assembly, and that
it is inconsistent for any who hold the Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ
to do so.
But all this is not (as far as I can learn) that they charge the General
Assembly with Socinian tenets ; but only with refusing to turn out some
that are accused of holding them, which accusations they think to be fully
proved ; but the others, it seems, say they are not.
Since my first edition, there is printed in 1706, a Socinian pamphlet,
entitled, The Unreasonableness of Making and Imposing Creeds. It is
without a name, but the author seems to be an antipaedobaptist that
81 Artie. 4, 5, 21, &c.
The History of Infant Baptism.
is angry with two parties of his brethren, one called the General Assembly,
the other, the General Association. Which, as he represents, having
been at some variance, did, on June 9, 1704, unite on the following
terms :
First, they set down two articles of faith concerning God the Father
and our Lord Jesus Christ, containing an orthodox confession of the
Trinity, and being much of the same sense as are the two first of the
thirty-nine Articles or the Church of England. [This he calls a speci
men of " modern creed-making."]
Then they enact, that if any of their members shall publish or say
anything contrary to that faith, he shall be " esteemed disorderly, and
dealt with accordingly." But they add, that if any member receiving
this faith, shall reflect on any member that does not receive it (provided
he does not teach the contrary), he also " shall be esteemed disorderly,
and dealt with accordingly."
And on these terms, that the Assembly and Association do presently
" meet together as formerly, and unite." And they enact, that " all
papers that have been published, relating to any difference between
them, be suppressed." I suppose they had in their eye the papers that
I spoke of.
Upon which this author observes that " they that have not throats
wide enough to swallow this rough creed, must not tell their reason why."
But if they will hold their tongues and only think, they shall have the
favour not to be reflected on Upon which he falls into a vein of the
vilest raillery, burlesque, buffoonery, and mockery of the doctrine of the
Trinity that this impious age has produced. And it has produced a
great deal ; too much, in all conscience, to be borne with. That
Socinian doctrine seems to have infected all its disciples (this anti-
paedobaptist, as well as the paedobaptist ones) with such a degree of
searedness, that they do no longer discourse in any serious way ; but as
if they were talking of some play or jest, make themselves sport with the
awful mystery of God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. And
since they cannot argue, would laugh us out of our faith. One would
think that if their consciences urge them to argue against the God of the
Christians, they should, in a Christian nation, be compelled to do it with
less effrontery and impudence.
These antipaado baptists, as he tells us afterwards, met again in 1 705,
and agreed that none should be a member of the General Assembly
(which, it seems, is a body made up of the representatives of particular
churches) unless he do subscribe the whole of the foresaid draught of
1704. So that no Socinian can be chosen a representative [or proctor]
to sit in the General Assembly. For which he is very angry with them,
though all the world besides must think it but a necessary caution.
At last he tells them in a laughing way that, " to make any canons
Pelagianism — Socinianism — Quakerism. 1 9 1
without the Queen's licence, is a pramunire? Which is, I suppose,
brought in to insult, and triumph over, the Convocation of the Church
of England, for its being under such restraint ; whereas these bodies of
men do, in their assemblies, make and publish any rules that they think
needful on any emergent occasion, and do actually inflict and execute
their Church censures on such of their members as do not observe
them.
19. They are generally much inclined to hold public disputations
about religion before the multitude. Having plain places of Scripture
to produce concerning adult baptism, and several examples of it, they
work much on such of the people as had not minded this before, and
had not had a right state of the question between the paedobaptists and
the antipaedobaptists ; wherein the former grant that in a nation newly
converted to Christianity (and such are all the cases mentioned in the
Scripture), the adult people must be baptised first before their infants
can be baptised.
Their most eager disputes are against the* Quakers. And they have
reason. For since so great a part of their zeal is spent in setting the
time and manner of baptism right, as they judge ; and it happens among
them (as, indeed, the like does among all parties) that there are some
that have little religion beside their zeal in that matter, the Quaker
gives them the foulest affront possible. He cuts off all their religion at
one stroke, saying that all water-baptism, at what age soever it is given,
is a useless thing; and perverts all the places of Scripture where it is
spoken of, with some far-fetched interpretations — as he does likewise in
the case of the other sacrament. And though among people of sense
that do own the Scripture (as some, at least of the Quakers, do) one
would think that this dispute should quickly be at an end ; yet it is
strange to observe what numbers there do continue in many places of
England of that enthusiastical sect that can turn the plainest places of
Scripture into a riddle.
It is a great discredit to the climate and air of England that that sort
of distemper of brain that disposes men to Quakerism should be no
where so epidemical as there. The same men in the popish religion
would have been visionary saints, hermits, Carthusians, &c. In the
Indian religion they would have been Ghebers,82 and their cant now is
much like the others' gibberish. In the Mahometan, they would have
been of those dervishes that have raptures of crying " Allah, Allah," till
their heads grow giddy, and they fall down. If the sets of opinions for
the late sects have, as some think, been contrived by the Jesuits, that
Jesuit that contrived this showed so dull a faculty for the work, that he
might, one would have thought, have despaired of any disciples : and
yet it is become one of the most spreading in England. A late author
82 See M. Thevenot's Travels into Persia.
192 TJie History of Infant Baptism,
says83 he has been credibly informed, that a St Omer's Jesuit declared
that they were twenty years " hammering out " the sect of the Quakers.
It is strange that they could not forge nor smooth it any handsomer.
For as all poetry, fiction, and play ought to represent, if not true his
tory, yet something that may look, or be conceived, like it ; so they that
would frame a religion pretending to be founded on the Scripture, or to
be believed together with it, should dress it up with tenets that have
some appearance of likeness to the declarations of Scripture, and not
make it to renounce such things as the Scripture does enjoin in so
plain words as it does the two sacraments. But there is a sort of
people that take a malicious pleasure in trying how broad affronts the
understandings of some men will bear.
It is the vulgar people among the Quakers that we speak of as thus
led by the nose, and possessed with this sort of enthusiasm. Their
leaders, and the politic men among them (if they be not of the foresaid
Hammerers), seem to have for the bottom of their religion Deism, and
to think that reason and human philosophy is a better rule for a man to
direct his conversation by, than any tradition or revealed doctrine. For
what other than such is the consequent of that principle, that the light
within us, which comes at last to be no other than our own reason, is
better than any light without us, i.e., than any Scripture ?
20. The English antipaedobaptists have for their church-government
elders, or presbyters. These have a ruling power in the congregations.
Deacons; these take care of the poor. Teachers; any whom the con
gregation approves of for that purpose, as fit to teach : so of these they
have abundance. Yet those congregations of them that are accounted
the most regular, do not appoint or suffer any (that are not yet ordained
elders) to preach publicly, but only in a probational way, in order to be
ordained if they continue to be approved : except on some case of
necessity, as in the want of elders, &c. They have some whom they
call messengers, which is the English word for apostles. And there are
of these two sorts. Some are such of their presbyters as being found of
the best ability, judgment, &c., are appointed (beside the care of their
own congregation) to go sometimes about a certain district, diocese, or
province. And when any of these comes to preach in any other man's
congregation, or to be present at any meeting of their churches, he is
received and heard with greater respect than ordinary, and his authority
more regarded than of ordinary presbyters. But for direct and proper
jurisdiction over other presbyters or people, he has none: nor any
power of ruling but in his own congregation. The other sort is of such
as are nothing else but messengers in the ordinary sense of the English
word, viz., men appointed as messengers to carry the sense and opinion
of some congregations to other congregations at a distance.
83 Foxes and Firebr., Pt. I. p. 4.
Their Church Officers. 193
They have some, whom they call representatives, i.e., men chosen and
delegated by the particular churches that they have all over England, to
meet at London every Whitsuntide, to consider of the common affairs
of their religion. This meeting of representatives is, as I take it, that
which is called the General Assembly — something resembling our Lower
House of Convocation. The place is in Goswell Street, London. But
one congregation does sometimes send two or three representatives.
All these are chosen with the approbation of the people ; only the
people themselves are in their approbation much swayed by the advice
of their messengers, elders, &c., and by the opinion which they give
concerning the fitness of anyone. And then they are ordained by the
laying on of an elder's hands.
They do, in the disputes which they hold with people of the Church
of England, frequently urge, that this their way, viz., for the people to
have their suffrage in the choice of church-officers, is the most regular
way : as being that which was used by the primitive Christians. Which
is a piece of history that cannot fairly be denied. It was certainly the
primitive way for the bishop to choose the presbyters with the approba
tion of the people ; and for the presbyters and people together, being
for the most part assisted by some neighbouring bishops, to choose a
new bishop in the room of one that died. This continued for many
hundred years ; and those Christians that have gone about to mend this
way have made it much worse.
But the antipasdobaptists have, upon the whole, no reason to boast of
the regularity of their management in this matter. For whereas the
primitive practice was, as I said, for the bishop to choose the presbyters
with the approbation of the people ; the antipsedobaptists, as they have
preserved and increased the privilege of the people, have quite shut out
the office of a bishop (for by the foregoing account the messenger has
not any of the power of a bishop) which of the two is the more
necessary. For the multitude, partly for want of judgment concerning
the fitness of anyone, and partly by their inclination to faction and
party, and being "puffed up for one against another,"84 are found
by woful experience, in all churches where that way is used, to be
wretched choosers for themselves. The original and primitive pattern
is the best.
21. They have this way of adjusting differences that arise among
themselves on account of trespasses, dues, or other money matters,
which I recite as being worthy of imitation. If anyone of them does
wrong to another, or refuses to do, or to pay, what is equitable in any
case ; if he will not be brought to reason by a private arguing of the
matter, nor by the verdict of two or three neighbours added ; the plaintiff
brings the case before the congregation, when they, with their elder, are
84 1 Cor. iv. 6.
ii. r;
194 The History of Infant Baptism.
assembled in the nature of a Vestry. And in difficult cases there lies an
appeal from a particular congregation to some fuller meeting of their
church under a messenger. And he of the two that will not stand to
the ultimate determination of the Assembly by their usage appointed,
is no longer acknowledged by the rest as a brother.
As this is very much according to our Saviour's 85 and St Paul's 86
direction in such cases ; so I have been told that it has the good effect
to prevent abundance of law-suits, and end many quarrels ; very few of
them offering to withstand the general verdict and opinion of all their
brethren. And there is no reason to doubt but that a like course
would, if it were put in practice, have a like good effect among other
societies of Christians.
22. The like discipline (of renouncing brotherhood) they use against
such of their communion as are known to be guilty of any such immor
ality as is a scandal to the Christian profession of a sober and godly
life ; for which care of their members there is no man but will com
mend them. And therefore I do not mention the ordering of this as
particular in them : all churches by their constitution do order the same
thing to be done. But the administration or putting in execution of
this order is in some churches very slack and negligent ; and in some,
very much perverted by corrupt officers of the Courts. The bishop's
visiting of every parish in particular (which when it began first to be
omitted by some bishops, was so earnestly enjoined by canons),87 is now
almost antiquated and forgotten. And there is many times a very
huddling work made of a visitation.
So far as this doctrine is omitted or perverted in any Church, so
far is that Church fallen into a very dangerous decay. Among all the
exceptions made by the several sorts of dissenters against the Church
of England, there is none nigh so material as this : nor is there any
neglect, the amending whereof would, beside the stopping of the mouths
of gainsayers, produce a greater spiritual advantage to their people. In
the mean time the dissenters ought to consider and allow these things
following : —
i. That this is much more difficult in a national Church than in
one of their societies. For none side with them but what do it out
of some zeal, whether it be a true and godly zeal, or an ignorant and
factious one ; still it is zeal, and may be made use of to a vigorous
execution of the orders passed among them. But there is in all nations,
besides the zealous men, a sort of " flying squadron " that have really
no concern at all for any religion, but being perfectly indifferent, do of
course, fall in with the national Church, as being the most fashionable
85 Matt, xviii. 15, 16, 17. se l Con vi t> 2> &c>
37 See Bochelli Decreta Eccl., Gal. 1. 5, Tit. xv. c. ii., v., ix., &c.; it. Bp. Stilling-
fleet s Charge at his Primary Visitation, p. 54, &c.
A djusting Differences — Discipline of Excommunication. \ 95
at that time. These, wherever they light, are a great hindrance to the
due execution of any canons for discipline. They are either by their
riches and power too big, or else by their number too many .for
the force of the law. The dissenters, notwithstanding the boasts of
their exactness of discipline, would find themselves embarrassed, if this
were their case.
2. That though the Scripture does command Churches to excom
municate wicked men, yet it does not allow private men to make
separations from a Church that does not duly practice that command.
Let a man but take care that he do not deserve by his own wickedness
to be turned out of the Church : and if others who do deserve it, be
not upon a motion made, turned out, that is not his fault, nor will
be imputed to him. The Church of Corinth was faulty in this, when
St Paul wrote his first Epistle to them, and though he does there88
reprove them for this fault, yet at the time of his second Epistle there
were still many wicked men 89 whom they had not yet turned out ; and
yet in both his Epistles 90 he charges that none go about to make any
division. And from that time to this time there has been no Church
free from these " spots in the feasts of charity." It is indeed impossible
for any Church, while it is in this world, absolutely to free itself.
In the meantime, private Christians are advised to withdraw their
familiarity91 and conversation from those that they know to be such.
And so far every private man has the power of excommunication in his
own breast.
3. That whereas there are but four sorts of men whom the Scripture
does command to be excomunicated : — i. Idolaters,92 unbelievers,93
Teachers of false doctrine in the fundamentals of the faith.94 2. Men
of vicious and immoral lives.95 3. Such as in points of trespasses, or
differences between man and man, will not hear the Church.96 And 4.
Those that make divisions in or from a Church. The dissenters and
dividing parties should, amidst all the zeal that they show for executing
the law upon the three first sorts, remember that the law is as full, as
plain, as peremptory against the fourth sort as against any of the other.
For there is not a text in all the Scripture that is plainer against any sin,
or that does more expressly command any sort of sinners to be excom
municated, than is that of St Paul, Rom. xvi. 17 : "Now I beseech
you, brethren, mark those which cause divisions and offences, contrary
to the doctrine which you have learned, and avoid them." Therefore
he that thinks adultery to be a sin, and drunkenness to be a sin, &c.,
and schism to be none ; or that a man is to be avoided or excommuni
cated for the one, but not for the other, is one that does not take Christ's
88 I Cor. v. 2. 89 2 Cor. xii. 20, 21. ^ I Cor. i. 10 ; 2 Cor. xiii. II, 12.
sl I Cor. v. ii. 92 2 Cor. vi. 16, 17. 93 2 Cor. xiv. 15.
94 2 Tim. ii, 16, 17, 18. 90 I Cor. v. 7, 12, M Matt, xviii. 17.
Q 2
I96 The History of Infant Baptism.
commands as they lie in Scripture, but picks out some that he will ob
serve, and others that he will slight, according as they please or displease
his humour. The Word of God is, that everyone should avoid, or
separate from him, that goes about to make a separation. The dis
senters, if they apply this, will be inclined to a little more moderation
and charity in the censures that they pass upon national churches, for
their want of so severe a discipline as they call for.
23. The English antipsedobaptists have, as the other separating
parties in England have, some Jesuits that in disguise do every now and
then strive to insinuate and get in among them. This society did at
first exert the chief of their strength, and employ the ablest men they
had, in writing books of controversy against the Protestants ; and they
had the repute of having puzzled the cause better than any other popish
writers had. This way, however unfairly managed by them, had yet
this commendation, that it was fighting in open field. But having
been there repulsed with some loss, it is now a long time since, that they
have wholly taken to that way which Dr Stillingfleet thirty years ago
called their " present way of pickeering and lying under hedges." 97
They will turn themselves into any shape, pretend to be of any religion,
put on the disguise of tradesmen, handicraftsmen, soldiers, physicians,
&c., to get an opportunity either of making proselytes to the Church of
Rome, or of promoting divisions among Protestants. But there is
no employment they love so well as that of a preacher in any of the
separate congregations. They can act this part notably. They stick
not in their sermons to rail as fiercely as any against the Pope of Rome,
so that they may use the credit which they thereby get with the deluded
people to engage them deeper in principles of separation from the estab
lished Church of the countries where they live. Sometimes they have
been detected in their lifetimes, and sometimes the cheat has not
appeared till a good while after.
The author of a book called Foxes and Firebrands has collected out
of histories, records, letters, &c., abundance of instances wherein they
have been found instilling or inflaming principles of separation among
all the sects or divided parties in England and Scotland ever since the
Reformation. And out of him the author of a book called The Picture
of the Anabaptists has recited such, wherein they have been concerned
with the antipaedobaptists. I shall not here repeat them.
One instance which shows how long it is sometimes before the intrigue
is discovered is this : in the former years of Queen Elizabeth's time,
there were a sort of people called Puritans that expressed some dislike
at some orders or ceremonies of the Church of England, but yet did not
proceed to separation, but on the contrary declared an abhorrence of it.
But about the year 1567, "there succeeded them," as Fuller, relating
m Idolatry of Church of Rome, Preface.
Jesuits Creeping in among the Dissenters. 197
the matter, expresses it, " another generation of active and zealous Non
conformists. Of these Coleman, Button, Hallingham, and Benson,
were the chief, inveighing against the Established Church discipline, ac
counting everything from Rome which was not from Geneva, endeavour
ing in all things to conform the government of the English Church to
the Presbyterian Reformation."98
Camden " and Heylin 10° do mention the same men with the same
character, as opposing the discipline, liturgy, calling of our bishops as
approaching too near to the Church of Rome, &c.
Now neither Camden, Heylin, nor Fuller, who recite the names of
these men, ever knew anything to the contrary, but that they were
really such as they pretended, viz., Protestants puritanically inclined ;
much less did the people that were led into separation by them know
anything.
But a hundred years after the time that these men and their first
associates must have been dead, viz., about twenty years ago, it was dis
covered that three of the four, viz., Hallingham, Coleman, and Benson,
were Jesuits ; and that by the sagacity of Bishop Stillingfleet l comparing
the histories of those times with some Jesuits' letters intercepted about
the* same time.
The chief letter to this purpose is recited by the aforesaid author of
Foxes and Firebrands, and averred by him to be " a true copy taken
out of the registry of the Episcopal See of Rochester in that book which
begins anno 2 and 3 Phil, and Mar., and is continued to 15 Eliz."2
What he recites from that book is to this purpose. In the year 1568
one Heth went about the lower parts of Kent, preaching up division
and a purer Reformation ; he came to Rochester, and they, not know
ing what seditious doctrines he had preached in the country places,
admitted him to preach in the Cathedral. The next day there was
found in the pulpit a letter that had dropped from him, written to him
from one Malt, a Jesuit, at Madrid (which is there recited at large),
applauding the course he took, and advertising him of the success of
some others sent on the like errand ; and adding these words : " Hall
ingham, Coleman, and Benson have set a faction among the German
heretics, so that several who have turned from us have now denied their
baptism." This and other evidences being brought, he was convicted
in the Bishop's Court at Rochester to be a Jesuit, and could not any
longer deny it. In his boots were found his beads, and a Pope's Bull
for the Jesuits to preach what doctrine they pleased for dividing of
Protestants, particularly naming the English. And in his trunk were
.several books for denying baptism to infants.
98 Church Hist. lib. ix. »9 Annnal. Elizab. ad Ann. 1568.
100 Hist, of Presbyter. 1. vi. .p. 257. a Unreasonab. of Separation, Preface.
2Pt. I. pag. 15.
198 T/te History of Infant Baptism.
The author of this recital makes no use of this passage of the letter
about Hallingham, Coleman, and Benson. But Bishop Stillingfleet
shows that they must have been the same men mentioned by the fore-
said historians : and that by German heretics are meant any Protestants,
that religion being then called the German heresy.
The book from whence this is quoted must probably have been then
in the Registry, because the said author (who was accounted a man of
credit) would not else so positively have referred to it. But I under
stand by inquiry that it is not now there. By what interest it can have
been taken away since that time (which was about thirty years ago) is
hard to guess. But, however, it seems that Mr Russen, who says 3 at
present : " If they look upon this story as untrue, let them search the
Register, &c., where they shall find to their ignominy the verity thereof, 'r
is mistaken. P.S. — Since the writing of this, I understand that there is
good proof that it was stolen away in the late King James' time.
I shall mention but one case more, and that is one which is not taken
notice of by the foresaid collectors. All that I understand of it is from
a pamphlet printed by one Everard in the year 1664. By which it
appears that he in Cromwell's time had been a captain of horse, and a
noted preacher against infant baptism. He speaks as if he had ha'd a
great many converts. This time at which he printed his pamphlet was
a time in which it was impossible for him to carry on that trade in a
disguise any longer. So he faces about and endeavours to decoy them
over with him to the Church of Rome. To this purpose he pretends
that it had pleased God to bring him to an opportunity of discoursing
concerning religion with a very grave and judicious gentleman, who,
" examining everything from the bottom, and laying the axe to the root of
the tree, &c., asked him in the first place whether he was sure and cer
tain that the Christian religion in general was more true than the reli
gion of the Turks, Jews," &c. In short, this man had by degrees made
him see that there is no firm reliance for one's faith either on the Scrip
ture, or on the direction of the Spirit, or on reason ; but only on the
authority of the Catholic Church, by which he all along means the
Church of Rome. So he gives to his pamphlet this title : An Epistle to
the several Congregations of the Nonconformists. By Capt. Robert
Everard, now by God's Grace a Member of the Holy Catholic Church of
Christ : showing the Reasons of his Conversion and Submission to the said
Catholic Church, printed, 1664.
But the reasons therein given are so exactly the same with the ordin
ary sophisms which the Jesuits commonly use to amaze and confound
the minds of ignorant people ; and the writer of them sets them forth
with so much of the same art ; that he that reads the book will easily
discern that Everard was not now converted, but was a papist before.
3 Ch. vii.
Jesuits on Infant Baptism. 199
We must think that the instances of this nature that have been dis
covered are probably but few in comparison with those that never have
been so. We oftener find where these men have been, than where they
are : and it were happy for England if they had some mark, whereby
they might be known.
There is one tenet of the antipsedobaptists in which the Jesuits con
cur with them, not only when they are in this disguise, but also in their
late books to which they set their names ; that is, that infant baptism
cannot be proved from Scripture. The old books of the papists, and
even of some Jesuits, do, as well as the books of Protestants, prove it
by arguments from Scripture, as Archbishop Laud and Vossius have
largely shown. But the late Jesuits have given a politic turn to that
point of the Romish doctrine, and say, that it can be proved only by
the custom and tradition of the Church. They serve two designs by
this device. One is to puzzle the Protestants in general, who maintain
that the Scripture is a sufficient rule. The other is to encourage the
antipasdobaptists that are among the Protestants in their opinion and
separation. To which purpose they do in their books furnish them
with answers to all the arguments brought from Scripture.
Col. Danvers says, " A great papist lately in London, going to a
dispute about infant baptism, told his friend, ' He was going to hear "a
miracle," viz., infant baptism proved by Scripture.' "4
And one Edward Pay, an antipsedobaptist preacher, formerly of
Deptford, now, I think, about Dover, in Kent, in a pamphlet which he
entitles, A Threepenny Answer, &c., has this remark, " A popish priest
confessed to a minister of the baptised way that ' there is no Scripture
for baptising infants ; but yet it ought to be done, because the Church
has commanded it.' This was a true and ingenuous confession."5 There
is no doubt but this priest would, if Mr Pay had given leave, have
preached the same in his congregation. And if he might have preached
in a vizor, would have said it ought not to be done at all.
But I do not so much wonder at these two as I do at Mr Stennet,
who, in his late Answer to Mr Russen, has thought fit to strengthen his
cause not only by quoting Cardinal Perron, Fisher the Jesuit, &c., but
has spent eleven whole pages in giving us an harangue of Mr Bossuet,
a late popish author, written in favour of the antipredobaptists. Is it
news to Mr Stennet, too, that the papists for these eighty years past do
this against their own conscience, and out of a design against the Pro
testants in general ? If it be, let him consult and compare the popish
writers, and he will find that before that time they do themselves all of
them prove infant baptism by Scripture, and that it is only the later ones
that have altered their tale. There seems to have been about that time
a consult of the Jesuits, wherein it was resolved to give this cue to the
4 Treat, of Bapt., 2nd edit., p. 134. 5 Page 25.
2OO The History of Infant Baptism.
writers of their side. Cardinal Perron began this course ; and the
learned Rivet even then smelt the design, and gave the world notice of
it, as I showed, ch. ii. § ix. Yet even still the papists carry it on in
new writings every day ; and it takes, it seems (not only as Saffold's
bills do with the new folks that come to town every year, but), even
with some of the wiser sort. If the discourse that he recites so at
length had anything of new argument in it, it might be used, come it
from whom it would. But there is nothing of that but what is common,
and even trivial, and has been answered a hundred times. It affirms
that infant baptism depends solely on the tradition of the Church : but
this is said dictator-like.
And for the complying answer that is there given, and fills four or
five pages more, which was written, it seems, by M. de la Roque ; I
thought at first it had been a sham ; it looks as if the author himself, or
some other papist or antipsedobaptist, had framed an answer under the
name of a Protestant, such as they would have. But M. de la Roque
was, it seems, a learned man in other points, and has well refuted the
main of his adversary's book — which is of Communion in one kind ; but
having occasion to speak of this matter only by-the-by, and having not
studied it, but depending on Grotius, and having not well minded
what Grotius says neither, he has yielded even more than his opponent
pretended to. The opponent had said that infant baptism depends
"solely on the tradition of the Church." The answerer throws away
even this grant, and says, "The primitive Church did not baptise
infants," p. 188, and proves it by nothing but an allegation that is quite
mistaken in matter of fact. He says " the learned Grotius proves it in
his Annotations on the Gospel" Let any one read the Annotations, and
he will see that Grotius (how much soever he acts the prevaricator at
that place), so far from proving, does not pretend that there ever was a
time in which the Church " did not baptise infants," but only " Liber-
tatem et consuetudinis differentiam : " ' The liberty and difference of
the custom,' viz., that some in the Church did, and some did not. And
how groundless his pretence even of that is, I have endeavoured to show
at the foresaid ch. ii. § ix.
One would think that even the weakest among the antipsedobaptists
should apprehend that this new favour and loving-kindness which the
priests and Jesuits show to their side is all of the same stamp and
design, as was that which the late King James, by counsel of the same
men, showed to the dissenters in general, viz., that by furthering the
division they might weaken us all. And as all the honest men among
the dissenters then did scorn and refuse those favours, when they saw
whither they tended : so ought the antipsedobaptists in this case. But
if they will not be dissuaded from tampering with the deceitful gifts of
the enemy ; then their best way is to do as some have done before
* Antipcedobaptists of Poland, Bohemia, &c. 201
them, viz., to borrow the arguments of the Jesuits without saying where
they have them. For people will be never the more persuaded that
infant baptism cannot be proved from Scripture because a papist
says so.
The English antipgedobaptists are as careful as men in their circum
stances can well be against this intrusion of papists in disguise, by
requiring an account of any new preacher coming to them ; but it is a
thing that can hardly be ever totally prevented without a draught of
articles of religion, to which every preacher should subscribe.
§ 7. Of the antipaedobaptists in Poland I have not much to say, save
that they were formerly there in great numbers. Lselius Socinus, about
the year 1550, and after him his nephew, Faustus, broached there a
most desperate opinion against the Divinity of our Saviour Christ,
"Who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen."6 Some heretics of
old (but yet none within a thousand years of that time) had held that
Jesus was a mere man ; and that the WORD or Ao/og did only come
upon Him, or inhabit in Him. But these men taught that even the
WORD Himself, of whom St John speaks, was a creature. Which was a
heresy perfectly new, and surpassing in impiety almost all that ever were.
So they renounced the doctrine of the Trinity. The form of words by
which Christians are baptised, "In the name of the Father, the Son, and
the Holy Spirit," stood in their way. Socinus, therefore, expressed a
very slighting opinion of all water-baptism. He would have it be ac
counted needless in a nation that is settled in the profession of Christi
anity. He said 7 the Apostles practised it, but they had no command
so to do ; and so other Christians might use it as an indifferent thing.
That they may baptise, if they will ; or let it alone, if they will. And if
they will give baptism, they may give it in infancy, or in adult age : it is
much what one. His followers, many of them, took him at this last
proposal. They would baptise, but not in infancy.
There were also some other antipsedobaptists that were not Socinians.
But they were so generally mixed, that the ordinary name given to all
Socinians was anabaptists. About the year 1650, they were, by public
edicts, expelled that kingdom, as the Protestants in general have since
been.
And the same may be said of Bohemia and Moravia, and some other
countries thereabouts. There were for about one hundred years many
antipsedobaptists mixed with the Protestants in those countries ; but
both one and the other have since been, by popish persecutions, either
perverted, or forced to seek new seats.
In Hungary and Transylvania, but especially the latter, there are
said to be still considerable numbers of them, some towns and villages
6 Rom. ix. 5.
7 Disp. de Baptismo ; Epist. de Baptismo ad virum nobilem ; Epist. altera de Bapt.
202 The History of Infant Baptism.
consisting mostly of these men. But it is said s withal that they are
mostly Socinians. There were in Transylvania, so long ago as the
time of the later Socinus before-mentioned, viz., Faustus Socinus, some
of these that were deeper in that heresy, if possible, than he himself was.
They held, as he tells us, "The doctrines of the TRINITY and of INFANT
BAPTISM to be the chief errors of other Churches. So that if anyone
would renounce these two, and would firmly hold that all that have been
baptised in infancy, must be baptised when they are grown up, they
would own such an one for a brother in point of doctrine,"9 &c., though
he differed in some other things.
This is a gracious condescension. But yet I question whether, as the
case stands, it will induce many to accept of the proposal ; because all
people thereabouts know that, by complying but a very little farther, they
may be admitted for true Mussulmans, and allowed to wear white turbans
in the city of Stamboul : an honour which these gentlemen seem very
ambitious of. But as for those that desire to keep the name of Chris
tians, God preserve them from the folly of buying the brotherhood of
these men at so dear a rate as the renouncing of their God.
CHAPTER IX.
OF THE MOST ANCIENT RITES OF BAPTISM.
§ i. '"PHE rites and circumstances attending baptism have been largely
A handled by Josephus Vicecomes. I shall only briefly mention
some of the most ancient.
It was the custom of every Church of Christians to require adult per
sons that were to be baptised to spend some time in prayer and fasting
before their entrance into that holy covenant, that they might come
with greater seriousness and steadfastness of resolution to the sacrament
thereof. And the Church did use to fast and pray with them and for
them.
This fasting, though it be nowhere mentioned in Scripture, yet is ex
pressly put among the customs of the Christians by Justin Martyr (who
must have been born in the Scripture times) in that apology which he
makes to the heathen Emperors concerning the tenets and practices of
the Christians. The place I recited before.1
And so it is also by Tertullian.2 " They," says he, " that come to
baptism must use the devotions of frequent prayers, fastings, kneelings,
and watchings, and the confession of all their past sins, that they may
8 Osiander. Appendix Hist. 9 Epist. de bapt. ad virum nbbilem.
Pt. I. ch. xi. § 3. 2 Lib de Baptismo, c. xx.
Sick People Baptised in Bed. 203
at least do as much as was done in John's baptism. ' They were bap
tised,' it is said, ' confessing their sins.' "
I said before,3 that it is probable that this was none of the least rea
sons for keeping the Lent Fast, because the baptism of so many people
was to be at Easter. The Council of Laodicea do order, " That none
be admitted to baptism that Easter that does not give in his name
before a fortnight of Lent be out. And that they must all be able to
say the Creed by Thursday before Easter ; and that if any be baptised
in sickness, when they recover, they must learn and recite it." 4
§ 2. Their general and ordinary way was to baptise by immersion, or
dipping the person, whether it were an infant or grown man or woman,
into the water. This is so plain and clear by an infinite number of pas
sages, that as one cannot but pity the weak endeavours of such psedo-
baptists as would maintain the negative of it ; so, also, we ought to
disown and show a dislike of the profane scoffs which some people give
to the English antipaedobaptists merely for their use of dipping. It is
one thing to maintain that that circumstance is not absolutely necessary
to the essence of baptism ; and another to go about to represent it as
ridiculous and foolish, or as shameful and indecent ; when it was in all
probability the way by which our blessed Saviour, and, for certain, was
the most usual and ordinary way by which the ancient Christians did
receive their baptism. I shall not stay to produce the particular proofs
of this. Many of the quotations which I brought for other purposes,
and shall bring, do evince it. It is a great want of prudence, as well as
of honesty, to refuse to grant to an adversary what is certainly true, and
may be proved so. It creates a jealousy of all the rest that one
says.
Before the Christian religion was so far encouraged as to have churches
built for its service, they baptised in any river, pond, &c. So Tertullian
says : " It is all one whether one be washed in the sea, or in a pond, in
a fountain or in a river, in a standing or in a running water : nor is there
any difference between those that John baptised in Jordan, and those
that Peter baptised in the river Tiber. 'V5 But when they came to have
churches ; one part of the church, or place nigh the church, called the
Baptistery, was employed to this use ; and had a cistern, font, or pond
large enough for several at once to go into the water : divided into two
parts by a partition, one for the men and the other for the women for
the ordinary baptisms.
On the other side, the antipaedobaptists will be as unfair in their turn,
if they do not grant that in the case of sickness, weakliness, haste, want
of quantity of water, or such like extraordinary occasions, baptism by
affusion of water on the face was by the ancients counted sufficient
3 Pt. I. ch. xvii. § 5. 4 Can. 45, 46, 47.
5 De Baptismo, c. iv.
204 Tfa History oj Infant Baptism,
baptism. I shall out of the many proofs for it produce two or three of
the most ancient.
A.D. 251, Novatian was by one party of the clergy and people of
Rome chosen bishop of that Church, in a schismatical way, and in
opposition to Cornelius, who had been before chosen by the major part
and was already ordained. Cornelius does in a letter to Fabius, bishop
of Antioch vindicate his right : and shows that Novatian came not
canonically to his orders of priesthood ; 6 much less was he capable of
being chosen bishop : for " that all the clergy, and a great many of the
laity, were against his being ordained presbyter, because it was not lawful
(they said) for any one that had been baptised in his bed in time of
sickness [rir tv xXivp dia voaov irepi%u6evTa] as he had been, to be
admitted to any office of the clergy."
This shows that at the time when Novatian turned Christian, which
could not by this account be much above one hundred years after the
Apostles, it was the custom for anyone that in time of sickness desired
baptism, to have it administered to him in his bed by affusion : as in
another part of this letter is said of him : sv avrfj rfj xXivy r\ IXSITO
mpixvditf, ' baptised by affusion in the bed as he lay.' It is true, the
Christians had then a rule among themselves, that such an one, if he
recovered, should never be preferred to any office in the Church.
Which rule they made, not that they thought that manner of baptism to
be less effectual than the other; but for the reason expressed by the
Council of Neocaesarea held about eighty years after this time : the
twelfth canon whereof is : " He that is baptised when he is sick, ought
not to be made a priest (for his coming to the faith is not voluntary,
but from necessity) unless his diligence and faith do afterwards prove
commendable, or the scarcity of men fit for the office do require it."
Another instance about the same time is this ; one Magnus, a country
man, writes to St Cyprian,7 desiring to be satisfied in some points relat
ing to the schism of the Novatians. One was, whether those that were
baptised in that schism must be baptised again if they come over from
the schism to the Church ? This, St Cyprian answers, must be : because
all baptism given by such as are in a state of division from the Church,
is void. The other was, whether they that in the communion of the
Church are baptised in bed, as Novatian was, must likewise be baptised
again, if they recover ? To this St Cyprian answers as follows :
" You inquire also, dear son, what I think of such as obtain the grace
in time of their. sickness and infirmity; whether they are to be accounted
lawful Christians : because they are not washed all over with the water
of salvation ; but have only some of it poured on them. In which matter
I would use so much modesty and humility, as not to prescribe so
positively but that every one should have the freedom of his own
8 Euseb. H. E., 1. vi. c. xliii. 7 Cypriani Epist. 69, edit. Oxon.
Baptism by Affusion Sufficient. 205
thought, and do as he thinks best : I do according to the best of my
mean capacity judge thus ; that the Divine favours are not maimed or
weakened, so as that anything less than the whole of them is conveyed,
where the benefit of them is received with a full and complete faith both
of the giver and receiver.
" For the contagion of sin is not in the sacrament of salvation washed
off by the same measures that the dirt of the skin and of the body is
washed off, in an ordinary and secular bath : so as that there should be
any necessity of soap and other helps, and a large pool or fish-pond by
which the body is washed or cleansed. It is in another way that the
breast of a believer is washed ; after another fashion that the mind of a
man is by faith cleansed. In the sacraments of salvation, when neces
sity compels, the shortest ways of transacting divine matters do by God's
gracious dispensation confer the whole benefit.
"And no man need therefore think otherwise, because these sick
people, when they receive the grace of our Lord, have nothing but an
affusion or sprinkling : whenas the Holy Scripture by the prophet
Ezekiel says ; ' I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and you shall be
clean,' " 8 &c.
He quotes to the same purpose, Num. xix. 13, it. viii. 7, &c. And
having applied them, says a little after : " If anyone think that they
obtain no benefit, as having only an affusion of the water of salvation,
do not let him mistake so far as that the parties, if they recover of their
sickness, should be baptised again. And if they must not be baptised
again, that have already been sanctified with the baptism of the Church,
why should they have cause of scandal given them concerning their
religion and the pardon of our Lord ? What ! shall we think that they
have granted to them the grace of our Lord, but in a weaker or less
measure of the Divine and Holy Spirit, so as to be accounted Christians,
but yet not in equal state with others ? No, the Holy spirit is not
given by several measures, but is wholly poured on them that believe," &c.
And having, in order to set forth this equality, alluded to what is
said, Exod. xvi. 18, of every man's having an equal omer of manna, he
adds, " By which it was signified that the mercy and heavenly grace of
Christ, which was to come in after times, would be divided equally to
all, and the gift of the spiritual grace would be poured on all God's
people without any difference on account of sex, or years of age
(which words are another proof of his owning infant baptism), or of
respect of persons.
" We see," says he, " this proved by the experience of the thing, that
such as are baptised, and do obtain the grace in their sickness when
need so requires, are freed from the unclean spirit with which they were
before possessed, and do live commendably and approved in the
8 Ezek. xxxvi. 25.
2o6 The History of Infant Baptism.
Church, and do every day proceed by the increase of their faith to an
increase of the heavenly grace," &c.
A little after, he argues thus : " Can anyone think it reasonable that
so much honour should be shown to the heretics, that such as come
from them should never be asked whether they had a washing all over,
or only an affusion of water, and yet among us any should detract from
the truth and integrity of faith ? " &c. So that it appears, that the
several sects did, as well as the Church party, use clinical baptism in
case of necessity.
The Acts also of St Lawrence, who suffered martyrdom about the
same time as Cyprian, do tell how one of the soldiers that were to be
his executioners, being converted, brought a pitcher of water for Law
rence to baptise him with. And though these Acts, as they are now,
are interpolated and mixed with falsehoods, yet this passage seems to
be genuine, because it is cited by Walafridus Strabo,9 who lived before
those times in which most of the Roman forgeries were added to the
histories of their saints.
Eusebius10 also mentions Basilides baptised in prison by some
brethren. The strict custody under which Christian prisoners were
kept, their tyrannical jailors hardly allowing them necessaries for life,
much less such conveniences as they desired for their religion, makes it
very probable that this must have been done by affusion only of some
small quantity of water. And the like may be said of the jailor baptised
by St Paul in haste, the same hour of the night in which he was
converted,11 he and all his straightway.
These are some of the most ancient instances of that sort of baptism
that are now extant in records. But the farther one proceeds in read
ing the following times, the more frequent they are, in so much that
Gennadius 12 of Marseilles, in the fifth century, speaks of baptism as
given in the French Church indifferently, by either of the ways, of im
mersion or aspersion. For having said, "We believe the way of salva
tion to be open only to baptised persons; we believe that no catechumen,
though he die in good works, has eternal life ; " he adds, " Except the
case of martyrdom, in which all the sacraments of baptism are com
pleted." Then to show how martyrdom has all in it that baptism has,
he says, " The person to be baptised owns his faith before the priest,
and when the interrogatories are put to him, makes his answer. The
same does a martyr before the heathen judge, he also owns his faith,
and when the question is put to him, makes answer. The one after his
confession is either wetted with the water or else plunged into it, and
the other is either wetted with his own blood, or else is plunged [or
overwhelmed] in fire."
9 De rebus Ecclesiast., c. xxvi. 10 H. E., 1. vi. c. v.
11 Acts xvi. 33. 12 De Eccl. Dogmatibus., c. Ixxiv.
Dipping, when left off in the West. 207
In the times of Thomas Aquinas and Bonaventura, immersion was in
Italy the most common way, but the other was ordinary enough.
Thomas speaks thus, "Baptism may be given not only by immersion, but
also by affusion of water, or sprinkling with it. But it is the safer way
to baptise by immersion, because that is the most common custom ; " 13
and again, "By immersion, the burial of Christ is more lively repre
sented, and therefore this is the most common and commendable way.
Bonaventura says, " That the way of affusion was probably used by the
Apostles, and was in his time used in the Churches of France, and some
others;"14 but he says, "the way of dipping into the water is the more
common, and the fitter, and the safer."
One would have thought that the cold countries should have been
the first that should have changed the custom from dipping to affusion,
because in cold climates the bathing of the body in water may seem
much more unnatural and dangerous to the health than in the hot ones,
(and it is to be noted by the way, that all those countries of whose
rites of baptism, and immersion used in it, we have any account in the
Scripture or other ancient history, are in hot climates, where frequent
and common bathing both of infants and grown persons is natural, and
even necessary to the health). But by history it appears that the cold
climates held the custom of dipping as long as any : for England, which
is one of the coldest, was one of the latest that admitted this alteration
of the ordinary way. Vasquez 15 having said that it was the old custom
both in the east and the west to baptise both grown persons and infants
that were in health, by immersion : and that it plainly appears by the
words of St Gregory that the custom continued so to be in his time,
adds : " And it continues, as they say, to this day among the English,
as Erasmus has noted in the margin of the 76 Epistle of St Cyprian."
Erasmus is there observing how the baptism of infants is in different
countries variously administered ; and says : " perfunduntur apud nos,
merguntur apud Anglos." 'With us [the Dutch] they have the water
poured on them ; in England they are dipped/ This is a good authority
for so late as the time of Henry VIII., at which time he lived in Eng
land. And I produced before 16 a passage out of a Convocation in that
King's reign which also shows that the general custom in England
then was to dip infants. And it continued so for two reigns more. I
will here endeavour to trace the times when it began to be left off in
the several countries of the west ; meaning still, in the case of infants
that were in health and in the public baptism ; for in the case of sickly
or weak infants, there was always in all countries an allowance of
affusion or sprinkling to be given in haste, and in the house, or any
other place.
13 III. q. 66 art. vii. 14 L. iv. dist. iii. art. ii. q. 2.
15 In tertiam disp. cxlv. cap. ii. 16 Ch. viii. § 6.
208 The History of Infant Baptism.
France seems to have been the first country in the world where
baptism by affusion was used ordinarily to persons in health, and in
the public way of administering it. Gennadius of Marseilles, whose
words I gave before, is the first author that speaks of it as indifferent.
It came more and more into request in that country, till in Bona-
ventura's time it was become, as appears by his words last quoted, a
very ordinary practice; and though he says, some other Churches did
then so use it, yet he names none but France.
The Synod of Angiers, 1275, speaks of dipping or pouring as in
differently used ; and blames some ignorant priests, for that they dip
or pour the water but once ; and instructs them that the general custom
of the Church is to dip thrice, or pour on water three times.
The Synod of Langres mentions pouring only : " Let the priest make
three pourings or sprinklings of water on the infant's head," &c.
And so from thence to the year 1600 (and still to this day for aught
I know) the Synodical Acts and Canons of the Churches in France do
mention sometimes dipping or pouring, and sometimes pouring only :
but the practice for a long time has been pouring only. The Synod of
Aix, 1585, says: "Pouring or dipping, according as the use of the
Church is," and orders that " the pouring of the water be not done
with the hand, but with a ladle [or vessel] kept in the font for that
purpose." This account of the Synods I have out of Bochell, Decret.
Ecd. GallicaruK, 1. ii., de baptismo.
From France it spread (but not till a good while after) into Italy,
Germany, Spain, &c., and last of all into England.
For Italy, I have shown already, that dipping was the more ordinary
custom at the year 1260. By what degrees it altered is not worth the
while to search. In two hundred years time the other became the
ordinary way.
In Germany, Walafridus Strabo, 850; Rupertus, 1120, and several
others, do so speak of baptism, as that it appears by their words, that
dipping of infants was the general custom, except of such as were sick,
&c., and must be baptised in haste. But the Council of Cologne under
Herman, in the year 1536, speaks of it more indifferently. "The
child is thrice either dipped, or wetted with the water," &c. And
fifteen years after, the Agenda of the Church of Mentz, published by
Sebastian, do recommend and prefer the later : " Then let the priest
take the child in his left arm : and holding him over the font, let him
with his right hand, three several times, take water out of the font, and
pour it on the child's head, Ita quod aqua tingat caput et scapulas,
' so as that the water may wet its head and shoulders.' " Then they give
a note to this purpose ; that immersion once or thrice, or pouring of
water, may be used and have been used in the Church : and that this
variety does not alter the nature of baptism : and that a man shall do
Dipping, Jww long continued in England. 209
ill to break the custom of his Church for either of them. But they add,
that it is better if the Church will allow to use pouring on of water.
For suppose, say they, the priest be old and feeble, or have the palsy
in his hands, or the weather be very cold, or the child very infirm, or
be too big to be dipped in the font, then it is much fitter to use affusion
of the water. Then they bring the instance of the Apostles baptising
three thousand at a time ; the instance of St Lawrence that I spoke of
before; and the story (which I suppose is forged) of Chlodoveus baptised
in that fashion by Remigius ; and say : " That therefore there may not
be one way for the sick and another for the healthy, one for children
and another for bigger persons ; it is better that the minister of this
sacrament do keep the safest way, which is, to pour water thrice, unless
the custom be to the contrary."
In England there seem to have been some priests so early as the
year 816, that attempted to bring in the use of baptism by affusion in
the public administration ; for Spelman recites a Canon of a Council in
that year,17 " Let the priests know that when they administer holy
baptism, they must not pour the water on the heads of the infants, but
they must always be dipped in the font. As the Son of God gave His
own example to all believers, when He was thrice dipped in the waters
of Jordan, so it is necessary by order to be kept and used."
Lynwood, who was Dean of the Arches in the time of Henry V.,
1422, and wrote the best account of our English constitutions, having
spoken of the manner of baptising infants by dipping, adds this note :
" But this is not to be accounted to be of the necessity [or essence] of
baptism : but it may be given also by pouring or sprinkling. And this
holds especially where the custom of the Church allows it." 18 It is to
be noted that France had, as I showed just now, before this time ad
mitted of the way of pouring water : and Lynwood had lived in France
under Henry V. of England, who was king there.
Some do prove from Wickliff that it was held indifferent in England
in his time whether dipping or pouring were used, because he says at
one place, " Nor is it material whether they be dipped, once or thrice,
or water be poured on their heads : but it must be done according to
the custom of the place where one dwells." 19 But we ought to take the
whole context as it lies in the book. He had been speaking of the
necessity of baptism to salvation, from that text, John iii. 5, and then
adds : " Et ordinavit ecclesia quod quaelibet persona fidelis in necessitatis
articulo poterit baptisari [1. baptisare]. Nee refert," &c. ' And the
Church has ordained that in a case of necessity any person that is fidel
[or, that is himself baptised] may give baptism, &c. — Nor is it material
whether they be dipped,' &c. Such words do not suppose any other
17 Concil. Anglicana, torn. i. p. 331, Synod, apud Celecyth. sub Walfredo.
18 Constit., 1. iii. c. de Bapt. 19 Trialog., 1. iv. c. xi.
2 1 o The History of Infant Baptism.
way than dipping used ordinarily : but only in a juncture of necessity,
or fear of the infant's death.
The offices or liturgies for public baptism in the Church of England
did all along, so far as I can learn, enjoin dipping without any mention
of pouring or sprinkling. The Manuale ad usum Sarum, printed 1530,
the twenty-first of Henry VIII., orders thus for the public baptisms :
" Then let the priest take the child ; and, having asked the name, bap
tise him by dipping him in the water thrice," &c. And John Frith,
writing in the year 1533 a treatise of baptism, calls the outward part of
it the " plunging down in the water and lifting up again." Which he
often mentions without ever mentioning pouring or sprinkling.
In the Common-Prayer Book, printed 1549, the second of King
Edward the VI., the order stands thus : " Shall dip it in the water thrice,
&c., so it be discreetly and warily done, saying N., I baptise thee," &c.
But this order adds, " And if the child be weak, it shall suffice to pour
water upon it, saying the foresaid words." Afterwards the books do
leave out the word thrice, and do say, " shall dip it in the water, so it
be discreetly," &c. Which alteration, I suppose, was made in the sixth
of Edward the VI., for then there was a new edition of the book with
some light alterations. And from thence it stood unaltered as to this
matter to the fourteenth of Charles II.
From this time of King Edward, Mr Walker 20 (who has taken the
most pains in tracing this matter) derives the beginning of the alteration
of the general custom. He says that " dipping was at this time the
more usual, but sprinkling was sometimes used, which within the time
of half a century (meaning from 1550 to 1600) prevailed to be the more
general (as it is now almost the only) way of baptising."
But it is not probable that in so short a reign as that of King Edward,
who died in 1553, the custom could receive any great alteration.
Customs in which the whole body of the people is concerned alter but
slowly, when they do alter.
And in Queen Mary's time the custom of dipping seems to have con
tinued. For Watson, the Popish Bishop of Lincoln, did, in the year
1558, which was the last of Queen Mary, publish a volume of sermons
about the sacraments, in the fourth of which he says : " Though the
ancient tradition of the Church has been from the beginning to dip the
child three times, &c., yet that is not of such necessity ; but that if it be
but once dipped in the water, it is sufficient. Yea, and in time of great
peril and necessity, if the water be but poured on the head, it will suffice."
A sign that pouring was not in Queen Mary's time used but in case of
necessity.
But there are apparent reasons why that custom should alter during
Queen Elizabeth's reign.
30 Doctrine of Baptisms, c. x. p. 174.
Left off in Queen Elizabeth's Time. 211
The latitude given in the Liturgy, which could have but little effect
in the short time of King Edward's reign, might, during the long reign
of this Queen, produce an alteration proportionably greater. It being
allowed to weak children (though strong enough to be brought to
church) to be baptised by affusion, many fond ladies and gentlewomen
first, and then by degrees the common people, would obtain the favour
of the priest to have their children pass for weak children, too tender to
endure dipping in the water. Especially (as Mr Walker observes) " if
some instance really were, or were but fancied or framed, of some child's
taking hurt by it."
And another thing that had a greater influence than this was, that
many of our English divines and other people had, during Queen Mary's
bloody reign, fled into Germany, Switzerland, &c., and coming back in
Queen Elizabeth's time, they brought with them a great love to the
customs of those Protestant Churches wherein they had sojourned ; and
especially the authority of Calvin, and the rules which he had estab
lished at Geneva, had a mighty influence on a great number of our
people about that time. Now, Calvin had not only given his dictate in
his Institutions^- that " the difference is of no moment, whether he that
is baptised be dipped all over ; and if so, whether thrice or once, or
whether he be only wetted with the water poured on him." But he had
also drawn up for the use of his church at Geneva (and afterwards
published to the world) a Form of Administering the Sacraments ^
where, when he comes to order the act of baptising, he words it thus :
" Then the minister of baptism pours water on the infant, saying,
I baptise thee," &c. There had been, as I said, some Synods in some
dioceses of France that had spoken of affusion without mentioning
immersion at all, that being the common practice ; but for an office or
liturgy of any Church, this is, I believe, the first in the world that pre
scribes affusion absolutely. Then Musculus had determined, " As for
dipping of the infant, we judge that not so necessary, but that it is free
for the Church to baptise either by dipping or sprinkling." ~23 So that
(as Mr Walker observes), "No wonder if that custom prevailed at
home, which our reformed divines in the time of the Marian persecution
had found to be the judgment of other divines, and seen to be the
practice of other Churches abroad, and especially of Mr Calvin and his
Church of Geneva.24
And when there was added to all this the resolution of such a man
as Dr Whitaker, Regius Professor at Cambridge,25 "Though in case of
grown persons that are in health, I think dipping to be better ; yet in the
21 L. iv. c. xv. § 19.
2- Tractat. Theolog. Catcchismus, p. 57, ed. Bezse, 1576.
23 Loci Commun. de Baptismo, p. 431. ~4 Ch. x. § 107.
a3 Praelectiones be Sacr. de Baptismo, q. i, c. ii.
2 1 2 The History of Infant Baptism.
case of infants and of sickly people, I think sprinkling sufficient." The
inclination of the people, backed with these authorities, carried the
practice against the Rubric, which still required dipping, except in
case of weakness. So that in the later times of Queen Elizabeth,
and during the reigns of King James and of King Charles I., very few
children were dipped in the font. I have heard of one or two persons
now living, who must have been born in those reigns, that they were
baptised by dipping in the font, and of one clergyman now living
that has baptised some infants so, but am not certain. But the
children were, however, all that time carried to it : as much as to
say, the minister is ready to dip the child, if the parents will venture the
health of it.
Mr Blake, who wrote in 1645 a pamphlet entitled Infants' Baptism
Freed from Antichristianism, says, p. i (in answer to his adversary, who
had said that infants pretended to be baptised by the ministers of the
Church have not true baptism, since they are not "dipped," but
" sprinkled "), " I have been an eye-witness of many infants dipped,
and know it to have been the constant practice of many ministers in their
places for many years together." And again (p. 4), speaking of the pre
sent practice of that time, says : " Those that dip not infants, do not yet
use to sprinkle them ; there is a middle way between these two : I have
seen several dipped ; I never saw nor heard of any sprinkled, or (as
some of you use to speak) rantised. . . . Our way is not by aspersion, but
perfusion ; not sprinkling drop by drop, but pouring on at once all that
the hand contains." And for sprinkling, says, " I leave them to defend
it that use it."
Of what age Mr Blake was when he wrote this, I know not; but
in a pamphlet which he wrote the year before, viz., 1644, called
The Birth Privilege, and which he dedicates to his parishioners of
Tamworth, in Staffordshire, he so speaks as that one may guess him
to have been about forty-two years old. He says in the said dedication,
" I have served you for Christ a double apprenticeship of years almost
complete, which time has seemed to some to have added more than a
third to the years of the days of my pilgrimage." What he means by
"seem to some," I cannot imagine. But if he at 1644 were about
forty-two, and could remember, as he says ; the dipping of infants must
have been pretty ordinary during the former half of King James's reign,
if not longer. And for sprinkling, properly called, it seems it was at
1645, just then beginning, and used by very few. It must have began
in the disorderly times after 1641. For Mr Blake had never used it,
nor seen it used.
But then came the Directory, which forbids even all use of fonts ;
and says, "Baptism is to be administered, not in private places,
or privately " (these are the men that have since brought baptism in
The Order of the Church about Dipping. 213
private houses to be so spreading a custom as it is), " but in the place
of public worship, and in the face of the congregation, &c., and not in the
places where fonts in the time of popery were unfitly and superstitiously
placed." So (parallel to the rest of their reformations) they reformed
the font into a basin. This learned Assembly could not remember
that fonts to baptise in had been always used by the primitive Chris
tians, long before the beginning of popery, and ever since churches
were built ; but that sprinkling, for the common use of baptising, was
really introduced (in France first, and then in other popish countries)
in times of popery ; and that accordingly all those countries in which
the usurped power of the pope is, or has formerly been owned, have
left off dipping of children in the font ; but that all other countries in
the world (which had never regarded his authority) do still use it, and
that basins, except in cases of necessity, were never used by papists or
any other Christians whatsoever, till by themselves.
The use was, the minister continuing in his reading-desk, the child
was brought and held below him ; and there was placed for that use a
little basin of water about the bigness of a syllabub pot, into which the
minister dipping his fingers, and then holding his hand over the face
of a child, some drops would fall from his fingers on the child's face.
For the Directory says, it is " not only lawful, but most expedient," to
use pouring or sprinkling.
Upon the review of the Common-Prayer Book at the Restoration, the
Church of England did not think fit (however prevalent the custom of
sprinkling was) to forego their maxim, that it is most fitting to dip
children that are well able to bear it. But they leave it wholly to the
judgment of the godfathers and those that bring the child, whether the
child may well endure dipping or not, as they are indeed the most
proper judges of that. So the priest is now ordered : " If the godfathers
do certify him that the child may well endure it, to dip it in the water
discreetly and warily. But if they certify that the child is weak, it shall
suffice to pour water upon it." The difference is only this : — by the
rubric as it stood before, the priest was to dip, unless there were an
averment or allegation of weakness ; now he is not to dip unless there
be an averment or certifying of strength sufficient to endure it.
Except such antipaedobaptists as do not allow of affusion in any case
(and I think there are few such but in England), all the rest of the world
will agree that this order is the most unexceptionable of any that could
be given, and does keep as close to the primitive way as the coldness of
our region, and the tenderness to which infants are now used, will admit.
But in the practice, the godfathers take so much advantage of the refer
ence that is made to their judgment, that they never do certify the priest
" that the child may well endure it," and the priests do now seldom ask
that question. And indeed it is needless, because they do always bring
2 1 4 The History of Infant Baptism.
ifpnd it
the child so dressed in clothes as to make it plain that they do not intend it
shall be dipped. When dipping in the font was in fashion, they brought
the child wrapped up in such a sort of clothing as could presently and
without trouble, be taken off and put on again. I think they called it a
chrysom, or some such name. And, besides, the fonts that have been
built since the times I speak of are, many of them, built so small and
basin-like, that a child cannot well be dipped in them if it were desired.
Since the times that dipping of infants has been generally left off, many
learned men in several countries have endeavoured to retrieve the use
of it, but more in England than anywhere else in proportion.
Sotus gives his opinion,26 that " baptism ought still to be given by
dipping, so as that it is not lawful to give it otherwise, unless for some
necessary, or creditable, and reasonable cause." But Vasquez 27 takes him
up for this with some anger ; and he maintains that nowadays, since
it is grown the common custom, affusion is perfectly as well as dipping.
This he says of affusion, or pouring on of water. But for sprinkling of
water, he says : " That is not at all in use, and so cannot be practised
without sin, unless for some particular cause." Estius also does much
commend dipping, but now that the other is the common custom, would
have nothing altered.
In England Mr Mede showed his inclination to retrieve the ancient
custom plain enough (indeed he carried the argument for it too far)
when he said,28 that " there was no such thing as sprinkling or rhantism
used in baptism in the Apostles' days, nor many ages after them." If
he takes sprinkling strictly (as it is distinguished from pouring on of
water), it may be true ; but if he say so of pouring water, it is not true,
unless he limit it to ordinary cases.
Bishop Taylor in his Rule of Conscience, and also Mr Dan. Rogers in
his Treatise of Sacraments, have said so much on this head, that Danvers
the antipsedobaptist catches hold of their words, and brings them among
his authorities that to baptise is nothing else but to dip.29 But he is
forced to curtail and misrepresent their words, for they do both of them
in their own words (which he has left out) own that baptism by affusion
is true baptism. But so much is true, that they do both of them plead
hard that it ought not to be used but in case of necessity, and that the
ministers should in no other case dispense with the act of immersion.
And indeed, as the rubric then stood, it required immersion positively,
unless the child were weak. Here, by the way, I cannot but take notice
how much trouble such an adventurous author as this Danvers is able
to give to such a careful and exact answerer' as Mr Walker. Danvers
does in this place deal with above twenty other writers after the same
rate as he does with the two I mentioned, viz., Scapula, Stephanus,
28 In 4 Dist. 3, q. unica. Art. 7. * In tertiam. Disp. 145. c. ii.
'•* Diatribe on Tit. iii. 5. -'•> Treat, of Bapt., Pt. II. ch. iv.
Learned Men plead for the Restoring of Dipping. 2 1 5
Pasor, Vossius, Leigh, Casaubon, Beza, Chamier, Hammond, Cajetan,
Musculus, Piscator, Calvin, Keckerman, Diodat, Grotius, Davenant,
Tilenus, Dr Cave, Wai. Strabo, and Archbishop Tillotson. He does in
the space of twelve pages 30 quote all these in such words as if they had
made dipping to be of the essence of baptism. Mr Walker shows that
he has abused every one of them, by affixing to some of them words that
they never said, by adding to others, by altering and mistranslating
others, and by curtailing the words of the rest. But what a trouble is
this, to go upon such a man's errand from book to book, search the
chapters (which he commonly names wrong), recite the words first as he
quotes them, and then as they really are in the book ? This cost Mr
Walker three large chapters.31 And what would it have been to answer
the whole book, which is all of a piece ? This is the book that is so
much handed about among the antipaedobaptists of England.
But to go on to mention some more learned men of England that
have wished for the restoring of the custom of dipping such infants as
are in health. Sir Norton Knatchbull says thus : " With leave be it
spoken ; I am still of opinion that it would be more for the honour of
the Church, and for the peace and security of religion, if the old custom
could conveniently be restored."32 Yet he there declares himself fully
satisfied with the lawfulness of the other way, so far as that nobody
ought to doubt of its being true and full baptism. For avoiding the
danger of cold he thinks it advisable to restore another ancient custom,
also of baptism only at certain times of the year, except such infants
as are like to die. But infants were, as I showed before,33 by that
ancient custom excepted from any obligation to stay till those times.
And Easter is in our climate no very warm season. And there is
nothing commoner than for infants to die suddenly.
Mr Walker has taken the most pains (I may venture to say it) of any
man in the world to show that baptism by pouring, or sprinkling, is
.true baptism, and is valid; and that baptism so given ought not to be
reiterated ; and that all ages of the Church have been of that opinion ;
and that the antipaedobaptists have no reason to separate on that
account. And yet in the same book he does in several places declare
that he thinks the other way more advisable for the ordinary use. In
one of the chapters 34 which I mentioned, where he is vindicating the
words of Mr Dan. Rogers from the force which Mr Danvers had put on
them ; and where he confesses of Mr Rogers thus much : " Mr Rogers
was for retrieving the use of dipping, as witnessed to by antiquity,
approved by Scripture, required by the Church (as then it was except
in case of weakness) and symbolical with the things signified in baptism ; "
he adds his own opinion in these words : " Which I could wish as well
30 From 192 to p. 204. 31 Ch. xi., xii., xiii. 32 Annot. on I Pet. iii. 20.
33 Pt. I. ch. xvii. § 3. 34 Ch. xi. § 52.
216 The History of Infant Baptism.
and as heartily as he, in order to making of peace in the Church, if that
would do it." And in the next paragraph : " If I may speak my
thoughts, I believe the ministers of the nation would be glad if the
people would desire, or be but willing to have their infants dipped after
the ancient manner both in this and in other churches, and bring them
to baptism in such a condition as that they might be totally dipped
without fear of being destroyed." And in the conclusion of that book 33
he thus bespeaks the antipaedobaptists : " And as some learned persons,
who have defended the lawfulness of sprinkling, have yet in some
respects preferred dipping before it : so, though I blame your holding
an indispensable necessity of it, &c., yet in order to the peace of the
Church by your re-union with it, and the saving of your souls by rescu
ing you from under the guilt of schism, I could wish the practice of it
retrieved into use again, so far as possibly might be consistent with
decency of baptising and safety to the baptised." He speaks often to
the same purpose in his Modest Plea.
Dr Towerson, in his Explication of the Catechism?* having recited the
arguments for immersion, says : " How to take off the force of these
arguments altogether, I mean not to consider; partly because our
Church seems to persuade such an immersion ; and partly because I
cannot but think the forementioned arguments to be so far of force as
to evince the necessity thereof, where there is not some greater necessity
to occasion an alteration of it."
Dr Whitby says,37 " It were to be wished that this custom [of immer
sion] might be again of general use ; and aspersion only permitted, as
of old, in case of the clinici, and in present danger of death."
These (and possibly many more) have openly declared their thoughts
concerning the present custom. And abundance of others have so
largely and industriously proved that a total immersion was, as Dr Cave
says, " the almost constant and universal custom of the primitive
times," 18 that they have sufficiently intimated their inclinations to be for
it now. So that no man in this nation, who is dissatisfied with the other
way, or does wish, or is but willing, that his child should be baptised
by dipping, need in the least to doubt but that any minister in this
church would, according to the present direction of the rubric, readily
comply with his desire, and as Mr Walker says, be glad of it.
And as for the danger of the infants catching cold by dipping, Sir
John Floyer has in a late book38 endeavoured to show by reasons
taken from the nature of our bodies, from the rules of medicine, from
modern experiences, and from ancient history, that washing or dipping
infants in cold water is, generally speaking, not only safe, but very
useful : and that though no such religious rite as baptism had been in-
58 Page 293. * Of Baptism, p, 20, 21, 22. w Comment on Rom. vi.
'" Primitive Christianity, Pt. I. ch. x. 39 Qf Cold Baths.
What Churches do still Dip Infants. 2 1 7
stituted, yet reason and experience would have directed people to use
cold bathing both of themselves and their children : and that it has in
all former ages so directed them. For (besides that the Jews by God's
law used it on many occasions, and the Christians made it the far most
usual way of their baptism) he shows that all civilised nations, the
Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, &c., made frequent use of it, and gave
commendations of it ; and that nature itself has taught this custom to
many barbarous nations — the old Germans, Highlanders, Irish, Japanese,
Tartars, and even the Samoieds who live in the coldest climate that is
inhabited.
This learned physician gives a catalogue of diseases for which it is good :
some of them, for which it is the best remedy that is known. And he
says he cannot advise his countrymen to any better method for pre
servation of health than the cold regimen — to dip all their children in
baptism ; to wash them often afterwards, till three-quarters of a year
old ; to inure them to cold air, drinking of water, few clothes ; to use
them, when boys, to bathing in rivers ; when men, to cold baths, &c.
He prognosticates that the old modes in physic and religion will in
time prevail when people have had more experience in cold baths, and
that the approbation of physicians would bring in the old use of immer
sion in baptism. If it do so, one half of the dispute (which has caused a
schism) between the psedobaptists and the antipaedobaptists will be
over. There are more of the first who are brought by the arguments of
the other to doubt of the validity of their baptism, for that they were
not dipped at the receiving it, than there are for that they received it
in infancy. Neither was there ever an antipsedobaptist in England, as
I showed in the last chapter, till this custom of sprinkling children,
instead of dipping them, in the ordinary baptisms had for some time
prevailed.
What has been said of this custom of pouring or sprinkling water in
the ordinary use of baptism is to be understood only in reference to
these western parts of Europe, for it is used ordinarily nowhere else.
The Greek Church, in all the branches of it, does still use immersion ;
and they hardly count a child, except in case of sickness, well baptised
without it. And so do all other Christians in the world except the Latins.
That which I hinted before is a rule that does not fail in any particular
that I know of — viz., all the nations of Christians that do now, or
formerly did, submit to the authority of the Bishop of Rome, do ordi
narily baptise their infants by pouring or sprinkling. And though the
English received not this custom till after the decay of popery, yet they
have since received it from such neighbour nations as had begun it in
the times of the pope's power. But all other Christians in the world,
who never owned the pope's usurped power, do, and ever did, dip their
infants in the ordinary use.
2 1 8 The History of Infant Baptism.
And if we take the division of the world from the three main parts of
it, all the Christians in Asia, all in Africa, and about one-third part of
Europe are of the last sort : in which third part of Europe are compre
hended the Christians of Gratia, Thracia, Servia, Bulgaria, Rascia,
Wallachia, Moldavia, Russia, Nigra, &c., and even the Muscovites, who,
if coldness of the country will excuse, might plead for a dispensation
with the most reason of any. Dr Crull gives this account of them,
" The priest takes the child stark naked into his arms, and dips him three
times into the water, &c. ; the water is never warmed over the fire,
though the cold be never so excessive ; but they put it sometimes in a
warm place to take off a little the cold." 40 If they warmed it more, I
do not see where were the hurt. The Latins that stayed behind at the
Council of Florence do determine it to be " indifferent whether baptism
be administered in warm or in cold water." 41 And an archbishop of
Samos, who has written the history of that island, says, at p. 45, that they
use hot [or warm] water.
We have no reason to think that the Muscovites do submit to this
as to a hardship put upon them by the Christian religion, for they
commonly, when they come sweating out of a hot stove, do suddenly
throw themselves into cold water, and think it medicinal so to do, as
the said doctor relates. And the neighbour nations thereabouts, even
those that are not Christians, do ordinarily put their infant children
into the coldest water they can get, for health's sake, and to harden
them. For so the same author tells of the Crim Tartars, that the
" mothers do use to bath their infants, once a day at least, in cold water,
wherein a little salt is dissolved, to make them hardy."42 And the
success answers : for these are one of the healthiest, hardiest, and most
vigorous nations in the world.
But whereas the said doctor says " that the Muscovites glory that they
are the only true Christians now in the world ; forasmuch as they are bap
tised, whereas others have been only sprinkled ; which is the reason they
allege for re-baptising all such of what persuasion soever that embrace
their religion."43 This is neither consistent with the account given by
himself in the same chapter of their rebaptisations, "that even Mus
covites that having changed their religion in another country, are
willing to return to their own Communion, must first be rebaptised ; "
nor with the account of the practice of other Greek Christians, who do
all baptise ordinarily by immersion as well as the Muscovites ; nor with
the account given by other writers of the practice of the Muscovites
themselves. For though Mr Daille 44 do say much the same of them as
40 State of Muscovy, vol. i. c. xi.
41 Cap. de unione Jacobinorum et Armenorum.
42 Ch. vii. p. 112. 43 Ch- xi at the beginning.
44 L. ii. De usu Patrum, p. 148.
The Ancient Christians baptised naked. 219
Dr Crull says here (he does not say quite the same ; he says, " The
Muscovites say that the Latins are not duly and rightly baptised.")
Yet other writers say that the Muscovites themselves do in case of the
weakness of the child baptise by affusion. Joannes Faber, in an epistle
that he has written purposely of these peoples' religion, says, " If the
child be strong, he is thrice plunged all over. Otherwise he is wetted
with the water. But this last is seldom used : Conspersio enim minus
sufficiens judicatur, ' for they count sprinkling not so well [or not so
sufficient].' " And another author quoted by Mr Walker out of Purchas
Pilgrim, Pt. III. page 229, says, " That in such a case a pot of warm
water is poured on the child's head." And another, " The priest pours a
whole gallon of water upon the child," &c.
Since the writing of this, I find_ that Mr Russen, ch. v. (quoting for
it Alvares, c. v.), says, "The Abassens baptise in the church porch,
without fonts, with a pot full of water only." I know not what credit is
to be given to this. I know that Brerewood does often note Alvares
as an unfaithful relater. And Brerewood himself, though he say nothing
of the manner of their baptising infants (only that they do it on the
fortieth day for a male, and the eightieth for a female child), yet speak
ing of their yearly baptising themselves on Twelfth-day (not using it as a
sacrament, but as a customary memorial of Christ's baptism on that
day), says that they do it in lakes or ponds (ch. xxiii.), which makes that
which Alvares says very improbable.
§ 3. What was just now mentioned of the Muscovites baptising stark
naked, and dipping three times, is perfectly agreeable to the ancient
practice in both the usages. The ancient Christians, when they were
baptised by immersion, were all baptised naked ; whether they were
men, women, or children. Vossius45 has collected several proofs of this,
which I shall omit because it is a clear case. The English antipsedo-
baptists need not have made so great an outcry against Mr Baxter for
his saying that they baptised naked, for if they had, it had been no
more than the primitive Christians did. They thought it better re
presented the " putting off the old man," and also the nakedness of
Christ on the cross : moreover as baptism is a washing, they judged it
should be the washing of the body, not of the clothes.
They took great care for preserving the modesty of any woman that
was to be baptised. There was none but women came near or in sight
till she was undressed, and her body in the water; then the priest came,
and putting her head also under water, used the form of baptism.
Then he departed, and the women took her out of the water, and clothed
her again in white garments.
There is an account given by Sozomen 46 of an insult made by the
soldiers in the great church at Constantinople against St Chrysostom
De Baptismo, disp. i. c. vi., vii., viii. ^ H. E., 1. viii. c. xxi.
220 The History of Infant Baptism.
and his adherents, and how on Easter Eve they rushed in armed ; and
he adds, " There was a great tumult at the font, the women shrieking in
a fright, and the children crying : the priests and deacons were beaten,
and forced to run away with their vestments on. What else must needs
happen in such a confusion, they that have been baptised do apprehend,
but I shall not express it, lest some that are not Christians do light upon
my book."
But St Chrysostom himself in a letter of complaint of this matter to
Innocent, then Bishop of Rome, describes the foulness of the outrage
more particularly : " The women who had undressed themselves in
order to be baptised, were forced by the fright of this violence to run
away naked ; not being permitted in that amazement to provide for the
modesty and credit of their sex. And many of them were also wounded,
the font was stained with blood, and the holy waters of it dyed with a
red colour."
§ 4. The way of trine immersion, or plunging the head of the person
three times into the water, was the general practice of all antiquity.
Tertullian, in a dispute against Praxeas, who held but one person in the
Trinity, uses this among other arguments ; 47 our Saviour commanded
the Apostles, "That they should baptise unto the Father, and unto the
Son, and unto the Holy Spirit ; not unto one person, for we are not
plunged once, but three times, once at the naming of each name." And
the fiftieth [alias 42] of those canons that are very ancient, though
without reason called apostolic, orders any bishop or presbyter that does
not use the trine immersion in baptism to be deposed.
The ancients do themselves own that there is no command in
Scripture for this ; yet they speak of it as brought into use by the
Apostles. And it is common with them to urge this custom and some
others, as instances that some rites or orders are derived from the
Apostles' practice, and yet not set down in Scripture. Tertullian,48
arguing against some that pleaded that " in all pretence of tradition one
must produce some written authority," gives an answer which I shall
here recite at large, because he instances in this and several other
customs then received.
" Let us try then, whether no tradition ought to be allowed that is not
written, and I shall freely grant that this need not to be allowed, if the
contrary be not evinced by the examples of several other customs,
which without the authority of any Scripture are approved, only on
the account that they were first delivered, and have ever since
been used.
" Now to begin with baptism. When we come to the water we do
there (and we do the same also, a little before, in the congregation),
under the hand of the pastor, make a profession that we do renounce the
47 Cap. xxvi. « De Corona Militis, c. i., ii., iii.
They Dipped the Head Three Times. 221
devil, and his pomp, and his angels. Then we are three times plunged
into the water, and we answer some few words more than those which
our Saviour in the gospel has enjoined. When we are taken up out of
the water, we taste a mixture of milk and honey. And from that day we
abstain a whole week from bathing ourselves, which otherwise we use
eyery day.
" The sacrament of the Eucharist which our Lord celebrated at meal
time, and ordered all to take, we receive in our assemblies before day,
and never but from the hands of the pastor.
"We give oblations every year for [or in commemoration of] the
dead on the day of their martyrdom. We count it an unfitting thing to
keep any fasts on the Lord's day, or to kneel at our prayers on that day.
The same liberty we take all the time from Easter to Pentecost.
" We are troubled at it, if any of our bread or wine fall to the ground.
At every setting out, or entry on business ; whenever we come in or go
out from any place ; when we dress for a journey ; when we go into a
bath ; when we go to meat ; when the candles are brought in ; when we
lie down, or sit down ; and whatever business we have, we make on our
foreheads the sign of the cross.
" If you search in the Scriptures for any command for these and such
like usages, you shall find none. Tradition will be urged to you as the
ground of them ; custom as the confirmer of them ; and our religion
teaches to observe them."
Of the oblations and prayers which they made for [or in commemora
tion of] the dead ; as I said before in the first part, chap. xx. § 3, that
they were nothing of the nature of the popish ones ; so here it appears :
for they used them for martyrs themselves. And though we see here,
that the papists were not the first that used the sign of the cross ; yet
they are the first that ever taught that it is to be worshipped.
In an epistle of St Hierom in form of a dialogue 49 one of the parties
makes the same use of the same instance of trine immersion as Tertul-
lian does here : saying thus of the custom of confirmation after baptism,
which he there proves by Scripture, but adds : " And if there were no
authority of Scripture for it ; the consent of the whole world in that
matter would obtain the force of a precept. For many other things
which are by tradition observed in the Church, have got authority as if
they were written laws : as, in the font of baptism, ter mergitare caput,
' to plunge the head thrice under water,' " &c. St Basil speaks just after
the same manner of the same thing.50 And St Chrysostom says, " Our
Lord has delivered to us one baptism by three immersions." 51
The Eunomians had the oddest way of baptising that ever was heard
of. For besides that they differed from all other Christians in the words
49 Epist. contra Luciferianos. 50 Lib. De Spiritu Sancto., c. xxvii,
61 Horn, de Fide.
222 The History of Infant Baptism.
used at baptism, one sect of them baptising only in the name of Christ,
as I said ; b2 another sect instead of saying, " In the name of the Father,
and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit," expressed their own impious
opinions in these words : " In the name of the uncreated God, and in
the name of His created Son, and in the name of the sanctifying Spirit
created by the Son who is Himself created."53 Besides this, their manner
of baptising was to plunge the person but once into the water : and that
not all his body neither. For they said : " all the parts of the body
below the waist are abominable, and must not touch the water : " so
they used to uncover the person to the waist ; and then holding his
heels upwards and his head downwards, they dipped him into the font as
far as the waist. They continued this custom till a ridiculous accident
happened : M a heavy and unwieldy man coming to be baptised, they
that were to hold him with his head downwards let him fall, and he
broke his head against the bottom of the font. To prevent which mis
chance for the future, they invented another way. It was much the
same, as was one of the devices with which the Dutch are said to have
tortured the English at Amboyna : only the muffler was larger. They
tied one end of it about his waist, and turning the other open end
upwards, they poured in water till it covered the head of the person.
So it pleases God to suffer heretics to be infatuated that must have
new-fangled ways.
The Catholics, though they judged the trine immersion to have been
in use from the beginning, yet since it is not found to be enjoined by
Christ nor His Apostles, did not count it absolutely necessary to baptism.
For about the year 590, some Spanish bishops sent to Gregory, bishop
of Rome, for his advice. They told him their custom was to put the
head of the baptised but once under the water : but that some Arians
in that country kept up the custom of three immersions : and that they
made a wicked advantage of it, by persuading the people that thereby
was signified that there are three substances in the Trinity, into which
they were separately baptised. Gregory makes them answer;55 that
though the custom of the Church of Rome and other Churches was three
immersions, yet he in that case would advise them to keep to their
present custom : that "in the same faith different usages of the Church do
no hurt : " that " whereas there is in the three persons but one substance,
there could be no blame in dipping the infant either once or thrice.
For that by three immersions the three Persons, or by one, the singu
larity of the substance was represented. That if they should now on a
sudden take up the other custom, the heretics would boast that they
were come over to their side," &c. So the Spaniards kept to the use
" Ch- viii- § 6- w Epiph. h£er. 76.
Theodoret, hoeret. Fab., 1. iv. cap. de Eunomio,
85 Epist. ad Leandrum Reg., 1. i. c. xli.
The Forehead signed ivith the Cross. 223
of one immersion for some time. For forty years after, it is confirmed
in one of their Councils.56 But Walafridus Strabo says,57 that after a
while " the old way prevailed."
The schoolmen among the papists, though they say that either way
may do, yet speak of trine immersion, where immersion is used, as
much the more fitting. And for the Protestants, Vossius says, " What
son of the Church will not willingly hold to that custom which the
ancient Church practised all over the world, except Spain, &c. Besides,
at present the trine immersion is used in all countries : so that the custom
cannot be changed without an affectation of novelty, and scandal given
to the weak." 58 He means all countries where immersion is used.
§ 5. Of the circumstances that anciently attended baptism, some are
mentioned by Tertullian in the place last recited. One is the signing of
the forehead with the sign of the cross. This is spoken of by all the
ancient writers as used by Christians upon all occasions. They that
now-a-days are against the use of it at baptism, do observe that, though
the Fathers do often mention this custom, yet none of them do speak
particularly of its being used at baptism. I gave an instance, I think,
plain enough to the contrary in the first part, ch. xiv. § 5. And, besides,
when they say, as Tertullian here does, that it was used on every occa
sion that was never so little solemn, they, I think, sufficiently intimate
its use at baptism, which is the most solemn act of a Christian's whole
life. Besides that Tertullian, speaking of baptism, says, "Caro signatur
ut anima muniatur."
St Basil mentions this custom of Christians at the same place 59 where
he mentions that of trine immersion. And St Cyprian,60 having occasion
to recite that text, Ezek. ix. 4, 5, where the executioners of God's wrath
are commanded to " Slay all, old and young, maids and little children,
that had not the mark upon their foreheads," applies it to the Christians,
and says, " It signifies that none now can escape, but those only that are
renatiet signo Christi signati : " ' baptised and signed with Christ's mark.'
And he frequently, in other places, speaks of it as a thing used by all
Christians. And Rufinus says,61 it was the custom for every one " at
the end of the creed, frontem signaculo contingere, ' to make the sign on
his forehead,' " and we know that everyone repeated the creed at his
baptism, either by himself or his sponsors, as Rufinus himself, in his
Explication of the Creed, mentions, and calls it "the ancient custom."
It was a noble thing that they designed by this badge of the cross. It
was to declare that they would not be ashamed of the cross of Christ ;
never be abashed at the flouts of the heathens, who objected to them
that the person in whom they trusted as their God, had been executed
56 Cone. Tolet. iv. can. v. 57 De increment, Eccl. c. xxvi.
58 De Baptismo, disp. ii. thes. iv. 69 De Spiritu Sancto, c. xxvii.
"° Ad Demetr. prope finem. 61 Apol. J. statim ab initio.
224 The History of Infant Baptism.
for a malefactor : never be scandalised if it came to be their fortune to
suffer it themselves. On the contrary, they voluntarily owned it as their
share and allotment in this world. This was according to our Saviour's
rule, " to deny themselves, take up their cross, and follow Him." He
that does this with a firm resolution is the man that has overcome this
world.
§ 6. Another custom that Tertullian instances in, is the giving to the
new baptised person a mixture of milk and honey. There is none of
the ceremonial circumstances that accompanied baptism of which so
early mention is made as there is of this, if Barnabas's epistle be so
ancient as learned men do think. For as Tertullian, one hundred years
after the Apostles, here speaks of it as a thing generally and constantly
used, so it is also plainly intimated in that epistle ; which, because the
interpreters of it have not minded, nor have taken any notice that the
place does at all refer to baptism, I shall recite it something at large,
and it will appear that this custom used at the Christian baptism gives
some light to it, which otherwise seems to have none at all.
He had been showing that many sayings of the Old Testament do in
an allegorical way refer to the Church of Christians that was to be. He
instances for one in that description given by Moses of the Promised
Land, where he calls it, ".A land flowing with milk and honey." To
explain how this belongs to the Christian, he says, cap. vi.|: Eve! </5x
avaxaivlffag %{&&$ sv rfj apeaei ruv apaprtuv, iwoJqffev, r^ag aXXov TVVOV ug
Katd/ov t%tiv rqv •vj/u^jji', ug av xai' avairXaaaoftsvoug [1. avaw'XaaaofAsvog]
ai/rog fiftag, &c. "Since God, having at the forgiveness of our sins
[i.e., at baptism] renewed us, has caused us to have our hearts in another
form as the heart of a child, just as if He had formed us anew, &c.
Therefore, the prophets thus foretold it : { Enter into the land flowing
with milk and honey, and rule in it.'" Idoi) ovv fiftiTg avavevXaoftsda,
&c. " Behold, then, we are formed anew ; as also He speaks by another
prophet, ' Behold,' says the Lord, ' I will take from them,' that is, from
those whom the Spirit of the Lord foresaw, ' their hearts of stone, and I
will put into them hearts of flesh.' Wherefore we are they whom He
has brought into that good land. But what means the milk and honey ?
Because, as a child is nourished first with milk, and then with honey, so
we being kept alive with the belief of His promises, and the word of His
Gospel, shall live," &c. To the same purpose he speaks of baptism as a
new formation, ch. xvi.
The coherence which he seems to mean is this. The Christian bap
tism does put us into a new state, by God's forgiving us all that is past,
and giving us new hearts, we are in the state of children new born.
Milk and honey (which are, therefore, given after baptism) being food
proper for children, and being the things by which Moses did charac
terise the Promised Land ; that character of it does typify the true Land
White Garment, Oil, Chrism. 22$
of Promise, to the enjoyment whereof the Christians are now by baptism
called.
The custom of giving milk and honey to the new baptised person,
whether he were a grown man or an infant, continued down to St
Hierom's time, for he mentions it.62 And how much longer I know not,
for I remember no later mention of it. It has, however, for a long time
been forborne. It is natural to suppose that this being only an emblem
to signify that the new baptised person is as a new-born babe, was left
off at such time when, the world being come into the Church, there were
hardly any more baptisms but of babes in a proper sense, who needed
no such representation to signify their infancy.
It was in those first times of general use among the heretics, as well
as Catholics. For Tertullian, objecting to Marcion,63 that his Christ,
how much soever he undervalued the God that made the world, yet was
forced to make use of His creatures even in his religious offices, says,
" He does not for all that reject the water of the Creator, with which
he washes his disciples : nor His oil, with which he anoints them :
nee mellis et lactis societatem, qua infantat, ' nor the mixture of milk and
honey, with which he enters them as infants;' nor His bread, &c.,
being forced in his own sacraments to make use of the beggarly gifts of
the Creator."
§ 7. The white garment, in whjch the new-baptised persons were
clothed, is not mentioned, that I know of, by any of the earliest writers.
Cyril Q* mentions it, and in the after-times there is much said about it.
By it they signified that they were now washed from their sins in the
blood of the Lamb ; had put on Christ ; were become children of the
light and of the day ; and resolved to keep themselves unspotted from
the world. They wore this for a week, and then it was laid up as an
evidence against them if they ever revolted from that holy faith and pro
fession. This was used in the case of infants as well as of grown persons.
I gave an instance before.65
§ 8. There were in some Churches two anointings used at baptisms.
One, of the naked body with oil just before the immersion. Of this St
Cyril speaks, Catech. Mystag. z • and the author of Qucest. d Gentibus
proposit., qu. 137 ; and St Chrysost. Horn. 6 in Epist. ad Coloss.
The other, which was universally used, and is mentioned by the more
ancient writers, was after the baptism, with a rich ointment or chrism.
I observed before 66 that the first mention we have of this chrism was
the use of it by the Valentinian heretics, who, as Irenseus tells us,
" anointed the baptised person with balsam, and said, this ointment is a
type of that sweetness which surpasses all things." 67 But though this
be something more ancient than any mention of it as used among the
62 Adv. Luciferianos. 63 Cont. Marcion, 1. i. c. xiv. 64 Catech. Mystagog. 4.
65 Pt. I. ch. xviii. § r. « Ch. v. § i. 67 L. iii. c. ii.
II. H
226 The History of Infant Baptism,
Catholics, yet it is plain that it was also used by them generally about
the same time, because authors a little after this do speak of it as an un
questioned custom. Tertullian recites it thus : " Then when we come
out of the water, we are anointed with a blessed [or consecrated] oint
ment, according to that ancient rite by which men used to be anointed
for the priest's office, with oil out of a horn, ever since the time that
Aaron was anointed by Moses ; so that Christ Himself has His name
from chrism [or unction] ; " and a little after, " Then we have the impo
sition of hands on us, which calls down and invites the Holy Spirit," £
And St Cyprian thus : " The baptised person must be anointed also,
that by having the chrism, that is, the anointing, he may be the anointed
of God." 69 And in the Council of Laodicea the forty-eighth canon is,
" Baptised persons must, after their baptism, receive the holy anointing,"
&c. In a word, there is nothing more frequently mentioned in antiquity
than this anointing and laying on of the hands of the bishop, in order to
implore the graces of the Holy Spirit on the baptised. And yet St
Hierom, when he is in one of his moods says, " We find this done in
many places, more for the credit of the episcopal office than for any
necessity of the precept."70
The parts of the body that were anointed were not in all Churches the
same. In the Church of Jerusalem it was the forehead (which was ever
in all Churches one of the places) and the ears, the nostrils, and the
breast, as appears by the third of St Cyril's Mystical Catechisms.
The chrism was used presently after the baptism ; and so was the
laying on of hands, if the person were adult and the baptiser were a
bishop. But if the person were an infant, the laying on of hands was
deferred till he were of age with his own mouth to ratify the profession
made at baptism. And though the person were adult, yet if it was only
a deacon or a presbyter that baptised him, the laying on of hands was
ordinarily reserved for the bishop to do ; according to that example of
the Church of Jerusalem, who, having heard that many people at
Samaria had been converted and baptised by Philip, who was but a
deacon, " sent unto them Peter and John. Then they laid their hands
on them : and they received the Holy Ghost." n
The Council of Eliberis do order,72 that if a layman or a deacon have
in time of necessity given baptism, the person, if he live, must be brought
to the bishop for imposition of hands. But they seem to suppose that
if the baptism was given by a presbyter, he, in such case of necessity,
might give the imposition too, rather than the party die without it.
It was the custom of the Church of Rome, that if the baptiser were
under the degree of a bishop, he should anoint the other parts aforemen
tioned, but not the forehead ; and the anointing of that was reserved for
68 De Bapt., c. vii. 69 Epist. 70, ad Januar. 70 Adv. Luciferianos.
Actsviii. 14, 15, &c. 72 Can>
The Imposition of Hands. 227
the bishop to do, when he laid on hands, as I quoted before 73 out of
Pope Innocent. But the first Council of Orange allows of but one
anointing of the baptised, and that to be used presently after the bap
tism. " But if anyone," say they, " by reason of any accident, was not
anointed at his baptism, then the bishop shall be advised of it when he
comes to confirm him. For we have but one benediction of chrism.
Not pretending to set a rule to any, but that the anointing may be
esteemed necessary." 74
And in the Church of Rome, though the ordinary rule were that none
but the bishop should give the chrism on the forehead, as I said, yet in
case of scarcity of bishops, or of their negligence in performing their
visitations to do this, it was allowed to presbyters to do it. For Gregory
the Great, in the ninth epistle of his third book, says that " presbyters
may anoint the breast, but none but the bishop the forehead." But in
Epist. 26, he revokes this order in the case of want of bishops, and in
such a case allows the presbyters to anoint the forehead too. And long
before his time, the same liberty had been given to presbyters, in the
absence of the bishop, not else, in the first Council of Toledo.75
Novatian, it seems, as he was not baptised in the ordinary way, but
in his bed (which was one objection against his being made a bishop),
so also he never had had this anointing and imposition of hands ; upon
which Cornelius founds this other objection against him : " Neither
was he, after he recovered, made partaker of those other things which a
Christian ought by the rule of the Church to have, i.e., to be confirmed
[or sealed, <s<ppayt<s6rivai] by the bishop, which he not having, how was he
made partaker of the Holy Spirit ? " 76
If anyone had been baptised in a schismatical congregation, and after
wards desired to be admitted among the Catholics, he was by the rule
of some Churches to be baptised anew ; but in the Church of Rome
(whose example finally prevailed) he was not baptised anew (provided
those from whom he came believed the Trinity, and baptised into it),
but he had a new imposition of hands and anointing. For they would
never yield that the prayers of schismatics could procure the grace of
the Holy Spirit.
Of these two things, the chrism or anointing is not commanded in
Scripture ; yet it is still practised by all the Christians of the East and
West, except the Protestants. But the laying on of hands is plainly
mentioned in the Scripture, Acts viii. 17, Heb. vi. 2, and is yet continued
by all Christians, except some very absurd people. It is enjoined in
the Church of England, with an excellent office drawn up on purpose
for it. But I think there is never a divine of that Church that has not
expressed his grief, that it is not more frequently offered, and more
7» Pt. I. ch. xvii. § 6. ™ Can. i.
7* Can. xx. 76 Euseb., 1. vi. c. xlv.
H 2
228 The History of Infant Baptism.
seriously and solemnly accepted and used. I hope so much of what
St Hierom says in the place I last quoted from him is true : " That it
is not necessary to salvation, for else," as he there says, " they are in a
lamentable condition who, in villages and remote places being baptised
by presbyters or deacons, do die before the bishop's visitation."
These were the most ancient rites relating to baptism. Many that
came up in after-times, and are now used in the Church of Rome, are
not worth the reciting ; and it would be tedious to do it.
It is to be noted here that some learned men, who are skilled in the
customs of the Jews, do assure us that those three ceremonies of anoint
ing the body at baptism, and of the trine immersion, and of the milk
and honey, were all used by the Jews in their baptising of a proselyte,
whether infant or adult (as well as the requiring undertakers in the case
of infants). And this is indeed the most probable account of the way
from whence it was that the first Christians had these customs, of which
there is no mention in the writings of the New Testament, viz., that they
used them by imitation of the Jewish baptism, which does still more
confirm (what I discoursed of in the Introduction) that they reckoned
their baptism to succeed (with some alterations) in the room of the Jewish
baptism of proselytes of the nations.
§ 9. But the most material thing by far that was done at baptism was
the professions ; the sincerity whereof is more to be regarded than the
external baptism itself, as St Peter testifies i Ep. iii. 21. They were
constantly and universally required, in the case of grown persons, to be
made with their own mouth in the most serious manner ; and in the case
of infants, by their sponsors in their name. That a man may justly
wonder at the spirit of contradiction in those people that pretend bap
tism does better without them, and do practise accordingly ; as if they
had authority to entitle persons to the Kingdom of God, whether they
do, when they come to age, keep the commandments or not.
These professions were of two sorts, relating to the two general duties
of a Christian : i. Renouncing of wickedness ; and 2. Faith, with
obedience to God. Everyone that would be entered into the holy
covenant of Christianity must promise to renounce the idolatry and false
worship then used in the world, and all other wickedness. The Scripture
phrase is, " Repent and be baptised." Pliny's letter to Trajan 78 concern
ing the Christians, is, that all the ill that he (by examining some that
had been of their sect and were come off from it) could find in them,
was : "That they would not sacrifice to the gods, that they kept
assemblies before day in which they sang hymns of praise to Christ as
their God, and bound themselves (not to any ill thing that he could
hear of, but) in a sacrament " — that is Pliny's word ; it signified with
them an oath, or solemn obligation — " not to be guilty of any theft,
77 Adv. Luciferianos. 78 Lib. ii. Epist xcvii.
Renunciations used at Baptism — Exorcising. 229
robbery, adultery, cheating, treachery," &c. It was probably the obliga
tion entered into at baptism to which he refers, as having heard some
general reports of their usage in that matter. Justin Martyr in the
passage which I recited in the first part, ch. xi. § 3, speaking of such
as they admitted into their society, describes them thus : " They who
are persuaded and do believe that those things which are taught by us
are true, and do promise to live according to them," &c.
The particular words in which this profession was made, were, by
the account of the eldest authors that mention them, much the same
as are used now : only shorter, and with some little variety in the several
Churches. Tertullian in the place lately quoted 7g recites them thus :
" We do renounce the devil, and his pomp, and his angels." And he
has the said words without any alteration in his book De Spectac., c. iv.
And in the book De Idololatria, though at c. vi. he mentions only " the
devil and his angels," yet at c. xviii. he adds : " since you have abjured
the pomp of the devil," &c. So that it is probable those were the very
words of the form of renunciation in the Church of Carthage at that
time. Origen brings in 80 the devil triumphing over a wicked Christian :
" Lo ! this man was called a Christian, and was signed on the forehead
with Christ's mark : but he had in his heart my precepts and designs.
This is the man that at his baptism renounced me and my works ;
but afterwards engaged himself in all my works, and obeyed my laws."
But Horn. xii. in Num., he names them thus: "his pomp, his works,
his services, and pleasures."
In the Church of Jerusalem, the form, as we read in St Cyril,81 was :
" I renounce thee, oh Satan, and all thy works, all thy pomp, and all
thy service." And he explains the " works of the devil " thus : " Under
the name of the devil's works is comprehended all sin." And he bids
them mind, that " what they say at that solemn time, is written down
in God's book ; so that what they shall practise afterwards to the con
trary, will bring them under the judgment of deserters." St Chrysostom
gives us the form of the Church of Antioch to the same purpose : " I
renounce thee, oh Satan, and thy pomp, and thy service, and thy
angels." 82
St Cyprian in the passage that I recited out of him in the first part,
ch. vi. § n, styles it "renouncing the devil and the world;" and he
mentions it in the same words, Lib. de bono patienticz, § 7.
When it was an infant that was baptised, these professions were
made in his name and stead by his parents, or others that stood as
sponsors or godfathers for him, as appears by the words of Tertullian
which I recited, Pt. I. ch. iv. § 9, where he objects that " the godfathers
are by this means brought into danger : because they may either fail of
79 De Corona Militis, c. ii. 80 In Psalm xxxviii., Horn. ii.
81 C. i. Myst. i. 8- In Ep. ad Coloss., Horn. vi.
230 The History of Infant Baptism.
their promises by death, or be deceived by a child's proving wicked "
—mistaking the design of the thing so far, as to think that the godfather
stands to the peril of that. And among other Fathers that lived a
little after, the mention of the godfathers and of the answers made by
them in the name of the infant is so frequent, and I have cited so many
passages where it is occasionally mentioned, that there is no need of
more. Only in some of them it may be observed that there were, as I
said, in several Churches several variations of the words of this renun
ciation. St Austin, 1. i. De Pecc. Mer., c. xix., says : " that infants do
profess repentance by the words of those that bring them, when they
do by them renounce the devil and this world." And Epist. 23, he
says; it was asked among other things: "Does this child" turn to
God?
The requiring these obligations of the baptised person, was called
the exorcising him, or putting him to his oath. Which being become
the common word, it was so called also in the case of infants. St
Austin pleads against the Pelagians, that " it is in a real meaning, and
not in a mockery, that the power of the devil is exorcised [or abjured]
in infants, and they do renounce it by the mouths of those that bring
them, not being capable of doing it by their own ; that being delivered
from the power of darkness they may be translated into the Kingdom of
their Lord."™
In the later times of the Church of Rome, this exorcising has been
accompanied with so many odd tricks of their invention, that the word
now sounds ill in the ears of Protestants ; and they take the name
exorcist to signify something like that of conjurer in the vulgar accepta
tion. But as both these words in their original signification do import
no more than the requiring of an oath or solemn promise ; so the use
of exorcising formerly was no more than I have described, and the
Protestants do practise ; save that they observed some peculiar gestures,
postures, and actions in the time of doing it, which are not worth the
particular naming.
§ 10. They were bound also to profess the Christian FAITH. The
words in which this was done in every particular Church, were the
same which that Church used for a form of the Christian creed. The
form of the creed was not in all Churches the same in words, but in
substance it was. It is great pity that there is not left any copy of
any very ancient creed. We know both by the Scripture, and by their
earliest writings, what was the substance of their faith ; but we should
be glad to have the very form of words which was used in the offices of
each Church, and according to which they put the interrogatories to
the competents at baptism. We have some clauses of these left, but
no entire form of a creed, till that which was agreed on at the first
88 De Nuptiis, 1. i. c. xx.
Substance of: the Ancient Creeds, &c. 231
general meeting of Christians from all parts of the world, at Nice, A.D.
325. This is the eldest copy of any public creed that is extant.
In the oldest books of all that we have of the Fathers, it is as it is in
the books of Scripture : the articles of our faith are found scattered up
and down, but not collected into any one short draught or summary.
There is nothing more probable than the opinion of those learned men,
who judge that at first there was no other creed necessary for the baptised
to repeat, than that which is collected from our Saviour's own words,
Matt, xxviii. 19, viz., that they should say: "I believe in the Father,
and in the Son, and in the Holy Spirit." But the heresies that arose
did not suffer the Church offices to continue in that simplicity and
brevity.
I think there is nothing more edifying to a Christian than to perceive
that the substance of the faith once for all delivered to the Saints has con
tinued the same in the Catholic Church from the Scripture times till
now. Therefore I will take the pains to set down some of the most
remarkable places out of such Christian writers as are elder than any
copies of creeds now extant, which do in short contain the sum of their
belief, and agreeable to which their creed proposed to the catechumens
must have been.
Justin Martyr apologises for the Christians, that they were not atheists
(as they were by some traduced to be), for though they did not go to
the temples, nor worship the gods ; " Yet," says he, " the true God
and Father of righteousness, &c., and His Son, that came forth from
Him, and has taught us and the angels, &c., these things ; and the
prophetic spirit we do worship and adore." 84 And having said (in the
passage of the same apology which I quoted in the first part, ch. xi. §
3, about the Christians' manner of baptism) that they were baptised in
the name of these three ; he adds this farther explication : " There is
named over the person [or, by the person] that has a mind to be regen
erated, the name of the Father, God and Lord of all." Then after
a little digression of the reason why the Christians do not affix any
name to their God, as it was customary for the heathens, as Jupiter,
Bacchus, &c. ; he goes on : " And also the enlightened person [or,
baptised person] is washed in the name of Jesus Christ, that was cruci
fied under Pontius Pilate; and in the name of the Holy Spirit, who by
the prophets foretold the things concerning Jesus."
Irenseus, having to do with the Valentinians, who taught that there
was another God above the Creator of the world, and when they were
confuted by Scripture, appealed to some secret traditions, says : " It is
easy for anyone to know the tradition of the Apostles declared in all the
world ; and we are able to reckon up those who were by the Apostles
ordained bishops in the Churches, and their successors to this time, who
84 Apol. ii.
232 TJie History of Infant Baptism.
never taught any such thing." 85 Then he recites the succession of some
Churches from the Apostles Peter, Paul, John, &c., and says : " Suppose
the Apostles had left us no writings, ought we not to follow the order of
that tradition which they delivered to those to whom they committed
the Churches ? " And to that purpose he instances in many Christians
in the barbarous nations that had ng writings, and yet had the true faith
by tradition, "that is," says he,
" Believing in one God, who made heaven and earth, and all things
in them by Jesus Christ, the Son of God ; who, out of highest love to
His creatures, vouchsafed to be born of a Virgin, uniting in Himself [or,
in His own Person] Man to GOD, and suffered under Pontius Pilate,
and rose again, and was received up in great glory, and will come a
Saviour of those that are saved, and a Judge of those that are judged ;
and will send into eternal fire all that deprave His truth, and despise
His Father, and His coming."
Also on much the like occasion at another place,86 having given a
long account how strange things some heretics held ; he says : " Anyone
that does but keep in his mind unaltered that rule of faith into which
he was baptised," will easily perceive their falsehood : and then a little
after gives the account of the Catholic faith ; thus :
" For the Church that is extended over all the world to the ends of
the earth, having received from the Apostles and their disciples the faith,
which is —
" In one God the Father Almighty, that made heaven and earth, and
the sea, and all things in them : and in one Jesus Christ, the Son of
God, who was for our salvation incarnated : and in the Holy Spirit, who
foretold by the prophets the dispensations of God, and the coming, the
birth from a Virgin, the suffering, the resurrection from the dead, and
the bodily ascension into heaven of Jesus Christ our beloved Lord :
and His coming from heaven in the glory of the Father to restore all
things, and to raise again all the bodies of mankind : that to Jesus
Christ, our Lord and GOD, and Saviour, and King, every knee may, ac
cording to the good pleasure of the invisible Father, bow ; both of
things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth : and
every tongue may confess to Him : and He may pass a righteous sen
tence on all : and may send the spiritual wickednesses, and the angels
that sinned and apostatised, and all ungodly and unrighteous and unjust
men and blasphemers, into everlasting fire : and give life to the righteous
and holy, and to such as have kept His commandments, and have con
tinued in His love (some from the beginning, and some by repentance),
and may bestow upon them immortality and eternal glory."
This faith, he says, the Church having received, keeps, as if they had
all one heart and one soul ; and that neither the Churches in Germany,
85 Lib. iii. c. iii., iv. 86 j^. j. c. i. and ii.
Substance of the A ncient Creeds, 233
nor those in Spain, or in France, or in the East, or in Egypt, or in
Africa, or under the middle of the world, had any other belief; and that
a learned preacher would deliver no more than this : nor an ignorant
layman any less.
Tertullian, writing against Praxeas (who, not being able to believe
three persons in one numerical essence, taught that Father, Son, and
Holy Spirit are but one Person ; and consequently, that the Father
was incarnated, and was that Jesus Christ that died), opposes to
him the faith of the Church as it had always been held, thus : —
" We believe that there is but one God ; but yet with this dispensa
tion or economy, that this one God has His Son, His WORD coming
forth from Him ; by whom all things were made, and without Him was
not anything made. That He was by the Father sent into the Virgin,
and of her born, man and GOD, Son of man and Son of God, and
named Jesus the Christ. That this is He that suffered, died, and was
buried according to the Scriptures, and raised again by the Father,
and taken up into heaven, and sits at the right hand of the Father, and
will come to judge the living and the dead. Who sent from thence,
according to His promise, from the Father, the Holy Spirit, the
Comforter, the Sanctifier of the faith of those that believe in the Father,
the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
" This rule has been derived down from the beginning of the Gospel,
before even the eldest of the heretics, much more before Praxeas, who
is but of yesterday."87
And then, reciting the objection of Praxeas, viz., that the unity of
God can no otherwise be maintained but by holding Father, Son, and
Holy Spirit to be one Person ; he answers :
" As if they were not in our sense all one, inasmuch as all are of one,
that is, as to unity of the substance ; and yet the mystery of the economy
may be preserved, which dispenses the Unity into a Trinity, ranking
three, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Tres, non statu sed gradu ; nee
substantia sed forma ; nee potestate sed specie. ' Three, not in condi
tion, but in order [or rank] ; not in substance, but in form [or mode] ',
and not in power, but in species [which word I know not how to trans
late, being on so awful a subject]; but in one substance, and of one
condition, and of one power.' Because they are but one God, out of
whom those ranks, forms, and species are reckoned under the names
of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit."
The same author in another book,88 writing against heretics in
general, gives in opposition to all of them, this summary of the
Christian faith : —
"That we declare what we hold, the rule of faith is, to believe that
there is but one God, and no other but the Maker of the world, who-
87 G. 2. 88 De Preescriptionibus, c. xiii.
234 I'h* History of Infant Baptism.
created all things out of nothing by His WORD first of all sent forth ;
that that WORD, being called His 5cm, was Jn divers manners seen by
the patriarchs under the name of God, was in the prophets always
heard, and at last being by the Spirit and power of God brought into
the Virgin Mary, and made flesh in her womb, and born of her, was
Jesus the Christ; and that then He preached the new law and new
promise of the Kingdom of Heaven, did miracles, was crucified, rose
again the third day, was carried into heaven, sat down at the right
hand of God, sent in His stead the power of the Holy Spirit to lead
them that believe, that He will come in glory to receive the saints into
the enjoyment of eternal life and the heavenly promises, and to adjudge
the profane to eternal fire, having first raised both from the dead, and
restored to them their flesh."
A shorter abstract yet, drawn by the same man upon another occasion,
is this : —
" The rule of faith is but one, altogether unalterable, and not to be
mended. That is, of believing in one God Almighty, Maker of the
world, and in His Son Jesus Christ, born of the Virgin Mary, crucified
under Pontius Pilate, who arose the third day from the dead, was
taken up into heaven, sits now at the right hand of the Father, will
come to judge the living and the dead, by raising the flesh itself
to life again." 89
Origen, being to write a book of the Principles of Religion, makes a
preface 90 to this purpose : that because of the many heretical opinions,
it was necessary to set down that which is " the certain line and mani
fest rule, and by it to inquire of the rest." This he calls " the eccle
siastical doctrine delivered down from the Apostles in the order of
succession, and continuing still in the Church." And whereas some
men that had better gifts than ordinary, might study and know some
other things also ; that this was " delivered by the Apostles for the use
of all, even the dullest Christians." And he says, " It is this :
" First. That there is one God, who has made and ordered all things,
creating them out of nothing, the God of all holy men from the creation,
of Adam, Moses, &c.
" That this God, who is both just and merciful, the Father of our
Lord Jesus Christ, gave both the law and the prophets, and also the
Gospel ; the same being the God both of the Old and New Testament.
"That Jesus Christ, who came, was begotten of the Father before all
the creation ; that He ministered to [or acted under] the Father in the
creation of all things ; for by Him all things were made. That He in
the last days humbled Himself to be made man ; He was made flesh
when He was God, and continued to be man while He was God. He
took a body like unto ours, differing only in this, that it was by the
89 Ce Velnndis Virginibus, c. i. " irepl dpx&v. Prscfat.
Substance of the Ancient Creeds. 235
Holy Spirit born of a virgin. And that this Jesus the Christ was born
and suffered truly, not in appearance only, but died truly the common
death ; and did truly rise from the dead, and after His resurrection
conversed with His disciples, and was taken up.
" Then they have also delivered, that the Holy Spirit is joined with
the Father and the Son in honour and dignity."
It may be here observed, by-the-by, first, how Origen explains that
phrase of St Paul, Phil. ii. 7, " Bring in the form of God," &c., IKSVUSSV
tavrbv, &c. " He, in the last days, seipsum exinaniens homo factus est,
' humbled [or emptied] Himself to be made man.' " He does not interpret
it, that when He was a human soul or angel in heaven, He humbled
Himself to take an earthly body. Secondly. How Rufinus, according
to Origen's sense, translates ^wroroxos Taffjjg xriatug, Col. 15. He does
not say, " The first-born of every creature." Much less does he say,
"The first of God's creation." But "Ante omnem creaturam natus ex
Patre," ' Born [or begotten] of the Father before all the creation.'
These are some of the most ancient passages, wherein the authors
undertake to give an account in few words of the faith into which
Christians were baptised. They do not say that these were the very
forms of the creeds by which the interrogatories were put ; but they
must have been to this purpose. And whereas Tertullian says in the
place I quoted before, that the custom was for the baptised person "to
answer some few words more than those which our Saviour in the gospel
has enjoined," we may partly see here what they were. For whereas
our Saviour had enjoined only those words of believing "in the Father,
the Son, and the Holy Spirit ; " and whereas some heretics in those
first ages, though keeping those words, yet had introduced monstrous
opinions : some, of the Father, that He was not the God of the Old
Testament, but another ; and some, of the Son, that He was not really
a man, nor did really die, as some taught ; or that He was not really
God, as others — the Church did examine the candidates, not only
whether they believed " in the Father," but whether they believed Him
to be " the Maker of heaven and earth ; " and not only whether they
believed " in the Son," but whether they believed His divinity, incarna
tion, death, resurrection, &c. On these occasions it was that the ordinary
forms of the creed were augmented by some words added for explica
tion sake. And these were not in every Church the same words ; but
each Church added such words as were necessary to obviate the heresies
that arose in their country, and were in any particular contrary to the
fundamentals of the faith.
And besides such explications concerning each person of the Holy
Trinity, they added also some other necessary articles of Christian faith
to the creed which the baptised person must make profession of. So
we see in these passages (beside the doctrine of the Trinity)^" the re-
236 The History of Infant Baptism.
surrection of the dead," and the " future judgment," and " eternal life "
plainly delivered. And more positively than any of the rest, the Article
of the Church is by Tertullian mentioned, as recited at baptism, in his
book on that subject : 91 where having said that " our faith is sealed
[i.e., we are baptised] in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit," he adds,
" And when the testimony of our faith, and promise of our salvation, are
assured by these Three, there is necessarily added a mention of the
Church. For where the Three, that is, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, are,
there is the Church, which is the body of the Three." And also the
same man in another treatise 92 mentioning occasionally the Church,
calls it " Sanctam Ecclesiam, in quam repromisimus," ' The holy Church ;
the belief [or owning] whereof we have vowed.' So that it is plain this
Article of " the Church " was in some of the most ancient creeds. The
meaning of the profession of this Article which they had was, " I own
the Catholic Church," i.e., I am of no sect or schism ; but do adhere to
the communion and unity of the body. In explication of which sense
were afterwards added these words, " the Communion of saints," that is
of Christians. This was their meaning of it ; and they would baptise
nobody without it In what sense the sectaries that do renounce this
communion, and yet still say those words with their mouth, do take
them, I cannot imagine. As for baptism, I think they do, many of them,
administer it without any creed at all.
About fifty years after the time of Tertullian, we have in St Cyprian
the form in which the baptised were interrogated in his time concerning
those other Articles that followed the Confession of the Trinity, or at
least a part of it.
In his sixty-ninth Epistle,93 disputing against such as would have
baptism given by the Novatian schismatics to be good baptism, he
says :
"If anyone object, and say that Novatian holds the same rule as the
Catholic Church does, and baptises by the same creed that we do ; that
he owns the same God, the Father ; the same Son, Christ ; the same
Holy Spirit ; and, therefore, that he may baptise, since he seems not to
differ from us in the interrogatories of baptism. Let him that objects
this know : First, that the schismatics have not the same rule of the
Creed with us, nor the same interrogation. For when they say, ' Dost
thou believe the forgiveness of sins, and the life everlasting by the holy
Church ?' they express a lie in their interrogation, since they have not
[or own not] the Church."
And in his next Epistle, to the. same purpose, "When we say, ' Dost
thou believe the life everlasting and the forgiveness of sins by the holy
Church [or by the means used in the holy Church] ? ' " &c.
91 Lib. de Baptismo, c. vi. & Lib. v., Contra Marcion, c. iv.
93 Juxta Edit. Oxon.
The Nicene Creed — Eusebius's Creed. 237
§ ii. From these traces we may perceive what was the substance of
the most ancient creeds in the several Churches. But we come now
nigh those times, since which there are entire copies of the public
creeds remaining. The eldest of which is, as I said, that which was at
the Council of Nice agreed on, as a form to be owned by all Churches.
It was this :
" We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things
visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God,
begotten of the Father ; His only begotten — that is, of the substance [or
essence] of the Father : God of God : Light of Light : very God of very
God : begotten, not made : being co-essential [or, of one substance]
with the Father, by whom all things were made, both things in heaven,
and things in earth. Who, for us men, and for our salvation, came
down and was incarnate, and made man. He suffered and rose again
the third day. He went into heaven, He will come to judge the living
and the dead.
" And in the Holy Spirit.
" And those that say that there ever was a time when He [Christ] was
not ; or, that before He was begotten, He was not ; or, that He was
made out of nothing ; or do say, that the Son of God is of any other
substance or essence; or, that He was created; or is changeable or
alterable : such men the Catholic and Apostolic Church of God does
renounce [or anathematise]." 94
When the Council of Constantinople, which was in the year 382,
asserts this creed to be the most ancient (as they do in a synodical
epistle 95 written to the Church of Rome), they mean it is the most ancient
of any that had been established at any general meeting. But the several
Churches must have had forms for the use of baptism before.
But yet the creeds used before in the several Churches must have been
much to the same purpose, only in this there are some expressions
added particularly against the heresy of Arius. Eusebius's Creed, which
he drew up and offered to the Council of Nice, as the faith which he
says, " He had received from the bishops before him, and at his
catechising, and when he was baptised, and which he had held and
taught both while he was a presbyter, and since he had been a bishop,
differed but little" 96 He says, " The Council accepted of his words,
making some additions." The form which he had offered was this :
" We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things
visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the WORD of God,
God of God, Light of Light, Life of Life, the only begotten Son, born
before every creature, begotten of God the Father before all worlds; by
whom all things were made," &c.
94 Eusebii Epist. apud Socrat. , lib. i. c. viii.
95 Theodoret, H. E., lib. v. c. ix. " Epist. apud Socrat., 1. i. c. viii.
238 The History of Infant Baptism.
This, some learned men °7 do think, was the very form of the creed
that had been used time out of mind at Caesarea. If so, then this is
the oldest copy extant of any public creed. But I think Eusebius's
words do lead one to conceive that this was the substance, but the
words his own, because he says, " They accepted of my words with some
additions."
At the time when Arius first moved his controversy, Alexander, the
bishop of the place, opposed to his novelty, that the steady faith of
Christians is, and always was, thus :
" We believe in one unbegotten Father, who has no cause at all of His
essence, &c. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of
God : begotten, not out of nothing, but of the Father. We believe
Him, as well as the Father, to be unchangeable and unalterable, &c.
And to differ nothing from the Father, but only that the Father is
unbegotten, &c. That the Son does ever exist from the Father.
He took a body, not in show only, but a real one, of the Holy Virgin.
In the end of the world He came among men to expiate their sins ; He
was crucified and died without any diminution of His divinity; He
arose from the dead ; He ascended into heaven, and sits at the right
hand of the Majesty of God."
" Also one Holy Spirit, which inspired both the holy men of the Old
Testament, and the divine teachers of the New."
"Moreover one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, and the
resurrection of the dead." 98
This, it seems, was the substance of what the Christians of Alexandria
had ever held, but this could not be the very form ; because it is (with
the clauses that I have left out) too long for the use of baptism.
Arius's own creed given in to the emperor, was this :
" We believe in one God, the Father Almighty. And in the Lord
Jesus Christ, his Son; begotten of Him before all worlds; God the
WORD, by whom all things were made, both things in heaven, and
things on earth. He came down, and was incarnated : He suffered and
rose again, and ascended into heaven, and will come again to judge the
living and the dead. And in the Holy Spirit, and in the resurrection
of the flesh, and the life of the world to come, and the Kingdom of
Heaven, and one Catholic Church of God from one end of the world
to the other." 9
And he subjoins, that since he had this faith, he entreated that he
might by the emperor's means be admitted to the unity of the Church,
all questions and needless disputes being laid aside. But he conceals
here his worst opinions, viz., that there was a time when God the Son
was not, and that He was made out of nothing, &c., and was not very
or true God.
97 Dr Cave, Epis. Apologetica. w Theodoret, H. E,, 1. i. c. iv.
89 Socrat., II. E., 1. i. c. xxvi.
The Creeds of Arians. 239
Twelve years after the Council of Nice, Constantine dying, there
succeeded in the East for forty years together, except very short intervals,
emperors that were Arians. During which time the Arians, bearing the
greatest sway in those parts, set up a great many new forms of creeds.
Some of them in words tolerably well agreeing with the Catholic sense,
Others very disagreeable. But the general answer that the Christians of
the West (which were free from the Arian persecution) and the Catholic
party in the East, gave, when any of these were proposed to them for
their assent, was : " that the Nicene Creed was enough, and they
would not entertain any new ones." I will give for a specimen, one of
the best, and one of the worst of them.
i. The Council of Arians met at Antioch, A.D. 341, agreed upon this
creed :
" To believe in one God of all, the Creator of all things, visible and
invisible. And in one only begotten Son of God, who before all
worlds [or ages] subsisted and was, together with the Father that
begot Him : by whom all things, bdth visible and invisible, were made.
He, in the last days, came down by the good will of the Father,
and took flesh of the Holy Virgin : and having fulfilled all the Father's
counsel, suffered : and was raised again : and went back to heaven, and
sits at the right hand of the Father : and will come to judge the living
and the dead : and continues to be King and God for ever. We believe
also in the Holy Spirit. And if we need say any more, we believe the
resurrection of the flesh, and the life everlasting." 10°
And three years after, when the heresy of Photinus had in the mean
time burst out, meeting there again, they (to give as good satisfaction as
they could to the Western bishops) declared their sense of that heresy,
and of the exorbitance of some Arians. After the body of their creed,
much like the former, they add such clauses as these : " All that say,
that the Son of God was made out of nothing, or of any other substance,
and not of that of God ; or, that there ever was a time or age in which
He was not : such men the holy Catholic Church renounces." l They
prove it to be both impious and absurd, " to imagine any time before
He was begotten ; since all time and all ages were made by Him." They
declare that "neither when they profess three Persons, rpia. Hponuira,
they do make three Gods : nor when they say, ' there is one God the
Father of our Lord Jesus Christ the only unbegotten ; ' do they there
fore deny Christ to be Qtbv Kpoatuvioy, the Eternal God [or, God before
all ages]." They do also own there, that He is " God by nature, perfect
and true God." They profess " their abhorrence of Photinus, who
makes the WORD to -be av-jKapxTov without a personal subsistence."
And say, " As for ourselves, we know Him to be not merely as a word
spoken, or as reason in God : but God the WORD, and subsisting by
100 Socrat., lib. ii. c. x. J Socrat, 1. ii. c. xix.
240 The History of Infant Baptism.
Himself, and the Son of God and Christ. And that He was with His
Father before the world, not by way of prescience, &c., but the subsist
ing WORD of the Father, and GOD of GOD— like to the Father in all
things, &c. Moreover," say they, " we, understanding in a cautious
sense that which is said of Him, ' The Lord possessed me in the be
ginning of His way ' 2 [this text the Greek translators had rendered :
Kupioi hrioev f^t. The Lord built or made me] do by no means under
stand, that He was begotten in a way like to the creatures made by
Him : for it were impious and against the faith of the Church, to liken
the Creator to the things by Him made, &c. Thus we believe in the
perfect and most holy Trinity, calling the Father, God ; and the Son,
God ; we do not mean these to be two, but one God," &c. These men
were not very far from the Catholic faith.
2. But about sixteen years afterwards, this sect carried matters to
more extravagant outrages. For the Emperor Constantius, a bigoted
Arian, being then at Antioch, a party met there, and determined that
" the Son is not at all like the Father, neither in essence nor in will :
that He was made out of nothing : as Arius had at first said."
Sozomen relating this,3 says that there were among these (who were
but few in all) several of the party of Aetius, who, he says, " was the
first that after Arius ventured to use openly such expressions, and was
therefore called the Atheist." And about this time Eunomius, the
partner of Aetius, published his creed to this purpose :
" There is one God, unbegotten and without beginning, &c., the
Maker and Creator of all things, and first of His only begotten Son, &c.
For He begot, created, and made His Son before all things, and before
all the creation, only by His power and operation : not communicating
anything of His own essence to Him, &c., nor making Him another like
Himself, &c., but He begot Him of such a nature as He thought fit, &c.
And by Him He made, first and the greatest of all, the Holy Spirit, &c.
And after Him all the things in heaven and earth, &c. There is also
one Holy Spirit, the first and greatest of the works of the Only-begotten,
made by the command of the Father, but by the power and operation
of the Son."
This man had reason to appoint among his followers a new form of
baptism ; for the old one did not fit to such opinions. So he laid it
aside, and used that impious form of baptising which I mentioned before
at § 4, " In the name of the unbegotten Father," &c.
The moderate and general sort of Arians did all the while own all
that the Nicene Creed had said of our Saviour to be true, save that they
thought not fit to determine that He is " of one substance with the
Father : " as neither on the contrary did they think fit to say, as Arius
had done, that He was created, or was of any other substance. They
2 Prov. viii. 22. 3 Hist. Eccl., 1. iv. c. xxix.
The Belief of Photinus. 24 1
rejected both those clauses, and said that the substance or essence of
God is unsearchable, and nothing ought to be determined about it. Yet
Eusebius 4 and Athanasius 5 showed them that every word had been
often used by the Christians both of the Greek and Latin Church above
one hundred years before. Many of the books out of which they could
the,n prove this, are now lost : yet for the Latins, Tertullian does use
that very expression in the passage of his that I quoted last. And
Pamphilus the martyr in his apology for Origen (or be it Eusebius him
self that was the author of that piece) makes it plain, that it was a
common expression in the books of Origen that were then extant.
However we see that this sect of the Arians, even the dregs of it
among the Eunomians, had not nigh so derogatory thoughts of the
nature of our blessed Saviour, as our Socinians have ; who take Him to
be a mere man, and to have had no being before His human birth.
Photinus indeed did in those confused times broach that opinion which
one sort of the Socinians do now fall into ; that the WORD, the Xoyog, of
which St John speaks, is eternal : but that this WORD is not a person,
nor did take man's nature in Jesus Christ, was not made flesh (as St
/ohn says He was), but only inspired, directed, or dwelt in the man Jesus.
But he did no sooner say this, but that all sorts of Christians — Catholics,
Arians, and Eunomians — joined in an abhorrence of him, as Bishop
Pearson 6 shows at large by reciting the condemnations of him particu
larly. And he concludes : " So suddenly was this opinion rejected by
all Christians, applauded by none but Julian the heretic [leg. Apostate],
who railed at St John for making Christ God, and commended Photinus
for denying it, as appears by an epistle written by Julian to him ; as it
is, though in a mean translation, delivered by Facundus ad Justinian,
1. iv. Tu quidem, Oh Photine, &c. ' You, Photinus, say something like,
and come near to good sense. You do well not to bring him whom
you think to be God into a woman's womb.' "
And from that time till very lately, whoever embraced that opinion
has thought fit at the same time to renounce the Scriptures and the name
of a Christian.
What creed the Arians used all this while for their candidates to make
their professions by at baptism, I know not ; for their creeds that are
upon record they altered almost every day. The Catholics in the East
made use of the Nicene, as appears by Epiphanius In Ancorato, where
he gives directions that " every one of the catechumens that would come
to the holy laver must not only profess in general to believe, but must be
taught to say expressly, as their and our mother does, viz., ' we believe
in one God, &c., as it is in the Nicene Creed.' " Only in Epiphanius's
copy some clauses are put in by a later hand, or by himself afterwards ;
4 Euseb. Epist. apud. Socrat., 1. i. c. viii.
5 Epist. ad. Afros, apud Theodoret, 1. i. c. viii. 6 On the Creed, p. 120.
242 The History of Infant Baptism.
out of the Constantinopolitan Creed, which was set forth four years after
the first writing of that book. He dates his book the tenth year of
Valens ; and he says, " This is the faith delivered by all the holy bishops
together, above three hundred and ten in number." Which must be the
Nicene bishops. So that it is certain he in the first edition of his book
set down the Nicene, and it was interpolated afterwards with those few
additions which the Council of Constantinople made to it. And I, in
deed, was of opinion that the same thing had happened to the Jerusalem
Creed explained in way of catechism by St Cyril. He wrote those
catechisms first in Constantius's time ; and yet there are in them, as they
are now, the very clauses of the Constantinopolitan Creed. This, I
reckoned, could never have happened so exact, but that he in his old
age (for he lived to that time), or somebody after him, had added those
clauses which the Council of Constantinople had put in. But I find
that Mr Grabe 7 is of another opinion, and thinks that the Jerusalem
Creed, and several other ancient Eastern creeds, had those clauses before
the time of the Constantinopolitan Council. To whose great learning I
willingly subscribe.
There is from this time forward abundant evidence that the Eastern
Churches generally made use of the Nicene Creed to be repeated at
baptisms. The Council of Ephesus 8 orders " that none do write or
propose any other faith [or creed] but that which was agreed on by the
holy Fathers assembled at Nice, &c. And if anyone do offer or propose
any other to such as desire to be converted to the knowledge of the
truth [/.<?., to such as come to be baptised] either from the heathens, or
from the Jews, or from any heresy ; if they be bishops or clergymen,
they shall be deposed ; if laymen, excommunicated." The Council of
Chalcedon confirms the same.9 And so does the edict of Justinian.
And several other synods do mention it as the faith " into which they
were baptised, and into which they do baptise." Basiliscus, the usurper
of the Greek empire, having in his edict mentioned this creed, adds,
" into which both we, and all our ancestors that were Christians, have
been baptised." 10 And the Emperor Zeno enacts that all baptisms should
be by that.
This shows that what I quoted before n out of Gregory Nazianzen
(that he would not baptise any Arian) was not singular in him, since the
Church in all those parts used at baptism that creed which has the
expressions purposely levelled against that heresy.
§ 12. Valens, the great persecutor of the Nicene faith, died in the
fourteenth year of his reign. And then the Church had liberty once
again to come together from all parts both of the East and West, which
they did at Constantinople anno 381. They made no doubt or delay of
7 Annot. in opera Doct. Bull. 8 Act 6. 9 Evagrius, 1. ii. c. iv.
10 Evngrius, 1. iii. c. iv. et xiv. u Pt. I. ch. xi. § 8.
The Constantinopolitan Creed. 243
establishing the Nicene Creed in opposition to all the novelties that had
disturbed the world since it. Only inasmuch as some new heresies had
sprung up since, especially about our belief in the Holy Spirit, they put
in a few clauses against them. Eunomius, Macedonius, and some others
had followed Arius's pattern of innovating, so far, that as he had made
the Son of God a creature, so they would do the same by the Spirit of
God. Arius had had a much better handle to take hold of; for the Son
did indeed take on Him a created nature ; and because in that nature He
was born, died, &c., there were a great many plausible things to say
among vulgar people. But to make the Spirit of God, which St Paul
shows to be inward to God, as the spirit of a man is to a man, saying,
i Cor. ii. ii, " What man knows the things of a man, save the spirit of
a man which is in him ? So the things of God none knows save the
Spirit of God." To make Him a creature too was, we should think, a
bold attempt, not only on the honour of God, but also on the reason
and sense of men. But so it always happens. Whenever one sort of
innovators break in upon any article of faith, there always arises behind
their backs a new sect that will refine upon the first, and carry the
superstructure farther than they ever intended, and to such extrava
gances as the principal heretics are ashamed of. Yet some of the
Arians, that the party might be the stronger against the Catholics, struck
in with the Macedonians in this too.
The bishops of this council added therefore, as I said, some new clauses
relating to our belief concerning the Holy Spirit, and some other plain
things to the body of the Nicene. And the creed by them published is
oftener called by the name of the Nicene Creed than of the Constan
tinopolitan ; and so they themselves desired it should, it being only a
second edition of the Nicene with those additions. Nestorius, in his
sermons preached at Constantinople about forty years after this time,
does often quote the Nicene Creed in defence of his opinion ; but the
clauses he produces are the words of this. And generally after this time,
when we have mention of the Nicene Creed, or faith, we are to under
stand this, unless where the author does expressly make a distinction.
It is the same (except one word) that is nowadays repeated in the
Communion Service by almost all the established Churches of Chris
tians in the world. So general an affront does that foul mouth give,
that says : " All that own it must renounce the numerical unity of God's
essence." The copy of it, with a distinction of such clauses as were
then added, is this :
" We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and
earth, and of all things visible and invisible.
" And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, be
gotten of His Father before all wvrlds : God of God : Light of Light : very
God of very God ; begotten, not made ; being of one substance with
244 The History of Infant Baptism.
the Father, by whom all things were made [in some copies it is added,
both things in heaven and things in earth], who for us men and for our
salvation came down f rom heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit
of the Virgin Mary, and was made man, and was crucified also for us
under Pontius Pilate. He suffered : and was buried: and the third day
He rose again according to the Scriptures, and ascended into Heaven, and
sitteth at the right hand of the Father : and He shall come again to judge
the living and the dead : whose kingdom shall have no end.
" And we believe in the Holy Spirit : the Lord, the giver of life ; who
proceedeth from the Father ; who with the Father and the Son together is
worshipped and glorified^ who spake by the prophets.
" And we believe one Catholic and Apostolic Church. We acknowledge
one baptism for the remission of sins. And we look for the resurrection of
the dead, and the life of the world to come."
Whereas in the copies nowadays used in the Western Church, it is
said, " The Holy Spirit, &c., who proceedeth from the Father and the
Son ; " those words, " and the Son," were added several hundred years
after the making of the creed by the Church of Rome, and so passed
into all the Western copies, but the Eastern Churches have them not.
And how true soever the doctrine may be, it was not fair for any one
part of the Church to add the words to the old copy, The Greeks say,
He proceeds from the Father by the Son.
The chief thing that this creed has more than the old Nicene is, that
the Holy Spirit is Lord and giver of life. The Macedonian heretics had
taught that the Holy Spirit is one of the ministering spirits mentioned,
Heb. i. 14, only greater than the rest. It was in opposition to this that
the Catholics testified their faith, that He is (not a ministering or serving
spirit, as the angels that are creatures, but) rb x-^/ov Hviv/ua, ' the spirit
that is the Lord/' referring to 2 Cor. iii. 17, where St Paul having at
verse 8 called the Gospel the ministration of the Spirit (because in it the
power and grace of the Holy Spirit is especially manifested), and having
in prosecution of that discourse spoken to this purpose, that as Moses,
when he turned his face to the people, put on a veil, so the Jews reading
the law had still a veil over their understandings. But as Moses, when
he turned to the Lord, put off his veil, so, " when it [the heart of the
people] shall turn to the Lord, the veil shall be taken away." " Now,"
say he, " 6 xvpio$ rb nvlu/ict !<m, the Spirit is the Lord (which our English
has, ' The Lord is that Spirit ') and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there
is vapprieia liberty [or an open face without a veil]." And for the other
phrase, ^UOTTOIOVV, a quickener [or giver of life], it is an attribute of the
Spirit, often mentioned in Scripture.
The Council of Constantinople was not the first that condemned the
Macedonian heresy. The Catholics had done it before, from the time
of the rise of it, in several particular Councils, as they had opportunities
The Roman Creed. 245
in those times of persecution to assemble together. As in that of Alex
andria, mentioned by Socrates, 1. iii. c. vii., and the Illyrican, mentioned
by Theodoret, 1. iv. c. viii., and one at Rome under Damasus, mentioned
by Theodoret, 1. ii. c. xxii., and one at Antioch, recited by Holstenius,
Collect. Rom., p. 166. But this at Constantinople was the first General
Council that met after the rise of this heresy.
Whether the Greek Church did after these times in their office of
baptism make use of this Constantinopolitan copy of the creed, instead
of the Nicene properly called, or whether they still use the old one, I
know not. But it seems that in the year 476 they kept the old copy,
because Basiliscus, in the edict I cited, after having declared that he
will maintain the Nicene faith, " into which he and all his predecessors
were baptised," adds : " and all things that were enacted in confirmation
of that holy creed in this royal city by the one hundred and fifty Fathers
against those that spoke ill of the Holy Spirit." This was the Constan
tinopolitan. Therefore what he said before must be understood of the
Nicene properly so called.
§ 13. It is wonder that during all the contest about creeds that was
in those fifty years of the Arian times, we hear nothing said of the creed
used in the Church of Rome. Especially if they had at that time
procured their creed to be called the Apostolic Creed, or the Apostles'
Creed (as they afterwards did), it could not have failed but that both
the parties would have referred themselves to that. But on the
contrary, there is not a word said of it. Nor can it be known what
form of a creed they used in those times. They all along received and
owned the Nicene Creed, and renounced all that would not own it;
but they do not seem to have applied that to their ordinary offices of
baptism, for that use once begun would not have been left off again ; but
to have had a form of their own, as other Churches had, before the Nicene,
and to have added to it from time to time such clauses as appeared most
necessary against any heresies that arose. But still it is a wonder how
they, and the other Western Churches, could reconcile their practice (in
baptising by any other creed than the Nicene) with those canons of the
Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon, which, as I showed,12 did so posi
tively enjoin that no other should be used for that purpose from that
time forward. For these Councils being general ones, must have been
ratified by themselves, as well as by the Eastern bishops ; and their
Popes do to this day swear that they will own and adhere to them.
About the year 400 we have some light given us how the words of
the ordinary creed in the Church of Rome stood at that time ; but not
by any writer of that Church, which had but few, but by one whom they
do not love. Rufinus, a Presbyter of the Church of Aquileia, a city in
Italy, wrote a comment on the creed as it was worded in his Church -}
12 § 12.
246 The History of Infant Baptism.
and he notes by the way some of the differences or agreements which
their Church had with the Church of Rome and the Eastern Churches
in wording the several clauses. And by his account the Roman Creed
at that time must have stood thus : —
" I believe in God the Father Almighty. And in Jesus Christ, His
only Son, our Lord, who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, of the Virgin
Mary ; crucified under Pontius Pilate ; and buried. The third day He
rose again from the dead; He ascended into heaven; sitteth at the right
hand of the Father : from thence He shall come to judge the quick and
the dead. And in the Holy Spirit.
" The holy Church. The forgiveness of sins. The resurrection ot
the flesh."
The clause, " Maker of heaven and earth," was afterwards added out
of the Constantinopolitan or other Eastern Creeds.
" The descent of Christ into Hades " (or hell, as we style it in Eng
lish) was not as yet in the Roman Creed, but was put in afterwards.
It is expressed in the oldest rule or breviat of faith that is in the world,
if there be any credit to be given to those records of the Church of
Edessa, copied out of the Syriac by Eusebius,13 and translated by him,
where it is said that Thaddseus, one of the seventy, being sent by
Thomas the Apostle to cure Abgarus the king, and to convert his
people, preached to them " how Christ came from the Father ; and of
the power of His works, &c. ; and of the meanness and lowliness of His
outward appearance, &c. ; and how He died, and lowered His Divinity;
how many things He suffered of the Jews ; and how He was crucified ;
KU,) xar'efir) fig ri>v "Adqv, and descended into Hades. And how He
sits now on the right hand of God, &c. ; and how He will come
to judge the living and the dead."
These things were done/ as it is said in that register, the 43rd year ;
or, as other copies have it, the 34oth year ; which last, viz., the 34oth
year of the computation of years used at Edessa, is the same year u on
which our Saviour ascended into heaven.
But suppose these records to be forged, yet they must have been a
good while before Eusebius's time.
Excepting this register, the eldest creeds that have this clause, are
the Arian ones : viz., that drawn up at Sirmium, and rehearsed at the
Council of Ariminum, mentioned by Socrates, 1. ii. c. xxxvii. That at
Nice, in Thracia, recited by Theodoret, 1. ii. c. xxi. ; and that at Con
stantinople, brought into use by Acacius and his party, reported by
Socrates, 1. ii. c. xli.
Rufinus says,15 it was in his time in the Creed of Aquileia, but not
in the Oriental Creed, nor in that of Rome, into which last it seems to
have been inserted about the year 600, taken perhaps out of the creed
18 H. E., 1. i. c. ult. " Valesius in loc. 15 In Symb.
Chris fs Descent into Hades. 247
called Athanasius's, which about that time is pretended to have been
found in some archives at Rome, having never been heard of before.
As for the thing itself, of Christ's descent into Hades, though it were
not put in the ancient creeds, yet it was ever believed by all Christians ;
nor could it be otherwise, since they used that phrase in the case of
any man that died. And so does the Scripture speak of any man
that dies, be he good or bad, as going to Sheol (which is the Hebrew
word) or Hades (which is the Greek for it). Jacob, Gen. xliv. 29 ;
David, Ps. vi. 5 ; the wicked, Ps. ix. 10, all go to Hades. To go down
to Hades, or ad in/eros,] was, in their way of speaking, no more than
to go down to the dead. And if we believe that Christ rose the third day
«TO TUV vtxpuv, a mortuis, ( from the dead,' we must believe that three
days before He descended to the dead.
The clause, " everlasting life," is commonly judged not to have
been in the old Roman Creed. For Rufinus mentions it not in the
Aquileian ; and he notes no difference between that and the Roman
in this particular. And yet there is another reason on the contrary, to
think that it was expressed there ; because Marcellus, who had made
one at the Council of Nice, having several enemies of the Arian
party in the East that accused him of Sabellianism, by mistake of his
meaning as he pretended, appealed to Julius, Bishop of Rome, and to
that Church, as to umpires of the quarrel; and when his adversaries
would not agree to refer it to that bishop, nor would come thither,
he left there a draught of his belief for his perpetual vindication ; which
draught is set down by Epiphanius,16 and is exactly the same with the
copy of the Roman Creed, given before out of Rufinus, save that it adds
this clause at last : " The life everlasting." And, except this draught,
there is no other in antiquity that does very near resemble the Roman
Creed. So that it is probable he took the Roman Creed itself for his
draught, as thinking that he could not better approve his faith to the
Church of Rome, than by expressing it in the words of their ordinary
creed. And it is possible that Rufinus might omit the collating the
Roman Creed with the Aquileian in this point. If this conjecture be
right, this is the oldest copy of the Roman Creed by sixty years ; for
this transaction was so long before the time that Rufinus wrote. And
not long after Rufinus's time this clause appears in all the copies.
But however it were with the Roman Creed I showed before,17 out of
St Cyprian that this clause was in that of Carthage long before ; and it
was in several Eastern ones. Bishop Pearson thinks 18 it was not in the
creed used for baptism at Antioch in St Chrysostom's time, and he takes
the ground of that opinion from St Chrysostom's Horn. 40, in i Epist.
ad Corinth. But though he be the most exact man that ever wrote, yet
he is mistaken in that. "St Chrysostom is there explaining that difficult
16 Hser. 72. 17 At § 10. 18 On the Creed, art. 12.
248 The History of Infant Baptism.
place, i Cor. xv. 29, of some men being baptised for the dead. He thinks
for the dead is as much as to say for their bodies, i.e., for the resurrection
of them, or, in hopes of it. " For," says he, " after all the rest, we add
that which St Paul here speaks of. After the repeating those holy
words, &c. (meaning the creed), we say this at the last of all, when we
are to baptise anyone : we bid him say, 'I believe the resurrection of the
dead,' and in this faith we baptise him. For after we have owned that
together with the rest, we are plunged down into the fountain of those
holy waters." But though this would make one think that the resurrec
tion was the last article of the creed then used in that Church ; yet
before the end of that homily (and Bishop Pearson, it seems, did not at
that time read it out) St Chrysostom adds : " And then, since the word
resurrection is not enough to signify the whole of our faith in that matter
(because many that have risen have died again, as they in the Old Testa
ment, as Lazarus, as they at the time of the crucifixion), therefore he [the
baptiser] bids him [the baptised person] say, ' and the life everlasting,'
that none may suspect he shall die again after that resurrection."
This creed of the Church of Rome has obtained the name of the
Apostolic Creed, for no greater or other reason than this : it was a
custom to call those Churches in which any Apostle had personally
taught, especially if he had resided there any long time, or had died
there, Apostolic Churches. Of these there were a great many in the
Eastern parts — Jerusalem, Corinth, Ephesus, Antioch, &c.; but in the
Western parts none but Rome, in which St Paul and St Peter had lived
a considerable time, and were there martyred. So that anyone that in
the Western parts of the world spoke of the Apostolic Church, was sup
posed to mean Rome, that being the only one in those parts, and being
called emphatically by all the Western Christians the Apostolic Church.
And so their bishop came to be called the Apostolic Bishop ; their See,
the Apostolic See ; their faith, the Apostolic faith ; and among the rest,
the creed that they used, the Apostolic Creed.
This name gave handle enough to some people first to imagine, and
then by degrees to report a tradition that this creed was drawn up into
this form by the Apostles themselves, and so (by a light alteration of the
word) to call it " the Apostles' Creed."
There was a fable trimmed up setting forth when and where the
Apostles met and dictated it, and the reasons why they did it ; which, if
anyone do still believe, he may have ready cure in a treatise of Vossius,19
or in English, in a treatise of a very learned English gentleman,20 both
written on that subject. If the Roman Christians had believed it them
selves, they had done very arrogantly to add from time to time new
clauses to the Apostles' words.
About the year of Christ 600 it seems to have attained that whole
19 DC Tribus Symbolis. -" Critical History of the Apostles' Creed.
Athanasius's Creed. 249
form of words which it has now. And being used at Rome as the
ordinary creed for the baptised or their godfathers to repeat, it has
been likewise received by all the Western Churches for the same use.
The Greek Church do, I think, catechise by the Nicene Creed, but they
own this also. When the two great branches of Christendom in the
Eastern and Western Empire could not bring their people to use the
same form of faith at baptism ; yet to show their unity in the faith, they
did each of them receive the other's creed into their liturgies, and
both Churches do own and use and profess both creeds. And so
this is by all owned to be an Apostolic Creed in one sense, viz., drawn
up according to the doctrine of the Apostles. But whereas the gentle
man I mentioned says, " It has been for some hundred years preferred
before the Nicene ; " 21 that is, I think, only in the Western Church.
And where he says, "that Irenseus repeats the Apostles' Creed,"22 he
means only the substance of that faith.
It is general, and it is natural for everyone to say as much as he can
in preference of those forms that are in use in his Church. But yet,
upon the whole, I cannot see but that the Greek Church have in this
the advantage of us in baptising by the Nicene. For (besides that
theirs is the elder, and acknowledged and enjoined by the four first
General Councils) the main difference between these two creeds being
this, that the Western Creed (as it is now) has the descent into hell,
which the other has not ; but the other has the Articles of the Divinity
of the Son and Holy Spirit much more full and express ; there is, I
think, no body that doubts but the latter are a much more material
point of our faith than the former. But yet in the Roman Creed (as it
has always been understood), the clause, " God's only Son," does mean
His "Son by Nature," and so owns His Divinity, as Bishop Pearson
has shown. And since it is the settled and notorious interpretation
and meaning ; they that pronounce it, meaning otherwise, do but equi
vocate with God and the Church. To believe in a person, is in
the phrase of Scripture, and of the Church, to believe Him to be
God.
Of Athanasius's Creed there is no occasion of speaking here, both
because it was never by any Church used at baptism, and also because
the composure of it is not so ancient as the times we speak of. Yet it
contains the sense of what Athanasius and the other Catholics main
tained in their disputations against the Arians ; but it proceeds also to
determine against other heretics that arose long after Athanasius's time;
as Nestorius that divided the person of Christ into two ; and Eutyches,
that confounded his two Natures into one. And it is penned in a
more scholastical style than the ancients had arrived to. The expres
sions most like it, that are found in any ancient writing, are in that
21 Critical history, p. 47. w P. 78.
250 The History of Infant Baptism.
declaration of the faith made at the Council of Chalcedon (which con
demned all the said heresies together) recited by Evagrius, 1. ii. c. iv.
What creed the antipsedobaptists do require of their candidates to
profess I know not ; I am afraid, none at all. I mean no settled form,
limited to certain words ; but that it is left to the several elders to
judge whether each candidate do understand and believe the necessary
points of faith. Which must be a very unsafe one, for either the elder
himself may be ignorant, or he may hold privately heterodox opinions
in the fundamentals of the faith, as Socinianism, &c. For such an one
to have the instructing of any young person in his own way, and then
to baptise him, is (as Gregory Nazianzen 23 in a case not so bad ex
presses it) not to dip him, but to drown him. The experience of all
ages of the Church has shown it necessary to have a " form of sound
words " for such a use ; not to be altered, augmented, or curtailed by
the caprices of every particular pastor.
§ 14. These professions of Christian Faith, and of renouncing the
devil and his works, &c., were by adult persons solemnly made two
several times before they were baptised. Once in the congregation,
some time before the day of baptism, where they, standing up and
speaking in a continued sentence, said : " I renounce the devil and all
his works," &c., going on through all the clauses of renunciation. And
in like manner repeated the whole creed.
And, again, just when they were going into the water, by way of
answer to the interrogatories of the priest, who laying his hand on the
party's head, solemnly asked the questions severally : " Do you re
nounce the devil," &c. ? He answered : " I do." And so he asked
the other renunciations. And then the belief. "Do you believe in
God the Father Almighty ?" " I do." And so the several articles of
the creed. And at last : " Do you believe the resurrection of the flesh,
and the life everlasting? " He said : " I do."
And therefore that clause in Tertullian which I recited at § 4, is to
be pointed thus: "We do there (and we do the same also a little
before in the congregation) under the hands of the pastor make a
profession," &c.
St Austin mentions the former of these times of profession 24 in the
case of Victorinus, who was a man in such dignity and repute among
the heathen party at Rome, that though he made a pretence of turning
Christian, and came sometimes to their assemblies, yet the Christians
did not believe that he would really come over to their religion (which
was even then in contempt among the great men at Rome) till they
saw and heard him at a certain time when he was at their Church, that
" when the time came of professing the faith, which is wont to be done
at Rome in a place a little raised in the sight of the faithful people by
23 Orat. in Sanct. baptisma, prope finem. u Confess., 1. viii. c. ii.
Infants receiving the Communion. 251
those that would come to the grace [viz., of baptism], he with an assured
voice pronounced the faith," &c.
And St Hierom mentions the latter 25 when he says : " Whereas it is
customary at the font, after the confession of the Trinity to ask : ' Do
you believe the Holy Church? Do you believe the forgiveness of
sin? ? ' " &c.
But in the case of infants this could be done but once, viz., at the
time of their baptism. The baptiser asked the questions, and the
sponsors answered in the name of the child. The questions were put
severally for each article of the creed and of the renunciation, as in
the case of the adult ; as appears partly by what I quoted out of St
Austin, Part I. ch. xv. sect. 5, § 4, and out of the author of the Eccles
iastical Hierarchy, Part I. ch. xxiii. § 2. And also by what St Austin
says at another place,26 where speaking of an infant going to be baptised
he says: "The interrogation is put, ' Does he believe in Jesus Christ?'"
" Answer is made, ' He does.' "
There is no time or age of the Church in which there is any appe.ar-
ance that infants were ordinarily baptised without sponsors or godfathers.
Tertullian mentions the use of them in his time, as I showed.27 And
I have recited so many other passages wherein they are occasionally
mentioned, that there is no need of rehearsing any more on purpose for
that matter. St Austin calls the professions : " Words of the sacra
ment without which an infant cannot be baptised." As I showed,
Part I. ch. xv. sect. 5, § 5.
§ 15. The baptised person was quickly after his baptism admitted to
partake of the Lord's Supper. This was always and in all places used in
the case of adult persons, and in some ages and places in the case of
infants. Some have spoken of the custom of giving infants the com
munion, as if it were anciently as general as the baptising them ; and
the antipaedobaptists do confidently say it was so. But this has been by
others shown to be a mistake.
Mr Daille, in his treatise called the Right Use of the Fathers, bent
himself with all his might to find out errors in the Fathers and ancient
Church. Not, indeed, with so wicked a purpose as some have done
since, that have made use of his instances to take away all credit from
the Primitive Church in conveying down to us the canonical books, and
the fundamental doctrines in them delivered ; but yet he has made it
hard for us to believe what he there says, that he " enters upon this in
quiry into their errors unwillingly," because a man that does so, never
makes the faults more or worse than they are. He makes the giving the
Eucharist to infants one of their chief errors ; and to prove that this was
their practice, he quotes three authors — Cyprian, Austin, and Pope
Innocent — and adds : " All the rest of the doctors in a manner of the
21 Adv. Luciferianos. x Serm. 14, de verb. Apost. v Pt. I. ch. ir. § 9.
252 The History of Infant Baptism.
first ages maintained that the Eucharist was necessary for infants ; if at
least you dare take Maldonat's word, who affirms that this opinion was
in great request in the Church during the first six hundred years after
our Saviour Christ." And after this he, several times without any
farther proof, says absolutely that so it was : " That the Fathers, down
as far as to the end of the sixth century, held that the Eucharist is as
necessary to salvation as baptism, and consequently to be administered
to infants,"28 and concludes from that, as from one of his two chief
instances, how little heed is to be given to the practices of the Primitive
Christians.
And yet all that he quotes from Maldonat ; and all that I believe that
learned man would say (for I have not the book) is this, " I pass by
the opinion of Austin and Innocent I., which was in request in the
Church for above six hundred years, that the Eucharist is necessary for
infants." »
No man (but one that would fain have it so) would conclude from
these words, Maldonat's meaning to be any more than this, that this
opinion began in the time of Austin and Innocent, anno 400, and con
tinued from thence six hundred years to anno 1000 (as it did indeed in
some parts of the Church), not that it was in request for all the first five
hundred years.
Before the year 412 there is no author produced but St Cyprian. And
whereas Mr Daille speaks with the usual artifice in such cases, as if he
singled this out of a great many instances which he could have brought,
and says, " that St Cyprian was carried away with the error of his
time ; " 30 the truth of the matter, I believe, is, that neither he nor any
body else can find any more. And if we examine what it is that he
produces from him, we shall perceive that he has, in his case too, much
mistaken the matter ; and that, so far from his saying it was necessary,
there is no good proof from him that mere infants ever did receive it ;
though of children of four or five years of age, that did then sometimes
in that Church receive, there is.
The first proof that is brought, and the most material by far, if it were
not from a mistaken edition, is out of the fifty-ninth epistle of St Cyprian
(which is the sixty-fourth in the late edition), from one word of which
epistle he would prove that it was the opinion of Cyprian and of the
sixty-six bishops then assembled with him, that the Eucharist must be
given to infants. But of that epistle you have all that concerns infants
in my PL I. ch. vi., where I have shown at § 10 that Mr Daille's observa
tion is a mistake in the reading of that one word, and that there is in
the correct editions not one syllable about it.
He produces another passage of St Cyprian, which is the same I
28 Lib. ii. c. vi. et passim.
89 Maldonat. in Joan. 6, 11, 116, apud Dalleum., 1. i. c. viii. *> L. ii. c. iv.
Of Communicating Infants.
quoted out of him in the foresaid ch. vi. § 13. St Cyprian's common
place book ran thus, 1. iii., Ad Quirinum :
C. 25. "If anyone be not baptised and born again, he cannot come
to the Kingdom of God."
For proof of this he quotes John iii. 5, 6 ; it. John vi. 53.
C. 26. " To be baptised and receive the Eucharist is not available,
unless one do good works."
For this he quotes i Cor. ix. 24 ; Matt. iii. 10 ; it. vii. 22 ; it. v. 16.
I did, indeed, bring this place among the proofs of his opinion that
infants must be baptised; but owned at the same time, that since
infants are not expressly mentioned in it, it would be but a very weak
one, were it not that he himself in other places mentions infants by
name as contained under the general rule that requires baptism, which
he never does in the case of the Eucharist. And anyone sees that this
passage, taken alone, has much less force to prove their communicating,
than it has to prove the necessity of their baptism. If I should among
the testimonies for infants' baptism have set down all the sayings of
the Fathers, where they speak of baptism as necessary for all persons;
those alone would have made a collection larger than mine is. I
confined myself to such as mention infants particularly.
But for youths, boys or girls, younger than do now commonly receive,
he does, indeed, quote a plain proof out of the book De Lapsis. It is
this story, which St Cyprian tells on purpose to make those that had
revolted to idolatry in the late persecution at Carthage, sensible of their
guilt and of God's wrath ; and that they ought not without due confession
and penitence approach the Holy Table.31
" I will tell you what happened in my own presence. The parents of a
certain little girl, running out of town in a fright, had forgot to take any
care of their child, whom they had left in the keeping of a nurse. The
nurse had carried her to the magistrates; they, because she was too
little to eat the flesh, gave her to eat before the idol some of the bread
mixed with wine, which had been left of the sacrifice of those wretches.
Since that time, her mother took her home. But she was no more
capable of declaring and telling the crime committed than she had
been before of understanding or of hindering it. So it happened that
once when I was administering, her mother, ignorant of what had been
done, brought her along with her. But the girl being among the saints
could not with any quietness hear the prayers said, but sometimes fell
into weeping, and sometimes into convulsions, with the uneasiness of
her mind ; and her ignorant soul, as under a wrack, declared by such
tokens as it could the conscience of the fact in those tender years. And
when the service was ended, and the deacon went to give the cup to
those that were present, and the others received it, and her turn came,
31 Lib. De Lapsis, circa medium.
254 The History of Infant Baptism.
the girl by a divine instinct turned away her face, shut her mouth, and
refused the cup. But yet the deacon persisted, and put into her mouth,
though she refused it, some of the sacrament of the cup. Then followed
retchings and vomiting. The Eucharist could not stay in her polluted
mouth and body ; the drink consecrated in our Lord's blood burst out
again from her denied bowels. Such is the power, such the majesty of
our Lord ; the secrets of darkness were discovered by its light, even un
known sins could not deceive the priest of God. This happened in the
case of an infant who was by reason of her age incapable of declaring
the crime which another had acted on her." He goes on to tell how
some grown people at the same table, guilty of the same crime but
thinking to conceal it, had been more severely handled, possessed with
evil spirits, &c.
This child was probably four or five years old. For the heat of the
persecution was about two years before this administering of the sacra
ment could be, if we reckoned the soonest ; for St Cyprian had been
almost all that while retired out of the city, as appears by Bishop
Pearson's annals of that time.32 And the child may be guessed by the
story to have been two or three years old when she was carried to the
idol feast. And so the Magdeburgenses, relating this story,33 conclude
from it, puellas ephebas, that young girls did at this time sometimes
receive. And so Salmasius, or else Suicerus himself, Suiceri Thesaur.
v. 2uva%i$.
This passage might have been added to the other quotations that I
brought of St Cyprian for infants' baptism, for no Church ever gave the
communion to any person before they were baptised, but I reserved it
for this place. This is all, till above four hundred years after Christ's
birth.
Innocent the First, Bishop of Rome, does indeed, anno 417, plainly
and positively say that infants cannot be saved without receiving
the Eucharist, and that in a synodical epistle 34 written to the Fathers of
the Milevitan Council. The Council had represented to him the mis
chief of that tenet of the Pelagians, that unbaptised infants, though they
cannot go to heaven, yet may have eternal life ; which the Pelagians
maintained on this pretence that our Saviour, though He had said : " He
that is not born of water cannot enter the Kingdom," yet had not said :
" he cannot have an eternal life." To this Innocent's words are : " That
which your brotherhood says that they teach, ' that infants may without
the grace of baptism have eternal life,' is very absurd, since, ' except
they eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink His blood, they have
no life in them,' " &C.35 His meaning is plainly this : they can have no
eternal life without receiving the Communion, and they cannot do that
** Annales Cyprianici. w Cent. 3, c. vi. M Apud Augustin., Ep. xciii.
M John vi. 53.
How long continued in the West. 255
till they be baptised. And it is true what Mr Daillb urges : " That St
Austin says the same thing eight or ten times over in several places of
his books."36 And some of these books are dated a little before this
letter of Innocent. But though he wrote a great part of his works
before this Innocent was made Bishop of Rome, and in them speaks
often of infant baptism, yet it is observable that he never speaks of infants
communicating till after Innocent had been bishop some time, which
makes me think it probable that Innocent did first bring up this doctrine
of the necessity of this sacrament to infants ; for after Innocent had so
determined, St Austin oftener quotes him 37 for it than he does any place
of Scripture. P.S. — I am glad to find so learned a man as John Frith
is of the same mind. Answ. to More.
Among all the passages of St Austin to this purpose, there is need of
mentioning but one ; and that because some people have said that he
at that place does affirm it to be an Apostolical tradition, from whence
they conclude how little heed is to be given to him, when he says infant
baptism was so. The place is, DePeccat. Meritis, lib. i. c. xxiv. He is argu
ing against the Pelagians, who said eternal life (though not the Kingdom
of God) might be had without baptism, and says thus : "The Christians
of Africa do well call baptism itself one's salvation, and the sacrament of
Christ's body one's life. From whence is this but, as I suppose, from
that ancient and Apostolical tradition, by which the Churches of Christ
do naturally hold that without baptism and partaking of the Lord's
Table none can come either to the Kingdom of God, or to salvation and
eternal life ? For the Scripture, as I showed before, says the same. For
what other thing do they hold that call baptism salvation, than that
which is said ; ' He saved us by the washing of regeneration.' And
that which Peter says, ' The like figure whereunto, even baptism, does
now save us ? ' And what other thing do they hold that call the Sacra
ment of the Lord's Table life, than that which is said, ' I am the bread
of life,' &c. ; and ' The bread which I will give is My flesh, which I will
give for the life of the world ; ' and, ' except you eat the flesh of the
Son of man, and drink His blood, you have no life in you ? ' If then,
as so many divine testimonies do agree, neither salvation nor eternal life
is to be hoped for by any without baptism and the body and blood of
our Lord ; it is in vain promised to infants without them.' "
There is, as I observed a little before, a great difference between
saying, "There is a tradition or order of the Apostles for infants to
receive the Eucharist as a thing without which they cannot be saved ; "
and saying, " There is a tradition for all to receive it, as a thing without
which they cannot be saved." For a rule given in general words may
be understood with an exception of infants, or without such exception,
according as the nature of the thing or other sayings of the law-giver do
38 L. i. c. viii. S7 Epist. 106 et alibi.
256 The History of Infant Baptism.
direct. All the Israelites that do not keep the Passover shall be cut off.
There, infants must be excepted. They must all be circumcised. That
includes infants as well as others. Now, in the case of baptism, St
Austin and those others whom we have quoted, do say there is a tradi
tion from the Apostles for baptising infants ; but all that St Austin says
here in the case of the Eucharist is, in general, that there is an Apos
tolical tradition that none that do not receive it can have salvation.
And that this rule should include infants, is not said as from the
Apostles, but is only his own consequence drawn from the general rule ;
neither do his words import any more : in which consequence there may
easily be a mistake.
§ 1 6. After these times of St Austin and Innocent, there is ever now
and then some mention found in the Latin Church of infants receiving,
Mercator sub not. 8, in the year 436, Gregory the First, sacramentar,
anno 590, and so forward till about the year 1000. But towards the
latter end of this term, as we learn by the relation of Hugo de Sancto
Victore,38 who lived anno noo, they gave to infants only the wine, and
that only by the priest's dipping his finger in the chalice, and then
putting it into the child's mouth for him to suck. And after some time
this also was left off; and instead of it, they gave the new baptised
infant some drops of wine not consecrated, which Hugo dislikes.
This custom of giving common wine to infants seems by some words
of St Hierom 39 to be older in the Church of Rome than the custom of
giving any consecrated wine. For instead of milk and honey, he
speaks there (if there be no mistake in the print) of wine and milk given
to the new baptised. " In the churches of the West," says he, " the
custom and type still continues of giving to those that are regenerated
in Christ, wine and milk."
It is to be observed that about the year 1000 the doctrine of tran-
substantiation sprung up in the Latin Church, which created an exces
sive and superstitious regard to the outward elements of the Eucharist ;
and had among others this effect, that as the wine was kept from the
laymen for fear of slabbering, so the whole Sacrament was from infants.
And at last the Council of Trent determined that " it is not at all neces
sary for them, since being regenerated by the laver of baptism, and
incorporated into Christ, they cannot in that age lose the grace of being
children of God, which they have now obtained. And yet," say they,
" antiquity is not to be condemned, if it did sometimes, and in some
places, observe that custom ; for as those holy Fathers had a probable
reason of their so doing on account of that time [here they should have
added, which did not believe transubstantiation], so it is for certain
and without controversy to be believed that they did it not on any
38 L. iii., De. Sacram., c. xx.
59 Comment, in Esaiam, 1. xv., Vide Magdeburgenses Cent. 4, c. vi.
What Churches do still Communicate Infants. 257
opinion of its necessity to their salvation."40 And they pass this
anathema: "If anyone shall say that partaking of the Eucharist is
necessary for infants before they come to years of discretion, let him be
anathema."41
_ It is a brave thing to be infallible. Such men may say what they
will, and it shall be true. What is a contradiction in other men's
mouths is none in theirs. Pope Innocent, in a synodical letter sent to
the Council of Milevis, says : " If infants do not eat the flesh of the Son
of Man and drink His blood [meaning in the sacrament], they have no
life in them." Pope Pius, in confirming the Council of Trent, says :
" If any man say so, let him be anathema."
To deny that those ancient Fathers did it with any opinion of its
necessity to the infant's salvation, makes the contradiction yet more
palpable, because that is the very thing which they say. The truth, I
believe, is that the Trent Fathers knew that some ancient doctors had
commended infants receiving ; but not that one of their own infallible
bishops had so absolutely determined it to be necessary for their
salvation.
How soon, or how late, the custom of infants receiving came in,
in the Greek Church, I know not. I do not remember any one
ancient writer of that part of the world that speaks of it — I mean of
any genuine book — for I know that a mention of it is got into Clem.
Constitutions. But it is a known thing that they use it now, and have
done for several centuries, at least most of the branches of that Church.
That which I conceive most probable on the whole matter (referring
myself to such as have minded this piece of history more) is :
1. That in Cyprian's time, the people of the Church of Carthage
did oftentimes bring their children younger than ordinary, to the
communion.
2. That in St Austin's and Innocent's time, it was in the west parts
given to mere infants. And that this continued from that time for
about six hundred years.
3. That sometime during this space of six hundred years, the Greek
Church, which ^was then low in the world, took this custom from the
Latin Church, which was more flourishing.
4. That the Roman Church about the year 1000, entertaining the
doctrine of transubstantiation, let fall the custom of giving the holy
elements to infants. And the other Western Churches mostly following
their example, did the like upon the same account. But that the
Greeks, not having the said doctrine, continued, and do still continue
the custom of communicating infants. They think that command of
St Paul, " Let a man examine himself and so let him eat," &c., so to be
understood, as not to exclude such as are by their age incapable of
40 Sess. 21, cap. iv. 41 Canon 4,
II. I
258 The History of Infant Baptism.
examining themselves, from partaking; but only to oblige all that are
capable. As that like command of his, " If anyone will not work, let
him have nothing given him to eat," must be so limited to such as are
able to work ; as that infants, and such as are not capable to work, must
have victuals given them, though they do not work.
The most usual way of giving it to infants in the Churches where it
is now used, is to mix the bread with the wine, and to put to the child's
lips a drop or two of that mixture quickly after his baptism, after which
he receives no more till the age of discretion.
§ 17. From this custom of the ancients giving the Eucharist to
infants, the antipsedobaptists do draw an argument (and it is the most
considerable that they have for that purpose) that there is no great stress
to be laid on the practice of antiquity in baptising infants. For they
say, since the ancients gave them the Eucharist as well as baptism, and
yet all Christians are now satisfied that the first was an error in
them, what reason have we to regard their opinion or practice in the
other ?
But i. That is not true that all Christians are satisfied that the
ancients did ill in giving infants the Eucharist, for very near half the
Christians in the world do still continue that practice. The Greek
Church, the Armenians, the Maronites, the Cophti, the Abassens, and
the Muscovites, as is related by the late authors Jeremias, Brerewood,
Alvarez, Ricaut, Heylin, &c. And so, for aught I know, do all the rest
of the Eastern Christians. And it is probable that the Western had done
the same, had it not been for the doctrine of transubstantiation coming
up in the Church of Rome.
2. It is not true that this custom of giving infants the Eucharist was
in the ancient Church received either so early, or so generally, as
baptism of them was. I have through all the first part shown the
evidences of their baptism ; but for their receiving the Eucharist, I
know of no other evidences within our period of antiquity than what I
have just now recited. Of which St Cyprian does not speak of mere
infants, and the other two are dated after the year of Christ 412 ; and
that only in the Latin Church. It is a strong presumption that there
was no use of it, not even in the Church of Carthage, in Tertullian's
time, because he who lived there, and pleaded to have the custom of
baptising infants to be set aside (except in danger of death) could not
have failed to have given his opinion much rather against the admitting
them to that other sacrament, if it had then been used.
3. The grounds of these two practices are nothing of equal force.
The words of our Saviour to the Jews, John vi. 53, by which Innocent
proves the one, do no way appear to belong to the sacramental eating,
which was not then instituted. But his words, John iii. 5, do plainly
belong to the other. The Passover, which answers to the Eucharist,
Ividence for Infants' Baptism.
259
though enjoined in general words to all, yet was not understood to
belong to infants. Circumcision and Jewish baptism, which answer to
Christian baptism, were given to infants as well as adults. Baptism has
in Scripture the notion and character of an initiating or entering
sacrament. The Eucharist not so. Now infants are by the ex
press words of Scripture to be initiated, or entered into covenant
(Deut. xxix. 10-12).
4. However it be, the antipasdobaptists cannot make any use of this
argument till they have granted that the ancient Christians did baptise
infants. So long as many of them endeavour to keep their people in an
opinion that infants' baptism is a new thing, so long they will forbear to
tell them that infants did in ancient time receive the Eucharist : since
among all the absurdities that ever were held, none ever maintained
that, that any person should partake of the communion before he was
baptised. And if the people among them shall ever be encouraged to
search into the history of the Church to find some proofs of the one,
they will at the same time find much fuller proofs of the other, as
attested by much more ancient authors, and practised more universally,
and that when one was left off by the Churches that began it, the other
has been still continued in all the National Churches in the world.
CHAPTER X.
A SUMMING UP OF THE EVIDENCE THAT HAS HERE BEEN GIVEN
ON BOTH SIDES.
'"PHOUGH I pretend to manage the part of a relater of the passages
for and against infant baptism, rather than of a judge of the force
and consequence of them : yet it may be proper, now that I have pro
duced all that I know concerning that matter in the eldest times, to sum
up in short, for the use of the reader, the evidence that has been given
s on both sides.
It appears on one side,
§ i. i. That as Abraham was taken into covenant by circumcision,
an ordinance appointed for him and all the male infants of his race, to
enter them into covenant : so when God did, four hundred and thirty
years after, establish anew that covenant with that nation under the
conduct of Moses, he appointed washing?- which is in the Greek tongue
called baptism, to be another ordinance of entering into it. And that
the Jews, as they reckoned it one of the ceremonies whereby their
whole nation, infants as well as grown persons, was then entered into
covenant : so when they proselyted or discipled any person of the
1 Exod. xix. 10.
I 2
260 The History of Infant Baptism.
nations, they did use to wash or baptise him : because the law had said,
" One law and one manner shall be for you and for the stranger [or
proselyte] that sojourns among you." 2 And if that proselyte had any
infant children, male or female, they baptised them, as well as the
parents ; and they counted and called them proselytes or discipled per
sons, as well as they did the parents. Also, that if they bought, or
found, or took in war any infants whom they intended to make proselytes
or disciples in their religion, they did it by baptising them. For this
see Introduction, §§ 1-5, 7.
This gives light for the understanding of our Saviour's commission :
"Go and disciple all the nations, baptising them."3 Whereas before,
only now and then one out of the neighbour nations had been made a
disciple or proselyte, they were now all to be discipled ; and (since
nothing is said to the contrary) in the same manner as those before had
been.
2. That the Jews did use to call that their baptism by the name of
regeneration, or a new birth. They told the proselyte, that how unclean,
sinful, or accursed soever, he or his children were before, they were now
by this baptism dedicated to the true God, entered into a new covenant
with Him, put into a new state, and were in all respects as if they had
been new born. Also, that the heathens before Christ's time had a
custom of baptising; and that they also called it regeneration. See
Introduction, § 6. Book, Pt. I. ch. iv. § u.
_ This gives light to our Saviour's expression, where He, after the Chris
tian baptism now brought into use by John Baptist and Himself, tells
Nicodemus, that to be "regenerated or born again of water and the
Spirit " was absolutely necessary for any one's coming to the kingdom of
God;4 and to St Paul's styling baptism, "the washing of regeneration." 5
3. That accordingly all the ancient Christians, not one man excepted,
do take the word regeneration or new birth to signify baptism; and
regenerate, baptised. And that our Saviour's said words to Nicodemus
do so stand in the original, and are so understood by all the ancients,
as to include all persons, men, women, or children, Pt. I. ch. ii. §§ 4, 5, 6 ;
ch. iii. §§ 2-5 ; ch. iv. §§3, 6 ; ch. vi. § 13 ; ch. xi. § 2 ; ch. xii. § 8 ; ch.
xin. § 2, and all the other chapters. Pt. II. ch. vi. § i, 7. And that by the
kingdom of God there, is meant the kingdom of Glory, is proved from the
plain words of the context, and from the sense of all ancient interpreters,
Pt. II. ch. vi. § i.
4. The necessity of baptism to entrance into God's kingdom was a
declared Christian d octrine before St John had recorded those words of
our Saviour, Pt. I. ch. i. §§ 2, 3, 7.
5. Clement, in the Apostles' time, and Justin Martyr, about forty years
2 Npm. xv. 16. 3 Matt- xxviii- ,9>
John m. 3, 5- * Tit. iii. v.
Evidence for Infants' Baptism. 261
after, do speak of original sin as affecting infants, Pt. I. ch. i. § i ; ch.
ii. § i. And Justin Martyr does speak of baptism as being to us instead
of circumcision, Pt. I. ch. ii. § 2. So also does St Cyprian, Pt. I. ch.
vi. § i; and Nazianzen, Pt. I. ch. xi. § 7; and St Basil, ch. xii. § 5; and
St Chrysostom, ch. xiv. § i ; and St Austin, ibid. ; the three last expressly
calling it in St Paul's phrase, the " Circumcision done without hands ; "
and St Cyprian, the " Spiritual circumcision." Origen also says that
Christ " gave us circumcision by baptism," Horn. 5 in Jos.
6. Irenseus, born about the time of St John's death, and probably of
Christian parents, is proved particularly to use the word regenerating for
baptising ; and he mentions infants as being ordinarily regenerated, ch.
iii. §§ 2-5. And Justin Martyr before him speaks of infants as being
made disciples to Christ, Pt. I. ch. ii. § 7.
7. Origen, Ambrose, and Austin do each of them expressly affirm
that baptising infants was ordered by the Apostles and practised in their
time, Pt. I. ch. v. § 3 ; ch. xiii. § i ; ch. xv. sect. 4, § 3, and sect. 6, § 2.
And Ambrose speaks of it as a thing taken for granted that John the
Baptist baptised infants, Pt. I. ch. xiii. § i . Of these Origen had both
his father and grandfather, Christians ; and he himself was born but
eighty-six years after the Apostles ; so that probably his grandfather was
born within the Apostles' time, or at least very nigh it, Pt. I. ch. v. § 9.
8. Tertullian, though he give his opinion inconstantly, and do at
one place advise the delay of infants' baptism, yet at the same place
speaks of it as a thing customarily received, Pt. I. ch. iv. §§ 3, 4, 5, 9,
where he also makes baptism absolutely necessary to salvation.
9. That place of Scripture, i Cor. vii. 14, " Else were your children
unclean, but now they are holy " [or, sanctified], is interpreted of their
baptism as then given, or to be given before they can actually be
reckoned holy, by Tertullian, Pt. I. ch. iv. § 12 ; St Hierom, Pt. I. ch.
xviii. § 4 ; Paulinus, ibid. ; St Austin, Pt. I. ch. xv. sect. 2 ; Pelagius,
ch'. xix. § 19. And that"Ay/o/ 'holy' [or, saints, or sanctified, or Chris
tians] is as much as to say, "baptised," Pt. I. ch. xi. § ii ; ch. vi. § i.
10. In St Cyprian's time, a question being put among sixty-six
bishops, whether an infant must be kept till eight days old before he be
baptised ; not one was of that opinion, Pt. I. ch. vi. § i. And to put
the rest together, the words of the Council of Eliberis, Pt. I. ch. vii.
Of Optatus, ch. ix. § 2. Of Gregory Nazianzen, ch. xi. §§ 2, 4, 6, 7.
Of St Ambrose, ch. xiii. §§ i, 2. Of St Chrysostom, ch. xiv. §§ i, 3, 5.
Of St Hierom, ch. xv. § j ; ch. xix. § 26. Of St Austin, ch. \v.,per
totum. Of Bonifacius, ibid., sect. 5, § 4. More of St Austin, ch. xix.
and xx. per Mum. Of a Council of Carthage, ch. xvi. §§ 3, 4, 5, 6. Of
a Council of Hippo, ibid., § 5. Of Siricius, ch. xvii. §§ 3, 6. Of Inno-
centius, ch. xvii. §§ 7, 8; ch. xix. § 28. Of Paulinus, ch. xviii. §§ i, 3.
Of another Paulinus, ibid., § 6. Of Celestius, ch. xix. §§ 5, 31, 35, 36.
262 The History of Infant Baptism.
Of Pelagius, ch. xix. §§ 29, 30. Of Zosimus, ibid., § 33. Of the Council
of Milevis, ibid., § 28. Of another Council of Carthage, ibid. And of
another, ch. xix. § 37. Of Vincentius Victor, ch. xx. $ 2, 3, 4, 5. Of
Julian, ch. xix. § 38. Of Theodorus, ibid., § 39. Of Pseudo-Clement,
ch. xxiii. § i. Of Pseudo-Dionysius, ibid., § 2. Of the author of the
Questions ad Orthodoxos, ibid., § 3. Of the author of the Questions
ad Antiochum, ibid. The words of these and of all the rest here cited,
do show that infants were baptised in their times, and that without con
troversy. There is not one man of them that pleads for it, or goes
about to prove it, as a thing denied by anyone, save that the Pseudo-
Dionysius answers the objections that the heathens made against it ;
which are much the same that the antipaedobaptists have made since.
n. St Austin mentions it among the things that "have not been
instituted by any Council, but have been ever in use." And says, "The
whole Church of Christ has constantly held that infants are baptised
for forgiveness of sin." And that "he! never read or heard of any
Christian, Catholic, or Sectary, that held otherwise." And expressly
says: " That no Christian man of any sort \nullus Christianoruni\ ever
denied it to be useful or necessary." Meaning of those that allow any
baptism at all, Pt. I. ch. xv. sect. 4, § 3 ; sect. 6, § 2 ; ch. xix. § 7, it. 1 7.
12. The Pelagians, who denied that infants have any need of for
giveness of sin, and were most of all pressed with that argument :
"Why are they then baptised?" did never offer to deny that they are
to be baptised, but do expressly grant that they have ever been wont to
be baptised ; and that no Christian, no not even any sectary, did ever
deny it, Pt. I. ch. xix. §§ 24, 26, 29, 30, 31, 32, 35, &c., ad 40. Pt. II.
ch. iv. §§ i, 3.
13. And for the other heretics of these times; there appears not (by
examining the many varieties of opinions that they held) any sign that
any of them that used any baptism at all, denied it to infants, Pt. I.
ch. xv. sect. 4, § 4 ; ch. xvi. §§ i, 2 ; ch. xxi. §§ i, 4.
14. It is held by all these ancient Christians, that no children dying
unbaptised can come to the Kingdom of Heaven, Pt. I. ch. iv. §§ 3, 6,
7, 8 ; ch. vi. §§ 9, 13, 14 ; ch. xi. §§ 6, 7; ch. xii. § 5 ; ch. xiii. § 2 ;
ch. xiv. § 2 ; ch. xv. sect. 3, § 2 ; ch. xvi. §§ 3, 4, 5, 6 ; ch. xviii. §§ 4, 5 ;
ch. xix. §§ 24, 28 ; ch. xx. § 6 ; ch. xxiii. § 3. Pt. II. ch. vi. §§ 4, 5, 6.
St Austin in the last of these places, says : there was in this matter
Christianorum populorum concordissima fidei conspiratio," ' The most
uniform consent of all Christian people [or nations].' And that the
Pelagians themselves were overswayed by it, and owned it to be
true.
Vincentius Victor was the only man that is known to affirm the con
trary. He maintained once, that by God's extraordinary mercy and
the prayers of the Church this might be obtained, but lie also recanted,
Evidence for Infants' Baptism. 263
ch. xx. §§ 3, 4, 5, yet they all grant that infants so dying have little or
(as some say) no punishment.
But they hold, nemine contradicente, that all baptised infants, dying in
infancy, are glorified, Pt. I. ch. vi. § 9; ch. xi. §§ 6, 7 ; ch. xv. sect. 3,
S 2 ; it. sect. 5, § 6. Pt. II. ch. vi. § 9.
. 15. They do accordingly speak of it as a great sin in parents, or
others that have opportunity, to suffer any child under- their care, or
any other person, to die unbaptised, Pt. I. ch. iv. § 4 ; ch. vi. §§ i, 9 ;
ch. xv. sect, i ; ch. xvii. § 3. Pt. II. ch. iii. sect. vi. § 7. And they
represent it as great piety and compassion in those that procure an
infant that has been exposed in the streets by an unnatural mother,
to be baptised, Pt. II. ch. vi. 9. And when for the more orderly
administration of baptism they enact that none shall be baptised but at
certain times of the year, they always except infants and sickly persons,
Pt. I. ch. xvii. § 3, for which reason also, many of them allow a layman
to baptise in case of necessity, Pt. I. ch. iv. 4.
1 6. They show that they have considered those reasons which the
antipaedobaptists do now make use of as objections against the baptising
of infants, as that they have no sense, no faith, no actual sin, &c., and
yet do not count them sufficient reasons to forbear the baptising them,
Pt. I. ch. xiv. § 3 ; ch. xv. sect. 3, it. sect. 5, §§ i, 4, 9 ; ch. xix. § 18.
17. The use of godfathers in infants' baptism is proved to have been
the custom of the Jews in baptising the infants of proselytes, Introduct
§§ 3, 4, and of Christians afterwards, by quotations from the year after
the Apostles 100, and all along this period, Pt. I. ch. iv. § 9 ; ch. xv.
sect. 4, § 3 ; it. sect. 5, §§ 3, 4, 5 ; ch. xix. § 7 ; ch. xxii. ; ch. xxiii. § 2.
Pt. II. ch. ix. §§ 9, 14.
1 8. This also makes one evidence; that the proofs which some of
the antipaedobaptists have, after their best search, pretended to bring
of any Church or any sect of Christians in these elder times, that did
not baptise infants, are found to be falsely recited, or mistaken, or not
to the purpose, Pt. I. ch. xv. sect. 4, §§ 3, 4. Pt. II. ch. i. §§ 2, 3, 4,
5 ; ch- "'• § T5 ; 9h- iv. §§ i, 2, 3.
And even the instances of particular men whom they would prove to
have been born of Christian parents, and yet not baptised in infancy,
do all (or at least all but one) fail of any tolerable proof, Pt. II. ch. iii.
per totum.
19. The sense of all modern learned men that do read these ancient
books, except those few specified, is, that these books do give clear
proof that infant baptism was customary in the times of those authors,
and from the Apostles' time, Pt. II. ch. ii. §§ i, 16. There are but
three or four that think otherwise. And Menno himself, the Father of
the present antipaedobaptists, granted this to be true, Pt. II. ch. viii. § 5.
20. Lastly. As these evidences are for the first four hundred years,
264 The History of Infant Baptism,
in which there appears only one man, Tertullian, that advised the delay
of infant baptism in some cases, and one Gregory that did perhaps
practise such delay in the case of his children ; but no society of men
so thinking, or so practising ; nor no one man saying it was unlawful
to baptise infants — so in the next seven hundred years, there is not so
much as one man to be found that either spoke for, or practised any
such delay. But all the contrary, Pt. I. ch. xxii. per tot. Pt. II. ch.
vii. § i.
And when about the year 1130, one sect among the Waldenses
declared against the baptising of infants, as being incapable of salva
tion; the main body of that people rejected that their opinion, and
they of them that held that opinion quickly dwindled away, and dis
appeared; there being no more heard of holding the tenet till the
rising of the German antipaedobaptists, A.D. 1522. Pt. II. ch. vii. §§ 2,
3, 4, &c.
And that all the National Churches now in the world do profess and
practise infant baptism, Pt. II. ch. viii. §§ i, 2, 3.
§ 2. The reasons and evidences for the other side ought to be divided
into two sorts. For there are some of them, which really have all the
force that they seem to have ; but some others of them, must indeed
pass for reasons, or for good evidence, to one that understands only the
vulgar translation of the Scripture, and only the present state of the
nations of the world, and of religion ; but do lose their force, when
one searches into the originals of the Scripture, or when one compre
hends the history of the state of religion in the world, at that time when
the books of the New Testament, or the books of the ancient Christians
were written.
I will first sum up that evidence which I take to be ot the first sort
i. It does not appear that the Jewish baptism of infants in our
Saviour's time (according to which the paedobaptists suppose the
Apostles were to regulate theirs, in all things not otherwise directed by
our Saviour) was in all respects like to that which the Christian paedo
baptists do practise. For the Jews seem to have baptised the infants
of such only as were proselyted, or made disciples out of the heathen
nations, and infants taken in war, found, bought, &c. But not their
own infants. They thought their own infants to be clean without it ;
clean by their birth, being of a nation which had been once universally
sanctified by baptism, Introduct., § 3.
^ This, supposing it to have some weight against infant baptism, as the
Christians do practise it, yet does not make for the antipsedobaptists'
practice neither. For they (as well as the psedobaptists) do hold that
all persons are now to be baptised at some age or other (persons born
of Christian parents as well as those that are born of heathens). Which
being granted, the example of the Jewish baptism directs it to be done
Evidence against Infants' Baptism. 265
in infancy ; for all whom the Jews baptised at all, they baptised in
infancy, if they had then the power of them. And besides, the excep
tion of Jews or Jews' children from the obligation to baptism was
understood by themselves to be a thing that was to continue only till
the coming of the Christ, or of the Elias, Introduct., §§ 3, 5, et ult.
Since which time the Jews are, as to matter of baptism, brought to the
same state as Gentiles. Which does take off all the force of this reason
or evidence.
2. As to the argument taken from the practice of the ancient Chris
tians, considered in general, it is some weakening of the force of it, that
some of those ancients who baptised infants did also give them the
communion ; some, I say, but not very many, and those, none of the
most ancient, Pt. II. ch. ix. §§ 15, 16, 17. Now, though a man's error in
one thing does not necessarily prove that he errs in another ; yet when
it is in relation to the same subject, it gives some abatement to his
authority. And though it be to this day controverted between the
Eastern and Western Christians, whether this be an error or not ; yet
the pasdobaptists of these parts of the world must, in their pleas against
the antipaedobaptists, yield it to be an error, because they themselves do
not use it. And so it is (for as far as its force reaches) argumentum ad
hominem at least.
3. As to particular men among the ancients, Tertullian advises the
delay of infant baptism (in ordinary cases where there is no apparent
danger of death) till they come to the age of understanding, and then
farther, till they are married, or else by their age are past the danger of
lust, Pt. I. ch. iv. §§ i, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8.
As for any value that is to be put upon Tertullian's judgment or
opinion, as a single man, I ought to have put this among the second
sort of evidence, which is of little or no force with such as do under
stand the history of that time, because all that do so, do know that he
was accounted (both in his own time, and also by those who after his
death spoke of him, or his works) a man of odd, rash, singular, and
heterodox tenets in many other things, and that in the latter part of his
life he turned (as men of that temper commonly do) a downright
heretic in some fundamental points of the faith, Pt. I. ch. iv. §§ i,
13. So that his opinion or judgment was never esteemed of any
value.
And for his testimony as a witness of the then practice, his speaking
against infant baptism is as good evidence that it was then customary,
as theirs that mention it with approbation.
But this I think has some weight, that if Tertullian had known of
any such tradition or order left by the Apostles, as Origen, who lived
at the same time, speaks of, to baptise infants, he, as heady as he was,
would not then have spoken against the doing of it, especially if the
266 The History of Infant Baptism.
book where he does this was written (as Dr Allix judges it was) while
he continued in the Catholic Church.
This, therefore, may be concluded, that either there was no good
account of such a tradition, or else that Tertullian had never heard of
it. Which last is not at all improbable, for Origen, living most of his
time in Palestine, where the Apostles had much and long conversed, and
being born of Christian ancestors in Egypt not far off, might very well
have good proof of an order left by the Apostles, and sure footsteps of
their practice, of which Tertullian, born of heathen parents, and living
at Carthage (a place where no Apostle ever came, nor nigh it by a great
distance), might at that time have heard nothing.
However it be, the antipaedobaptists must make much of this man.
For he is the only one of all the ancients that had this opinion. So
says M. du Pin,6 who has with the greatest accuracy searched their
works, and with the greatest fidelity reported them ; he in reciting this
passage of Tertullian observes, " One finds no other writer in all anti
quity that speaks at this rate." And so the Magdeburgenses, "Ter
tullian by a strange opinion holds," 7 &c.
4. But though there be never another that advises such a delay of
baptism, yet there was one that lived about one hundred and thirty
years after that time in another part of the world, that practised such a
delay, viz., Gregory, the father of Gregory Nazianzen. He seems to
have suffered all his children, even those that were born to him after
his baptism, to grow up to a full age without baptising them. This
matter of fact is discussed with the evidence pro and contra, Pt. II.
ch. iii. sect. 6, §§ 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. And the verdict upon it (as I for my
part have yielded it) is that he did do so.
As Tertullian's character was, that he was learned and ingenious, but
hot and heady, so this man seems on the other side to have been
ignorant and of mean capacities. Only his son indeed does, as duty
required, speak honourably of him.
If he had been a man much spoken of, it would have made a better
argument (than his practice now does) that leaving children unbaptised
was no unusual thing, because his doing so is not mentioned with any cen
sure or wonder by any author of that time. But as he was a man little
regarded, and placed in an obscure and remote corner, and never men
tioned but only by the writers of his son's life (who lived six hundred years
after) this cannot be expected. There is in elder times no mention of
his name at all, but what we have from his son, and had it not been for
him, it would not have been known that such a place as Nazianzum, or
such a bishop of it as this elder Gregory, had ever been. And it was
not for the son to reflect on any faults or neglects of his father. He
« Bibl. Nouv., vol. i. De Tertulliano.
7 Cent. 3, c. iv. Inclinatio Doctrine cle Baptismo.
Evidence against Infants Baptism. 267
does do that, as far as could be seemly for him, when he admonishes
his people against any such neglect. Of which admonitions of his I
give several instances in Pt. I. ch. xi. §§ 2, 4, 6, 7. In one of them, in
deed, he does (perhaps out of some compliance to his father's practice)
advise, that if there appear no danger of the child's death, the baptism
should be delayed till he be about three years old. But that helps this
cause but little, both because a child at three years old is as incapable
of receiving baptism upon his personal profession as a mere infant, and
also because he at other places urges the speedy administering of it
in general ; and so he does at this place, if any danger of death do
appear.
This evidence, therefore, of Gregory's father, as I would not omit it
(let it have what weight it will bear), so I cannot reckon it to have any
great force, being but one man's practice, and that of a man of little
judgment or credit.
5. That argument for the universal consent of antiquity in baptising
infants, which is taken from the declaration of St Austin [that he never
read or heard of any Christian, Catholic, or sectary that denied that
infants are baptised for forgiveness of sin] and from the grant of Pelagius
[that he also never heard of any that denied that they are to be bap
tised]. That argument, I say, is something weakened by this, that
Tertullian, two hundred years before their time, is found to have spoken
against it, at least as ordinarily practised.
What must be concluded from hence is, that neither St Austin nor
Pelagius had ever seen Tertullian's book De Baptismo. As I have
observed, Pt. I. ch. iv. § 13. And that from hence forward, that rule
must proceed with an exception of one man, viz., Tertullian.
6. The Petrobrusians, one of those societies of men that have been
since called Waldenses, withdrawing themselves about the year uoo
from the communion of the Church of Rome, which was then very
corrupt, did reckon infant baptism as one of the corruptions, and
accordingly renounced it, and practised only adult baptism, Pt. II. ch.
vii. §§ 5> 6> 7:
An exception that abates in great measure the force of the evidence
from these men's practice is this, that (besides that they were very late
and very few) they did what they did on this principle, that no infant,
baptised or not, can come to heaven, which is by both the parties now
acknowledged to be a great and uncharitable error.
These evidences, how .much or how little soever they weigh, or
avail towards the determining the point, are however to be reckoned
among true ones ; that is, they are true, and not mistaken matters of
fact.
§ 3. But there is, as I said, another sort of evidences and reasons
against infant baptism, which are apt to weigh much with one that un-
268 The History of Infant Baptism.
derstands not the state of the times spoken of, and can read only the
vulgar translation of the Scripture, and such a man cannot much be
blamed for taking them as good reason or evidence ; but they lose their
force with anyone that is not under those disadvantages. And such I
reckon these following.
i. There are several ancient books that say nothing at all about
infant baptism, neither for it nor against it. And it is wonder, say
some antipaedobaptists, if it were common in those times, that these as
well as others should not mention it.
A pompous recital of the names of these makes an unlearned anti-
paedobaptist think that they are so many authors on his side. But any
one that understands how the ancient Christian writers were mostly
employed, viz., in defending the truth and innocence of their religion
against the objections and slanders of heathens and Jews, in encourag
ing the persecuted people to bear with faith and patience the obloquy
and sufferings they lay under, &c. Such a man, instead of wondering
that there are no more, will wonder there are so many, that do happen
in such their writings to mention so particular a thing as the baptising
of children. Especially since, in the primitive times, there was no con
troversy started about that point. Now that it is become a controversy;
yet let any man go into a bookseller's shop and take down ten books at
all adventures, and he will find above half of them to be such as have
no mention pro nor contra about infant baptism, because they are written
on such subjects as give no occasion for it. It is the nature of a man
whose head is hot with any controversy, to wonder he does not find
something about that in every book and chapter he reads.
Mr Tombs made a plea of this, but he was too candid a disputant to
lay much stress on it. He takes notice of five authors that have nothing
about it. Mr Stennet takes two of his, and reckons up six more, who, he
says, have nothing of it.8 I gave reasons, I hope, satisfactory enough
why in Mr Tombs' authors no mention of such a thing could be ex
pected, Pt. I. ch. xxi. §§ 4, 5. And the same are applicable to those
produced by Mr Stennet, save that he reckons Irenaeus for one, who, as I
show, Pt. I. ch. iii., speaks plainly enough of it. And also I have
shown, Pt. I. ch. i. and ii., that three more of them, Clemens Romanus,
Hermas, and Justin Martyr, though not speaking directly of it, do
mention things from whence inferences may be drawn for the proof of it.
The very same remark, I think, ought to be made upon that
objection against infant baptism which the antipsedobaptists do much
insist on, viz., that St Luke, in reciting the lives and acts of the
Apostles, does not mention any infants baptised by them. Whoever
observes the tenor of that history, and considers the state of those
times, will perceive that St Luke's aim is to give a summary account
9 Answ. to Russen, p. 68.
Evidence tJiat seems to make against Infant Baptism. 269
of the main and principal passages of their lives, and of those passages
especially in which they found the greatest opposition. And in
such a history (which is but short in all) who can look for an account
of what children they baptised? Suppose that the life and actions
of some renowned and laborious modern bishop or doctor were
to be written (say of Bishop Ussher, Stillingfleet, &c.), and that, in
a volume ten times as long as the book of the Acts of the Apostles,
who ' will expect to find there any account of what children they
christened ? And yet there is no doubt but they did christen hundreds,
or (if we take in what was done by ministers deputed to them) thousands.
The main business of an Apostle was to preach, convert, attest the
truth of Christ's resurrection, miracles, &c., and not to baptise, as St
Paul says.9 The baptising of such as the Apostles had convinced, and
especially of their children, would of course be left to deputies. Yet of
the six baptisms (which are all that St Paul is mentioned to have been
concerned in) three were the baptisms of whole households : 10 such a
one and all his. And that is as much as can reasonably be expected
of so minute a circumstance.
2. Irenseus, who is the eldest of the Fathers in whom the pasdo-
baptists have as yet found any positive mention of infants as baptised,
does not at that place use the word itself, baptised, but the word
regenerated, or born again, Pt. I. ch. iii. § 2.
This may invalidate his testimony with one that knows of no other
sense of that word than what is common in modern English books.
But any man that has been at all conversant in the Fathers, or that has
read but those passages of them that are in this my collection, or but
even those to which I referred just now at n. 3, and at n. 5 of the
evidences for infant baptism, will be satisfied that they as constantly
meant baptised, by the word regenerated, or born again, as we do mean
the same by the word christened.
To be satisfied of this (and I do assure anyone that will search, that
he shall not miss of satisfaction) is very well worth a pgedobaptist's
while. For the testimonies of Irenseus and of Justin Martyr so near
the times of the Apostles are preferable for their antiquity to the testi
mony of any three or four others.
3. St Basil in a certain sermon speaks so as plainly to suppose that
a great part of his auditory was made up of such as had been instructed
in Christian religion from their infancy, and yet not baptised, Pt. I. ch.
xii. §§ 2, 3.
I have reason to reckon this among the evidences that may appear
to people of little reading, and to such as have but a shallow and super
ficial knowledge of the state of the ancient times, to have a great weight
against the belief of any general practice of infants' baptism at that
Cor. i. 17. 10 Acts xvi. 15, 35; i Cor. i. 16.
270 The History of Infant Baptism.
time, because it had such an effect upon myself. I thought, upon the
first reading of this place, nothing could be a plainer proof that the
Christians then did not commonly baptise their children in infancy,
than this evidence of a church full of people, a considerable part of
whom had been catechised from their infancy, and were not yet baptised.
Such a number of heathen converts had been easily to be accounted
for, but these seemed born of Christian parents, because he says :
"From a child catechised in the word."
But all this argument lost its force with me, when by farther reading
I perceived (and wondered at myself afterwards, as is common, why I
had not perceived before) that which I show in the same chapter, and
also Pt. II. ch. iii. sect, i, to have been the state of the world as to
religion at that time, viz., that beside those that were heathens on one
side, and those that were professed or baptised Christians on the other,
there was a vast number of a middle sort, half converts, heathen men
converted thus far, that they were convinced that Christianity was the
true religion, and that they must be baptised into it sometime or other,
but not being willing as yet to abandon their lusts, they put it off from
time to time. These men did, as many wicked men do now, instruct
their children in the godly precepts of religion, but they could not offer
them to baptism till they were baptised themselves. And those that
St Basil speaks to, had been the children of such men.
We see a woeful example in our churches of a much like nature.
Many wicked men do at times resolve to become serious sometime or
other, and then they think they will come to the Holy Communion and
engage themselves to a godly life. They put off this from time to time,
many times till death seizes them. These men, if they had been born
of heathens and not yet baptised, but yet had come to the knowledge
of Christianity, would put off their baptism as they now do the other
sacrament ; much at the rate as the fathers of those to whom St Basil
preaches had done their baptism, and as he complains the sons also,
to whom he preaches, did. And as we see now, that nigh half the
world of nominal Christians are such procrastinators ; so there seems
to have been not a much less proportion among the catechumens then.
And as the Fathers do speak of those who were during this dilatory
course seized with death, as lost men ; so I doubt it is but poor com
fort that we can give to men so seized, that have for like reasons all
their life long put off the receiving the communion, viz., because they
would not yet. repent.
But still this state of religion in St Basil's time does not prove that
any who were once baptised themselves, did delay or put off the baptis
ing of their children.
4. Some arguments against infants' baptism have all their strength
from that imperfect conception of things which arises from one's read-
Evidence that seems to make against Infant Baptism. 271
ing only the vulgar translations of Scripture ; and do vanish when one
consults the originals. That commission of our Saviour to the Apostles,
Matt. xxyiii. 19, which is in the English: "Go and teach all nations;
baptising them," &c., " teaching them to observe," &c., as it affords on
one side this argument for psedobaptism : " Infants are part of the
nations, and so to be baptised by this commission ; " so on the other
side it gives occasion to the antipsedobaptists to retort, and say, "Infants
are such a part of the nation as are not capable of being taught : and so
not to be baptised."
But the word which is translared teach, in the first of those clauses,
has a peculiar signification in the original, and is not the same word as
that which is translated teaching, in the second : but signifies much like
what we say in English, to enter anyone's name as a scholar, disciple, or
proselyte to such a master, school, or profession. Now the common
language of the Jews (in which language it was that St Matthew wrote
this Gospel), as it does not admit of this phrase, an infant is taught, or
instructed '.• so it very well allows of this other : such or such an infant is
entered a disciple, or, made a proselyte to such a profession or religion.
And the Jews did commonly call a heathen man's infant, whom they
had taken and circumcised and baptised, a young proselyte, as I showed
in the Introduction. And St Peter, speaking against the imposing of
circumcision on the heathen converts and their children, words it thus :
" To put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples ;" whereas it was infants
especially on whom this yoke was attempted to be put, Acts xv. 10.
And St Justin expressly mentions infants as made disciples in the very
same word that is used by St Matthew in that place.
Another thing that causes in vulgar people a prejudice in understand
ing those words of our Saviour, is this : a man that cannot read books
is apt to form all his notions of things by what he sees in his own time
and country. So an illiterate man (in England, for example) hearing of
the Apostles being sent into the nations to disciple and baptise them,
he imagines it like some preacher's coming into England as it is now,
to preach and baptise the people. Now this notion naturally creates in .
his mind a supposal that Christians did not baptise their children in
infancy, because they are now to be baptised after they are taught. He
does not animadvert to that difference which appears by conceiving all
those nations to which the Apostles were sent, as heathens, who must
be baptised after they were taught, having had no fathers to baptise
them before. This idea looks gross, but one may perceive plain foot
steps and traces of such conceptions among ignorant people in the
tenor and chain of their discourse.
5. There has been an argument raised against infants' baptism, even
from that text by which (among others) the Fathers did never fail to
prove it. I mean from those words of our Saviour, John iii. 5, which
272 The History of Infant Baptism.
are in the English : " Except a man be born again of water," &c. They
catch hold of the word man there, and say it is declared necessary for
everyone after he is a man grown. I would not have any entipsedo-
baptist that keeps a more refined conversation, think, that I feign or
impose this on them. It is certainly true that some ignorant people in
country places do not only urge this, but do say that it is inculcated to
them by their teachers.
I shall not stand to show the mistake of this, having said more than
so palpable a misunderstanding of the words as they are in the original
can deserve, Ft. I. ch. vi. § 13 ; Pt. II. ch. vi. § i.
6. To enervate an argument taken out of Scripture for infant baptism
is equivalent to the forming of one against it, and does as much tend
to the excusing of any illiterate man, if the proofs which should have con
vinced him that children are to be baptised, be eluded either by trans
lations that give an imperfect sense, or by false interpretations, the false
hood whereof he cannot perceive. I shall give three instances.
i. In that text, i Cor. vii. 14, which is rendered in English, "Now
are your children holy." The word here translated holy is far more often
in St Paul's Epistles translated saints ; and so almost all (not quite all)
the ancients do understand St Paul here, as if he had said in English,
Now are your children saints. They observe, moreover, that with St
Paul this term, saints, is generally used as another word for Christians.
As, To the saints at Ephesus, at Rome, &c., is as much as to say, To
the Christians there. Therefore they take St Paul to mean, Now are
your children Christians, that is to say, baptised. He persuades the
believing wife not to go away, but to stay in hopes that she may con
vert, or save, as he words it, he;- unbelieving husband : and that the
rather, because it appeared that the grace of God did generally so far
prevail against the infidelity of the other, that the children of such
matches were baptised for the most part. This interpretation, or such
as amounts to the like effect, I have shown to be the most current
among the primitive Christians, in those places of the collection which
. are referred to before, at no. 9 of the Evidences for Infant Baptism. And
if it be allowed, there needs no more evidence for it from Scripture.
But what shall an unlearned man do that meets with this text ex
pounded by new interpretations that do totally set aside that meaning,
as holy, that is, not bastards, &c.
Methinks this should be plain ; that since the word ayioi is some
times translated saints, and sometimes holy, there should even at those
places where it is translated holy, be understood such a holiness as is
something agreeable to the signification of the word saints, and not a
new-made signification, in which neither St Paul nor any other Apostle,
did ever use the word.
2. The words of that other text, John iii. 5, were always taken in one
Evidence tJiat seems to make against Infant Baptism. 273
fixed and undoubted sense and meaning, viz., to signify baptism. And
that so known and supposed, that not only the words at length, born
again of water, &c., but the word born again, or regenerated, alone
was used as another word for baptised; and regeneration for baptism
not only by all the Fathers of the first four hundred years, but I think
fpr above a thousand years following. So here was a plain place of Scrip
ture for baptising of all persons that should enter the Kingdom of God.
But even this has been in great measure defeated by a new interpreta
tion, much of the nature of that by which the Quakers do elude all
those places that speak of the other sacrament. For as they, by
the words bread, wine, eating, drinking, &c., do force themselves to
mean some mystical or metaphorical thing ; as for bread, something else
(internal bread, I think), and so of the rest. So the new interpreters of
this place do by the word water here. In short, they have brought it
to this : that the text does not signify baptism at all, nor anything about
it. And the notion and ' signification of the words regenerate and re
generation, is by degrees so altered in common speech, that he that reads
them in any modern book does not know nor understand them again
when he meets with them in any ancient one. From whence proceeds
the wondering that some have made at St Austin, when reading occa
sionally some chapter of him, they have found that he takes all that are
baptised to be regenerate : thinking he means by regenerate the same that
they do, viz., converted in heart, &c.
But at this rate of altering the sense of words, any text of Scripture
whatever may be eluded. The most fundamental article of the New
Testament, " I believe in Jesus Christ." It is but to make the words
Jesus Christ in a new sense for the light within a man's self, and
then if he believe in himself, he holds the article. Therefore, the words
of Scripture, or of any old book, must be taken in that sense in which
they were current at that time. Which because it is a thing that vulgar
people, of whom I speak, cannot inquire into ; therefore I put this way
of evading the force of this text among the answers to it that may pass
with them ; but it appears vain to those that are acquainted with the
old use of the word.
3. There is another interpretation yet by which the force of that text
is evaded. And that is by such as do grant indeed that the words,
born again of water, &c., are to be understood of baptism; but they
say that by the Kingdom of God there, is to be understood, not the
kingdom of glory hereafter in heaven, but the Church here, or the dis
pensation of the Messiah. So that it is as much as to say, except anyone
be baptised, he cannot enter into, or be a member of, the Church. I
show, Part II., ch. vi. § i, n. 2, that this interpretation is plainly incon
sistent with the context, and also that it avails not this cause if it were
allowed.
274 The History of Infant Baptism.
These last mentioned reasons, evidences, and arguments, though I
think them not justly pleadable against infant baptism, yet I thought it
fair to set them down. Let every one pass his judgment. And if they
have not any real weight in true arguing, yet the appearance of it, which
they carry, does serve to make people pass the more favourable censure
on those of the antipaedobaptists, who have no means of understanding
the history of the ancient times, and can read only the vulgar trans
lations of Scripture, and do light only on such expositors as I have
mentioned.
But this I must say, that any antipsedobaptist who, having better
means of knowledge, is convinced that any of these arguments have
really no force, and yet does urge them upon the more ignorant people,
acts very disingenuously toward them, and is a prevaricator in the
things of God. For to use any argument with an intent to deceive,
hath in it (though there be no proposition uttered that is false in ter-
minis) the nature of a lie : which as it is base and unmanly in human
affairs, so it is impious when it is pretended to be for God, as Job says,
ch. xiii. 7.
CHAPTER XL
A DISSUASIVE FROM SEPARATION ON ACCOUNT OF THE DIFFERENCE OF
OPINION ABOUT THE AGE OR TIME OF RECEIVING BAPTISM.
§ i. T T THAT I have to say in this last chapter I have kept as a
V V reserve : that in case people cannot be brought to be of
one opinion in this question ; yet they may avoid that which is now
adays made a common consequence of the difference in sentiments
about it, and is far more dangerous to the soul's health than the mistake
itself is : I mean the renouncing of one another's communion in all
other parts of the Christian worship. Whosoever could prevail on
them to relinquish this humour of dividing, would do a most acceptable
piece of service to the Christian religion and the salvation of their
souls.
For our blessed Saviour, who does easily pardon involuntary errors
and mistakes, and forbids His members to despise or reject one another
for them, does impute a heavy guilt to those that go about to break or
divide the unity of His body.
I had thought once to insert here a discourse of the great sin and
mischief of schism ; but having been too long already, and that being
a subject which requires, and has had, just tracts written on it, I
shall content myself with reciting briefly a few plain proofs of the
stress which God, in Scripture, lays upon our endeavouring to keep the
A Dissuasive from Schism. 275
unify of the Spirit (i.e., a spiritual or religious unity, and not only living
quietly near one another) in the bond of peace, notwithstanding differences
in opinions.
i. There is no one thing that is often er, nor so often, commanded,
inculcated, entreated, and prayed for, by our Saviour and His Apostles,
than that all Christians should be one, and as members of the same
body. And on the other side, no sin that is more severely forbidden,
represented as more mischievous, nor more terribly threatened, than
divisions, schisms, separations, and whatsoever breaks the said unity.
St Paul does not only reckon such things as undoubted signs of a
carnal mind (i Cor. iii. 3, 4), but also when he gives a roll or catalogue
of the sins which are certainly damning, " which they that practise,
shall not inherit the Kingdom of God" (Gal. v. 19, 20, 21), such as
adultery, drunkenness, &c., he reckons amongst the rest srdasn; xa/ aipi-
asig, which we render seditions, heresies, which are the names which he
commonly gives to divisions. Since his time indeed the latter of those
words has been used to denote false doctrines in the fundamentals of
faith, but he never means anything else by it, but parties, factions, sects,
or divisions. One plain instance in what sense he takes it, is in i Cor.
xi. 1 8, 19, where what are called divisions in one verse, are called
heresies in the other. Let anyone read this text for the meaning of the
word, and then let him turn back again to Gal. v. 19, where adultery,
murder, and heresies are declared subject to the same condemnation of
exclusion from God's kingdom.
The sinfulness of schism is so plainly, fully, and frequently set forth
by our Saviour and His apostles, that there are no Christian writers or
teachers of any Church whatever, but what do, if they are required to
speak, own that it is in its nature a mortal sin ; even the leaders of
schismatical congregations dare not deny it. If they did, they would be
convicted of denying plain Scripture. But as Bishop Tillotson does
somewhere observe of the Popish preachers, that though they do own
in their writings and disputes with the Protestants, that repentance and
amendment of life are necessary to the forgiveness of sins, yet in their
discourses to their people they say so much of confession to a priest,
&c., and so little of amendment of life, that the people think all of the
one, and little of the other : so there are several teachers who among all
the sins that they forewarn their people of, do so seldom preach against
schism and division, so seldom quote those places of Scripture that set
forth the guilt of it ; and when they do, do touch that point so tenderly,
that the people, if they do not trust their own eyes in reading God's
word, and taking it all together, are apt to forget that schism is any sin
at all : or at most, they conceive of it as of a little one. All the
Christians near our Saviour's time had a quitej contrary sentiment.
They, when they gathered up into one short draught or creed the most
2/6 The History of Infant Baptism.
fundamental and necessary truths that they were to hold, put in this for
one, " I believe the holy Catholic Church, and the communion of saints,"
i.e., I own the Universal Church, and that all Christians in it ought to
hold communion one with another. For the word saints is in Scripture
and all other old Christian books used as another word for Christians;
and the communion of saints means nothing else in the creed but the
communion of Christians. He, then, that believes other things to be
duties, and this to be none, ought, when he repeats the creed, to say,
I believe all the rest of it, but I do not own the communion of saints as
any article of Christian faith.
§ 2. 2. Whereas the sinfulness of schism in general will not bear a
dispute ; but all people that separate, do, if they be forced to speak,
own, as I said, schism to be a great sin ; but do say withal that their
separation is not 'schism in the Scripture sense, because the Church
from which they have separated is such as from which one ought to
separate, and whereas the reason that is usually given of the necessity
of a separation of one from another, is, that one party holds tenets and
opinions which the other cannot assent to, or administers some of the
divine offices in such ways as the other does not approve, but takes the
opinions to be errors, and the said administrations to be grounded on
those errors ; the thing to be inquired is, whether these opinions which
are judged to be errors, be such as do overthrow the foundation of
Christian faith. For if they be such, the plea must be allowed. False
doctrines in the fundamentals of religion do put a bar to our communion
with those that teach them.
But if they be not such, we have a plain direction and order from St
Paul to bear with one another, to receive one another to communion
notwithstanding differences in them, and not to judge or despise one
another for them. He has a discourse purposely on this subject. It
begins Rom. xiv. i. He continues it through all that chapter, and to
verse 8 of the next. He instances in men holding contrary sides in the
disputes which troubled the Church at that time. He both begins and
ends that discourse with a positive command that they receive one another
notwithstanding them; and he plainly means (as whoever reads the
whole place will observe) to communion as brethren ; and not only to
live in peace and quietness with one another, which last they were to do
with the heathens their neighbours.
He orders those of them that were positive, and sure that their
opinion was the right, to content themselves with $&& full persuasion of
their own mind, and to take it for granted that they are not bound to
bring all the rest over to their opinion ; nor yet to forsake their com
munion if they will not so be brought, verse 22, " Hast though faith"
(faith here signifies that full persuasion of mind mentioned before at
verse 5) " have it to thyself before God." He would have them be so
Differences in Opinions consist with Communion. 277
modest as to think at the same time that others as good as they might
yet continue of the other opinion.
He shows, ch. xv. v. 5, 6, that they may, notwithstanding these dif
ferences, " with one mind and one mouth glorify God." And whereas
he prays there that they may be (as we translate it English) like-minded
one, toward another ; those phrases of like-minded, and one mind, do not
import that they that thus join in glorifying God, must of necessity be
all of one opinion in disputable matters : for it has been all along his
scope to show that they might well enough do that, though each did
keep his several opinion in those things. But those phrases denote only
that they should do it unanimously (which is the proper rendering of the
word o/jko6u/jutdi>f, and that which St Paul generally means by the word,
aw ppovtTv, as Bishop Stillingfleet has shown J by instances). And they
might be unanimous in glorifying God, though they were not all of a
mind as to meat, days, &c., since in the main matters they were all of a
mind.
And though St Paul there do instance only in the disputes about
meats and drinks, and days, &c., yet the tenor of his discourse and the
reasons he gives against separating for them, do reach to all differences
that are not fundamental. For that which he says, " The Kingdom of
God is not meat and drink, but righteousness," &c., is applicable to
any opinions that are not of the foundation : the Kingdom of God,
or substance of religion, does not consist in such things. And as he
says, " For meat destroy not the work of God," we may say of such
opinions, Do not, for such things destroy that unity which Christ has
made so essential to His Church. But it is otherwise of the funda
mental articles of our faith, for in them the Kingdom of God does con
sist. If anyone do hold or practise idolatry or the worship of any but
the true God, or do deny the divinity of Christ or His death for our sins,
or the necessity of repentance and a good life, or the belief of the resur
rection and judgment to come, the Apostle would never have bid us
receive such, or hold communion with them.
But there are, besides those that hold such doctrines pernicious to
the foundation, abundance of Christians that hold the same faith in all
fundamental points, who do yet live in divisions and separation, disown
ing and renouncing one another's communion. It is pity but these
should be reduced to the unity which Christ's body requires.
Now there is no other way in the world to effect this, but only that
which the Apostle here prescribes, viz., that they receive one another
notwithstanding the different opinions they may hold about lesser
matters. There have other ways been tried, ways of human policy, but
all with wretched success. They have been tried with so much obstinacy,
as almost to ruin the Church.
1 Unreasonableness of Separation, Ft. II. sect. 19.
278
The History of Infant Baptism.
The Church of Rome has tried to reduce all men to unity by forcing
them to be all of one opinion, and to submit their judgments to her
dictates ; some of which are things which the Scripure teaches not, and
some directly contrary to it. They use to this purpose, first, disputa
tions ; and when that will not do, then fire and faggot, or other cruel
ties. We have lived to see what tyrannous, unchristian, and bloody
work a neighbour prince has made to bring all his subjects to be of one
religion (as he calls it), that is, all of one opinion in all things delivered
by that Church, which has been far from limiting herself to fundamental
articles. And we have seen the event : he has made some hypocrites
and apostates, who do upon all occasions show the regret of their con
science ; some refugees, and some martyrs. This way, therefore, of
bringing people to glorifying God unanimously, by drawing up a set of
particular opinions, and forcing all men to subscribe to them, is no suc
cessful way. It requires of men what God in Scripture never requires.
It has filled the world with blood and enmity, and has made Chris
tendom a shambles. St Paul, with all his Apostolical authority, does
not, we see, require it ; but says, In such things let each be fully per
suaded in his own mind (meaning, till one by reason do convince the
other, or be convinced by him), and in the meantime receive and own
one another as brethren.
Another way that has been tried is quite on the contrary, and runs to
the other extreme. It is this. They that are of different opinions in
these lesser matters, say thus : We will not receive each other at all, i.e.,
not to any Christian communion ; and yet we will obtain the end that St
Paul would have, viz., the setting forth the glory of God by another way
as good. Since we are of this opinion, and you of that, do you make
one Church of Christ, and we will make another ; we will own no
Church communion with you, nor you with us ; we will neither receive
you, nor desire to be received by you. And yet we will live in peace,
and try which shall come to heaven soonest.
Now this is on the other side the most contrary to the nature and
design of Christianity of anything that could be devised. For Christ, as
He is but one head, never designed to have any more but one body.
Here we see already two, totally distinct, for they receive not one
another. And observe the consequence of such a principle. They
continue but a very little while before that in each of these Churches
some members differing from the rest in opinion about some new-started
matter, make a subdivision, as necessary as the first division was. Then
the Church which out of one became two, out of two is propagated to
four ; and by the same reason, and by following on the same principle,
there will quickly be forty. Nay, it is certain, and will be plain to any
one that considers, that by driving that principle home of making sepa
rate Churches of all different opinions, it will come to pass at last that
Not several Churches for several Opinions. 279
there will not be any two men of one Church. For if all things relating
to religion were to be canvassed, there are not any two men in the world
of the same mind in all things.
The fault therefore of this way is evident. They are in the right in
supposing that there will always be variety of opinions ; and that it is in
vain to think by any force to prevent it. But to think that the number
of Churches must hold pace with the number of opinions, is a mistake
of Wretched consequence. It makes Christ's Church, which should be
•a compacted body, a rope of sand. It perpetuates for ever those strifes
and janglings about opinions, which in one communion would quickly
•cease : for each party when they have thus taken sides, will always strive
to justify their own side. It is that which the ancient Christians call,
'"the setting up altar against altar." It gives so advantageous a handle
to the common enemy, that he desires no other, to ruin any Church
that is so divided into parties. St Paul well apprehended the conse
quence of such dividings, when he '2 besought the Corinthians by the
name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that they would not admit of any such
method ; and when he entreated the Christians at Rome,3 that if any
one among them did go about such a practice, the effect should be, that
every one of them should avoid him. In a word, where Christianity is
in this state, it is in the next degree to dissolution.
And whereas the proposers or defenders of this course do say : We
may live in peace, though we do renounce one another's communion in
religion. This is neither practicable for any long time, nor is it sufficient
for a Christian's purpose. Not practicable : for as our Saviour has said,
"a house so divided cannot stand; " so we see by experience the heart
burnings and hatred, and emulations, and bitter zeal which the separate
parties do always show one against another. Not sufficient : because
Christ requires that all His disciples should be as brethren, and as limbs
of the same body, which is more than outward peace and quietness.
The heathen neighbour cities that worshipped several gods, would some
times make a league of peace and say, Do you worship your god and
we will worship ours, without meddling with one another's religion : but
it is horrible so to divide Christ.
It remains therefore, that there is no other way to answer the design
of Christ, than that Christians of the same faith do hold communion and
receive one another, notwithstanding their various opinions. And if any
one object against his joining with the established Church where he lives,
that he is of one opinion, and they of another in many things : he needs
only to mind, that this is the very case that St Paul was here speaking
•of, when he bids them " receive one another." They that he speaks to,
were likewise of different opinions ; and it was on occasion of such
•difference that he gives them this command of not separating for them.
- I Cor. i. 10. :! Rom. xvi. 17.
280 The History of Infant Baptism.
Before I go any farther, I shall observe two corollaries that do
naturally follow from what has been said.
One is, that in far the greatest number of the divided Churches and
parties that are in Christendom ; the sin, the mischief, and the danger
to their souls does not consist so much in the tenets and opinions for
which they differ, as in the divisions which they make for them, the
separations, the mutual excommunications or renouncing of one
another's communion. This I conceive to be so clear a truth, that
whereas, if I had a friend or brother, or anyone for whose eternal good
I were most concerned, that differed in some such opinions from the
Church where he lived, and as I thought, from the truth ; and yet did
resolve and declare (as the old English Puritans did) that he would
make no disturbance or separation ; I should think it a thing of no great
consequence whether ever his opinion were rectified or not : yet if I
found that he were inclined to separate, I should think labour ought to
be taken, as for his life, to hinder that.
The other is ; that those Churches which do impose, as terms of
communion (I mean of lay communion), the fewest subscriptions, or
indeed none at all, to any doctrines, beside the fundamental doctrines
of Christian faith, have in that respect the best and most excellent
constitution. It is fitted for the fulfilling of this command of the
Apostle. To do otherwise, is to refuse what he here prescribes, of
" receiving one that is weak in the faith." For supposing those doctrines
to be true, yet he may think otherwise : and then he cannot be received
without affirming what is in his conscience a falsehood. He is there
fore rejected : and as far as that Church can go, lost. Whereas if he
had been received without such a condition, he might either have
learned better in time ; or if he had not, that error would not finally
have much hurt him : for it is supposed to be no fundamental one.
Nor would it have hurt the Church : for he is supposed to be one that
desired to be received, and that would not have made any schism for
it. I do not pretend to know the history of the constitutions of the
many Churches that now are : but of all that I do know, the Church of
England is in this respect the best constituted. That Church requires
of a layman no declaration, subscription, or profession, but only of the
baptismal covenant. Any person when he is baptised, must by himself
if he be of age, by his sponsors if an infant, profess to renounce the
devil and all wickedness, to believe the creed, and to keep God's com
mandments. There is nothing required after this to his full communion,
save that he learn, and answer to the questions of, a very short catechism ;
of one clause whereof 1 must by-and-by say something. Nobody can-
in other matters compel him to subscribe the opinions which the Church
thinks truest, nor to recant those which he thinks truest.
§ 3. 3. The same that has been said of different opinions in doctrinal
TJie Division worse than the Error. 28 1
points not fundamental, may be applied to the several ways of ordering
the public worship, prayers, administration of the sacraments, &c.
Of which ways it does as naturally fall out that some do like one best,
and some another ; as it does of the foresaid different opinions, that
some think one true, and some the other. The same rule for
avoiding of schism must therefore be applied here, as there : only with
this difference ; of those opinions, there was no necessity that the man
I spoke of should be required to assent to such as the generality thought
the truest ; but here the nature of the thing requires that if he hold
communion, he must join in the prayers and other service. I must
divide the difficulties that may arise upon this into two cases.
One man does not apprehend anything sinful, unlawful, or erroneous
in any of the prayers or service ; but yet he likes some other cere
monies, orders, and ways of worship that are used in some other
nations or Churches, better than he does those of his own. And there
fore he holds it lawful, and useful for spiritual advancement, to gather
together a number of men of a like taste and relish with himself, and
make a separate body by themselves.
This man has but a very little and slight sense of the sin of schism —
scandalously little. Either he has not read what the Scripture says of
it, or else dulness or prejudice has taken off the edge of his appre
hension, so as that he felt nothing at the reading of those earnest and
moving passages of our Saviour and the Apostles on that subject. To
confess the orders and services of a Church to be lawful, and to join in
them perhaps some times ; and yet to foment the mischief of schism,
under which all Christendom, especially the Protestant religion, and
particularly the state of religion in England and Holland, does now
groan and gasp ! and all this for a gust, a flavour, a humour, an itching
ear pleased with this or that mode of preaching, praying, &c. To
divide the body of Christ out of mere wantonness ! What answer will
such an one make at the Last Day for having made so light of that on
which the Word of God has laid such a stress ? St Paul entreats by
" the consolation in Christ, by the comfort of love, by the fellowship
of the Spirit, by all bowels, and mercies," 4 that Christians should be
unanimous ; is it then a matter of small moment to divide them into
sides, parties, and several bodies ?
That among various ceremonies, forms, and methods of ordering
Church matters one should like one best, and one another, is no new
or strange thing at all ; but ever was, and ever will be. But yet in
the primitive times, if any man, or number of men, went about upon
that pretence to set up a separate party from the established Church of
that place, it made the Christians tremble to hear of such a thing.
And all the neighbouring Churches (for they then all kept a corres-
4 Phil. ii. i.
282 The History of Infant Baptism.
pondence and communion with one another) did use to send notice
of their abhorrence of such separatists, and renounce any communion
with them during their schism ; and never were at ease till they had
restored unity. They had indeed various usages in the Churches of
several countries ; but a Christian of Africa, if he came to Greece,
complied with the Grecian ceremonies, though he might like his own
better. Or if it happened otherwise that he liked those of Greece better
than his own, yet upon his return home he submitted to the rules
and customs of his own Church, and did not set up a new sect out
of a pride that he had learned a better way. If he thought it was
better, or if it really were so, yet to make a separation for it, did
ten times more mischief than that amendment could recompense.
If there be any usage or order in a Church which may be altered for
the better, for any man in his station to do his endeavour that this
may be done by common vote and consent, was ever accounted laud
able. And where the corruption is got into the vitals of religion,
it is true that it must be done by a separation, rather than not at all.
But in other cases, where it is not a gangrene, he that goes about
to cure the body by tearing it limb from limb, is himself the most
dangerously infected member, and ought to be first cut off, by St
Paul's direction,5 if he had any skill. As we say of sermons ;
that must be an excellent one indeed, in which there is nothing that
might have been said better ; and yet that must be a sorry one
indeed, out of which one may not receive some wholesome direction :
or of cities; there is hardly any, whose laws and government are
not capable of amendment in some things; and yet very few so ill
governed, where an industrious and peaceable man may not enjoy so
much quiet as to get a livelihood by his diligence : so that must
be a pure Church indeed, whose orders and rules have no fault or
imperfection at all : and yet that must be a woeful Church with which
a good Christian may not communicate, or under whose doctrine and
discipline he may not by a godly diligence work out his salvation. Of
the first sort there is none in the world. And, as I hope, no Protestant
national Church of the latter sort ; none, I mean, with which a good
Christian may not communicate, provided they will admit him without
requiring his declared assent to all their tenets. For errors they
may have, and some of them hold some opinions contrary to what
others do. Yet since none of these do overthrow the foundation of
Christian faith, neither do they mix any idolatry in their worship; if
any party of the members of any of these Churches (the Church of Den
mark, for example) should in opposition to the general body of the
Church there, say, " We like the ways and methods of some other
Church (the Church of England for example) better," and should there-
5 Rom. xvi. 17.
We ought to join in Public Worship. 283
upon make a schism from their fellow-members, it would be a sinful
one. And it is no other in ours here that do the like. The Church of
England do declare thus concerning the rules and ceremonies which
they have ordered, " In these our doings we condemn no other nations,
nor • prescribe anything but to our own people only. For we think it
convenient, that every country should use such ceremonies as they shall
think best to the setting forth of God's honour and glory, and to the re
ducing the people to godly living, &c., and that they should put away
other things which from time to time they perceive to be most abused,
as in men's ordinances it often chances diversely in divers countries." 6
They say moreover, " The keeping or omitting of a ceremony, in itself
considered, is but a small thing, but the wilful and contemptuous trans
gression and breaking of a common order and discipline is no small
offence before God." This plainly shows that they would not approve
of a schism that should be set up in any other Church, though it were
for the introducing of those ways of worship which they have prescribed.
And many of the chiefest men of other Protestant Churches have made
the like declaration on their side. This is the ancient way of a Catholic
correspondence and unity between the Churches. They do all judge
thus, that in those various ways of managing the public worship, though
one may think one the best, and another another, yet that the worst of
them with unity, is better than the best without it.
This may be explained by a comparison taken from temporal affairs.
There are in several nations several forms of state government, one is
ruled by monarchy, another by a senate, others by more popular ways.
It is common for men of reading, or travel, or conversation, to discourse
of these ways. One likes one best, and another another. And so far
there is no harm done, because each of them resolves as yet, that which
soever he likes best, he will live quietly under that where he is placed.
But if one of these who lives under either of these forms do go about
to draw a party after him, and says, " We will live no longer under this
form of government, we know a better way, and we will set up that," he
is now turned a traitor, and must be suppressed by the policy of any
government whatsoever.
Or in an army, if the question be, whether it be best to march this
way against the enemy, or that way, or lie still, each one in the council
is free to give his opinion. And it may be, that he whose counsel is
not approved by the majority, gives advice which is really the better.
Yet if the resolution be once taken, and the general lead out accord
ingly one way, if any officers go about to draw a part of the army after
them, and say, " We will march the other way," they are now mutineers
and public enemies, how good soever their advice were. Because either
of the ways with the union of the army is better than the dividing of it.
That brings certain ruin and confusion.
6 Preface to the Book of Common-Prayer,
284 The History of Infant Baptism.
The scripture and experience, too, do show that the case is the same
in reference to a Church. Only as in the army, if the soldiers do
understand by any plain and certain discovery that the general officers
are traitors, and have agreed to betray their prince's cause, a revolt
from them is in such case fidelity to their sovereign. So if a Church
do bring into their worship plain idolatry, or into their doctrines such
positions as destroy the foundation of Christian faith or godliness, this
is treason against our chief Lord, and justifies separation from such a
Church. But in the case now put, of a man that allows the established
way of worship to be lawful, but pretends to set up a better, and thinks
a separation justifiable on that account ; such a man is so far from
being fit to be a leader or amender of a Church, that he needs a
catechism to teach him the first Christian principles of humility and
modesty. Modesty would teach him to think, that if he judge one
way the best, another as wise as he will be for another way, and a third
party for another, &c. But God is a God of order, and not of such
confusions.
What I quoted just now of the declaration of the Church of England
in respect to foreign Churches, does visibly show the mistake of those
that argue, that we cannot count those among us that separate, schis
matics, but that we shall by so doing condemn those foreign Protestant
Churches, which differ from us in some of the same ceremonies as the
dissenters at home do, of schism likewise. God forbid that we should
do that. It is not the use or disuse of this or that ceremony, order, &c.,
but it is the renouncing of communion for such use or disuse, that con
stitutes a schismatic. Now we and the foreign Protestant Churches do
not do that. For one of us, whom Providence should bring into their
nation, would communicate with them, though their ceremonies and
ways of worship are not altogether the same as ours, and they, when
they come hither, do the same with us. And such Churches, or such
Christians, that are always ready to do so, have always a communion
one with another, in heart, in purpose, in inclination and acknowledg
ment, which they are ready to bring into act by corporal presence and
joining, when providence makes it practicable. And this is, or ought
to be, the temper between all Churches that differ not in essentials.
Now this is the only sense in which that saying is true, " That there is
no schism, where the differences are not in the fundamentals of religion,"
i.e., any two Churches of different nations are always supposed to be
in communion, and not in a schism, so long as they differ not in funda
mentals, because it is supposed that the members of one of these would
(in case they were to travel into the other nation) for unity's sake
communicate with those other.
But when people of the same place, city, parish, &c., do actually
separate, and renounce communion with the Church when they are on
We ought to join in Public Worship. 285
the spot, this plea cannot be used in their case. To say these are not
schismatics, because they differ not in fundamentals, is to put a new
meaning on the word schism. They are not heretics indeed (as the
Church use has now distinguished the use of those words). But the
Donatists, Novations, &c., have been always counted schismatics, though
they differed not in essentials.
Those that differ from any true Church in essentials, and do separate
or are excommunicated for such difference, are in respect of their
opinions more faulty than those we have been speaking of. But those
that separate for smaller matters, are, in respect of the mere schism or
separation (if we could abstract that from the fault of the opinion), the
more faulty of the two. For the smaller the difference is, the greater
fault and shame it is to make a breach for it ; and though the other be
in the main the greater sin, yet these are more plainly self-condemned.
§ 4. The other difficulty that I proposed to speak of is something
greater. There is a man that thinks the Church holds some errors, not
fundamental ones indeed; but she has brought these errors into her
public service in which he should join. He would not renounce a
Church for holding those errors in disputable points ; but he cannot
join in prayers to God which are grounded on, and do suppose, a
doctrine which he judges to be a false or mistaken one.
But i. The man acknowledges that this is not in matters fundamental.
2. He acknowledges that the main body of the prayers and service is
such as all Christians agree to be necessary, and in which he may join
with his mouth and understanding also.
Suppose then that there be some particular collects or prayers, or
clauses of prayers, which he thinks to contain a mistake in them. May
he not join with his brethren in the main, and omit the adding of his
amen to those particular clauses ? Especially since no man requires
of him to declare his approbation of the whole and every part. Is
not this more Christian-like, than to fly to that dreadful extremity
of separation and total disowning for a disputable point which may
possibly be his own mistake ? And if the truth of the matter be that it
is his own mistake, is there any likelier way to come to the knowledge
of the truth than by continuing in the body of the Church, where the
members, the faithful Christians, do by mutual edification help one
another? Is not this the very counsel of St Paul, Phil. iii. 15, 16 :
" And if in anything you be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even
this unto you. Neve.rtheless [or, however that be], whereto we have
already attained, let us walk by the same rule, let us mind the same
thing." This last clause " let us mind the same thing," is in the sense of
the original, "let us be unanimous," as Bishop Stillingfleet has shown;7
and he has at the same place largely shown that this advice of the
7 Unreasonableness of Separation, Part II. sect. 19.
286 The History of hi f ant Baptism.
Apostle is intended for this very purpose to which I have here applied
it, namely, that such a man as we are here speaking of should continue
in communion, and conform to all that he can, and omit the saying amen
to what he judges a mistake. He confirms this interpretation with so
good reasons, and his antagonist there opposes it with so weak ones,
that it tempts one to think that he would not have opposed it at all
had it not been for fear that by this course the world would in a short
time have lost the happiness of having any separate sects. If the reader
will please to consult that book, he will have no further need of any
arguments against separation.
Some learned Protestants (Melancthon, Calvin, Bucer, Pet. Martyr,
and others of the first Reformers) have thought that in cases of necessity
a Protestant might join even in popish assemblies in those prayers that
are found, provided he did, to avoid scandal, protest against their
superstitious ones. But I will not meddle with that.
The argument that some make for separation, because there are many
ill men in the Church, has been so plainly answered that nothing more
need be said. Whoever reads St Paul's Epistles will find there were
many scandalous members in all those Churches, especially at Corinth,
i Cor. v., 2 Cor. xii. 20, 21, and yet he will find that St Paul, so far
from advising the purer sort to separate from the Church, does earnestly
forbid any such practice, i Cor. i. 10, it. xi. 18, &c.
§ 5. 4. When a law-giver names some particular exceptions of cases in
which the law shall not oblige, that law binds the stronger in all other
cases not excepted. For it is supposed if there had been any more, he
would have named them too. The Scripture gives a very positive law
against separations. It excepts some cases. It is a very presumptuous
thing to add any more to them of our own heads. They are these :
1. If a Church do practise idolatry. St Paul, warning the Corinthians
of the heathen idolaters, says : " Come out from among them, and be
ye separate " (2 Cor. vi. 17). Though the popish idolatry be not so rank
as that of those heathens, yet the general words do seem to reach their
case. But the ignorant people among many sects of separatists, finding
here the word separate, do indiscriminately apply it to justify separation
from Christians against whom they do not in the least pretend any
accusation of idolatry.
2. If a Church teach doctrines encouraging any wickedness, as forni
cation, &c., or destructive of the fundamentals of Christian faith. St
Paul mentions some (2 Tim. ii. 18) that denied the Resurrection and
Judgment to come. He commands Timothy to shun them, for their
word will eat as a canker.
3. The Scripture commands that no sin be committed to obtain any
purpose never so good. Therefore, a Church that will not admit us
without our doing a thing that is wicked, or declaring and subscribing
This Question not a Fundamental. 287
something that is false, does thereby thrust us out of her communion.
And the guilt of the sin of separation lies at her door.
4. If a Church be schismatical, i.e., in a state of unjustifiable division
or separation from another Church from which she has withdrawn
herself. St Paul commands (Rom. xvi. 17), "Mark those that cause
divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine you have learned, and
avoid them."
These exceptions I find in Scripture ; and I know of no more that
reach to Churches (particular men that live wickedly are to be avoided
in our conversation, we know). He that separates from any Church
upon any ground except one of these four, ought to take heed and be
well assured that he find his ground in the Scripture.
§ 6. Now to apply what has been said to the psedobaptists and anti-
psedobaptists ; the main inquiry is, whether the point in debate between
them be a fundamental article of the Christian Faith. For if it be,
they must indeed separate in their communion, and the guilt will lie on
those that are in the error. But if it be not, there is not by the rules
laid down any sufficient reason for their separating or renouncing one
another, which party soever be in the wrong.
Now, I think that such a question about the age or time of one's
receiving baptism does not look like a fundamental, nor is so reputed in
the general sense of Christians. And there are these reasons why it
should not be so accounted.
i. It is a general rule that* all fundamental points are in Scripture so
plainly and clearly delivered, that any man of tolerable sincerity cannot
but perceive the meaning of the holy writers to be, that we should '
believe them. Now, baptism itself, viz., that all that enter into Christ's
Church should be baptised, is, indeed, plainly delivered in Scripture,
so that we are amazed at the Quakers and Socinians — the one for refus
ing it, the other for counting it indifferent. But at what age the children
of Christians should be baptised, whether in infancy or to stay till the
age of reason, is not so clearly delivered but that it admits of a dispute
that has considerable perplexities in it. I mean with those that know
not the history of the Scripture times, nor the force of some of the
original words in Scripture used. There is, as I have said, no plain
example or instance of the baptism of anyone that had been born of
Christian parents set down at all either as received by him at full age,
or received in infancy, which would have been the surest guide to us.
None, I mean, that is plain to vulgar readers of the English translation
of Scripture : for that many of the Fathers did take i Cor. vii. 14 for a
plain instance, I showed before. And for the commission, Matt, xxviii.
19, and our Saviour's rule, John iii. 5, whether they are to be under
stood to include infants and all, or only adult persons, is not so plain to
the said readers as fundamental points used to be. God's providence
288 The History of Infant Baptism.
does not suffer that the understanding of those places, upon the belief
of which the salvation of all, even the meanest and most ignorant
Christian, does depend (and such are the fundamental articles), should
require much skill, learning, or sagacity, but only an honest purpose and
desire to learn. This, therefore, being not set down so very plain, does
not seem by Scripture to be such a fundamental as that we should be
bound to renounce communion with everyone that is not of the same
opinion as we are about it.
The Epistle to the Hebrews, ch. vi. v. i, 2, speaking of some things -
which are styled principles of the oracles of God, reckons amongst them
the doctrine of baptism, and of laying on of hands. Now, whether the
meaning of that place be to reckon both these as things that must be
believed and owned by all that shall be saved, is a question that needs
not be discussed here. For suppose it be ; both these parties do own
baptism, they differ only about the time or manner of receiving it.
2. The ancient and primitive Christians for certain did not reckon
this point among the fundamental ones. For they drew up short
draughts and summaries of the faith, which we call Creeds, and into
these they put all those articles which they thought fundamental or
absolutely necessary. Now, though some Churches had their creeds a
little larger than others, and some councils or meetings of Christians did
overdo in putting some opinions, which they valued more than need
was, into their creeds : yet there never was any creed at all that had
this article in it, either that infants are to be baptised, or that only adult
persons are to be baptised.
Baptism itself does indeed make an article in several old creeds.
As for example, in the Constantinopolitan, which is now received in all
Christendom, " I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins."
But the determination of the age or manner of receiving it was never
thought fit to make an article of faith.
3. As for particular men among the ancients, there is, I know, none
whom the antipaedobaptists would so willingly hear speak as Tertullian.
He has a book about baptism, wherein he first speaks of the matter,
water, and of the form of baptism ; and then says, c. x., " Having
now discoursed of all things that make up the religion [or essence]
of baptism, I will proceed to speak de quczstiunculis quibusdam, of some
questions of small moment," and it is among those quastiuncuhe that
he treats concerning the age of receiving it. I recited the place at
large, Pt. I. ch. iv. § 2, &c.
4. As Tertullian thought it a question of lesser moment, so it seems
the Christians of that time and place did not reckon it of so great
moment as to break communion. For when he expressed his opinion
to be against the practice then used of baptising infants ordinarily ; yet
we do not find that he was excommunicated for that ; nor at all till he
Both Parties judge it not Fundamental. 289
excommunicated himself by running away to the sect of the Montanists,
who were indeed for their impious opinions abhorred of all Christians.
Whereas if it had been accounted a fundamental article of faith, he
gould not have been born within his denial of it.
5. This is yet more clear in the case of Gregory, the father of
Gregory Nazianzen, who, if I compute right at Pt. II. ch. iii. sect. 6,
had some children born to him after he was in priest's orders, whom
he brought up with him in the house without baptising them ; and they
were not baptised till their adult age. And yet the man continued
priest, and afterwards bishop of that place till he died, being nigh one
hundred years old. This for the sense of the ancient Church.
6. For the sense of modern Christians : first the papists of late times
do confidently maintain that there is no proof at all (direct or con
sequential) from the Scripture for infant baptism. And it is certain
they do not pretend that there is any against it ; for their Church as
well as others does practise it ; and though their Church can do well
enough without Scripture ; yet they would not have her convicted of
going contrary to it. It follows then from their pretence that the Scrip
ture is silent in the case. If so, then it is a thing that no Protestant
will account a fundamental, and consequently will not divide for it.
So these men's arguments will make us all friends ; at least so far as to
live in communion with one another. The worst would be, that if we
did so, we should lose all those fine arguments against infant baptism
that come out in popish books every year. For they seeing us united,
would not count it worth their while ; and they would then be as well
content that there should be proof in Scripture for infant baptism, as
not.
But to leave these men, and to speak of such as are serious in
religion ; the most serious and judicious, both of the psedobaptists and
antipaedobaptists (even those of them that have been most engaged
against each other in polemical writings, which do commonly abate
peoples' charity) do agree that this difference is not in the essentials of
religion. Here I might (if I had not been too long already) recite the
words of Bishop Taylor, Dr Hammond, Mr Baxter, Mr Wills, &c., on
the one side ; and of Mr Tombs, Mr Stennet, &c., on the other. Mr
Stennet in a book come out but the other day says : " If he [Mr Russen]
mean . . . that they [the antipsedobaptists] cannot look upon those that
differ from them, as Christians . . . the contrary is well known." And
again : "Enoiigh has been said before, to take off the second reproach
which he [Mr Russen] casts on them [the antipaedobaptists], viz., that
they judge none of the true Church, but those of their own way."8
But it is better to quote their Confessions. In the first year of King
William, one party of the antipaedobaptists [the particular men] pub-
b Answer to Mr Russen, ch. ii. p. 23 ; ch. x. p. 215.
II. K
290
'ie History of Infant Baptism.
lished a Confession of their Faith: they say, it is the same for substance
with that published in 1643, in the name of Seven Churches, which I
suppose were the first in England. Now they say, they are concerned
for above a hundred. They declare in the Preface the design both of
that and this confession to be, " to manifest their consent with both
[the Presbyterians and Independents] in all the fundamental articles of
Christian religion ; " and, as they add afterwards, with other Protestants.
It is plain then, that they count not the age or manner of receiving
baptism to be a fundamental.
And here, forasmuch as this confession is but lately come to my
hands, I ought to do that justice to these men, as to own that they do
for their part disclaim several of those opinions which I at ch. viii. § 6
said were held by some of the English antipsedobaptists. For besides
that they give a full and Catholic confession of the doctrine of the
Holy Trinity, c. ii., of Christ's divinity and consubstantiality, c. viii.,
and of his satisfaction, c. viii. it. xi., the denial of which points is not
charged on any Church of antipaedobaptists ; but only that some
Secinians intrude among them, as they do everywhere. Besides these,
they own original sin, c. vi. Oaths imposed by authority to be lawful,
c. xxiii. The Lord's Day to be the day for Christian worship, and the
Saturday Sabbath to be abolished, c. xxii. That every Church has
from Christ all that power that is needful for carrying on order in
worship and discipline, c. xxvi. AH bishops or elders, and deacons to
be ordained by imposition of hands, ibid. All pastors to have a com
fortable supply from the Church, so as they need not be entangled in
secular affairs ; but may live of the Gospel, the people communicating
to them of all their good things, ibid. No member of a Church ought
to separate upon account of any offence [or scandal] taken at any of
their fellow-members, but to wait upon Christ in the farther proceeding
of the Church, ibid. In the Lord's Supper the minister to give the
bread and wine to the communicants, c. xxx. So it seems these do
not hand it about among themselves, as is said of some of them.
Worthy receivers do by faith really and indeed, yet not carnally and
corporally, but spiritually, receive and feed upon Christ crucified, ibid.
Souls do not die nor sleep, but at a man's death are either received
into glory, or cast into hell, reserved to the judgment, c. xxxi. Civil
magistrates to be obeyed for conscience' sake, c. xxiv. But I cannot
see how they reconcile this with what they say, c. xxi., that to obey out
of conscience any human commands not contained in God's Word, is
to betray true liberty of conscience. This needs a little explication.
Moreover, what is to our present purpose, they say : " That all per
sons throughout the world, professing the faith of the Gospel, and
obedience to God by Christ according unto it, not destroying their own
profession by any errors everting the foundation, or unholiness of con-
The Antipcedobaptists Confess it. 291
versation, are and may be called, visible saints," c. xxvi. And they say
afterwards, c. xxvii, " That all these saints are bound to maintain an
holy fellowship and communion in the worship of God." Of which
communion they say a little after, that " as God offers opportunity, it is
to be extended to all the household of faith ; even all those who in every
place call upon the name of the Lord Jesus."
This laid together makes full to the purpose I am speaking of : every
one ought to continue in the communion of a Church that has no errors
which do evert the foundation. And an error, or supposed error, about
the age or manner of receiving baptism does not do that, by their own
confession.
And now in the first year of her present Majesty, is published a draft
of articles by some antipsedobaptists (the same I guess), " to manifest
their nearness in union with other of Her Majesty's Protestant subjects."
There are thirty-six of them. They are verbatim (except two or three
clauses of no moment) the same with thirty-six of the thirty-nine articles
of the Church of England; save that in the article of baptism they
leave out the last clause about infants' baptism. They come near to
that subscription that is required to capacitate one for orders in that
Church ; one would think then it should not be difficult to accommodate
the matter of lay communion.
What has been said does in the whole amount to this, that putting the
case that there were in any nation a number of believers in Christ, who
were not yet settled in any form of Church government, and did besides
differ in some opinions not fundamental — and among the rest, in this
question about infants' baptism — their duty would be to unite themselves
into one body or Church, and not separate into parties and several
Churches for that difference. And if it be asked, how they should regu
late the order for public worship in which they were all to join, and
particularly whether they should allow an infant brought by his parents
to the church for baptism, to be there baptised, or not allow it : there is
no other way in such a case, than after a debate by arguments from
Scripture and reason, to suffer themselves to be all determined by the
major vote; which major vote must fix the rules of the National Church
there to be settled ; and the minor part, who would have had some
things to have been otherwise ordered, must comply with their brethren,
and join in all things that they can, and by no means make a division.
If the premises that have been laid down be looked upon as proved,
they do certainly enforce this conclusion.
For any man to say in this case, the Scripture, and not the major
'vote, should determine, is frivolous. Because it is presupposed in the
case, that it is about the meaning of Scripture, and about the force of
the consequences and arguments drawn from Scripture, that they differ ;
and the Scripture itself directs them, that in such differences not funda-
292 The History of Infant Baptism.
mental, they should close and unite as well as they can, and bear with
one another.
Now to apply this to the state of religion as it is now, when there are
in all places National Churches already settled, one ought, in order to
lay the balance even between the pasdobaptists and antipaedobaptists, to
suppose or imagine a thing that is not, but may easily be supposed ; and
that is, that there were some National Church or Churches of antipasdo-
baptists in the world. And suppose a number of Christians, paedobap-
tists in their opinion, were by Providence brought to live in one of those
places. The question is, whether they ought to join in communion with
the Church of antipaedobaptists there established, or make a separate
body renouncing communion with them. I think it follows from the
rules of Scripture that have been laid down, that they ought to join with
them. And I do not stick to declare, that if I were one of those new
comers, I would do it for one. So that I advise them to nothing in re
spect to their joining the Church here, but what I think were to be done
by us if we were in their case. I mean, I would do thus : since my
opinion is, that infants ought to be baptised, I would get my own
children baptised by all means possible ; but when that were done, I
would nevertheless continue to join in public prayers, hearing, receiving
the communion, &c., with them, if they would admit me ; if they re
jected me for my opinion, the guilt of that breach would lie on them,
and not on me. It is not an antipaedobaptist or other dissenter in
opinion that one is not to communicate with ; it is a schismatic or
divider that one is not to communicate with. And whereas some
paedobaptist will say to me, " You seem by this putting of the case to
make the opinions equal ; theirs to be as good as ours, and that it is only
by the majority that we have the advantage." I do not so ; but this I
say, the difference is not in fundamentals. And therefore, if thou be
strong, and they be weak ; thou wise, and they foolish ; thy opinion
rational, theirs silly ; yet we are still (or ought to be for all the difference
of opinions) members of the same body, and brethren. Men are not to
be cut off for mistaken opinions that are consistent with true faith.
Indeed, if they will cut off themselves, there is no help for that. When
a Church loses its members, and they part from her as limbs from a
body, there is that to be said which is commonly said of a husband and
wife parting-^there is certainly a great fault somewhere, but there is
commonly some fault on both sides.
Now to lay aside supposals, and to take the state of religion as it is
now in the world ; there is no National Church in the world (and I think
never was) but what are paedobaptists. All that are of the other way
are such as have within the two last centuries made a separation from
the Established Churches of the places where they are : as I made
appear, ch. viii. The reasons that I have laid down from Scripture do
One of cither side may join with a National Church. 293
require that they should return to unity of communion in those things
wherein all Christians are agreed ; and they may continue to argue in a
charitable way about the opinion till one side be satisfied, or till they
are weary. This is the best way to save their souls, whatever become
of the opinion.
To speak of the case of England in particular. They know them
selves that it is a separation begun less than eighty years ago ; as I show
at ch. viii. § 6. Any very ancient man may remember when there was
no Englishmen, or at least no society or church of them, of that per
suasion. They at first held the opinion without separating for it. Their
eldest separate churches are not yet of the age of a man, viz., seventy
years. I mean the ancient men or men of reading among them know
this ; the young and vulgar who will talk right or wrong for a side do
not own it, but the others own it, and they justify it by pleading that
their opinion is the truest : which plea, supposing it to be true, will
not, in a conscience that is guided by God's Word, justify a separation.
Let us put the case of an antipcedobaptist, or other dissenter, that is
never so sure that he is in the right ; 'and that the Churches' opinion is
absurd, inconvenient, foolish, &c., or anything that he pleases to call it,
so he do not call it idolatry, or heresy, or an error which does evert the
foundation. And yet by their own principles before laid down, com
munion is to be continued. Let the man, when he has got into one of
his severest fits of judging his brethren of the Church, imagine them
speaking to him, in the words of St Paul to some Christians at Corinth,
who were the most conceited and dividing people that he ever had to
do with: "You are full, you are rich. We are fools for Christ's sake,
but you are wise in Christ : we are weak, but you are strong : you are
honourable, but we are despised. Yet receive us ; do not reject our com
munion in all things, because we err in some things" " Or," as he says
in another place, " if you think me a fool, yet as a fool receive me." 9
There are several good books written purposely on this subject, and
directed to the antipaedobaptists, to show, that supposing their opinion
be true, yet their schism is a sin : and that, by men of both the
opinions. One that is not rash but desires to guide his conscience
warily will at least read and weigh what they say. Mr Tombs, who con
tinued an antipsedobaptist to his dying day, yet as I am told,10 wrote
against separation for it, and for communion with the parish Churches.
I have not seen that book, but this I have seen,11 that where he defends
his opinion against Marshal, and where Marshal had said : " The
teachers of this opinion, wherever they prevail, take their proselytes
wholly off from the ministry of the word, sacraments, and all other acts
of Christian communion both public and private, with any but those of
9 I Cor. iv. 8, 10 ; 2 Cor. vii, 2, it. xi. 17.
10 Baxter, Reply to Huchinson, p. 30. u Tombs against Marshal, p. 31.
294 The History of Infant Baptism.
their own opinion." To this Tombs answers : " This is indeed a
wicked practice, justly to be abhorred. The making of sects upon
difference of opinions, reviling, separating from their teachers and
brethren otherwise faithful, because there is not the same opinion in
disputable points, or in clear truths not fundamental, is a thing too fre
quent in all sorts of dogmatists, &c. I look upon it as one of the
greatest plagues of Christianity. You shall have me join with you in
showing my detestation of it. Yet, nevertheless, it is to be considered
that this is not the evil of antipaedobaptism (you confess some are other
wise minded) and therefore must be charged on the persons, not on the
assertion itself. And about this, what they hold, you may have now
the best satisfaction from the Confession of Faith in the name of seven
Churches of them, Art. 33," &c. And accordingly Mr Tombs himself
continued in communion with the Church till he died.
Mr Baxter, who has written more books than any man in England
against the opinion, yet has also written more against the dividing for it,
and has made many wishes and proposals for accommodations of both
sides joining in public communion, especially in his later books, and in
the history of his own life, when he had lived to see the great mischief
that schisms do to religion and all piety. I will mention only one
passage wherein he recommends to the antipsedobaptists two books
useful to give them a true state of the question about the unlawfulness
of separation. " I am," says he, " not half so zealous to turn men from
the opinion of anabaptistry, as I am to persuade both them and others,
that it is a duty to live together with mutual forbearance, in love and
Church communion, notwithstanding such differences : for which they
may see more reasons given by one that was once of their mind and
way (Mr William Allen in his Retraction of Separation and his Persua
sive to Unity) than any of them can soundly refel, though they may too
easily reject them." But then Mr Baxter gives there a marginal note
telling the antipsedobaptists, " Satan will not consent that you should
soberly read the books." Now methinks an antipsedobaptist that is
desirous to direct his conscience aright in so weighty a matter as separa
tion is, should not let Satan have his will altogether, but should read
such books and consider them at least whether Satan will consent or
not.
This I will own, in excuse of the English antipsedobaptists that do so
divide, that it is a harder thing to repent of the sin of schism in
England, than it is anywhere else. For the commonness of any sin
does in unthinking minds wonderfully abate the sense of the guilt of it.
When drunkenness is grown common and almost universal, one can
hardly persuade an ordinary man that it is a thing that will bring dam
nation on his soul ; because he sees almost all the neighbourhood, and
12 Confutation of Forgeries of H. D., sect. 2, ch. ii. § 13.
Schism a reigning sin in England. 295
among them such a gentleman, or such a lord, as much concerned in
that as he. So an antipsedobaptist thinks : whatever my opinion be, the
separation for it can be no great fault, for the Presbyterians, and other
parties of men, do that as well as we, and for lesser differences. If we
have taken those opinions which our ancestors held without separating,
and have made a separate religion out of them, it is but what the others
did before us : for they have taken the opinions which the old Puritans
had ; and (though the Puritans could not) yet they have made good
Brownism out of them. And so for other parties. Now this humour
of dividing is nowhere in the world so common, as it is in England (at
least if we except the country I spoke of before), nor the sin of schism
so little feared, I mean of late years. The reason why the same texts
of Scripture against schism, division, heresy, &c., being read by the
Protestants of other nations do create in their minds a horror of it, but
being read by an Englishman do lose their force with him is, because
he has been born and bred in a nation where that is so common, and
practised by men that are in other things so conscientious, that he is
apt to put any forced sense on the words, rather than think that that
text of St Paul, for example, Rom. xvi. 17, is to be taken as the words
sound : though there is (if a man desire plain Scripture) not a plainer
text in the whole Bible. But the Word of God and His law is not like
human laws, that it should lose its edge by the multitude of offenders.
God will not punish any sin less — I doubt He will punish it more — for
having been a common or reigning one.
Some people also have so slightly considered the commands of God,
that they think nothing to be a sin, but what they see punished by the
secular laws. And so because some Christian nations (whereof England
does of late make one) have thought fit to grant an impunity to schis
matics for some reasons of State, and to tolerate (though not approve
of) Churches or societies renouncing communion with the established
Church of the place ; they are apt to think that God also does allow of
the same : which will be true when God in His judgment will think fit
to regulate Himself by statute laws. But till that be, it is certain by
God's Word that either such a Church, or else those that renounce her
communion, are schismatics : either the one for giving just causes to the
others to separate from her ; or else the others for separating without
just cause. It is certain also, that if any Church should so far comply
with reasons of State or human laws, as to teach that schism (however
by them tolerated) is not sin before God ; this very doctrine would
indeed be a good reason for any pious Christian to separate from her :
and that, by the second of the exceptions I gave just now. So gross is
that notion, to think that separation is therefore no sin, because men's
laws may at sometimes forbear to inflict any temporal punishment on it.
But yet as gross as it is, it is made to serve for an excuse to the con-
296 The History of Infant Baptism.
sciences of many ignorant people. Partly this reason, and partly the
commonness of the sin, have made, that many men's consciences do no
longer accuse them for it.
§ 7. There may need a few words also concerning the difficulties that
do lie in the way of the union that I have here proposed. They are
none of them such, but what may, I hope, be accommodated, if the
parties be willing. Some of them do lie on the part' of the Church in
receiving these men ; and some on the part of the men themselves in
respect of their acceptance of the communion offered them. I know of
but two on each part.
On the Church's part, one concerns the bishop of the diocese chiefly:
the other, both the bishop and the curate of the parish. In speaking of
which, the nature of the thing shows, that I ought to submit what I
shall say to the judgment of the parties concerned : which I declare
that I do unfeignedly. I will only propose the question, leaving the
determination to them.
i. Suppose a man do understand the nature and necessity of the
Church union I have been speaking of; and accordingly does desire to
continue, or to be, a member of the established Church : but he is not
satisfied of the validity or sufficiency of baptism given in infancy or of
baptism given by sprinkling or pouring of water on the face only ; and
therefore he (though perhaps baptised in infancy, yet) has procured
himself to be baptised anew : and besides he cannot consent to bring
his children, if he have any, to be baptised in infancy ; but reserves them
to adult baptism : but in other things he is willing to be conformable to
the rules of the Church, and very desirous of the communion thereof.
This man is, I suppose, by the rules of the Church of England, liable
to be presented for his fault, both in receiving a second baptism (for
so it is in the esteem of the Church) and in not bringing his children to
baptism.
Here is one evasion or salvo, which I scorn to make use of, as being
not satisfactory to myself, viz., that the Church's hands are tied up
from any proceedings in any cases of that nature by the Act of Toleration.
Because I think there is nothing more certain than what Bishop Still ing-
fleet says, " However the Church in some respects be incorporated
with the Commonwealth in a Christian State, yet its fundamental rights
remain distinct from it ; of which this is one of the chief, to receive
into and exclude out of the Church such persons which, according to
the laws of a Christian society, are fit to be taken in or shut out."13
It is temporal punishments only which those temporal laws design to
set aside. Yet this I will say, that by the general forbearance that
is now used, it is ten to one whether such a person would be
presented. But we will put the hardest of the case, and suppose him
to be presented.
13 Answer to N. O. § 15, p. 267.
The Difficulties, all such as may be accommodated. 297
He is then warned to appear before the bishop at the Church Court.
He pleads, we will suppose, conscience for his doing or refusing the
things mentioned. The bishop exhorts him, shows him reasons,
endeavours to satisfy his doubts, &c. ; or perhaps deputes some persons
to discourse at leisure more largely with him concerning them. If by
these means the man be satisfied, all is well. But we must put the case
that he be not. Here the question is, whether the bishop in such
a case will proceed to excommunication, or use a forbearance. I
suppose he will make a difference of the tempers of men. If such a
man do show a temper heady, fierce, obstinate, self-opinionated, and
self-willed, and a contempt of the Court, and of all that is said to him ;
he is hardly a fit member of any Church. But if there appear the signs
of a meek, humble, and Christian disposition, willing to hear and con
sider the reasons and advices given, such a case deserves the greater
forbearance. And though the law requires three several admonitions,
yet it does not, I suppose, limit the bishop to three, nor to any number.
And if this forbearance continue long, the man's children will be
grown up, so as to be baptised, as he would have them, upon their own
profession. And if he desire, or be but willing, that it be done by
dipping, the Church does comply with his desire, and does advise it in
the first place. And so the dispute will be over. If the bishop
do excommunicate him before he be convinced, or this be done, then,
indeed, I have no more to say on this head : there is a full stop put to
the proposal. But there are these reasons to think that it would not
be so.
First. I never heard of that done ; but several times the contrary.
All the antipsedobaptists, or, indeed, other dissenters that I have known
excommunicated, have been excommunicated, not for their opinion, but
their refusal of communion, or for contempt in refusing to come at all to
the Bishop's Court.
Second. Mr Tombs (and several others, but I will name only him, because
his case is generally known) continued in communion in the church of
Salisbury all the latter part of his life. And though he during that time
owned his opinion, and wrote for it, yet because he desired to make no
schism of it, he was not disturbed in his communicating with the Church.
Nor has that Church ever been blamed for receiving him. On the
contrary, the example has been spoken of with commendation in a
very public way. This shows it to be practicable ; and if it be so, then :
Thirdly. There is a great and manifest advantage in it. For it prevents
a schism, which otherwise would be. The man continuing in com
munion, all things will tend to an accommodation ; whereas in a
separation everything is aggravated to the widening of the gap, as we
see by constant and woeful experience. A separate party never thinks
itself far enough off from any terms of reconciliation.
298 The History of Infant Baptism.
The second difficulty, which concerns, as I said, both the bishop
and the curate, is this. By the order of the Church of England no
person is to be admitted to partake of the Holy Communion till he be
confirmed, or be ready and desirous to be confirmed. And a qualifica
tion required of every person before he be brought to the bishop to be
confirmed, is that he have learned (or, as it is expressed in another
place, can answer to the questions of) the Catechism. Now, in that
Catechism there happens to be a mention of infants being baptised.
For after that it has declared that baptism is to be given upon a cove
nant of faith and repentance ; it follows : " Qu. Why, then, are infants
baptised, when by reason of their tender age they cannot perform them ?
Ans. Because they promise them both by their sureties ; which
promise, when they come to age, themselves are bound to perform."
Now this man being asked that question would not make that answer ;
but would say, they ought not to be baptised till they can perform
them.
But besides, that one may answer here (much as in the other case)
that the practice is such, that not half the people that come to the com
munion are asked whether they have been confirmed, or not ; and also,
that those who come to be confirmed when they are of the age of a
man, are seldom or never examined in the questions of the Catechism,
provided it does by other ways sufficiently appear that they do under
stand the principles of religion ; the questions as they stand in the
Cathechism, being seldom put but only to children. Besides this,
I say, it appears to have been the meaning of the Church in that
question and answer, not to determine this point, whether infants
are to be baptised (of which no Englishman at that time made any
doubt), but to determine this point, whether infants that are baptised,
are baptised upon any other covenant than that upon which grown
persons are baptised, viz., of repentance and faith. And it deter
mines that they are not baptised on any other, but the very same ;
only with this difference, that an adult person is baptised into the
hopes of the Kingdom of Heaven, inasmuch as he does believe ; and
an infant is baptised into the same, on condition that he do when he
comes to age, believe. And this, indeed, is a principle very necessary to
be rightly understood. For a mistake herein might hinder those who
are baptised in infancy from understanding the obligation that lies on
them to faith and obedience, as ever they hope to partake of the
kingdom of heaven ; to prevent which mistake this clause of the
Catechism seems to have been inserted. So that though the Church
do here suppose indeed, or take it for granted, that infants are generally
baptised ; yet that is not the thing which she here defines — not that they
are to be baptised ; but why (or upon what terms) they are baptised.
And this is a thing which an antipaedobaptist holds as firmly as any
The Difficulties, all such as may be accommodated. 299
man, that all baptism is to be upon this covenant. And he will readily
assent to this, that supposing or taking it for granted that infants were
to be baptised, they must be understood to be baptised on that covenant,
viz., to enjoy the kingdom of heaven, on condition they do, when they
come to age, perform the duties of faith and repentance.
And since this is the substance of what the Catechism there teaches,
and the Catechism was intended, not to determine controversies, but to
teach fundamental principles ; I believe that the bishops would not
refuse to confirm such a person (otherwise found in the faith and
conformable, and desirous of communion), though he should own his
sense in his answer to that question of the Catechism. This I think,
but I end this discourse wherein the authority of the Church is con
cerned, as I began it, viz., in submitting my opinion to theirs, and
leaving it to themselves to determine whether they would or not, or
ought or not.
There are on the antipaedobaptist's part, concerning his acceptance of
communion with the Church, these two difficulties.
Some men of that way do think that all such as have no other
baptism but what was given in infancy and by affusion, are no
Christians ; and that to bid them hold communion with such, is as
much as to bid them hold it with heathens. I hope there are not many
such ; and Mr Stennet reckons it a slander on the antipsedobaptists.
And I am glad to find by his discourse that he is cordial in the
abhorrence of so unchristian a notion. And therefore I shall say the
less of it, having a natural antipathy against talking with anyone whose
principles are so desperately uncharitable, as this comes to. What I
said before, § 6, to show that this difference about the age or manner
of receiving baptism is not a fundamental one, is applicable here. Let
a man that has this thought first read that, and then let him consider
farther, what becomes of the Church of Christ at this rate. Will he
think that Christ has had no Church but in those few times and places
where this opinion has prevailed ? Peter of Clugny (whom I quoted,
Pt. II. ch. vii. § 5) urges the Petrobrusians with this dreadful con
sequence five hundred or six hundred years ago, that if infant baptism
be not valid, there had been never a Christian in Europe for three
hundred or five hundred years before; and that account is much
increased now.
The sophisters in logic have a way by which, if a man do hold any
the least error in philosophy, they will by a long train of consequences
prove that he denies the first maxims of common-sense. And some
would bring that spiteful art into religion, whereby they will prove him
that is mistaken in any the least point, to be that Antichrist who denies
the Father and the Son. If the psedobaptist be mistaken, or the
antipsedobaptist be mistaken, yet let them not make heathens of one
300 The History of Infant Baptism.
another. The denial of the Quakers to be Christians — those of them I
mean that do believe the Scriptures — has such a dreadful consequence
with it, that one would not willingly admit it (though they do deny all
baptism), because they do, however, profess that which is the chief
thing signified and intended by baptism. But since both the parties we
speak of now do own the religion professed in baptism, and do also
both use the outward sign ; supposing that one side do err in the mode
of it or the age of receiving it : to conclude thence that they are no
Christians, is the property of one that knows not what spirit he is of.
To receive baptism one's self in that way which one thinks the fittest, is
one case : but it is another, and very different case, to judge all those
to condemnation that have received it another way. " Who art thou
that judgeth another man's servant ? " I know that the antipsedobaptists
do not admit to the Lord's Supper, when it is administered by them
selves, any but what are baptised in their way. But I speak now of
one that is to receive it, not to administer it : he that receives it has no
charge on his soul of the way in which those that receive with him,
have been baptised. But I have said more than is, I hope, needful on
this head. The Confession, which I mentioned before, of one hundred
churches of antipaedobaptists, does not say, that only the adult are
capable of baptism ; it says but thus : " they are the only proper subjects of
this ordinance ; " 14 and they do not say that immersion is necessary to the
administration ; but that // is necessary to the due administration of it.
I mentioned at ch. v. § 6 how the Christians of Africa and of Europe
differed as much as this comes to, in their opinion of the validity of
baptism given by schismatics, insomuch that the Africans baptised
anew any schismatic that came over to the Church : the Europeans
did not so. But yet these Churches did not break communion
for this difference. A presbyter or bishop of Africa, coming to
Rome, joined in communion : though there must needs be, in the
congregations there, several who, according to his notion of the due
way of baptising, were not duly baptised; and whom he, if he
had had the admitting of them into his own Church in Africa, would
have baptised anew. But he left this matter to the conscience and de
termination of the Church of the place. And by this means of both
parties continuing communion, the whole matter in which they differed
was at last amicably adjusted, as I there show. And whereas the con
duct of Stephen of Rome, who would have made a breach of this, has
been since blamed by all the Christians, as well of Rome as of other
places ; the conduct of Cyprian of Africa, who gave his determination
of the question with this additional clause,15 " neminem judicantes, aut
a jure communionis, si diversum senserit, amoventes," ' Not judging
anyone, nor refusing communion with him, though he be of the other
14 Ch. xxix. 15 Proloquium St Cypriani in Concil. Carthag.
The Difficulties, all sucJi as may be accommodated. 301
opinion,' has since been applauded by all Christians in the world ; as a
saying worthy of so excellent a martyr of Jesus Christ, and a precedent
fit to be observed in the determination of all questions that are not
fundamental.
'The other difficulty is, that if such a man do come to join in the
prayers of the Church of England ; if there be an infant brought to be
baptised in the time of the public service, he cannot join in the prayers
used in that office ; or, at least, not in all of them.
This must be confessed, while he holds that opinion. But I showed
before, at § 4, that this ought not to hinder his joining in the other
prayers; so that paragraph may serve for answer to this. He may,
when the people are kneeling at those prayers, stand up, or sit and read
in his Bible. There were in King William's time some that, not being
satisfied about his title, thought they ought not join in, or say Amen to
some of those prayers wherein he was named. However they were
blamed by the State for not agreeing in those, they were never blamed
by the Church for continuing to join in the rest.
What I have said of the antipsedobaptists does plainly reach to the
case of several other dissenters. And that with greater force of the
argument, because they differ less from the Church in opinions.
One thing I am persuaded of concerning the antipredobaptists : and
that is, that if they were convinced that this joining in the public service
of the Church were lawful and practicable for them, they would join at
another rate than some shifting people do nowadays. I take them
generally to be cordial, open, and frank expressors of their sentiments.
If they thought that St Paul's command of receiving one another did
reach to this case that I have been speaking of (as I think it does), they
would not interpret it trickishly, as some lawyers do a statute in which
they seek a flaw and an evasion, to lurk behind the words of it, while
they defeat the true meaning. They would conclude that what God
commands us to do, He means we should do cordially, sincerely, and
bonafide ; and not to deal with His Word as a Jesuit does with an oath.
And therefore, that if His Word do bid us receive one another, He
means we should do it entirely.
There is one entreaty that I would use to them, which is, that if they
be at all moved to consider of such joining, and to deliberate whether it
be lawful, or be a duty, or not, they would make a good and prudent
choice of the men whose advice they ask about it. There are some
men among all parties (I hope it is not many) that do promote divisions
out of interest. These, as St Paul says, " serve not our Lord Jesus
Christ but their own belly." They consider if the schism should drop,
what would become of that esteem, credit, applause, admiration, gain,
&c., which they get by heading and leading of parties; they must then
be but as common Christians, walking even with the rest in a beaten
3O2 TJic History of Infant Baptism.
road, and all the glory of setting up new ways would be lost. These
are not fit for any pious and sincere man to trust with the direction of
his conscience, nor likely to give a true verdict On the contrary, they
are the cause of most of the divisions which Christ has forbidden. He
says offences [or scandals] must come ; and St Paul says, there must
be heresies (or divisions). We may say of both, Woe be to the men by
whom they come. The civil law has, I think, a rule that when any great
mischief appears to be spread among the people, and it is not known
who were the authors that first set it on foot, it should be inquired, Cui
bonofuitl — who are the men that are likely to get any advantage by it?
— and to suspect them. Those that promote division for interest, keep
their consciences, as beggars do their sores, raw and open on purpose,
and would not have them healed for any money. Let not any honest
man trust them with the keeping of his. But apply to a man who (of
which opinion soever he be) is cordial, sincere, and has no interest
in the advice he gives.
I shall conclude with the words of St Paul, which I have made, as it
were, the text of this sermon, " Receive ye one another, as Christ also
received us." Christ received us, when we were not only silly, mis
taken, erroneous, but sinful too. He received us, that He might make
us wiser and better. St Paul adds, " to the glory of God ;" meaning,
that God is no way more dishonoured than by our divisions, nor any
ways more glorified than by our unity and receiving one another.
The whole context is thus, Rom. xv. 5, 6, 7 : —
" Now the God of patience and consolation grant you to be like-
minded [i.e., unanimous] one towards another, according to Christ
Jesus : that you may with one mind and one mouth [i.e., unanimously]
glorify God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. Wherefore [or
to which purpose that you may so do] receive ye one another [though
differing in opinion] as Christ also received us, to the glory of God."
Amen.
AN ALPHABETICAL TABLE OF SOME FEW
MATTERS.
ANTIP^EDOBAPTISM.
QT AUSTIN (year after the Apostles, 317) disputing for the Doctrine of
^ Original Sin, and Pelagius against it, do both agree that no Christian
(Catholic, or Sectary) that either of them had read or heard of, was an
Antipaedobaptist, Pt. I. pp. 151-202. The opinion of Antipaadobaptism not
a sufficient cause of separation, ch. ult.
BAPTISM.
Given by the Jews to proselytes and their infant children, Introduction.
Given by the Christians generally by dipping, Pt. II. p. 203 ; but by affusion
in case of weakness, &c., Pt. II. p. 203. Other washings beside dipping,
are in Scripture called Baptism, or, the baptising of a man, Pt. II. p. 174.
BISHOPS.
The Christians of Irenasus's time [anno 180] were able to reckon up those
that were placed bishops by the Apostles in the several Churches, and their
successors to that time, Pt. I. p. 30, Pt. II. p. 231. Valentinian the Emperor
said, it was a thing too great for him to undertake, to nominate a bishop,
Pt. II. pp. 34, 52. They were wont in the Primitive Church to be chosen
by the clergy and people of the diocese, Pt. II. p. 203.
COUNCILS.
Infant Baptism not instituted or enacted in any Council ; but in all that
speak of it, is supposed or taken for granted as a Christian doctrine known
before, Pt. I. pp. 65, 131. One of the earliest Councils since the Apostles'
time speaks of it, Pt. I. p. 67. The Councils of Carthage and Milevis [anno
416] and that of Carthage [anno 418] do not enact that infants must be bap
tised (that being a known thing before), but that baptism is in them for
remission of sin, Pt. I. p. 224, &c., p. 248, &c., p. 261.
DIPPING INFANTS IN THE FONT.
The general use formerly, Pt. I. p. 202. When left off in the several
countries of Europe, Pt. II. pp. 203, 210. Still used in all countries, hot or
cold, except such where the Pope's power does or did prevail, Pt. II. pp.
210-213.
GODFATHERS IN BAPTISM.
Used by the Jews at the circumcision of their children, and at the baptism
of an infant proselyte, or disciple, Introduction. Mentioned as used by the
Christians in the baptism of infants within one hundred years of the
Apostles, and all along afterward, Pt. I. p. 39. The answers that they
made in the name of the child, Pt. I. p. 138, &c., p. 278, &c. The parents
commonly were the godfathers, Pt. I. pp. 140, 143.
304 An Alphabetical Table of some fezv Matters.
INFANTS.
Whether baptised or not in the Apostles' time, could not be unknown to
the Christians that were ancient men one hundred one hundred and fifty
years after the said time, Preface. In what sense said to be regenerated by
the Holy Spirit, Pt. I. pp. 145, 147. The ancients did not think that infants
have faith, Pt. I. pp. 144, 147. Not baptised in houses, but in cases of the
utmost extremity, Pt. I. p. 158. Dying unbaptised, thought by the ancients
to miss of heaven ; but yet to be under no punishment, or a very mild one,
Pt. II. pp. 105-112. Dying after baptism, and before actual sin, agreed by
all the Christian world to be saved, Pt. II. p. 120, &c. If offered by their
parents or owners to baptism, ought to be baptised of whatsoever parents
born, Pt. II. p. 122.
JOHN THE BAPTIST.
He baptised infants, as St Ambrose concludes, Pt. I. p. 104, it. Introduction.
POLYGAMY.
Forbidden in the New Testament, Pt. I. p. 77.
REGENERATION, OR, BEING BORN AGAIN.
The word regeneration, regenerated, &c., never used by the ancients but
when they speak of baptism, Pt. II. pp. 99, 261.
REBELLION.
St Ambrose concludes that Maximus and Eugenius are in hell for their
rebellions, though against a tyrannous and heretical emperor, Pt. II. p. 36.
SCHISM.
The penance for it to last ten years, Pt. I. p. 74.
SECTS.
No sect before the year iioo, that allowed any baptism at all, denied it to
infants, Pt. I. p. 270.
SOCINIANS.
Endeavour to bring disrepute all the ancient Christians and their writings,
Pt. II. p. 77. Argue against the Doctrine of the Trinity, not in a serious,
but in a mocking way, Pt. II. p. 190.
SOME TEXTS OF SCRIPTURE EXPLAINED BY THE ANCIENTS.
I Cor. vii. 2, Pt. I. p. 77 ; i Cor. vii. 14, pp. 92, 125, 203 ; i Pet. iii. 19,
and iv. 10, p. 26; Col. ii. 11, 12, p. 33; John iii. 3, 5, Pt. II. p. 95, &c. ;
i Tim. 11. 15, Pt. I. p. 124; Rom. v. 12, p. 128 ; I Cor. xv. 29, p. 267 ; Col. i.
xv., Pt. II. p, 235 ; Phil. ii. 7, p. 234.
AMENDMENTS OF READINGS IN THE FATHERS, WHICH RESTORE THE SENSE.
August, de Gen. ad lit., 1. x. c. xxiii., esset, 1. csse, Pt. I. p. 150 ; Concil.
Carthag. iii., can. 48, nc, \. an, p. 162 ; Gennadius Catalog, -verbo Pelagius,
cidogiarum, 1. eclogarum, p. 229 ;j Hieronym, Epist. 153, de Monogamia,
I. de anima, p. 181 ; August, de natura et gratia, c. xxxvi., quod, 1. quid,
p. 214 ; Hilarius de Synodis prope finem, invisibilitcr, 1. indivisibiliter, Pt.
II. p. 94 ; Wicklyff, Trial., 1. iv. c. xi., baptisari, 1. baplisarc, p. 209.
DATE DUE
.GRAHA
VI LIBR£
RY TRIM
COLL
416-97
8-5851
•
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11