L E T T E R TO AN Antipaedobaptift; Bt JOSEPH PRIESTLEY, l. l. d. f. r. s. &c. Pofterior noftra res non eft, imo omnibus prior eft. Hoc crit teftimonium veritatis, ubique occupantis principatum. Ab Apoftolis utique Hon damnatur, imo defenditur. Hoc erit indicium proprietatis, Quam enim non damnant, qui extraneam quamque damnaverunt, fuam oftendunt, imo defendunt. TlRTULLIAK. NORTHUMBERLAND : Print::!) by ANDREW KENNEDY. .M,DCCC,1I. d6NTEN T S. FAC£ V THE INTRODUCTION. SECTION I. Prcfumptive Evidence in favour of the An- ^tiquity of infant Baptifm. g.. SECTION II. Arguments of a more diredl Nature. Ii. SECTION III. Obje£lionB to the preceding Arguments. tm, SECTION IV. Of the Origin of Antipaedobaptifn. ^6. SECTION V. 4 On dipping or Sprinkling, and ofthe Obli gation of the Rite of Baptifm itfelf. 49. PuBLisifEo »Y D«. PHIESTLEY. A, .N Inquiry into the knowledge of the antient I^ebre^s cop{;e|ri^i{ig a future ilate, to which is added a new Interpretation of the i8th Chapter of Ifaiah. -r/ ^ '¦[..¦_ . Obfervation* on the Increafe of Infidelity,^ to which are addled Animadverfions on the Writings of feveral modern Unbelievers, and efpecially thC Ruins 0/ Mr. Volk^y.'' -".i i ''^^-^ A ¦ omparifon 9I tlie I.nlliiutions of Mofe? with thofe of the Hindoos and other antient Nations, with Remarks on Ma- Dfiipiiis'a'lOrigin of all Reli- gion.s, the Laws of Mofes methodized, and an Ad drefs to the Jews on the prciint flate ol the World and the prophecies relating to il. 1 " An Outline of the Evidences of Revealed Re- ,> . •• ;¦ . ¦¦ ;!i;,i ' '! ligion. Difcourfes on the Evidences, ©f Revealed Reli gion. 3 Yoh. the two laft delivered at Philadelphia. Unitariairifm explained anrl dt>fi.tided, in a Dif, courfe delivered at the Churchof the TJhiverfalifts in Pliiladelphia in 1796. The DoClrine of phlogifton eftablifhed, and that of the Compofition of Water refuted. In the Prefs ,. , A continuation of the Hiftorv of the Chriftian Church from the Fall of the Weftern Empire to< the prefent Time. This is expefted to be comprized in four volumes 8vo, and it will be followed by Notes on all the Books oJ Scripture. A LETTER TO AK ANTIP^DOBAPTIST. MEAR SIK, T, H E reading of ihtHiJlory of Bap' tifm by the late Mr. Robinfon of Cambridge, a rnan whom, on many accounts, I greatly efteemed, has drawn my,attention to thc fubjeft; and well knowing your candour and love of truth, I am en couraged, notwithftanding our difference in opinion and praftice, to lay the refult of my reflexions before vou. The fubjeft, we agree, is not of the lirft importance, but every thing relating to our A religion .tir^K TO AN religion is of /ome; andthe moft diftant relation of any thing to a great objeft gives us an intereft in it. You will alfo agree with me in acknowledg ing that, with refpeft both to doftrines and dif- dphne, our fafeft guide is what was taught and prafticed by the apoftles, and that, exclufive of their own writings, this is beft afcertained by the opi nions andpraftices of thofe chriftians who liVed fo near to their times, that theycould not but have been acquainted with them, and who, we are fure, would conform to them. As I do not mean to trouble you with the fcripture doftrine on the fubjeft, fmce this has- been fo often difcuffed that nothing new can well be urged with refpeft to it, I fliall confine my felf to the evidence of what was thc doftrine and praftice of the primitive chriftians, thofe who lived neareft to the time of the apoftles. And by means of the writings of feveral perfons in thefe circumftances it appears to me not to be very dif- (kuU to afcertain, in a very fatisfaftory manner, what were the opinions and praftices of thofe chrif tians, who were perfonally acquainted with thc apoftles. For tho' there is a chafm of about forty years between the death of John, the laft of thc apoftles, and Juftin Martyr, the eariieft chriftian writer concerning whofe works there is no difpute among ANTIPiJtDOBAPTlST. J among the learned, there were feveral intervening writers with whofe works thofe who lived in the time ot Juftin were acquainted. And if there ha3 been no writers at all in that interval, it is not fo great, but that the knowledge of what was thought and done prior to it might have been preferved by tradition. Befides, the number of chriftian churches was fo great, and they were fo difperfed over the whole extent of the Roman empire, that fome of them, no doubt, muft have retained the apoftolical doftrines and praftices for fo fmall a fpace of time. And yet, diftant as many of thefe churches were from each other, they had a conftant inter courfe ; as appears from the frequent appeals that were made from one church to another, and from perfons excommunicated in any one church not being received in another. This is evident from the hiftory ol thofe who were deemed heretics, and of the controver fy concerning the time of keeping Eafter. Other articles were alfo difcuffed in general coun cils, at which bilhops from al! parts of the Ro man empire attended. We fee that perfons fituated at the greateft diftance, as Auftin in Afrin and Terom in P.ileftine, correfpond ed A LITTER TO AN cd with "each other. Befides, Rome being th« metropolis ofthe empire, nothing. could be tranf- afted in any part ofit that was not prefentljf known there ; and thc bifhops of that city wjcre ready enough to notice, and to cenfure, whatever they thought to be an innovation with refpeft to doftrine or dlfcipline in the church. As quotations firom th^ early chriftian writers on this fubjeft are exceedingly numerous, and many of them of little weight, I fhall confine my felf to a few that appear to me to be pf the gvcal^ft importance. I fhall alfo endeavour to bring all the arguments into as fmall a , compafs as pofli ble; thinking that the mind will be more impreffed with them in this condenfed ftate, than if they were more dilated ; fince, in confequence of this the impreffion made by one is in danger of b°ing effaced before another is prefented. The greater part of niy quotations from the chriftian Faithers will be found in Wall's excellent Hifiory of Infant Baptism. Many of them I have examined ; but much of this part of my library having been def troyed in the riots, in Birtningham, I ha\:enot been able to verfify them all. There catjnot, however, bc any - doubt of the -fidclitv/Sf Mr. Wall, to whofe Vork I foinetimtji content myfelf with referring. SECTION AMTIPAD0BAPTI5T, \ SECTION I. Presumptive Evidence in favour of ihe Antiquity of Infant Baptism. I THINK there are feveral argu ments, though only ofthe presumptive kind, in fa-, vour ofthe baptifm of infants iiavliiiJ been the praq- tice of the eariieft tiroes ot chriftianity, of fuch a nature as that we may infer it with a great degree of certainty, without any dircft evidence of the faft. i. In the eariieft times after the age of thi apoftles, we find the opinion of the abfolute nec£s- Jity of baptifm to falvation, which arofe, no doubt, from the literal interpretation of what our LcJid faid, Mark xvi, 16, He that befieveth and is bapti fed Pidll be faved, but he that believeth not fhall be damned. And as it was not denied that infants might be faved, it may bc inferred with certainty that no chriftian parent would withhold from his child the neceffary means of fo great a benefit. Hermas, whofe Shepherd is very antient, and al- wnys quoted with approbation hy thccarlicft chrif tian writers extant, fnws'Lib 3, Ch. ham 6.) " Be- " fore a man receives thc n.inu' of a fon ffGcJ, he is A tETTER TO AM " is ordained unto death, but when he receives " that feal he is free from death, and affigned unto " life. Now this feal is the water of baptifm, unto '' which men go down under obligation to death, " but cbnie up appointed to life." The neceffity of baptifm to falv.ftion is alfo af ferted in the Recognitions of Clernent (a work, in one form or other, in my opiriion, prior to the writings of Juftin Martyr) as undoiiigwhat we fuffer in our firft birth from Adam. Quid confert aquae baptifmus ad dei cultum ? Quia regenerato ex aquis, et deo renatd, fragilitas prioris nativitatis, quae tibi per hominem fafta eft, atiipu- tatur; et ita demum pervenire poteris ad falu tem. Aliter veio impoflibile eft,* Lib. 6. chap. 5. Indeed it is fotjj'fthing remarkable, that all the antient chriftian writers, without exception, fpeak of baptifm as abfolutely neceffary to falvation. Even Gregory Nazianzen, who advifed the de ferring j of baptifm till the age of three years,made * Of what ufe is baptifm in religion ? Ans. To a perfon regenerated with water, and born again to God, ih: imperfe6lion of the former natural birth is done away ; and thus you attain to falvation, which other- wife is impoflible. ANTIP^DOBAPTtST. 7 made no objeftlon to the baptifm of the youngefl; infants when they were in danger of death. " But ". tome fay,"as he is quoted by Mr. Robinfon him felf,' p. 109, " What is your opinion of infants ' ' who are not capable of judging either of the " grace of baptifm, or ofthe damage fuftained by *' the want of it ? Shall we baptize them too ? By " all means, if there be any apparent danger. For " it were better they were fanftified without their " knowing it, than that they Ihould die without " being fealed and initiated." It cannot be denied that in the primitive times a:ll who had been baptifed, tho' they were ever fo young, received the Lord's fupper; and this was confidered as equally neceffary to falvation. Thus Innocent I. bifliop of Rome, a. d. 417. to prove the neceffity of baptifm to infants fays (quoting John vi. 53.) Nifi enim manducaverint carnem filii hominis, et biberint fanguinem ejus, non habebunt vitam in femetipfis.* Binnii Con cilia, • Except tliey eat of the flefli ofthe fon of man, and drink his blood, they will have no life in them. C) prian relates, as of his own knowledge, the cafe of a female thild,which,beingleftto the care of anurfe.and having been made to eat fome bread mixed with wine of a heathen facrifice, cou'd not afterwards be raade to partake of ctheeucharifticalelemtnts wiilicut hiocupins 8 ALETTERT©AN cilia, vq]. 1. p. 623, taking for granted that, being bapiif -d, they of courfe received the eucharift. ^q per'"jn .ipp ars to have had die good fenfe to main tain that baptifm ui h water was not neceffary* to falvairin before A'incentius, who was cotemporary with tcrom and Aufiin. . / 2. T'^e phrafe born again was by all the moft antient chriftian writers ufed as fynonymous to ht\n\haptifed, and this phrafe Irenaeus applies lo infant-;, as well as to perfons of every other age. For, giving his reafons for Chrift going thro' every ftd^eot human life (with the ftrength or weaknefs of which argument we have nothing to do) h« fays, " Omnes venit per fcipfum falvare : omnei " ii;qii.im qui per eum renascuntur in deum, in- " fantes, et parvulos, etjuvenes et feniores," Lib. 2. cap. 39. t Here the term infantes muft necef farily and vomiting. Jnm fequitur fingultus et vomitus. In corp'/r.- et ort violato euchariftia permenare non pote rat. De Lapfis Opera, p. 123. This treatife is bythe Oxford editor referred to the jear 251, and it is evi dent from the narrative that this communion of in fants was not a fingular cafe, but an eftabliftied pradlicc. •j- He came to fave all by himfelf. I fay all who by him arc born again to God, infants and boy«, and young ;i;en. and elderly perfons. ANTIP.EDOBAPTIST. g farily fignify what we mean by infants, or halts, as diftinguifhed from thofe of the fucceeding ages, parvulos, boys, znd juvenes, young men full grown. ^ Baptifm wa^ alfo in the primitive times deno minated by other terms, which equally imply the neceffity ofit to future happinefs. Chryfoftom, in^ a. work of his cited by Julian and Auftin, tho' not^ now extant, after denying that infants had any original fin, and enumerating ten advantages de rived from baptifm, fays, " For thefe reafons we ". baptize infants, tho' they are not defiled with fin,-' " that there may be fuperadded to them holinefs,- " righteoufnefs, adoption, inheritance,a brotherhood "(.with Chrift, and to be made merpbers of him." Wall's Hijloryofinfaril Baptifni, vol.i, .p. 112. In agreement with this Auftin, and no doubt all other chriftian writers, intei-preted what Paul' fays of children being holy (1 Cor. 7, 14.) ot their b'eing entitled to baptifm, and therefore he fays, Jam enim erant parvuli chriftiani, qui five auftore uno ex parentibus, five utroque confentiente fanc- lificati erant. De Sermone in Monte, Vol. 2, p. 1121.* And fometimes chriftian writers have denominated the one by the other. ' Sanfti, inquit dc fanftis B " nafci *Even then there were infant children who were sanrt' '''•'-', evidently meaning baptized, fome by the au-^ thorii -.ir one of the parents, and others v. ith thc con fcntof LotJi. IO A LETTER TO AM " nafci dcbuerunt, ficut dicit Apoftoluf j dioqui " filii veftri immundi effent, nunc autem fanfti " funt. Etquomodehocaccipis? Quomodo intelH- " gis de fidelibus natum, et fanftam, et baptizari, non debet? De verbis Apojioli, Serm. XIY, Opera, Vol. 5, p. 327. 1/ 3. The firft chriftians, being Jewfs, would na turally, without any direftion to the contrary, confider baptifm, which is the initiatory rite with refpeft to chriftianity, as correfpondlng to circumci- fion,, which bore the fame relation to judaifrn, whether the correfpondence was ftriftly juft or not ; and therefore they would naturally apply it to the fame fubjefts, i. e. to infants, as well as to grown perfons. This anology has ftruck feme fefts of chriftians fo forcibly, that they have generally baptized qn the eighth day after thc birth. Juftin Martyr fpeaking of chriftians, fays, " We have not received the carnal but the fpiritual circumcifion by baptifm, Dial p. 222, and in a treatife generally afcribed to him, he fays, " We are circumcifed by baptifm with the cir- " cumcifion of chrift. Ed. Colonia;, p. 45. Thefe I call prcfumptive arguments; tho' I can not help thinking them to be of great moment iri the decifion of this controverfy. But I proceed to other ANTIPDOBAPTIJT. H Other arguments of a more direft and conclufive nature ; though I am far from thinking them to bfe all of equal 'ftrength ; and fome bf them may per haps be deemed rather prcfumptive than direft and pofitive. SECTION IL Argumtnts of a more dirt^ Nature. 4. JL. HERE being no abfolute and univerfal rule witfi refpeft to the time of baptizing infants, fome parents, in the early ages, as well as now, deferred it much longer than others. This cuftom Tertullian and Gregory Nazianzen prefer- ed, and recommended. But tho' they urge feve- ifal ai-guments in favour of this praftice, they never fay that the contrary, or proper infant baptifm, was a modern thing, or that it was not derived from the apoftles; which they certainly would havc done if they had thought it could have been alleged with truth ; this being evidently the moft powerful argument they could have produced. Their not doing it, therefore, is a proof that they knew it was not m their power. This is thc more remarkable with la A LETTER TO AN jvith refpeft to Tertullian, who, in writing againft ihe heretics of his time, appeals to the fentiments ofthe churches that had been founded. by the apof tles, as the moft decifive of all arguments ; taking it for granted that thc doftrines and praftices of fuch churches were derived from them, and there fore right. This is the whole fcope of his reafon ing in his treatife De Prafcriptione. Would he not, then, have had recourfe to the fame argument in favour of adult baptifm, in preference to that ot infants, if he had thought that he could have done it with effeft ? 5. To the preceding arguments we may add, that in the time of Tertullian there were perfoni who had obtained the name oifponfors, who brought children to baptifm, and made themfelves refpon- ^ble for their chriftian inftruftion. Now this not Jbeing complained of, or faid to be a novel inftituti on, it w ;.3 probably derived from thc eariieft timef pf dr.' ftianity. Thesis fponfors were originally jthe parents ofthe children. H^d thefe names and offices been unknown in the preceding age,and been introduced within the memory of any perfons then giving, there cannot be a doubt but that fuch an innovation would have been oppofed, in that age, jn which every other innovation, real or fuppo fed, gave offence, was the occafion of a con- * trovcrfy AKTIPADOBAPTIST. I3 Iroverfy, and frequently ofthe calling of councils. befides, innovations in praftices are more eafily traced than innovations in opinions, which often produce no overt afts. I would obferve by the way, ^that how early foever was the fuperftitious notion of the ufe of baptifm to wafh away fin (which was denied by Chryfoftom) the oflBce of fponfors only implied thc obligation they laid themfelves under to give thc children for whom they were fponfors a chriftian education ; and therefore that it was at fome rifk to themfelves if they did not fulfil the obligatiori, as Tertullian fays, •' Quid enim neceffe eftfponfo- " res etiam periculo ingeri, quia et ipfi per mor- " talitatem dcftituere promiffiones poffunt, et pro- " ventu malae indolis falli ? De Baptifmo, S. 18, p. ?3V- *• 6. Nothing is fo likely to pafs without par ticular notice by writers as things that are univer fally known and prafticed by the perfons for whofe ufe their books were written. For this reafon it it that we have a fuller account of Roman cuftomt m • Why ftiould the fponfors be brought into danger; Cnce theymay be difabled from fulfillingtheir promifet either by their own death, or an untoward difpofition ifi the children ? 14 A LtTTiR TO Ajl in the Greek than in the Roman authors, whd wrote for the ufe of Romans, to Whom theii cuftoms were as well known as iCo thertifclvei'. This accounts for nothing being faid, bkcept in i flight and indireft manner, by early chriftian wri ters of affembling for public worfhip on the Lord's day, or of the particular manner of adminiftering chriftian ordinances ; thefe tilings Being well known to thofe for whofe ufe they wrote. We cannot, therefore, cxpcft any exprefs mention of infant baptifm if it was the univerfal praftice, and the propriety of it not difputed. by any feft of chriftians. Expreffions, ho.wever, occur from which it maybe clearly inferred; and this circum ftance furnifhes the moft fatisfadory evidence of thc univerfality of any cuftom< Juftin Martyr, fpeaking of fomc perfori s of both fexes then living, fays " they had been dif- " dples fixty or feventy years from their child- " hood. Apol. 1. Edit. Thirlbii, p. 22. Thii expreflion certainly implies that when they were firft intitled to the name oi difciples they were not of full age, or their own mafters, but at the difpofal of their parents. And if they had been member* of chriftian churches fixty or feventy years, they muft have been foten, twenty or thirty years be fore the death of the apoftle John. For Juftin is faid AMTIPiEDOBAPTlSt, jr faid to have written ia a. d. 140, and John died about a century ^ftec the commencement of the fchriftian aera. That Irenasus confidered infants as proper members of chriftian churches, and confequent ly intitledto baptifm, is evident from thepal|agc that I have quoted from him, and Origen, in one of, his works, tranflated by Ruffinus, expresfly fpeaks ofthe bpptifra of infants. Having mention ed thc offerings for new born chiffen under th^ law he fav.s. " Pro.hpc et ecclefia ab apoftolis tra- " ditionem fufceplt etiam pavvulis baptismum " dare.* Epfl- ad Romanos, Lib. 6, Cap. 6- Opera '¦^ Edit Basdice, Vol. 2. p. 543. And there is no reafon to fuppofe any perverfion of his meani.ng by the tranflator, as there was not at that time any controverfy on the fubjeft in-fhe chriftian church. ¦k 7. That infant baptifm w.is gener.iHy prafticed in Africa in the time of Tcrtuliian will not be de nied. He thought it would be more rational to deferit till the children could give fomc account o£ their faith ; but he did not fay that the cuftomwas an innovation ; and it appears by the fubfequent hiftory ofthe African church, that his opimon was not *For this reafon the church received by tradition from the apoflles, that baptism fhould be adminiftered even to young children. to '^A J.KTT1R TO AN .' « 6ot regarded. For that baptifm was not only adminiftered at the age of eight days, in imitation of the time when the Jews circumcifed their chil dren ; but it was the .general opinion of their bi fhops that it might be adminiftered under that age< r - One of their bifhops named Titus inquired of Cyprian (who was after Tertullian) whether a child might be baptifjJ before it was eight days old j and on this a council was called^ at which fixty- fix bifhops attended, when it was unanimoufly determined, " that it wa» not neceffary to defer " baptifm till that time, for that the mercy of God^ " ftio.ild not be 'vithheld from any, as foon ai it " was iMvrn," Cypriani Epijiola 64. Optra, p. 158, &.C. it being taken for granted that a child could riot derive any benefit from chriftianity without it. Now confidering that this tranfaftion was with- in one hundred and fifty years of the age of the apoftles, had infant baptifm not been prafticed by them, and from them tranfmitted to all chrif tian churches, fome of thofe bilhops, when the queftion came to bc agitated, would have diffent- ed fi-om their brethren, arid have maintained that baptifing even at the age of eight days was a de parture from thc apoftolic praftice; fince they did not baptife any perfon who was not of an age to give an account of his faith. Ifno bifhop in Africa had' ANTIPDOfeAl>tl$T. 17 had been abld to give an account of the formtr praftice of chriftian churches (tho' there were as learned chriftians at that time in Africa as in any other part of the chriftian world) furely fome bi fhop in fome other province ofthe Roman empire would have cenfured their proceedings, if it had been thought that there was any ground for it. And as the intercourfe between the bifhops of Africa and thofe of the other provinces was unin terrupted, nothing could be tranfafted in the one that could be unknown, or unnoticed, in the other. The writings of Tertullian, Cyprian, Arnobius, and Auftin, who were all of Africa, were as uell known, and as much read, at Rome, and in the different provinces of the empire, as they ^vcre in Africa itfelf. To any perfon who is really ac quainted with ecclefiaftical hiftory, and thc ftate of things in this period of it, the argument in fa vour,, of the antiquity of infant baptifm from the circumftances of this council, will appear to be lit tle lefs than a demonftration. 8. The argument, however, from the hiftory of the controverfy between Auftin and the Pela gians approaches Ibmething nearer to a demonftra tion, confidering that the afF,iii.s of chriftians had proceeded Without any inliiruption from thc ear iieft times to theirs, tlut both Auftin and his op- C ponents l8 A LETTER TO AN ponents were men of learning, well acqufiinted, no doubt, with the hiftory of the times before them, fo that it was in their power to afcertain aU antient praftices, and they were fufficiently inter- efted to do it. Two effefts were by the early chriftians af cribed to the rite of baptifm ; one was the forgiv^- nefs of fin, thc wafhing with water being an erii- blem of cleanfing ; and the other was giving a title to eternal life, from its being denoted by thb phrafe born again, that is, to a new and better life^. Auftin attending principally to'the fbrmer of thefe cH^fts of baptifm, and acknowledging that infant* had no fin of their own, advanced a new doftrine, viz. that tho' infants had no fin of their own, they derived fin from Adam; calling it original fii. This novelty (for fuch it certainly was) offended Pelagius and his followers, who did not deny thc propriety of baptifing infants, but maintained that it was riot7 in their cafe, for the remiffion of fin; but merely a title to eternal life. We have riothirig to do with thcir pecliliar opinions, or the arguments'with which they fupi ported them, but merely with their acknowledge ment of the propriety of infant baptifm, as derived to them from the age of the apoftles. Now Auftin exprefsly fays, " Non quaeftio eft inter nos et iplbs " utrum ANTIPADOBAPTIST. ig y utrum parvuli baptizandi funt, fed de caufa " quaeretur quare baptizandi funt. Hoc ergo quod " conceditur fine ulla cum illis dubitarione tenea- *' mus. Baptizandos effe parvulos nemo dubitet, " quando nec illi qui ex parte aliqua contradi- " cunt." De Verbis Ap-^floli, Serm. 13 Operji, vol. 10, p. 318.* And Celeftius, the friend of Pelagius owned that infants were to be baptized " according to the rule of the univerfal church." Wall's Hifiory of infant Baptifm, vol. 1, p. 273. Pelagius himfelf faid, " We hold one baptifm " which we fay ought to be adminiftered with " the fame facramental words to infants as to older " perfons." Auftin, likewife, fays, " he never heard not " even ot any impious hererics, who would fay " that baptifm was not neceffary to infants." He farther fays that " all who receive the fcriptures of *• the Old and New Teftaments receive in- " fant baptifm for the remiffion of fin." Wall's Hifiory of infant Baptifm, vol. 1, p. 92. " If a- ny perfon," he fays afk " for divine authority in " this • The quefiion between us is not whether infants are to be baptized, but thc reafon ivhij they are to bc bap tized. This, therefore, which is granted without any hefitation, let us hold, and let no perfon doubt that in fants are to be baptifed, fmce our opponents allow it. so A LETTER TO AN '* this matter, tho' that which the whole jlQhHi^ch " praftices, and which has npt been inftityte^ by " councils, but which was always in ufe, is very " reafonably believed to be no other than a thing " delivered by the authority of the apoftles ; yet " we may, befides, make a true eftimate how much " the facrament of baptifm avails infants, by the cir- " cumcifion which God's former people received." Wall's Hifiory of infant Baptism, p. 130. Again he fay.s, " The cuftom of our mother church in bap- " tizing infants muft not be difregarded, nor be ac- " counted needlefs, nor be believed to be aqy other •' than the tradition ofthe apoftles. De Genesi ad literam, Lib. 10, Sect. 22. Opera, vol. 3, p. 654. Now as this was acknowledged both by , Pela gius and his friend and companion Celeftius, men of learning, and who had travelled much (for Pe lagius came from Britain, and Celeftius it is thought from Ireland, and when the controverfy broke out Pe'agius was in Paleftine, and Celeftius in Afri ca) they muft have been acquainted with the cuf toms of many churches, and no doubt with 'thofe of all that were of much note; and they were certainly much interefted in denying the univerfa lity of the praftice, and its derivation from tbe apof tles. For if they could have done this, and have ftiewn that the baptifm of ji-^snts was an innova tion, ANTIPiEDOBAPTIST. 21 tion, (he whole of Auftin's argument in favour of Qjriginal fin fell to the ground at once. For a prac tice that was of no authority, would not prove any thing. And the argument of Auftin in proof of his doftrine of original fin depended entirely upon the acknowledged praftice, and propriety, ot infant baptifm. This, I fay again, appears to me to amount as near to a demonftration ofthe univerfality of the praftice of infant baptifm, and of its having been derived from the times of the apoftles . as any thing can well be. We may judge how much the Pelagians were interefted to deny the authority of infant baptifm by its being maintained by Mr. Robinfon that they did deny it. But I have not in all my read ing met with any affertion fo totally void of foun dation as this. I do not wifh to charge any writer with knowingly afferting a falfehood, and intending to impofe upon his readers, for the fake of fupport ing an argument ; but the conduft of Mr. Robin fon in this c.ife can hardly be accounted for on any other principle. " Auftin,'' he fays, p. 218, " and his compani ons ventured to place it" (infant baprifm) " on uni verfal cuftom," as if it had been a bold falfehood that 22 A LETTER TO AN 4hat they had advanced. " The moft likely opini on he fays, p. 21^, " is that Pelagius did deny thd' " baptifm ; but not the falvation of infants ;" and with refpeft to what I havc quoted fi-om Auf tin, viz. of the propriety of the cuftom being ac knowledged by Pelagius, he fays, p. 218, " Had " he forgot himfelf when he taxed Pelagians with " denying infant baptifm, and when he comfdains, " in another book, ofthe people who oppofed it ?" referring in the ;nargin, tho' without citing the words of Auftin, to two paffages pf his writings, viz. De Peccatorum meritis, Lib. 1, Cap. 25, and De Libero arbitrio. Lib. 3, Cap. 23. Now I have carefully perufed both thefe paffages, and do not find in either of them the leaft pretence for his af fertions. Auftin never contradifted himfelf on the fubjeft. He always faid, and does not ap pear to have been contradifted by the Pelagiaris, that they acknowledged the univerfality and the propriety of infant baptifm, differing from him on ly with refpeft to the reafon of the praftice, and what might be inferred from it. With thc fame confident boldnefs, 'and on as little authority, he fays, p. 247, that " the baptifm " of infants was merely an African cuftom, but '= that it Ihould feem to have been firft praftifed by a fmall ANTIPADOBAPTIST. 20 *'a fmall obfcure feft of Gnoftics, called Cainites, Caianites, or Cainites." He fays " however," "it •' is impoffible to fay any thing certain on the " baptifm of children among the Gnoftics, when " and where it originated, whether it was only " propofed, or really praftifed, how far it extended, " by what means, or at what moment, it found its " way into the Catholic church ; but there is no " hazlard in affirming that towards the clofe of the *' 4th century it was firft brought into public hy " G regory Nazianzen, that it became agreeable to " the clergy, as a relief from the inconvenience of " the catechumen ftate, that it was the ftanding " model of baptizing for many centuries in both " the Greek and Roman churches, and that it be- " came popular only in proportion as fraud be- " guiled, or civil power forced, the reluftant laity " to yield to it. Thus may any man write who pays no regard to truth or pr,obability. Here a folemn praftice is faid to have originated in the moft enlightened age of the primitive church, an age the moft abound ing in waiters, when nothing new was flarted with out being controverted (fof the numerous writings of that age are chiefly controverfial) and to have become prefently univerfal, nay inftantly fo (for Gregory Nazianzen was in part cotemporary with Auftin) without any objeftion or controverfy at all. ^4 A LETTER TO AN all. The laity are deceived, or compelled, to c6m- pliance without leaving any trace of a complaint on the fubjeft. And finally the whole Catholic church borrow an univerfal praftice from an ob fcure fet of Gnoftics ; when every branch of them are known to have been held in the greateft abhor- rence by all the Catholics. Befides, it is well known that the only feft of chriftians who rejefted baptifm and the eucharift were fome of the Gnoftics. It was the leading principles of thofe philofophizing chriftians, that matter owes its origin, and formation, to an evil being. They, therefore, wiflied to difengage the fpiritual part of man from any conncftion with it. This led them to rejeft the doftrine of a refurret- tion, and to maintain that the foul once delivered from the bondage of flefh, would never be united to it again, but go immediately to heaven. And on the fame principle they might deny the ufe of any material elements for fpiritual purpofes, as of bread and wine in thc eucharift, and water in bap tifm ; and as the Quakers do now, they might fay that what is delivered concerning thofe rites in the New Teftament is to be underftood in a fpiritual, or myftical fenfe. But none of the antient fefts of chriftians denied infant baptifm only, fo as to con fine baptifm to adults. If they objefted to baptifm, as ANTI.P.iKDpBAPTlST. l^ ^s fome did, it wa? to baptifm with water univer- , .h}ly, that, of adults, as well as that Of infants. Mr. Robinfon fays, p, 496, that the Mariiche- ans did not baptize infants. But it is proved by .Beaufobre, who took more pains than any other perfon to inveftigate the hiftory, the opinions, and the praftices, ofthe Manicheans, that they did bap tize infants. He "fays that " theh .affeft ion for the " fyftem ofthe Magians would incline them toit, " fince thefe alfo baprized; both prefenring chil- " dren to the fun, and to fire ; and alfo, plunging ^^ "them into a large veffel of water. Hifloire dt Manicheifme, vol. 2. p-7i7. ¦•* \ tp- ny being operofe, the clei-gy would naturally Wifh to have it performed ,at a fl'^ted; time, when the fame fervice would fuffice fpr a ^^vcat number. And -they might prefer Eiifteij for thjs purpofe, as it was the Ume of our Lord's death and lefurrcftion, of.which baptifm was cenfidercd as an emblem, and thc greateft felliyal in the church ; and perhaps alfo becaufe it was faid that the Jews received their profelytes at the rime ;of their paffover. Wall's Hifiory of infant Baptifm, vol. 1, p. 23. ¦' In proccfs of time, however, when the profeffion of chriftianity was become univerfal, when there were no Jews or heathens to bri prize, and the praftice of deferring baptifm was exploded,' fo that every chriftian parent had been baptized, the' cuf tom of adminiftering baplifrri' only at Eafter, or fome oth.-r public feftival, would naturally ceafe, and the office adapted lo that folemnity would grow into difufe ; all the children of chriftian pa rents having been baptized early, and of courfe fe parately, as at prefent. 3. To antipadobaptist. gj 5. To the praftice of proper infant baptifm) ^r the baptifm of babes, by the early chriftians, Mr. Robinfon objefts the vague ufe of the teim infants, fht wing that in many cales it wai ufed to fignify perfons full grown. This is ac knowledged, but the objeftion has no weight what ever in this cafe ; becaufe the infants admitted to baptifm are defcrlbed in fuch a manner as fhews that whatever their age really was, they were not Capable of thinking and aft;ngfor themfelves, and therefore required fponfors. This was clearly the cafe of thofe to whofe baptifm Tertullian objefted. They are called I'n- nocents, being too young to have contrafted any guilt of their own. Auftin fays, " Quid offendet " parvulus non baprizatus, nullam habens cul- " pam." Opera, vol. 10, p. 319. It was on this account that he maintained that tho' they had no fin of their own, they were defiled with that of Adam. He alfo oppofes infantes to credentes., " Urique prodeft chriftus parvulis baptizatis. Pro- " deft ergo non credentibus."* De Baptifmo par- vulc.um contra Pelagianos, Sec. 14 Opera, vol. 10, p. 326. E Befides • Wherefore Chrifl is of advantage to infants that are baptized, and confequently to fuch as are not be- Ijpvi'rs. 34 A LETTER TO AN Befides, where infant baptifm is the uivcrfal praftice, . there are various cuftoms in diffen^nt placcs with refpeft 'o the ufual time of adminifter- in^j it. This at leaft is the cafe in England, both with refpeft to the members of the church of Eng land and diffinters. With fome It is the cuftom to baptize very early, almoft as foOn as the mo ther can attend he feivice ; but in other places it is gener,i]ly deferred till the child be at leaft a year old. Nay fomt- times the parents will wait till they have two or three to be baptized at the fame time, pt I haps on account of the expence of the entertain ment which it is ruftomary to make on the occafi on. I once faw a woman belonging to the church of England r.irrying one child in her arms, while fhi. held another by the hand, and a third followed at fome diflance, as they went to the church to be baptized; nor was this thought very extraordinary in that place. 4. Much ftrefs is always laid on our Lord's faying (Matt. 28, 15) " Go ye and teach all na- " tions, baptizing them," &c. as if inftruftion muft always precede baptifm. But this general direc- fon was very proper at that time, the great bulk of thofe to whom the apoftles were to preach beirig Jews or heathens, who muft of courfe be convert ed, and inftrufted, befou they would be baptized themfelves, or fufter their children to bc baptized. Such ANTIPADOBAPTIST. 05 ^ch would naturally be the direftion of a Jewifli rabbi with refpeft to circumcifion. He would fay to his miffionaries, " Go, convert, and circum- " cife all men," tho' he knew that his religion di- refted the circumcifion of children when they were only eight days old, and therefore incapable of re ceiving inftruftion. It IS remarkable, however, that Juftin Martyr applii s the very fame word that is ufed by our Lord, viz, that of difciplin^ (for fo it ought to be rendered) to children faving that " there wcrc *' children, as well as perfons ofadultage. who had " been made difciples to Chrift." yipol i Ed. Tnirl- iii, p 22, 5. It is commonly faid, that it was only thc fuperftitious notion of the abfolute neceffity of baptifm to be forgivenefs of fin and future hap pinefs that introduced the praftice of infant bap tifm. It is acknowledged that enough of fuper- ftition crept into this ordinapce. as well as into that of the Lord's fupper; and this was, no doubt, the reafon for baptiz'n^ children in danger of J. ath. But this fuperftition was in fome meafure at ieaft coui.tc.iatt^d by ariother, viz- that the later baptilm was eJetjrrcd, the fafcr perfona would die; and thi.s would favour the praft ce of adult bap tifm .IS much, pcriiaps, a.s ttia other would that of infants. SECTION |j5 A LXTTXK TO A!f . SECTION IV, Pf the Origin of Ant'iposdobaptifm- At is not a little remarkable that the feft of Antipaedobaptifts which is now fo con- ^derable, and on feveral accounts fo highly ref- peftable, fhould have had fo late, and if I may be allowed any term approaching to a cenfure, 1 would add, fo unworthy, an origin. For it can^. not be traced higher than the Petrobruffians in thfi 1 2th century. Wall's Hifi>)ry of inf ant Baptism, vol.2, p. 172, 174. In more antient times no example can be produced of any perfon who ad mitted adult baptifm, and excluded infants. If they rejefttd baptifm at all, they did it univerfal ly ; and this was done only by fome obfcure Gnoftics, and no doubt arofe from their impro per ideas concerning Trca^/fr, together with their diflike ofthe ceremonial law of Mofes, extending that diflike to every thing of a fimilar nature in chriftianity. And it bas been clearly fhewn that many of thofe who made a ftand againft the corruption ofthe church and court of Rome in the fouth of France, and the north of Italy, entertained fome Manichean ANTIPADOBAPTIST. 3,7 Manicheaa principles, having derived them from the Prifcillianifts in the Weft, and the Pauhci ns in the Eaft. For many of thefe laft, being perfe cuted by the emperors at Conftantinople, fled into thofe parts. Peter the refpeftable abbot of CTugni, writ ing againft Peter de Bruis, and his difciple Henry, in A. D. 1126, charges them with denying infant baprifni, and fays that the feft was of twenty years ftanding. Ib. p. 172. Alanus, inhis account of the opinions of the Catbari in Italy, fays that fome of them held that " baptifm' was of no ufe tb " infants, and others that it was of no ufe to ariy " perfon at all." Ib. p. r77. 1 he Lyonifts in the South of France, held that thc devil made this world and all things in it, that the facraments ofthe church, as that with ma terial water, profited nothing to falvation, and that Chrift did not t.ike on him his human nature from the vir:^in, but a body that was from hea<- ven, Ib. p. 1-0. One Everinus, of the diccefe of Cologne, writ ing to Bernard, gives him an account of two kinds of hererics that had been lately difcovcretl in 3$ A LETTER TO AN in that country, one of whom, he faid, denied in- fiint baprifm, but not that of adults. It was with a view to this opinion that Innocent I, in the La- terari council in a. d . 1 2 1 7, decreed that " the facra- " ment of baptifm adminiftered in water with invo- " carion ofthe trinity, is profitable to falvation, both " to adult perfons and alfo to infants, by whomfo- <• ever it is rightly adminiftered, in the forms of " the church." Wall's Hifiory of infant Baptifm, vol. I, p. 178. The feft of Antipxdnbaptifts was revived by Nicholas Storck, and Thomas Muncer, in the time of Luther ; and tho' it is not eafy to trace any conncftion between thefe Antipjedobaptifts and thofe of a former period in France and Italy ; that conncftion is not improbable ; fince many ofthe Anabaptifts in Munfter held the opinion of Chrift not having derived his flefh from the virgin but that of its being anew creation in her womb. This too was the opinion of Menno the great re former of the Anabaptifts, Mofheim's E(clefajiical Hijlyry, vol. 4, p. 156, and it is alfo faid to be held by fomc of the Anabaptifts in England, ib. p. 162. It was thc opinion of Joan Bocher of Kent, who fuffered Martyrdom in the reign of Edward VI, Sh« could not reconcile the fpotlefs purity of Chrifts antipadobApt^st «q Chrift's human nature with his receiving flefli from a finful creature, Dr. Toulmin's Note to Neat's hif tory of the Puritans, vol. i. p. 55. Moftieim fays, *' The Englifti Anabaprifts confidered it as a mat- ** ter of indifference whether baprifm was admi- " niftered in the name of the Father, the Son, and • the Holy Ghoft, or in that of Chrift only." But many of the Anabaprifts were at that time Unita rians. The unqueftionable piety ofthe Petrobruffians, the Catbari, the Lyonifts, and the Anabaprifts of Germany, who held opinions evidently derived from Gnofticifm, may incline us to think thatthe antient Gnoftics were a better clafs of chriftians than their cotemporaries of the Catholics would allow them to be, tho' fome of them no doubt deferved the charafter that is given of them by the apoftles and fubfequent writers. The candid Larder ner did not think ill ofthe Manicheans as a body. But notwithftanding this, the late origin of the doftrine of 'he Antipaedob-iprifts, and its deriva tion from Gnofticifm, now univerfally exploded, muft furnifti a reafonable and very ftrong objeftion fo It in the minds of rational chriftians. SECTION 40 A LETTER TO Att SECTION V. On Dipping or Sprinkling, and of the Obligation of the Rite of Baptifm itfelf. o N the mode of applying water in the rite of baptifm I fhall not fay much! But as the ufe of water is only emblematical, and at Tvafhing, or fprinkling, may anfwer thtit purpofe as well as dipping. I have little doubt but that, if the apoflles themfelves had lived in a climate in which bathing the whole body had been very in convenient, or unpleafant; they would not have adopted it. To denote purity, as well as to give an example of humility, our Lord wafhed the apoftles' feet, and on his faying to Peter, who would have declined it, that it he did not wafh him he had no part in him, and Peter then replying, « •/ my feet only, bu', alfo my hands and my head, Jefus. faid (John 13, 10) He that isivajhed needeth not fave to wafh his feet. And as a mere emblem, this was quite fufficient for the purpofe, Alfo the writer of the epiftle to the Hebrews ufes the ph.rd.1e: fprinkling as well as wafhing, when he ANTIPADOBAPTIST, ^S he had to exprefs the idea of moral purity. Heb. xvi, 2 2 Having our hearts fprinkkd from an evil tonfcunce, and our bodies bathed in pure water. ^ That the chriftians in antient times thought that dipping was not abfolutely neceffary to the Tahdity of baprifm. tho' they thought a valid baptifm neceffary to falvation, appears from theii* being content to fprinkle thofe that were fick in bed, without dipping them afterwards. The^^ who only fprinkled a fick perfon would probably, on the fame principle, have been content with fprinkling, or wafhing, thofe who were not fick in a' cold dimate.' / ¦ , '' > ^' Cyprian in his epiftle to Magnus, who enqui- I'cd of him whether they who had only been fprink led in baptifm were as complete chriftians as they who had been dipped, anfwers without hefitation ill the afiirmirive ; and'after quoring Ez. xxxvi, 45, in which mention is made oi fprinkling with tuater as an emblem of moral purity, and fome cafes in the cefemohial law, in which fprinkling was fuf ficient for purification, fays, Spiritus fanftus non de menfura datur, fed fuper credentem totus infun- ditur. * Opera, vol. 2, p. 187. F It • The H0I3' Spirit it not given in part, but intire, teen baptized themfelves. Thus my friend. I have laid before you the prin- jlipal faHs and arguments, that weigh with me in fa vour of infant baptifm; and I cannot help thinkijg that when you give due attention to them, they will make fome impreffion on your mind. I alfo hope that they will contribute fomething towards the great chriftian virtue of mutual candour. The greateft allowance ought to be made for J:he original adoption of your prefent fentiments and praftice by the Petrobruffians, as it w;-';ina very dark age, when the abufes of chriftian ordi- nances were grofs, and the tracing of the ori'.^inand proorcfs of tium was exceedingly difficult, and tc^ m'll perfons abfolutely impoffible ; fo that it was fiatural to rejeft altogether what they faw to an fwer ^6 A LITTBI* TO AM fwer rio purpofeS but thofe of fuperftition and pricftcraft, and to adhere to what appeared to them. to be rational and ufeful, efpecially when they found nothing in the fcriptures decifively againft it. Now the direftion of our Lord to profelyte which implied infiruCiion, and of courfe a capacity for it, before baptizing, perfons of all nations, was certainly confonant to reafon ; and there is not in the New Teftament any clear example ofthe bap tizing of any infant. And we neither can, nor ought to be willing to, deny th?it all the real ufes of chriftianity, in correfting the vices and improv ing the charafters of men, may be obtained without any iuch ordinance as that of baptifm, and efpeci ally wiihout the adminiftration of it in infancy. It would therefore, appear more fafe and more rational to rej ft it rather than praftice it as it was then done, viz. as a mere charm, operating without any fenfe or knowledge in the fubjeft to which it was appli ed. Thefe are the arguments on which you reft your caufe at this day, and by their great plaufibi- iity you are certainly making converts. Eut had the Petrobruffians been learned, that is, in antiquity, which they were not, they would, I doubt not, havc proceeded and afted differently. They would have reftified thc abufe without re- jefting ANTIPADOBAPTIST. ^ jefting the ordinance that was abufed. And as the antient Antipaedobaptifts were not learned, that is, not acquainted with chriftian antiquity, or the doc trines and praftices of primitive times ; fo you muft, my friend, excufe me, if I add that, in my opinion, few of the modern ones have been fo. The Polifti Socinians, who were at leaft genc- I'ally, Anripasdobaprifts, were men of extraordinary good fenfe, and well acquainted with the fcrip tures, beyond any of their cotemporary reformers ; but they did not ftudy the Fathers. They rather feem to have defpifed them. But it is only from the wrirings of any particular age that \Ve can ac quire a knowledge of what was thought and done in that age. And tho' this kind of learning is now more eafy and common, by means of the many editions of the chriftian Fathers, prejudice in favour of particular opinions and praftices, has taken fuch deep root, that it cannot be expefted to give way very foon to the light reflefted from it. This we fee with refpeft to the doftrine ofthe trinity. There have been more learned trinitari- ans than unitarians ; and yet I think I have fliewn that ffom thc Fathers themfelves, may be collefted the moft decifive evidence that the great body of chriftians in the age immediately following that of the ^ft A LETTER TO AN the apcftles were unitarians, and a great tnajorit;^ of chriftians in all countries are triniiariari'S' ftill,' notwithftanding the moft abundant evidence Of hi ffnth of unitiirianifiTi from the fcriptCiifeSV as Well aif /roiri thefe hiftorical refearches. A-' in this riianner I account for the rife arid pro grefs pf Antipsedobaprifm, as well as of trinitaria'- riifm ;' indulging the hope, that when opportunity fcall have been given for examining into th^ ftatfi of things in the primitive times, arid corifequerttly for diftinguifhing abufes from the genuine ddftririe*" 6f chriftianity, antipasdobaptifm, ds well aS trinitA- rianifrii, Mv^ill be acknowledged^ to have no fufficient foundation ; and that then, if the rite of baptifm (to ivhich I fee no good objeftiori) be retained, there will bfe no exception rnade to the cafe of infarits. Submitting all that I have written fo 'yoii^ judgmerit and candour. I am/ with all due refpeft:. Dear Sir, yours fineefely. J. PRIESTLEY. ^^^h^atTT.berjaQd,' February i'8o4'. 3 9002 08561