Facts for the Times

INFANT SPRINKLING

WM. WALL says: FT 130.7

“Tertullian, the first who mentions infant baptism, flourished about A. D. 216. He writes against the practice, and among his most conclusive arguments against infant immersion, (for then there was no sprinkling,) he assumes as a foundation principle not to be questioned, that immersion was for the remission of sins, which was universally conceded, hence could not apply to infants.” Hist. of Infant Baptism, p. 74. FT 130.8

CURCELLEUS, (a learned divine of Geneva, and professor of Divinity,) says: FT 131.1

“The baptism of infants in the two first centuries after Christ, was altogether unknown; but in the third and fourth was allowed by some few. In the fifth and following ages it was generally received. The custom of baptizing infants did not begin before the third age after Christ was born. In the former ages no traces of it appear—and it was introduced without the command of Christ.” In Paed. Exam., Vol. II, p. 76. FT 131.2

SALMASIUS and SUICERUS say: FT 131.3

“In the two first centuries no one was baptized except being instructed in the faith, and acquainted with the doctrine of Christ, he was able to profess himself a believer; because of those words, He that believeth and is baptized.” Ut Supra. FT 131.4

BISHOP PRIDEAUX says: FT 131.5

“Paedo-baptism rests on no other divine right than Episcopacy.” Fascicul. Contro. Loc. iv, section iii, p. 210. FT 131.6

CALVIN says: FT 131.7

“Because Christ requires teaching before baptizing, and will have believers only admitted to baptism, baptism does not seem to be rightly administered, except faith precede.” In Paed. Exam. Vol. ii, p.272. FT 131.8

NEANDER says: FT 132.1

“Baptism was administered at first only to adults, as men were accustomed to conceive baptism and faith as strictly connected. We have all reason for not deriving infant baptism from apostolic institution, and the recognition of it which followed somewhat later, as an apostolic tradition, serves to confirm this hypothesis.” Ch. Hist., Vol. I, p. 311. FT 132.2

LIMBORCH says: FT 132.3

“There is no instance can be produced, from which it may indisputably be inferred that any child was baptized by the apostles.” Complete Syst. Div. B. V. Ch. 22, Section II. FT 132.4

Bishop BURNET says: FT 132.5

“There is no express precept or rule given in the New Testament for baptism of infants.”—Expos. of the Articles, Art. xxvii. FT 132.6

S. PALMER says: FT 132.7

“There is nothing in the words of institution, nor in any after accounts of the administration of this rite, respecting the baptism of infants: there is not a single precept for, nor example of, this practice through the whole New Testament.”—Answer to Priestly on the Lord’s Supper, p. 7. FT 132.8

LUTHER says: FT 132.9

“It cannot be proved by the sacred Scripture, that infant baptism was instituted by Christ, or begun by the first Christians after the apostles.- Paed. Exam. Vol. II, p. p. FT 132.10

FIELD says: FT 132.11

“The baptism of infants is therefore named a tradition, because it is not expressly delivered in Scripture that the apostles did baptize infants; nor any express precept there found that they should do so.”—On the Church, 375. FT 132.12

BAXTER says: FT 133.1

“I conclude, that all examples of baptism in Scripture do mention only the administration of it to the professors of saving faith; and the precepts give us no other direction. And I provoke Mr. Blake, as far as is seemly for me to do, to name one precept or example for baptizing any other, and make it good if he can.”—Disput. of Right to Sacrem. Paed. Exam. Vol. II, p. 29. FT 133.2

There being neither precept nor example for infant Baptism in the New Testament, it is absolutely a “tradition of men,” “will worship,” and “strange fire” before the Lord. Like the heresies of sprinkling adults, and Sunday-keeping, it originated with Popery in the dark ages. On this point see the following commentator, of whom Dr. A Clarke says, “he is always orthodox.” FT 133.3

MATTHEW HENRY says: FT 133.4

“Not being holy fire, it is called strange fire; and, though not expressly forbidden, it was crime enough that God ‘commanded it not.’ For, (as Bishop Hall well observes here,) ‘It is a dangerous thing, in the service of God, to decline from his own institutions; we have to do with a God who is wise to prescribe his own worship, just to require what he has prescribed, and powerful to revenge what he has not prescribed.’ Now that the laws concerning sacrifices were newly made, lest any should be tempted to think lightly of them, because they descended to many circumstances which seemed very minute, these that were the first transgressors were thus punished for a warning to others, and to show how jealous God is in the matters of his worship. Being a holy God and sovereign Lord, he must always be worshiped exactly according to his own appointment; and if any jest with him, it is at their peril.”—On Leviticus 10, 1, 2. FT 133.5