A Body of Divinity, Vol. 4 (of 4): Wherein the doctrines of the Christian religion are explained and defended, being the substance of several lectures on the Assembly's Larger CatechismRidgley, Thomas
Religion
A Body of Divinity, Vol. 4 (of 4): Wherein the doctrines of the Christian religion are explained and defended, being the substance of several lectures on the Assembly's Larger Catechism
Dr. Gill says, that Tertullian is the first man who _mentions_
infant-baptism, and speaks against it; and infers that it had not come
into use before his time. To this, Mr. Clark, in his answer, replies,
“So he is the first man, I suppose, that mentions the baptism of
unmarried people, virgins, and widows, and speaks against it, and as
earnestly pleads for its delay till the danger of temptation is past;
till marriage, or the abatement of lust. But will it thence follow,
that the baptism of such unmarried persons did not obtain in the
church till Tertullian’s time? Or that it then first began to be in
use? Our author might as reasonably have inferred the latter opinion,
as the former. But the very words, in which he expresses his advice
against baptizing infants, plainly imply that it was a common
practice. After all, what is it that Tertullian has said against
infant-baptism? He has given it as his judgment, that it would be more
profitable to defer their baptism, until they come to riper years, and
were able to understand something of its nature and design; but he
does not like the anti-pædobaptists, condemn it as unlawful; which he
would have done, if it had been a novel practice—an innovation,
contrary to the rule of scripture, or without the approbation or
direction of the apostles. On the contrary, he allows it in case of
necessity, of sickness, and danger of death. Dr. Gill, instead of
saying, that Tertullian was the first man who mentioned
infant-baptism, and spoke against it, ought to have said, that he was
the _only man_, in all antiquity, whose writings have come down to us,
who has said any thing at all against the practice of baptizing
infants.” The very advice, however, which he gave, plainly shows, that
infant-baptism was then commonly practised. He does not intimate, that
the practice was of human invention, or not authorized by the
apostles. His private opinion, with respect to the expediency of
delaying baptism in several cases, and the reasons which he offered,
are nothing to us. We have only cited him as a voucher to an ancient
fact; and the testimony which he has given affords clear and
incontestable proof of said fact, viz. that infants were baptized in
his times.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account