Ib. s. ix. p. 153.
"Judge not, that ye be not judged". The dread of these words is, I fear, more influential on my spirit than either the duty of charity or my sense of Taylor"s high merits, in enabling me to struggle against the strong inclination to pa.s.s the sentence of dishonesty on the reasoning in this paragraph. Had I met the pa.s.sage in Richard Baxter or in Bishop Hall, it would have made no such unfavourable impression. But Taylor was so acute a logician, and had made himself so completely master of the subject, that it is hard to conceive him blind to sophistry so glaring.
I am myself friendly to Infant Baptism, but for that reason feel more impatience of any unfairness in its defenders.
Ib. Ad. iii. and xiii. p. 178.
But then, that G.o.d is not as much before hand with Christian as with Jewish infants is a thing which can never be believed by them who understand that in the Gospel G.o.d opened all his treasures of mercies, and unsealed the fountain itself; whereas, before, he poured forth only rivulets of mercy and comfort.
This is mere sophistry; and I doubt whether Taylor himself believed it a sufficient reply to his own argument. There is no doubt that the primary purpose of Circ.u.mcision was to peculiarize the Jews by an indelible visible sign; and it was as necessary that Jewish infants should be known to be Jews as Jewish men. Then humanity and mere safety determined that the b.l.o.o.d.y rite should be performed in earliest infancy, as soon as the babe might be supposed to have gotten over the fever of his birth.
This is clear; for women had no correspondent rite, but the same result was obtained by the various severe laws concerning their marriage with aliens and other actions.
Ib. p. 180.
And as those persons who could not be circ.u.mcised (I mean the females), yet were baptized, as is notorious in the Jews" books and story.
Yes, but by no command of G.o.d, but only their own fancies.
Ib. Ad. iv. p. 181.
"Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of G.o.d as a little child, shall not enter therein": receive it as a little child receives it, that is, with innocence, and without any let or hinderance.
Is it not evident that Christ here converted negatives into positives?
As a babe is without malice negatively, so you must be positively and by actuation, that is, full of love and meekness; as the babe is unresisting, so must you be docile, and so on.
Ib. Ad. v.
And yet, notwithstanding this terrible paragraph, Taylor believed that infants were not a whit the worse off for not being baptized. Strange contradiction! They are born in sin, and Baptism is the only way of deliverance; and yet it is not. For the infant is "de se" of the kingdom of heaven. Christ blessed them, not in order to make them so, but because they already were so. So that this argument seems more than all others demonstrative for the Anabaptist, and to prove that Baptism derives all its force if it be celestial magic, or all its meaning if it be only a sacrament and symbol, from the presumption of actual sin in the person baptized.
Ib. Ad. xv. p. 186.
And he that hath without difference commanded that all nations should be baptized, hath without difference commanded all sorts of persons.
Even so our Lord commanded all men to repent, did he therefore include babes of a month old? [8] Yes, when they became capable of repentance.
And even so babes are included in the general command of Baptism, that is, as soon as they are baptizable. But Baptism supposed both repentance and a promise; babes are not capable of either, and therefore not of Baptism. For the physical element was surely only the sign and seal of a promise by a counter promise and covenant. The rite of Circ.u.mcision is wholly inapplicable; for there a covenant was between Abraham and G.o.d, not between G.o.d and the infant. "Do so and so to all your male children, and I will favor them. Mark them before the world as a peculiar and separate race, and I will then consider them as my chosen people." But Baptism is personal, and the baptized a subject not an object; not a thing, but a person; that is, having reason, or actually and not merely potentially. Besides, Jeremy Taylor was too sound a student of Erasmus and Grotius not to know the danger of s.c.r.e.w.i.n.g up St. Paul"s accommodations of Jewish rites, meant doubtless as inducements of rhetoric and innocent compliances with innocent and invincible prejudices, into articles of faith. The conclusions are always true; but all the arguments are not and were never intended to be reducible into syllogisms demonstrative.
Ib. Ad. xviii. p. 191.
But let us hear the answer. First, it is said, that Baptism and the Spirit signify the same thing; for by water is meant the effect of the Spirit.
By the "effect," the Anabaptist clearly means the "causa causans", the "act of the Spirit." As well might Taylor say that a thought is not thinking, because it is the effect of thinking. Had Taylor been right, the water to be an apt sign ought to have been dirty water; for that would be the "res effecta". But it is pure water, therefore "res agens".
Ib. p. 192.
For it is certain and evident, that regeneration or new birth is here enjoined to all as of absolute and indispensable necessity.
Yet Taylor himself has denied it over and over again in his tracts on Original Sin; and how is it in harmony with the words of Christ--"Of such are the kingdom of heaven"? Are we not regenerated back to a state of spiritual infancy? Yet for such Anti-paedobaptists as hold the dogma of original guilt it is doubtless a fair argument; but Taylor ought not to have used it as certain and evident in itself, and not merely "ad hominem et per accidens". As making a bow is in England the understood conventional mark or visible language of reverence, so in the East was Baptism the understood outward and visible mark of conversion and initiation. So much for the visible act: then for the particular meaning affixed to it by Christ. This was [Greek: metanoia], an adoption of a new principle of action and consequent reform of conduct; a cleansing, but especially a cleansing away of the carnal film from the mind"s eye.
Hence the primitive Church called baptism [Greek: ph_os], light, and the Eucharist [Greek: z_oae], life. Baptism, therefore, was properly the sign, the "precursor", or rather the first act, the "initium", of that regeneration of which the whole spiritual life of a Christian is the complete process; the Eucharist indicating the means, namely, the continued a.s.similation of and to the Divine Humanity. Hence the Eucharist was called the continuation of the Incarnation.
Ib.
And yet it does not follow that they should all be baptized with the Holy Ghost and with fire. But it is meant only that that glorious effect should be to them a sign of Christ"s eminency above him; they should see from him a Baptism greater than that of John.
This is exactly of a piece with that gloss of the Socinians in evasion of St. Paul"s words concerning Christ"s emptying himself of the form of G.o.d, and becoming a servant, which all the world of Christians had interpreted of the Incarnation. But no! it only referred to the miracle of his transfiguration!
... "credat Judaeus Apella!
Non ego".
St. John could not mean this, unless he denied the distinct personality of the Holy Ghost. For it was the Holy Ghost that then descended "as the subst.i.tute of Christ; nor does St. Luke even hint that it was understood to be a Baptism, even if we suppose the "tongues of fire" to be anything visual, and not as we say, Victory sate on his helmet like an eagle. The spirit of eloquence descended into them like a tongue of fire, and that they spoke different languages is, I conceive, no where said; but only that being rustic Galileans they yet spake a dialect intelligible to all the Jews from the most different provinces. For it is clear they were all Jews, and, as Jews, had doubtless a "lingua communis" which all understood when spoken, though persons of education only could speak it.
Even so a German boor understands, but yet cannot talk in, High German, that is, the language of his Bible and Hymn-book. So it is with the Scotch of Aberdeen with regard to pure English. In short Taylor"s arguments press on the Anabaptists, only as far as the Anabaptists baptize at all; they are in fact attacks on Baptism; and it would only follow from them that the Baptist is more rational than the Paedobaptist, but that the Quaker is more consistent than either. To pull off your hat is in Europe a mark of respect. What, if a parent in his last will should command his children and posterity to pull off their hats to their superiors,--and in course of time these children or descendants emigrated to China, or some place, where the same ceremony either meant nothing, or an insult. Should we not laugh at them if they did not interpret the words into, Pay reverence to your superiors. Even so Baptism was the Jewish custom, and natural to those countries; but with us it would be a more significant rite if applied as penance for excess of zeal and acts of bigotry, especially as sprinkling.
Ib. p. 196.
But farther yet I demand, can infants receive Christ in the Eucharist?
Surely the wafer and the tea-spoonful of wine might be swallowed by an infant, as well as water be sprinkled upon him. But if the former is not the Eucharist because without faith and repentance, so cannot the latter, it would seem, be Baptism. For they are declared equal adjuncts of both Sacraments. The argument therefore is a mere "pet.i.tio principii sub lite".
Ib. Ad. ix. p. 197.
The promise of the Holy Ghost is made to all, to us and to our children: and if the Holy Ghost belongs to them, then Baptism belongs to them also.
If this be not rank enthusiasm I know not what is. The Spirit is promised to them, first, as protection and providence, and as internal operation when those faculties are developed, in and by which the Spirit co-operates. Can Taylor shew an instance in Scripture in which the Holy Spirit is said to operate simply, and without the co-operation of the subject?
Ib. Ad. xix. p. 199.
And when the boys in the street sang Hosanna to the Son of David, our blessed Lord said that if they had held their peace, the stones of the street would have cried out Hosanna.
By the same argument I could defend the sprinkling of mules and a.s.ses with holy water, as is done yearly at Rome on St. Antony"s day, I believe. For they are capable of health and sickness, of restiveness and of good temper, and these are all emanations from their Creator. Besides in the great form of Baptism the words are not [Greek: en onomati], but [Greek: eis t onoma], and many learned men have shewn that they may mean "into the power or influence" of the Father, the Son, and the Spirit. But spiritual influences suppose capability in act of receiving them; and we must either pretend to believe that the soul of the babe, that is, his consciousness, is acted on without his consciousness, or that the instrumental cause is antecedent by years to its effect, which would be a conjunction disjunctive with a vengeance. Again, Baptism is nothing except as followed by the Spirit; but it is irrational to say, that the Spirit acts on the mere potentialities of an infant. For wherein is the Spirit, as used in Scripture in appropriation to Christians, different from G.o.d"s universal providence and goodness, but that the latter like the sun may shine on the wicked and on the good, on the pa.s.sive and on those who by exercise increase its effect; whereas the former always implies a co-operant subject, that is, a developed reason. When G.o.d gave his Spirit miraculously to the young child, Daniel, he at the same time miraculously hastened the development of his understanding.
Ib. Ad. xxviii. p. 205.
But we see also that although Christ required faith of them who came to be healed, yet when any were brought, or came in behalf of others, he only required faith of them who came, and their faith did benefit to others....
But this instance is so certain a reproof of this objection of theirs, which is their princ.i.p.al, which is their all, that it is a wonder to me they should not all be convinced at the reading and observing of it.