Imágenes de página
PDF
ePub

lytes; on scripture confequences; and by our author it is rested on apostolic iradition. This he fays is an argument of great weight; and that it is principally for the fake of this, that his performance appears in the world; for which reafon, I fhall chiefly attend unto it. Whatever weight this argument may be thought to have in the prefent controverfy, it has none in others; not in the controverfy with the Papifts, nor with the church of England about rites and ceremonies, this Gentleman himself being judge; who I underftand is the author of The diffenting Gentleman's answer to Mr White's Three Letters. In his controverfy with him, Chrift is the only lawgiver and head of the church, and no man upon earth, or body of men, have authority to make laws, or prefcribe things in religion, or to fet afide, alter or new-make any terms fixed by him; and apoftolical authority, or what is directed to by the apostles, as fallible and unaffifted men, is no authority at all, nor obligatory as a law on men, they having no dominion over their faith and practice; and the fcriptures are the only, common, fufficient and perfect rule: but in the controversy about infant-baptifm, apoftolic tradition is of great weight; if the difpute is about fponfors and the crofs in baptifm, then fathers and councils ftand for nothing; and the teftimonies of the antients for thefe things, though clear and indubitable, and about the fenfe of which there is no conteft, and are of as early antiquity as any thing can be produced for infant-baptifm, are not allowed fufficient; but if it is about infant-baptifm itself, then fathers and councils are called in, and their teftimonies produced, infifted upon, and retained, though they have not one fyllable of baptifm in them; and have fenfes affixed to them, ftrained and forced, contrived to serve an hypothefis, and what the good old fathers never dreamed of; is this fair dealing? can this be faid to be fincerity, integrity and honesty? no furely. This Gentleman fhould know that we, who are called Anabaptifts, are Proteftants, and the Bible is our religion; and that we reject all pretended apoftolic tradition, and every thing that goes under that name, not found in the Bible, as the rule of our faith and practice.

The title of the pamphlet before me is, The baptifm of Infants a reasonable fervice, founded upon Scripture, and undoubted Apoftolic Tradition; but if it is founded upon fcripture, then not upon tradition; and if upon tradition, then not on fcripture; if it is a fcriptural bufinefs, then not a traditional one; and if a traditional one, then not a fcriptural one: if it can be proved by fcripture, that is enough, it has then no need of tradition; but if it cannot be proved by that, a cart-load of traditions will not fupport it.-This put me in mind of what I have heard, of a countryman offering to give the Judge a dozen reasons why his neighbour could not appear in court; in the first place, my Lord, fays he,. be

[blocks in formation]

be is dead; that is enough, quoth the Judge, I shall spare you the trouble of giving me the reft: fo prove but infant-baptifm by scripture, and there will be no need of the weighty arguments from tradition. However, by putting the cafe as it is, we learn that this author by apoftolic tradition, means unwritten apoftolic tradition, fince he distinguishes it from the scripture; and not apostolic tradition delivered in the scriptures, which is the fenfe in which sometimes tradition is used, both in the word of God, and in ancient writers". So we are not at a loss about the sense of it; it is unwritten, uninspired apostolic tra dition; tradition not in, but out of the fcriptures; not delivered by the apostles in the facred writings, but by word of mouth to their fucceffors, or to the churches.

It is pretty much that infant-baptifm fhould be called an undoubted apoftolic tradition, fince it has been doubted of by fome learned Pædobaptifts themselves; nay, fome have affirmed that it is not obferved by them as an apostolic tradition, particularly Curcellæus, and who gives a very good reafon for it: his words are these;" Pædobaptifm was unknown in the two firft ages after Chrift; "in the third and fourth it was approved by a few; at length, in the fifth and "following ages it began to obtain in divers places; and therefore this rite is "indeed observed by us as an ancient cuftom, but not as an apoftolic tradition.” Bishop Taylor calls it a pretended apoftolical tradition; and fays, that the tra dition cannot be proved to be apoftolical, we have very good evidence from antiquity. Since then the Pædobaptists disagree about this point among themselves, as well as it is called in queftion and contested by others; one would think, this writer should not be so confident as to call it an undoubted apoftolic tradition.

Befides, apoftolic tradition, at most and best, is a very precarious and uncertain thing, and not to be depended on; we have a famous inftance of this, in the controversy that arose in the second century, about the time of keeping Eafter; whether it should be obferved on the 14th day of the firft moon, let it fall on what day of the week it would, or on the Sunday following; the former was observed by the churches of Asia, and the latter by the church of Rome; both pleaded the custom and usage of their predeceffors, and even ancient apoftolic tradition; the Afiatic churches faid, they had it by tradition from Philip and John; the Roman church from Peter and Paul; but not being able to settle this point, which was in the right, Victor, the then bishop of Rome, excommu

c 1 Cor. xv. 3. 2 Thefs. ii. 15.

nicated

Irenæus adv. Hæref. 1. 3. c. 4. Cyprian. Ep. 63. ad Cæcilium, p. 146. Athanaf. ad Adelph. p. 333. e Inftitut. Rel. Christ. 1. 1. c. 12. §. 4. P. 25. Of the liberty of Prophefying, p. 320, 321. Ed. 3d. 8 Eufeb. Eccl. Hift, 1. 5. c. 23—25. Socrat. Eccl. Hift. 1. 5. c. 22. p 285.

BAPTISM. nicated the other churches that would not fall in with the practice of him and his church; this was in the year 196; and even before this, in the year 157, this fame controverfy was on foot; and Polycarp bishop of Smyrna, who had been a hearer and difciple of the apostle John, made a journey to Rome, and converfed with Anicetus bishop of that place, about this matter; they talked it over candidly, parted friendly, but without convincing each other, both retaining their former cuftoms and tradition"; if now it was fo difficult a thing to fix a tradition, or fettle what was an apoftolic tradition, about the middle of the second century, fifty or fixty years after the death of the apostle John, and when fome of the immediate fucceffors of the apoftles were living; what judgment can we form of apoftolic traditions in the eighteenth century?

Moreover, it is doubtful whether there ever was any fuch thing as apoftolic tradition; or that ever any thing was delivered by the apostles to their fucceffors, or to the churches, to be obferved by them, which was not delivered in the facred writings; and I defy this Gentleman, and demand of him to give me one fingle inftance of any apoftolic tradition of this nature; and if no fuch inftance can be given, it is in vain to talk of undoubted apoftolic tradition; and upon what a miserable foundation must infant-baptifm ftand, that refts upon this? unwritten apoftolic tradition is a non-entity, as the learned Alting calls it; it is a mere chimera; a refuge of heretics formerly, and of papifts now; a favourite argument of theirs, to prove by it what they please.

i

But be it so, that there is fuch a thing as apoftolic tradition; let it be proved that infant-baptifm is fuch; let the apoftles be pointed out that delivered it. Were they all the apostles or only fome of them that delivered it? let them be named who they were, and to whom they delivered it, and when, and where. The apostles Peter and Paul, who were, the one the apostle of the circumcifion, and the other the apoftle of the uncircumcifion, one would think, fhould be the most likely to hand down this tradition; the one to the chriftian Jews, and the other to the chriftian Gentiles; or however, to their fucceffors or companions but is there any proof or evidence that they did fo? none at all; though there are writings of perfons extant that lived in their times. If Clemens Romanus was a fucceffor of Peter, as the papists say, it might have been expected, that it would have been delivered to him, and he would have published it; but there is not a word of it in his epiftles ftill in being. Barnabas was a companion of the apostle Paul; and had it been a tradition of his, it might be juftly thought, it would be met with in an epistle of his now extant; but there is not the leaft hint of it in it, but on the contrary, feveral paffages in favour of beVOL. II.

T T

Eufeb. Ib. 1. 4. c. 14. See Bower's Lives of the Popes, vol. I. p. 27, 37. i Loc. Commun. p. 287.

lievers

lievers-baptifm. Perhaps, as John was the laft of the apostles, and outlived them all, it was left with him to tranfmit it to others; and had this been the cafe, it might have been hoped it would have been found in the writings of Polycarp, a hearer and difciple of the apostle John; but not a fyllable of it is to be found in him. Nay Papias, bishop of Hierapolis, one that was a hearer of John the elder of Ephefus, and a companion of Polycarp, and who had conversed with those who were familiar with the apoftles, and made it his business to pick up fayings and facts, faid or done by the apoftles, not recorded in fcripture, has not a word of this; which childish business would have been a very pretty thing for that weak-headed man, as Eufebius reprefents him, to have gone prattling about with; here is an apoftolic tradition then, which no body knows by whom it was delivered, nor to whom, nor when and where: the companions and fucceffors of the apoftles fay nothing of it. The Jews talk of a Mofaic tradition and oral law, delivered from one to another for feveral thousand years running; they tell you by whom it was first given and received; and can name the perfons to whom it was tranfmitted in fucceeding ages; this is fomething to the purpofe; this is doing bufinefs roundly; but here is a tradition no body can tell from whence it comes, nor who received it, and handed it down; for there is not the leaft mention of it, nor any pretended to in the first century or apoftolic age. But let us attend to what evidence is given of it, in the next or fecond century.

Two paffages are produced out of the writers of this age, to prove this undoubted apoftolic tradition; the one out of Justin Martyr; the other out of Irenæus. That from Juftin is as follows"; "feveral perfons among us, men "and women, of fixty and seventy years of age, o ex maldar quainter INTRY TW XEISW, "who from their childhood were inftructed in Chrift, remain incorrupt: " for fo the phrase on which the whole depends should be rendered, and not discipled or profelyted to Chrift; which rendering of the words, as it is unjustifiable, so it would never have been thought of, had it not been to ferve a turn; and is not agreeable to Justin's ufe of the word, who frequently makes ufe of it in the fenfe of inftruction and teaching; as when he speaks of perfons being ev instructed into divine doctrines"; and of others being adnlevoμerovs, instructed in the name (perfon or doctrine) of Chrift, and leaving the way of error; and of Chrift's fending his difciples to the Gentiles, who by them quasuan, inftruded them: nor should ex Tudor, be rendered in infancy, but from childhood; and is a phrase of the fame fignification with that in 2 Tim. iii. 15. where Timothy is said awo Beeous, from a child to know the holy fcriptures; and Justin's fenfe is,

Eufeb. ib. 1. 3. c. 39. n Apolog. 1. p. 43.

1 Pirke Abot. c. 1. §. 1.

Dialog. cum Tryph. p. 258.

m Apolog. 2. p. 62.
P Ib. p. 272.

that

BAPTISM. that notwithstanding the ftrict and fevere commands of Chrift in Matthew v. 28, 29, 30, 44. as they might feem to be, and which he cites; yet there were feveral perfons of the age he mentions, then living, who had been instructed in the perfon, offices, and doctrines of Chrift, or had been trained up in the christian religion from their childhood, who had perfevered hitherto, and were incorrupt in their practices, and in their principles; and which is no other than a verification of what the wife man obferves, Prov. xxii. 6. Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old, he will not depart from it: and we are able in our day, to point out perfons of an age that Justin mentions, who have been trained up in the chriftian religion from their childhood; and who in riper years have made a public profeffion of it, and have held faft their profeffion without wavering, and lived unblemished lives and converfations; and yet never were baptized in their infancy. Behold, here the first proof and evidence of infant-baptifm being an undoubted apoftolic tradition; when there is not a word of baptism in it, much less of infant-baptism; nor any hint of it, or reference unto it. Can the most fanguine Pædobaptist sit down, and in cool reflection conclude, upon reading and confidering this paffage, that it proves infant-baptifm to be an undoubted apoftolic tradition? furely he cannot.

The other paffage is out of Irenæus, and stands thus; "He (Chrift) came "to fave all; all I fay, qui per eum renafcuntur in Deum, who by him are born "again unto God, infants, and little ones, and children, and young men, and "old men." For fo the words are to be rendered, and not baptized unto God; for the word renafcor is never used by Irenæus, or rather by his tranflator, in fuch a sense; nor had it as yet obtained among the ancients to ufe the words regenerated and regeneration, for baptized and baptifm. Likewife, it is certain that Ireneus fpeaks elsewhere of regeneration as diftinct from baptifm, as an inward fpiritual work, agreeable to the scriptures; which never speak of it but as fuch, no not in John iii. 5. Tit. iii. 5. And what reason can there be to depart from the literal and scriptural sense of the word, and even the sense which Irenæus ufes it in; and efpecially, fince infants are capable of regeneration in fuch a fenfe of it? befides, to understand Ireneus as fpeaking of baptifm, is to make him at leaft to fuggeft a doctrine which is abfolutely falfe; as if Christ came to fave all and only fuch, who are baptized unto God; when it is certain, he came to fave the Old-Teftament-faints, who never were baptized, as well as New-Teftament-faints; and no doubt many now are faved by him, who never were baptized with water at all: and on the other hand, nothing is more true than that he came to fave all and only thofe, who are regenerated by the Spirit and grace of God, of whatsoever age they be. And after all, when it is observed

• Adv. Hæref. 1. 3. c. 39.

TT 2

« AnteriorContinuar »