Page images
PDF
EPUB

A

LETTER

ΤΟ

AN ANTIPÆDOBAPTIST.

Posterior nostra res non est, imo omnibus prior est. Hoc erit testimonium veritatis, ubique occupantis principatum. Ab apostolis utique non damnatur, imo defenditur. Hoc erit indicium proprietatis, quam enim non damnant, qui extraneam quamque damnaverunt, suam ostendunt, imo defendunt.

TERTULLIAN.

[Northumberland, 1802.]

465

A LETTER

ΤΟ

AN ANTIPEDOBAPTIST.*.

DEAR SIR,

THE reading of "the History of Baptism,"† by the late Mr. Robinson of Cambridge, a man whom, on many accounts, I greatly esteemed, has drawn my attention to the subject ;+ and well knowing your candour and love of truth, I am encouraged, notwithstanding our difference in opinion and practice, to lay the result of my reflections before you. The subject, we agree, is not of the first importance, but every thing relating to our religion is of some; and the most distant relation of any thing to a great object gives us an interest in it. You will also agree with me in acknowledging that, with respect both to doctrines and discipline, our safest guide is what was taught and practised by the apostles, and that, exclusive of their own writings, this is best ascertained by the opinions and practices of those Christians who lived. so near to their times, that they could not but have been acquainted with them, and who, we are sure, would conform to them.

As I do not mean to trouble you with the scripture doctrine on the subject, since this has been so often discussed that nothing new can well be urged with respect to it, I shall confine myself to the evidence of what was the doctrine and practice of the primitive Christians, those who lived nearest to the time of the apostles. And by means of the writings of several persons in these circumstances, it appears to me

• Dr. Priestley had here" a particular view" to Dr. Toulmin. See Vol. XVII. p. 401. Dr. T. published, in 1786," A short Essay on Baptism, intended to elucidate the Question concerning the Extent and Perpetuity of its Obligation," † 1790. See Vol. XV. p. 409, Note.

See Dr. Priestley's earlier attention to the subject, Appendix, No. XIII. ; Vol. II. p. 334; V. pp. 270–276.

[blocks in formation]

not to be very difficult to ascertain, in a very satisfactory manner, what were the opinions and practices of those Christians who were personally acquainted with the apostles. For though there is a chasm of about forty years between the death of John, the last of the apostles, and Justin Martyr, the earliest Christian writer concerning whose works there is no dispute among the learned, there were several intervening writers with whose works those who lived in the time of Justin were acquainted. And if there had been no writers at all in that interval, it is not so great, but that the knowledge of what was thought and done prior to it might have been preserved by tradition.

Besides, the number of Christian churches was so great, and they were so dispersed over the whole extent of the Roman empire, that some of them, no doubt, must have retained the apostolical doctrines and practices for so small a space of time. And yet, distant as many of these churches were from each other, they had a constant intercourse; as appears from the frequent appeals that were made from one church to another, and from persons excommunicated in any one church not being received in another.

This is evident from the history of those who were deemed heretics, and of the controversy concerning the time of keeping Easter. Other articles were also discussed in general councils, at which bishops from all parts of the Roman empire attended. We see that persons situated at the greatest distance, as Austin, in Africa, and Jerome, in Palestine, corresponded with each other. Besides, Rome being the metropolis of the empire, nothing could be transacted in any part of it that was not presently known there; and the bishops of that city were ready enough to notice and to censure, whatever they thought to be an innovation with respect to doctrine or discipline in the church.

As quotations from the early Christian writers on this subject are exceedingly numerous, and many of them of little weight, I shall confine myself to a few that appear to me to be of the greatest importance. I shall also endeavour to bring all the arguments into as small a compass as possible; thinking that the mind will be more impressed with them in this condensed state, than if they were more dilated; since, in consequence of this, the impression made by one is in danger of being effaced before another is presented. The greater part of my quotations from the Christian fathers will be found in Wall's excellent "History of Infant Bap

tism." Many of them I have examined; but much of this part of my library having been destroyed in the Riots in Birmingham, I have not been able to verify them all. There cannot, however, be any doubt of the fidelity of Mr. Wall, to whose work I sometimes content myself with referring.

SECTION I.

Presumptive Evidence in favour of the Antiquity of Infant Baptism.

I THINK there are several arguments, though only of the presumptive kind, in favour of the baptism of infants having been the practice of the earliest times of Christianity, of such a nature as that we may infer it with a great degree of certainty, without any direct evidence of the fact.

1. In the earliest times after the age of the apostles, we find the opinion of the absolute necessity of baptism to salvation, which arose, no doubt, from the literal interpretation of what our Lord said, (Mark xvi. 16,) " He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." And as it was not denied that infants might be saved, it may be inferred with certainty that no Christian parent would withhold from his child the necessary means of so great a benefit.† Hermas, whose Shepherd is very

* For which, on its publication in 1705, the author received the thanks of " the whole clergy in convocation." Dr. Atterbury declared, that he "deserved the thanks not of the English clergy alone, but of all Christian churches." See Dr. Gale's "Reflections on Mr. Wall's History of Infant Baptism," 1711, Advt. The author of the History, however, except the title of D.D., in his old age, does not appear to have received, if he ever solicited, any ecclesiastical reward. He was probably a diligent and contented parish priest rather than an aspiring churchman. There was a third and much enlarged edition of the History in 1720, which I shall quote in these notes. Dr. Priestley appears to have used the first or second edition.

Dr. Wall was " Vicar of Shoreham, in Kent," where he died in 1728, aged 82. To his "Critical Notes on the Old Testament," a posthumous publication, I have been frequently indebted in Vols. XI. XII.

"They soon began to talk in very lofty hyperboles concerning the powerful effects and necessity of baptism; and several of the first fathers do pretty plainly shew us, they thought that such as died without baptism could not be saved, or at least that their salvation was very doubtful.-This prepared them to mistake our Lord's words, (John iii. 5,) which they began to think expressly asserted, it was impossible for any of Adam's race to be saved without baptism; and upon this supposition no wonder if they were soon prevailed on, by their natural tenderness and affection, to secure the salvation of their beloved infants, which lie too near a parent's heart to be neglected in so weighty a point as that of their eternal felicity. And could it be made appear that this is the true sense of our SAVIOUR's words, we should soon be brought to believe he intended infants should be baptized." Gale's Reflections, 1711, pp. 544, 545.

« EelmineJätka »