of archbishop Wake, in opposition to an idle opinion concerning the apostles' composing a creed which goes under their name, will here apply, "It is not likely, that had any such thing as this been done by the apostles, St. Luke would have passed it by without taking the least notice of it."* Our opponents insist, that the writers of the New Testament were all Pædobaptists. But either this is a great mistake, or those venerable authors must have had a very low idea of their own practice-much lower than Cyprian or Austin, or any of our zealous opposers in the present age. For while those infallible writers mention children on various occasions, where baptism is not concerned; they relate the baptizing of great numbers, in different parts of the world, without once mentioning infants as parties in that affair. Nay, they relate the baptizing of believers, in different places, with as little notice of infants, as if no infant had belonged to any whom they did baptize; yet, strange to conceive, the hypothesis of our opposers manifestly implies that infant baptism was then a very common practice! For it implies, that the baptism of children always accompanied that of their parents; and that the future offspring of such converted parents were made partakers of the sacred rite. On this principle, what a prodigious number of children must have been baptized, before the canon of scripture was completed! Yet all passed over in profound silence by the sacred writers!-Now as this is an example which no ecclesiastical historian, allowed to have been a Pædopabtist, has chosen to imitate; and as it is an example which could not have been imitated, when recording the transactions of later times, without omitting facts that were essential to a good narrative; so there is ground to believe, that the inspired historians had really no facts to relate, concerning the baptism of infants; which is a sufficient reason for their * Apostolical Fathers, Introduct. p. 103, 104, edit. 2d. saying nothing about it. For, surely, they were not inferior to later historians, either as to spiritual wisdom, or holy zeal, or historic fidelity; nor could they be ignorant that the immortal productions of their pens were to be considered by all the disciples of Christ, not only as a mirror of past facts, but also as the law of divine worship, and the rule of religious practice, to the end of time.—We may, therefore, confidently say with Mr. Baxter: "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 [and all other Pædobaptists,] 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 [or they] can."*-The learned and laborious Dupin tells us, agreeably enough to his own principles; That the apostles did not give themselves the trouble of regulating what related to the ceremonies of Christian worship; but that their successors in the ministry settled those affairs. This, though inimical to the creed of a consistent Protestant, is in my opinion true, as to infant baptism. For it does not appear that the apostles either did or said any thing relating to that ceremony, but that it was invented in a succeeding period, with a number of other things that were equally foreign to the language of the New Testament, and to the practice of apostolic churches. The following words of an Episcopalian author, concerning the Congregational Pædobaptists, shall conclude this reflection: "If I had seen it my duty to accede to the church order of the Independents, I know not but their principles would have led me from them again to join with the Baptists. How they who, maintaining infant baptism, press scripture precedent so strongly upon me, answer the Baptists, who, in this * Disput. of Right to Sacram. p. 156. + Hist. Eccles. Writers, vol. i. p. 181, edit. 2nd. point, press it as strongly upon themselves, is not my concern."* 66 * Apologia, p. 108. Leaving our Independent brethren to solve the difficulty here suggested as well as they can, I would observe; That as this worthy author informs us he made the subscription required of candidates for orders in the national establishment, REALLY ex animo," so we may take it for granted, he cordially approves of that article in the national creed, which says; "The church hath power to decree rites or ceremonies." This being the case, it is no wonder that he does not feel himself much embarrassed by the thought of departing from scriptural precedents; because, whoever has authority to decree new rites or ceremonies in religious worship, must possess a plenitude of power to lay old ones aside, by whomsoever they were appointed. "They who may institute new worship," says Mr. Alsop, may destroy the old worship. For Cujus est instituere, ejus est destituere; the same authority that can make a law, can repeal a law." Sober Enquiry, p. 282. I have observed, however, that this author, in his Messiah, talks in a different strain, and treats the language of inspiration with due respect. For, speaking of real converts, he says: "One, thus saith the Lord, has the force of a thousand arguments. They desire no farther proof of a doctrine, no other warrant for their practice, no other reason for any dispensation, than Thus the Lord has said, this he requires, and this is his appointment. Thus their wills are brought into subjection; and they so understand, as to believe and obey," vol i. p. 224, 225. This is the language of Protestantism; this, I will venture to say, is the language of Nonconformity; and exceedingly different from that irreverent manner, in which he has treated "scripture precedents," when defending his own conformity. Yet how he can reconcile these things, " is not my concern." But, though Mr. Newton, in his Apologia, does not consider himself as obliged by scriptural precedents; and though he expressly says, "I thought the example of our Lord pleaded as MUCH for circumcision as for baptism;" yet, while he abides by this acknowledgment, "I am BOUND, by my subscription, to the form and rubric of the Common Prayer;" it might be expected that he would never publicly sprinkle an infant, and call the ceremony baptism, unless the sponsors informed him that the child could not bear immersion. For a Protestant minister to think himself at liberty to desert scriptural precedents, while he confesses himself bound to the rubric of a liturgy; and yet notoriously contradict that very rubric, by constantly sprinkling infants instead of immersing them; are things that grate upon my understanding. Apologia, p. 108, 109, 124. See Part I. Chap. VI. No. 16. Reflect. VI. That the argument here employed is neither novel nor inconclusive, will appear by adverting to the conduct of Protestants in general, when disputing with Roman Catholics, and that in a great variety of cases. For instance: Do the Popish writers assert, that Peter was the bishop of Rome for a course of years, and mention many particulars of his conduct there? "All these things," replies Mr. Millar, "seem to be false, and without foundation; as appears from the silence of Luke, the inspired writer of the Acts of the Apostles, who recorded many things concerning Peter .Peter himself speaks not one word of what the Papists allege. If he had founded the Roman church, why does he no where make mention of it?"*-Thus also the learned Buddeus: "If Peter had been at Rome when Paul wrote his epistle to the church there, who can believe that he would have omitted him among others whom he salutes by name? Or, if he had been there before, who can believe that Paul would have made no mention of him in any part of that epistle? especially seeing various occasions offered for him to have done so.”—Is the supremacy of Peter, or that of the Pope, the subject in question? Chamier says: "If Christ appointed Peter to obtain both temporal and spiritual power, what is the reason that he does not so much as once carefully, explicitly, and most emphatically express it? Had it been a fact, he would have expressed it. But he has not expressed it; therefore it was not his intention that Peter should have it."-Is it the Papal infallibility? Abp. Tillotson says: "There is not the least intimation in scripture of this privilege conferred upon the Roman church; nor do the apostles, in all their epistles, * Propagat. of Christianity, vol. i. chap. iii. p. 278. Vid. Turret. Institut. loc. xxviii. q. xviii. § 4; and Dr. Doddridge's Note on Rom. xvi. 15. + Ecclesia Apostolica, p. 714. Panstrat. tom. ii. 1. xv. c. xv. § 2. Vid. Dr. Doddridge's Note on 1 Cor. xiv. 26. ever so much as give the least directions to Christians, to appeal to the bishop of Rome for a determination of the many differences, which even in those times happened among them. And it is strange they should be so silent in this matter, when there were so many occasions to speak of it, if our Saviour had plainly appointed such an infallible judge of controversies."*-Is it the invocation of saints? Dr. Hughes declares: "That the very silence of scripture is enough to condemn the praying to saints."--Dr. Doddridge: "Dr. Whitby justly observes, that it is very remarkable that Paul, who so often and so earnestly entreats the intercession of his Christian friends, should never speak of the intercession of the Virgin Mary, or of departed saints, if he believed it a duty to seek it."-Is it confession to a priest? Bp. Stratford says: "We find no such sort of confession required by Christ or his apostles." §-Is it confirmation? Chemnitius opposes it by saying: "The Popish sacrament of confirmation was neither appointed nor dispensed, either by Christ or by the apostles; because it is not mentioned in scripture."||—Is it extreme unction? The same author declares against it, by observing: "That there is neither precept nor precedent for it in the scripture, except so far as relates to the miraculous gift of healing." -Is it their clerical celibacy? Mr. Wharton considers the silence of scripture, as the "greatest of all" arguments against it.** Thus Protestants, at every turn, against the Papists. We will now produce an instance or two of similar conduct among Protestant Dissenters, when disputing with Episcopalians about the hierarchy and rites of the p. 37. * Preserv. against Popery, title iii. p. 231. ¶ Ibid. p. 205. ** Preserv. against Popery, title i. p. 281. |