Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

purposes, has any peculiar sanctity, because of its use; they do not believe that the mere assembling together, in order to worship, creates an obligation on those who meet to make a sign of adoration when they enter the house; and having no scripture precept or example for it, they think that uncovering the head in a religious assembly (except when the DIVINE BEING is addressed in vocal prayer,) is rather a sign of superstition than a necessary religious act. From the practice of other christian professors, generally, I presume they think differently, but as the Society of Friends see no reason to conform to this ceremony, and as the non-observance of it, might give offence to their sober neighbours, they find in this circumstance an additional reason for absenting themselves from the worship of those who practice it.

Having given some reasons for the absence of Friends from the worship of other professors, I shall proceed to notice "Paul's" next observation: to wit, "our alleged objection to the perusal of books, written by members of other denominations." By his publication of this sentiment, I shall endeavor to shew that "it is not impossible that "Paul" may have imbibed erroneous views."

I was educated within the precincts of the Society to whom "Paul" addresses himself, and have had for many years free and extensive communication with the members of it, and I can safely say that this is the first time I have ever heard such a sentiment. I have perused their book of discipliné, carefully, and find no allusion to the subject. The yearly meeting recommends to heads of families and guardians of minors, to prevent as much as possible, their children and others under their care and tuition, from reading books tending to prejudice the profession of the christian religion, to create the least doubt concerning the authenticity of the holy scriptures, or of the saving truths declared in them; and earnestly recommends that its members should discourage the reading of Plays, Romances, Novels and other pernicious books, as a practice inconsistent with the purity of the christian religion;" but I no where find a word against reading books of a religious nature, written by other christian professors on the contrary, the writings of some of these are standard books in the private libraries of Friends. And, I give it as my deliberate sentiment, that there is no society of people who are better versed in the doctrines and principles of other religious professors than the members of the Society of Friends are. The writer of this article, although his library cannot be called a large one, has at least eighty volumes wholly devoted to religious subjects, all of which, were written by members of other religious professions; amongst which, I find on examina

:

tion, the productions of some of the principal professors distinguished by different names, who call themselves christians; and I have not the slightest idea that any of my fellow members would, if they saw all the books of my library, consider me as heterodox, or in the least departing from the views or principles of the society to which I belong, on that account.

66

Equally foreign from the fact, is the assertion, that we are unwilling to take the periodical works, published by members of other denominations." It is true, that we consult our taste in the purchase of works of this kind; we do not subscribe for books we cannot relish or approve; but I cannot suppose reasonable men will censure us much for this, as I apprehend few people do otherwise.

I am perfectly satisfied on one point, that is, were I to take all the periodical religious publications in the world, no member of our society would blame me for it, nor would I incur, by so doing, the censure of any of its rules, provided the profits of such publication were not appropriated to support some establishment inconsistent with our religious principles, and also, provided I punctually paid the subscription money for them.

The other charges of Paul, I propose to notice in future numbers of the Repository.

AMICUS.

Saturday, June 2, 1821.

LETTER IV.

66

ON BAPTISM.

In the 7th Number of the Repository, a friend of yours, under the signature of Amicus" has undertaken to defend your cause. With the amiable and excellent spirit of his remarks I confess myself well pleased, and from his introductory address, anticipate candor and charity in all future communications. The topics he has touched, I will soon discuss; but, at present, I cannot be diverted from what I deem infinitely more important subjects. To his essay I have the same objection, as to the society of which he is a member he makes too much of little things,-is employed, like the Pharisees of old, "tithing mint, anise and cummin," to the neglect of the "weightier matters of the law." Whether the ministry be supported by previous or subsequent, by express or implied contract, whether men imprison themselves in their own churches, or occasionally visit other sanctuaries to hear the other side of the question, whether they say yea or yes, thee or you, wear a black coat or a drab one, a large hat

or a small one, and worship with the head covered or naked, are surely matters of small moment, questions fit for none but children! But whether the word of God or the vagaries of a deceitful heart should be our rule of faith-whether we have a right to reject the seals of God's covenant and the badges of christianity; and whether we are to be justified by our own or by another's righteousness, are questions of high moment, and of eternal consequence-questions which I am willing to discuss. Until therefore your friend assail some important doctrine, start some important error, much as I respect his talents and his heart, he will excuse me, if I pursue my originally contemplated course.

I proceed to examine your doctrine on the Sacraments or sealing Ordinances; and first of Baptism.

You teach that "water baptism is not an ordinance of Christthat the only baptism required is the baptism of the Spirit." That this is your doctrine, is too palpable from the universal practice of your society, and from all that Barclay, Clarkson, and Kersey have written on the subject, to need any formal proof. What expressions are more common in your discourse with us, than, "it is right for you if you think it right, but then it is an uncommanded useless ceremony ;-if we have the thing signified, it is of little consequence whether we have the sign;""all such ceremonies are inconsistent with the spiritnality of the present dispensation;""water baptism will nev er save without spiritual baptism" &c. &c. with much more, some of which is true, some false, and some nothing to the point. That baptism considered in itself will save its subjects, we do not pretend; but as an act of obedience to God, it is an appointed means of grace and salvation. That an act may be right for us and wrong for you, is readily granted, provided that act be of an indifferent, uncommanded kind. Modes of dress, forms of speech, kinds of food may be right or wrong, according to our notions: Rom. xiv. But what God by express precept has made right, can never be made wrong; and what he has made wrong, no notions of ours can make right. If God has not commanded water baptism, the use of it is left at our discretion; but if he has made it a matter of positive injunction, it is no longer a matter of indifference, we neglect it at our peril.

As to having the thing signified without the sign, it may be, but in general, it is not to be expected. And if we have obtained the baptism of the spirit, we ought, nevertheless, to submit to the baptism of water. Did not Abraham receive circumcision the seal of the faith which he had before circumcision? Rom. iv. 11. Were not the Ethiopian eunuch, the Roman centurion, the Apostle Paul and many others baptized with water after they

possessed an interest in Christ? Acts viii. ix, x. It is not enough, therefore, to have the thing signified. It is not enough to be in Christ, we ought also to wear the badge, make a public profession of his name, and openly put on Christ.

As to the "ceremonies being inconsistent with the present dispensation,"-this is begging the question without an offer of an argument. Are you wiser than God?-If he think them consistent, are you prepared to contradict? If he, to assist our faith, and move our feelings, is pleased to address us through our senses, will you disannul his judgment, and condemn him, that ye may be righteous?" Job xl. 8.

We are now prepared for the question, "Is water baptism an ordinance of God, at present binding on the church?” Let it be understoood, we are not now inquiring about the mode of baptism, whether it should be administered by sprinkling, pouring or immersion; or about the subjects of baptism, whether adults only, or their children also: But is water baptism, in any shape, obligatory on the church? We affirm, and you deny.-Consider, 1. The express command of Jesus Christ, Mat. xxviii. 19, 20. "Go ye, therefore, teach all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost; teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the world." And Mark xvi. 16: "Whosoever believeth and is baptised shall be saved."-quoted soon after by the Apostle Peter Acts ii. 38. "Repent and be baptised every one of you."-Now, when we recollect the ordinary meaning of the word baptism, and especially the sense in which our Lord knew the Apostles understood it, one would think these texts alone would end the controversy. Some other spirit than the spirit of God, some other light than the light of scripture and reason must be called in to interpret these as not enjoining water baptism. Efforts however have been made to set the whole aside.

First, it has been said, "by baptising nothing more is meant than teaching." But it is a sufficient answer to this construction, that the word baptise is never used in this sense in the whole of scripture;-and that teaching is also commanded in the next verse. Teaching must accompany baptism; but baptism is not teaching. Again; it is said baptism means conferring the Holy Spirit. It is granted the word is sometimes used in this sense, because purifying the soul by the Holy Spirit was the thing igaified or represented by the rite of baptism. But this is not its signification here. Because it was an apostolic or human act which is here commanded. But to baptise with the Holy Ghost was no more in the power of the Apostles than to create a world, Like John the Baptist they could only "baptise with water."

[ocr errors]

Besides, as this commission was to last always even to the end of the world, it follows, some are commanded to baptise now. But what minister, either of your denomination or any other can baptise with the Holy Ghost! "Paul may plant, &c." The truth is, the application of water is the ordinary, conferring the Holy Spirit the extraordinary meaning of the term. And thus it was understood by all the Apostles and writers of the New Testament, as will be evident if we consider,

2d. The Apostles actually applied water to their converts. We have seen their Commission, let us now look at their Practice. 1. Philip, Acts viii. 36, 38, &c. Philip and the eunuch "came to a certain water, and he said, see here is water, what doth hinder me to be baptized? and they went down both into the water, and he baptised him." Was not this water baptism? 2. Peter, Acts x. 44-48: "While Peter yet spake, the Holy Ghost fell on all those that heard the word: then Peter said, Can any forbid water? and he commanded them to be baptised in the name of the Lord." Surely Peter thought the baptism of the Holy Ghost was not to set aside the baptism of water. 3. And so did Paul, 1 Cor. i. 14. "I thank God that I baptised none of you but Crispus and Gaius; and the household of Stephanas," (since they made it an occasion of party spirit.) What! thank God that he had communicated the Holy Ghost to only a few!-Never; he must have referred to water baptism. When he afterwards says (v. 17.) "Christ sent me not to baptize, but preach the Gospel," he evidently means nothing more than that preaching is more important than baptism, or that preaching was his chief business. That Luke also understood baptism as something different from conferring the Holy Ghost is evident from the whole book of Acts, v. Acts viii. 16. xix. 5, 6.

And here, for the present, I pause in my argument, and wait for your objections. In the mean time, let me beseech you, my dear friends weigh well this fact,-that the Commission of our Lord, if as you suppose, not express, was calculated to lead to water baptism,-that all the apostles and primitive christians, so far as we can learn their practice, observed an ordinance which you reject;-that the whole christian world for 1600 years, (till 170 years ago,") and nine tenths of professing christians now, are against you on this subject;-and then answer if there is not reason to doubt the correctness of your doctrine; and will it not be a wiser plan to conform to an ordinance so easy and useful, lest peradventure, you be found fighting against God.

PAUL.

« AnteriorContinuar »