Imágenes de páginas

community admitting such an one to the Lord's table ; because it would strike you as a notorious departure from the divine rule of proceeding ; from the laws and statutes of Heaven in that case made and provided. Besides, you have already acknowledged, that if you did not consider yourself as baptized, if you thought immersion on a profession of faith essential to baptism, which you very well know is my sentiment, you should think it your duty to submit, you would not hesitate a monent. So that, were I to encourage your immediate approach to the sacred supper, I should stand condemned on your own principles. This, therefore, is the only question between us, What is baptism? For you dare not assert, you cannot suppose, that an unbaptized believer, descended from Christian parents, has any pre-eminence, in point of claim to communion, above a truly converted Jew : and you must allow that I have an equal right with you, or any other man, to judge for myself what is, effential to baptifm. You verily believe that you have been baptized; I am equal. ly confident, from your own account of the matter, that you have not. Your conscience opposes the thought of being immersed on a profession of faith, because, in your opinion, it would be rebaptization ; mine cannot encourage your approach to the Lord's table, because I consider infant baptism as invalid. I perceive, then, that you look upon me as an unbaptized Heathen : for you cannot imagine, that I am, or ever was, a Turk or a Jew. Quite a mistake. I consider you as a real convert, and love youas a Christian brother. Were you persuaded that a son of Abraham after the flesh, or a dupe to Maljomet's imposture, or an

uncultivated Hottentot, had received the truth and was converted to the Lord Redeemer, would you still call him, without limitation, a Jew, a Turk, or a Heathen? No, candour and common sense would forbid the thought. You would rather say, He is a believer in God's Messiah, and a lover of Jesus Christ; he feels the power of gofpel truth on his heart, and his moral conduct is comely ; but, as yet, he is unbaptized. I should rejoice to see him convinced of the importance of that inftitution, of the connexion it has with other appointments of Christ, and behold him submitto it. Then, were I in communion, I should freely give him the right hand of fellowship, and break bread with him at the Lord's table. Till then, however, though I think it the duty of every Christian to love him for the truth's fake, I consider it as no breach of charity, in any community, not to admit him to the Lord's table. Now I appeal to the reader, I appeal to our brethren themselves, Whether, on our Antipædobaptist principles, we are not obliged to consider a truly converted but unbaptized Mussulman, and a converted Englishman, who has had no other than pædobaptism, as on a level in point of communion with us? For God is no respecter of persons. It is no matter where a man was born, or how he was educated; whether he drew his first breath at Constantinople, or Pekin, or London; whether his parents taught him to revere the Koran of Mahomet, the Inttitutes of Confucius, or the well-attested Revelation of God; if he really be born of the Spirit he has an equal claim to all the privileges of a gospel church, with a true convert descended from Chriscian ancestors. And if so, while our brethren

abide by their present hypothesis, they could not refuse the sacred super to the one, any more than the other, without the most palpable inconsistency; though, by admitting the former to that divine appointment, they would surprise and offend all that heard of it:

Our opponents further suggest, nay, they feem quite confident, • That the Christian Jews in the primitive church, might, on our principles, have refused communion to the believing Gentiles, be cause they were not circumcised; and that the converted Gentiles might have denied fellowship to the believing Jews, for the opposite reason. But here our brethren take for granted, what we cannot by any means allow. For this way of talking supposes, that a fubmission to baptifin is no more demanded of believers now, than cireum. cision was of Gentile converts in the apoftolic age; and that we who plead for baptism as a term of communion, have no more authority fo to do, than Judaizing Christians then had for maintaining the necessity of circumcision. Now such extraordinary pofitions as thefe should not have been affumed gratis, but proved, foundly proved; which, had our opposers well and truly performed, would have made me and many of their stricter brethren, tho. sough profelytes to free communion. Nay, we thould, probably, before now, have been in a hope. ful way of getting entirely rid of that ordinance, about the order and importance of which we now contend. For neither Pacificus nor Candidus will dare to affert, that our afcended Lord requires any of his disciples to be circumcised, either before or after their admission to the holy table : consequently, if their arguing from circumcision

to baptism be conclusive, we may absolutely omit the latter, as converts of old did the former, without fear of the least offence, or of any divine refentment. ad 3 And must we, indeed, consider the administration and the neglect of baptism, as on a perfect level with being circumcised, or uncircumcised, in the apostolic times? Muit an ordinance of the New Testament, fubmiffion to which our Lord requires of all his disciples, be placed on the fame footing with an obfolete rite of the Jewish church? How kind it is of our brethren who possess this knowledge, and are so well acquainted with Christian liberty, relating to baptism, that they are willing to inform us of its true extent ; for, as Soci. nus long ago observed, Ignorance of it is the cause of many evils.? I may, however, venture an appeal to the intelligent reader, Whether this way of arguing does not much better become the pen of Socinis, of Volkelius, or of a Quaker; than that of Pacificus, of Candidus, or of any Baptist ? Becaufe as Hoornbeekius remarks, in answer to the Socinians; It is very absurd to explain the design, the command, and the obligation of baptism, by the abrogation and abuse of circumcision. As our brethren detest the Socinian fyftem in general, I cannot but'wonder that they thould so otten use weapons, in defence of their novel sentiment, that were forged by Socinus, or some of his pupils, for a similar purpose. I could wish, therefore, that fome such person as Mr. Ryland, who is well known to have an utter averfion to the capital tenets of that pretended reformer of the Reforned church in Poland, would seriously take Pacificus to talk, for paying fo much honour to a depraver of divine truth, and a mucilator of God's worship. For who knows but it might have a happy effect, and cause him to retract his Modeft Plea? Before I proceed to another objection, it may not be amiss to observe, What a variety of laudable and kindred purposes this argument is adapted to serve, according to its various application by different persons. In the hands of our opponents, it effectually proves the necessity of admitting infant fprink. ling, in some cases, as a proper fuccedaneum for what they consider as real baptism. From the pen of Socinus, it evinces, beyond a doubt, that baptism is an indifferent thing. And in the mouth. ..of Barclay, it will equally well demonstrate, that

baptism fhould be entirely laid aside. Well, then, might our Candid and Peaceful opposers congratulate themselves on the safety of their caule, it being defended by such a three edged sword as thiş ! And well might they unite, as one man, in saying, • If, therefore, this were the only thing that could , be urged in favour of the latitude of communion I plead for, 1 dhould think it would be sufficient ; at least sufficient to excuse our conduct, and stop the mouth of censure.'

But, notwithitanding all I have said, we ftan./ charged by our brethren with a notorious inconsistency in our own conduct ; because we occasionally admit, with pleasure, Pædobaptist ministers into

our pulpits, to whom we should refufe communion · at the Lord's table. This objection has been much infifted upon of late, and is sometimes urged against us by way of query, to the following effect. Is not as much required in order to an ofice in the church, as to private membersaip. Is it

« AnteriorContinuar »