Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB
[ocr errors]

faith. But if the fcriptures had been strictly attended to, and made by them the fole rule and ground of proceeding," the kirk of Scotland would never have denied the one, nor our established church have practifed the other. But

to return:

[ocr errors]

The doctor proceeds thus: So among the Jews, no adult perfon was allowed to be circumcifed, without ' profeffing his belief and adherence to the law of Mofes ; and his being circumcifed, was to be regarded as an open' declaration of it. This was no proof at all, that he ⚫ did not embrace that law upon a rational conviction, but rather supposed that he did fo. But when he was him-' felf circumcifed and openly profefled that law, his children, if he had any, were to be circumcifed too ;' [by the exprefs appointment of God the doctor might have faid: and as no fuch command can be produced for infant-baptifm, his parallel is quite deftroyed in the most effential part of it." And because the command of God for the circumcifion of infants] was not understood as a declaration that they alfo believed, of which they were not yet capable;' so no moral qualifications were required, nor is it any where faid, that they were dedicated to God by it; but, on the contrary, in the inflitution of circumcifion, Gen. xvii. 11. it is only declared to be for a perpetual, or everlasting token of the covenant then made betwixt God and Abraham, to be fulfilled in the family of Ifaac then unborn. And when God commanded them by Mofes, Exodus xiii. 2. 11—16. to dedicate or fanctify all their first-born unto him, as a conftant token and memorial of their deliverance from the laft plague, for their fakes, inflicted upon the Egyptians; it was neither to be done by circumcifion, nor at the time when the child was circumcifed, but at the end of the time appointed for the mother's purification; which was thirty three days after for a male, and eighty days after the birth of a female. See Levit. xii. And in conformity to those laws, with refpect to our bleffed Saviour and his Virgin Mother, we read Luke ii. 21-24. And when eight days. were accomplished for the circumcifing of the child, his name was called Jefus...... And when the days of her purification according to the law of Mofes, were accomplished, they brought him to Jerufalem, to prefent him to the Lord, (as it is written in the law of the Lord, every male that openeth. the womb fhall be called holy to the Lord) and to offer a facrifice, &c. But [here is not one fyllable of the doctor's notion] that they were dedicated to God' [by circumcifion, tho' to be fure they were looked upon] as the children of

[ocr errors]

L

6

• his

his profeffed people, and to be trained as they grew up, in the belief and acknowledgment of the living and true God, and the practice of his law. The doctor proceeds:

And SUPPOSING it was the will of God,' [this need not have been SUPPOSED, nor ought it to be admitted without the like command in fcripture] that in like manner in the chriftian church not only adult perfons, who themfelves believed, but the children of fuch fhould be baptized; all that could be justly concluded from it would be, not that the chriftian faith is not a reasonable thing, but that the God of truth and purity well knew the doctrines of Chriftianity to be highly important, and agreeable to truth and reafon; and therefore would have children betimes inftructed in those doctrines; and that he knew the duties there prefcribed to be of great confequence to our happiness, and therefore would have children early trained up to the knowledge and practice of thofe duties. And this' [is done among the Baptifts, who never pretend to bring their infants to baptifm, because they have no command from God to do fo. And yet their children are under full as high, and as ftrong an obligation. to regard fuch inftructions without what the doctor fays] does not hinder, but rather obliges the perfon, who was thus early baptized, to confider thofe facred truths when he grows up; and then he is not to believe them be'cause he was taught them in his childhood, but because he himself confiders the evidence brought for them, and finds it reafonable and convincing; and in like manner, it does not hinder him from examining into the nature and importance of the duties required of him, but rather obliges him to do fo, that he may perform thofe duties from a full conviction of their reafonableness and excellency.' This we think the best qualification, and the fitteft time, for their being baptized; not only as they are thereby more worthy fubjects of it, but alfo as more glory muft redound to God and Chrift," and much more fatisfaction, comfort, and joy, to their own fouls, in the anfwer of a good confcience and to the church of Chrift alfo, in not departing from the divine rule, than can poffibly arife from the contrary practice of our Pædobaptift brethren in fprinkling their infants. And in this view, the doctor might very confiftently have proceeded thus. To his queftion therefore, Cap a man be baptized into a rational religion? I antwer yes. A man that is convinced of the truth of fuch a religion, and believes it

upon

upon good evidence, may be reasonably baptized into it; i.e. he may folemnly, by that outward facred rite, profess his belief of that religion, and oblige himself to the duties it prescribes; which is the defign of baptifm with regard to the adult. And' [the doctor can never prove from fcripture, that it was defigned for any others, notwithstanding he fays] with regard to infants, it may be very reasonable for a man that himself believes it upon rational grounds, to baptize his child, i. e. folemnly by that facred rite to devote his child to God,' [when God commands it indeed, but not before, and yet neverthelefs it is his duty to teach] and to bring him, as far as in him lies, under engagements to embrace and practise that excellent religion, as foon as he is capable of doing fo; at the fame time folemnly obliging himself' [or to think himself already obliged] to take care that the child be betimes feafoned with the knowledge of facred important truth, and formed to the practice of piety and virtue. And there is nothing improper, in fuppofing that it is the will and appointment of God, that children' 'fhould betimes be brought under fuch engagements, when he knows them to be in themfelves fit and reafonable, and of fuch a nature, that it will be their duty and their • great advantage, when they come to years of difcreffion, perfonally to approve and to fulfil them. If this be laying prejudices and prepoffeffions in their way, it is prepoffeffing them in favour of truth and virtue': and it is every way agreeable to the divine wifdom and goodness, to lay them under fuch a prepoffeffion, and what the author of our beings has a right to do. And therefore his doing that, can never be juftly brought as an objection against the reafonablenefs of a revelation.' And for the doing of all this, there is not the least occafion to sprinkle them, and falfly term it baptifm; by which multitudes are kept from a rational obedience to that facred institution of Christ Jesus.

I have here tranfcribed all the answer, which doctor Leland hath any where given to this Infidel's objection against the chriftian religion, from the practice of infantbaptifm, in favour of which he is fo far from alledging one fingle text of feripture, that, on the contrary, he himself seems to found it wholly upon mere human fuppofitions: which therefore, in the judgment of the church of England, is not to be required of any man, that it fhould be believed as an article of faith, or be thought neceflary or requifite

to falvation. And how the practice thereof can be juftified, or defended by thofe, who heartily and fincerely be lieve the vi article of our established church, is not very eafy to difcern; for her vi article fays exprefsly, that Holy fcripture containeth all things neceffary to falvation: fo that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it fhould be believed as an article of the faith, or be thought requifite or neceffary to falvation, &c.'

This truly proteftant article is what one of her minifters publicly declared to be the glory of the church of England, and then he heartily wifhed, that no other article had ever been made. And I as heartily wifh, that our eftablished church, and the kirk of Scotland also, were thus reformed, and conftituted upon this foundation only; for then the Baptift churches would have no occafion to difpute with, or feparate from, them. But we might then hold the unity of the fpirit, in the bond of peace together. And, as Dr. Leland expreffes himself, 6 When once people are made fenfible of the tendency of such a fcheme, it is to be hoped, that it will in a great meafure prove an antidote to the poifon of [infidelity] and that piety and good fenfe is not fo far loft in the world, that men will lightly fuffer themselves to be bantered out of their religion and reafon too. Such attempts, one would be apt to think, fhould, with perfons that will allow themfelves time for reflecttion, turn to the advantage of Christianity.' "

[blocks in formation]

Remarks on Mr. Benfon's Dialogue, intitled, The Reasonableness of the Chriftian Religion.

I

RESERVED Mr. Benfon's anfwer to this infidel's objection, concerning infant-baptifm, to be laft confidered, because it is fo very full, that he hath almost prevented my making any remarks upon it; and his frank, open conceffions have given me a fuitable opportunity freely to expoftulate with him, and his brethren, upon their unfcriptural practice of infant-fprinkling; which for a

Firft Letter, p. 6.

long

[ocr errors]

long time has furnished Papifts with a confiderable advan-. tage in their difputes with Proteftants, and has now given Infidels an occafion to ridicule our holy religion. To which Mr. Benfon replies, p. 95, 96.

The objection was founded on a mistaken notion of baptifm; and therefore had no force in it. Your author, Pyrrho, knows very well that fome Chriftians deny infant-baptism; and he had much better have done fo, than have given up his understanding, and rational Christianity, all at once.'

The objection of this unbeliever against infant-baptifm is plainly founded on that notion of it, which is contain-ed in the forms and catechism of the church of England; and this Mr. Benfon is pleafed to call a mistaken notion of baptifm. He might have faid with equal truth, that infant-baptifm in general, as well as the practice of it in our eftablished church, is founded on a mistaken notion. For how can it be otherwife, if it has no foundation in the word of God, as he manifeftly allows, when he fays; this author had much better have denied and given it up, than have given up his understanding and rational Chriftianity? For if he did not acknowledge this, but was really perfuaded, that there is fcripture authority for it, he would not have advised his author to give it up, but only to correct his mistaken notions about it. And if this be the cafe, if there is no fcripture for it, if the confequence of admitting infant-baptifm be to any man the occafion. of giving up his understanding and rational Christianity, as Mr. Benfon's words feem plainly to imply; why does he not openly renounce the practice, and no longer countenance it in his people, and build them up in any mistaken. notion of baptifm?

After this he proceeds to give us fome hints, and fome account of the various pretences, opinions, customs, and forms made ufe of by Prefbyterians, Independents, and others, as well as our established church, as follows:

But

others, who are for infant-baptifm, do not fuppofe any faith to be required in a child: tho' they would require it in a Jew, Heathen or Mahometan, upon their coming · over to Christianity in riper years. The fame ceremony ⚫ may answer different ends upon different fubjects, or in the cafe of different perfons. Thofe in general, whom • John baptized, confeffed their fins, and were baptized, as penitents, for the remiffion of fins. And yet our Saviour, who had no fin to confefs, nor any need for

' repentance,

« AnteriorContinuar »