Sidor som bilder
PDF
ePub

fuse sacramental recognition to some of his own sister churches?

2. He turns the mind of the reader from the main point in debate. The point in debate is, whether we shall exclude from the Lord's table those who have mistaken views concerning an external rite. But the reason for not fellowshipping the churches specified, is their wrong views of fundamental gospel doctrines, and consequent want of faithmatters not at all in dispute between us. Deficiency of faith or piety is a reason which should lead us, not less than the Baptists, to reject them. Thus, whatever of argument the paragraph contains is based entirely on our own principles. Besides, by refusing fellowship for the want of evidence of union to Christ, Dr. Hovey justifies the implication that he would commune with them provided they gave sufficient evidence of such union. In this manner he confounds himself by confounding differences. Indeed, we could never see why this paragraph was introduced into an argument for withholding sacramental communion from Pedobaptist churches of the Calvinistic faith; errors respecting baptism having nothing to do with the assumed reasons for the exclusion.

3. There is only one point of difference, as stated in the paragraph, between us. He seems to have decided that the Episcopal and Lutheran churches are no longer to be classed among the evangelical; we have not yet so decided. Each church doubtless has the right to determine what churches she will regard as evangelical, and what not. If the Baptists have decided that the Episcopal and Lutheran churches are no longer living bodies, it is their right to assume the responsibility of withdrawing fellowship from them. We have no dispute with them on this point. But in that case, and if the want of faith is the determinative reason for the exclusion of these churches, then, on the principle of fellowship among the churches above considered, all individual members of them who give decided evidence of being actuated by the vital truths of the gospel

should be received irrespective of the mode of their baptism; otherwise the paragraph has no force in an argument for restricting sacramental recognition to those who practise immersion.

Dr. Hovey lays down four principles of the Baptists which form a sort of sub-foundation on which he proposes to build his argument for strict communion. They are these: 1." The New Testament is our ultimate authority in respect to church order and action." 2. "The constitution and work of the Christian churches are definitely fixed by the New Testament." 3. "Churches observing the Lord's supper must determine what are the scriptural qualifications for admission to it." 4. "Baptists ought to follow out their doctrine of baptism, if correct, to its legitimate results. If they are right in holding that nothing but the immersion of a believer into the name of the Trinity is Christian baptism, they may fearlessly accept all the consequences of this belief."

In adducing these as the under-ground supports of his argument, he indicates that restricted communion strikes its roots deeper into the heart of the gospel than we have allowed. In this respect they convey a wrong impression. We most cheerfully admit the three first, so far as they bear on the present controversy. They have no determinative force. They are equally consonant with our position as with his. In substanitating our views we rely no less on the New Testament than do our opponents in refuting them. Indeed, we can but think if they could loose themselves from certain influences imbibed from the study of the Mosaic economy, they would receive our principles with more favor. The fourth we reject, because it overlooks one main principle of church communion taught by the apostles.

We wish the fact distinctly in mind at the outset of our argument, and kept steadily there during its progress, that the Baptists do not argue the duty of withholding fellowship from us on the ground of errors in doctrinal belief or of defective evidence of faith and Christian fidelity; but solely on the ground of supposed misapprehensions respecting

[blocks in formation]

baptism. It will be our aim to show that such misapprehensions, while subsisting with soundness of doctrinal belief and manifestations of the Christian life, are not justifiable reasons for withholding sacramental communion. What Dr. Hovey says touching faith as a prerequisite has no relevancy to the question in debate.

This point covers all we design to substantiate. It is not our object to disprove the distinctive sentiments of the Baptists, nor to vindicate our own; nor is it to persuade either party to surrender their peculiar ecclesiastical organizations; but, while defending each his own doctrinal views and ritual observances, to extend to the other sacramental fellowship. We do not propose to advocate so much mixed communion as free communion.

From the above discussion it is manifest that our principle has, logically, no disorganizing tendencies in respect to the formation, the discipline, or government of the churches. It most decidedly maintains the importance of visibly covenanting with God and with his people, and of making some public profession of faith, satisfying the Christian judgment of the brotherhood. It only denies, with the exceptions on grounds alluded to above, that the precise form of making the profession, provided it be done in a prayerful and conscientious manner, is a justifiable occasion for refusing church fellowship.

This ground-principle of church fellowship is no innovation. It has been generally admitted by Protestants, especially by the Puritans, in all ages since their organization as We will record the testimony of a few leading

sects. minds.

The language of the Bohemic Confession is this: "As to the differences which may obtain among the churches in external rites or ceremonies, we think it of no importance, for these greatly vary among Christians, according to variety of place and nation. Ceremonies change; but faith, Christ, the word, change not." The Belgic Confession - a confession approved by the continental divines at the Synod

of Dort, waving all minor differences, contends for the church's unity, on the ground of the common faith of Christians, and insists that it is the duty of every one who loves the Lord Jesus to hold communion with her, " through the medium of any one of her branches to which he may have access in any part of the world." The Helvetic Confession: "It is to be observed that we diligently teach in what the truth and unity of the church principally consist, that we may not rashly excite and cherish schisms in the church. It consists not in ceremonies and external rites, but rather in the truth and unity of the catholic faith." Melanchthon writes: "Since we agree in the principal articles of Christian doctrine, let us embrace each other with mutual love. Nor ought dissimilitude and variety of rites and ceremonies to sever our affections." Even John Calvin, that stern man, whose life was thought, and who gazed on the immutable principles which proceed from the heart of Jehovah and support his moral dominions with a steady and unblinking eye; and who is generally regarded as the inflexible advocate of doctrinal consistency and of rigid discipline, with scarcely a vein of Christian kindliness in his nature, maintained substantially the same free sentiments respecting communion. "Our assertion that the pure ministry of the word and the pure celebration of the sacraments [immersion, we know, did not enter into his idea of the pure celebration of baptism] is a sufficient pledge and earnest of our safety in embracing, as a church, the society in which they shall both be found, goes so far as this, that she is never to be renounced so long as she shall persevere in them, although in other respects she may abound in faults. Even in the administration of doctrine or sacraments some defect may possibly creep in, which yet ought not to alienate us from her communion." "Since no man is perfectly free from the clouds of ignorance, we either shall leave no church at all, or we must forgive mistakes in those things where ignorance may prevail without violating the substance of religion, or hazarding the loss of salvation." The Westminster Confession: "All saints that

are united to Jesus Christ their head, by his Spirit and by faith, have fellowship with him in his graces, sufferings, death, resurrection, and glory. Saints by profession are bound to maintain an holy fellowship and communion in the worship of God, which communion, as God offereth opportunity, is to be extended unto all those who, in every place, call upon the name of the Lord Jesus." The Cambridge Platform: "The weakest measure of faith is to be accepted in those that desire to be admitted into the church, because weak Christians, if sincere, have the substance of that faith, repentance, and holiness which is required in church members. Such charity and tenderness is to be used, as the weakest Christian, if sincere, may not be excluded nor discouraged." Cotton Mather: "The churches of New England make only vital piety the terms of communion among them." John Howe: "I will adventure to offer these things to serious consideration. 1. Whether for any party of Christians to make unto itself other limits of communion than Christ hath made, and hedge up itself within those limits, excluding those whom Christ would admit, and admitting those whom he would exclude, be not in itself a real sin?I would ask: Whose is this table? Is it the table of this or that man, or party of men, or is it the Lord's table? Then, certainly, it ought to be free to his guests, and appropriate to them. And who would dare to invite others, or forbid these? 2. If it be a sin, is it not a heinous one? This will best be understood by considering what his limits are. Nothing seems plainer than that it was his mind Christianity itself should measure the communion of Christians as such." Stillingfleet: "What charter hath Christ given the church to bind men up to, more than himself hath done, or to exclude those from her society who may be admitted into heaven? Will Christ ever thank men, at the great day, for keeping such out from communion with his church whom he will vouchsafe crowns of glory to?" Jonathan Edwards, that profound theologian and earnest advocate of doctrinal soundness and church discipline, drew up the

« FöregåendeFortsätt »