Sidor som bilder
PDF
ePub

dence laid before them; and would not chefe darkness rather than light. It is believed that good men, (however they may differ in opinion here) in the coming state will fee eye to eye: perhaps not owing fo much to the fuperior light of truth, as to their being delivered from thofe finful affections which oppofe the truth. This obfervation will appear evident from this confideration, that those who have the greatest advantages to know the truth, often appear to be moft oppofed to it. The Jews, who had the oracles of God, and confequently the best information refpecting the Meffiah, when he was preached to them, oppofed and blafphemed, while the Gentiles believed.

rulers.* *

:

Upon fuppofition, that there is nothing of a moral nature in mere fentiments,' why is unbelief a crime? or why is a man to blame for being an infidel? this is a mere fentiment. In fhort, why do we blame the Jews for accufing and delivering Chrift to be crucified? It is evident they did not believe him to be the Son of God. The apostle Peter, after charging them with killing the Prince of Life, faid to them; Now, brethren, Iwet that through ignorance ye did it, as did alfo your Saint Paul fuppofed that they did not know him to be the Meffiah: for, faid he, None of the princes of this world knew it for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of Glory.+ No, they would have been fhocked at the horrid thought! But their fentiments were that he was a deceiver, and a blafphemer; and they had a law given them by Mofes against fuch, and by this law they said he ought to die. And their external conduct was to put him to death. Now where was their criminality? You will probably fay it originated in their hearts, where all real criminality is to be found.' It will be granted. And did not their fentiments originate there likewife? Out of the HEART proceed evil thoughts, murders, &c. and not out of the head as unconnected with it.

In order to apply the foregoing obfervations to the fubject before us, we are willing to acknowledge, that we do not think a man to blame, for fincerely acting + I Cor. ii. 8.

Ads iii. 17.

M

according to his confcience, although it be ever fo erroneous. But he may be exceedingly to blame, for having an erroneous confcience. If we do not improve the best means of information which we are favoured with, we are certainly to blame for the neglect.

It is a maxim in civil law, That a man is obliged to know it at his peril.' This holds good with regard to the divine law. The man who tranfgreffed the law of Mofes through ignorance, however fincere, was nevertheless guilty; and when it came to his knowledge he was obliged to offer a facrifice.* And he who killed his neighbour at unawares, without in the least designing his death, was nevertheless doomed to fuffer a certain punishment; for, to be confined to a particular city, without permiffion upon any occafion to go out until the death of the high-prieft, cannot be accounted otherwise.+

Upon the whole, what reason can be given for our conftruing the divine law differently? Or why fhould one man see a revealed truth, and another under equal advantages fhould not; unless the latter be under the influence of moral blindnefs? If the positive institutions of the gospel are fufficiently plain (as they undoubtedly are) why fhould we read and understand the fame bible fo very differently? I cannot think we are both right. If Chrift has commanded his people to dedicate their infant-feed to him in baptifm, then we must conclude that all the Baptift churches are in an error in this particular. On the other hand, if the gofpel teacheth us, that with the heart man believeth unto righteoufnefs, and with the mouth confeffion is made unto falvation ; and that this confeffion is to be made by every candidate for baptifm; then we must suppose our Pædobaptift brethren are in an error, in not infifting upon the fame vifible qualifications which the apostles did. In fhort, can it be fuppofed that the fame divine law, which enjoins either the one or the other, can approve of the neglect? If not, it must neceffarily follow, that if you are right, we are wrong; and fo vice verfa.

Lev. iv. 13, 22, 27.

+ Numb. xxxv. 25.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

But it is often faid by our opponents, We are willing to acknowledge your baptifm to be valid, and why cannot you be as liberal with respect to ours? We are forry to bear the charge of illiberality; but had much rather do it than violate our confciences. When per

fons are fo liberal, as to be willing to divide and mangle an institution of Christ, in order to accommodate a painful difpute; while it feems to fhow a condefcending temper in them, it at the fame time excites a fufpicion of the justice of their caufe. This kind of liberality of fentiment naturally leads us to recollect an instance recorded in ancient hiftory, concerning two women who came to a certain king, to decide a controverfy between them refpecting a living child. Each contended that fhe was the true mother, and that the child was her's. For a time, their claims appeared equally founded, until at length the wife king called for a fword, and propofed to divide the living child, and give half to the one and half to the other! The woman whose the child was, could by no means confent; but would either have it alive undivided, or elfe give it up fo to the other but the other faid, Let it be neither mine nɔr thine, but divide it. To have divided the child, would have deftroyed its existence: So to divide an institution of Chrift, is to make it mean any thing, and every thing, and confequently nothing. For when a divine law is fuppofed to be conditional, and is to be left to the judgment or fancies of men to determine, whether one mode of obedience be not as acceptable as another, it of course lofes its authority, and ceafes to be a law.

From the above argument it will not be concluded, that one man has a right to dictate, or prescribe a mode of obedience for another: for to our own Mafter we ftand or fall. Nevertheless, the divine law is not conditional, but abfolute; and its requirements must be fixed and determinate, although we may not understand them. ONE LAW fhall be to him that is home born, and unto the ftranger that fojourneth among you.

To conclude this Section, dear Sir, I wish you feriously to confider your arguments upon fincerity, whether you have not carried the matter too far ; and

whether they are not calculated in fome inftances, to differve the caufe of Chrift, and ftrengthen the hands of error. For admitting that either you or we are in an error with refpect to one of the inftitutions of Christ, yet as your fentiments affure us, that if we fincerely think we are right,We are as well accepted in the fight of God, as if our external conduct had been according to his appointments,' fhall we not be apt to release ourselves from a painful inquiry into the evidences for, and against our particular fentiments; and conclude to flide fimoothly on, in the good old way which our fathers went; and, perhaps, have no higher reafon to believe it to be right, than becaufe they believed it to be fo?

It is often faid, 'When we get to heaven, we fhall not be asked what particular principles we were of' This objection implies too great an indifferency to the requirements of truth; and leads us to fuppofe that many determine to get to heaven as cheap as they can. And whenever perfons would with a release from the toil of inquiry, and expenfe of retraction, they may improve your arguments as a cordial auxiliary.

But were we even to grant fincerity to be a term of communion, yet fhould we not be obliged to fix upon fome external acts of obedience, as evidential of fincerity? Or are we to judge a man to be fincere by the looks of his face? Or by the tincture of his thoughts? Or are we to believe it because he profeffes to be fincere? Perhaps the man was never yet found propagating any fentiment of religion whatever, who would own himself infincere.

If fincerity be the only thing fought for, and agreement in fentiment unneceffary to Chriftian fellowship, then we may open the door wide, and receive all who appear to be fincere, however erroneous, and by whatever names diftinguished, wherever they appear fincere.

Perhaps there is no one act in the circle of Chriftian duty, which expreffes more fellowship, than communicating at the Lord's table. And if we can occafionally communicate together, why can we not ftatedly? We fhall alfo be led farther to inquire, upon what principle

is feparation to be justified? Why did the Proteftants come out from the church of Rome? There were undoubtedly many fincere Chriftians in that church, notwithstanding the body of clergy might be thought to be corrupt. Why did the diffenters leave the church of England, and the independents the prefbyterians, and thefe diffent one from another? It would be uncharitable to fuppofe, that there were not many fincere Chriftians in thofe churches. Objections fimilar to those now mentioned have in fact taken place.

When prefbyterianifm was about to be established by the British government, the affembly of divines at Weftminster appointed a committee to hear and answer the petition of those who fhould not conform to the gov

ernment.

To these the independents prefented their requeft, Dec. 4th, 1645, which was only this: That they may not be forced to communicate as members in those parishes where they dwell; but may have liberty to have congregations of fuch perfons who give good teftimony of their godliness, and yet out of a tenderness of conscience cannot communicate in their parishes, but do voluntarily offer themselves to join in fuch congregations."

To this the affembly gave a flat denial, Dec. 15th. The independents, unwilling to lofe the privileges of the establishment, made the following conceffion. "That they would maintain occafional communion in their churches." But still their presbyterian brethren would not allow them feparate congregations. They rather improved this compliance, to frengthen their arguments against granting fuch liberty. "If (fay they) they may occafionally exercife thefe acts of communion with us once, a fecond, or a third time, without fin; we know no reafon why it may not be ordinarily without fin, and then feparation and church-gathering would have been needlefs. To feparate from thofe churches ordinarily and vifibly, with whom occafionally you may join without fin, feemeth to be a most unjuft feparation."*

• Schism tried and condemned; p. 25, 27, 28. in Crosby.

« FöregåendeFortsätt »