Sidor som bilder
PDF
ePub

But, Sir, do you conceive that God communes with you in a higher, or different fenfe, in the ordinance of the fupper, than what he does in the ordinance of baptifm? If not, why may you not draw an argument equally forcible from that, to urge us to a compliance with your mode of baptism? I am willing to own, that I am enthusiastic enough to believe, that God as really manifests his all-approving prefence with us in the ordinance of baptifm, as in that of the fupper. But, fhould we from hence urge the propriety of your adopting our mode of baptism, without producing any other proof in support of it, would you think the argument conclusive ? Moft certainly you would not.

You have taken it for granted, that God communes with the Pædobaptifts, and that his example is worthy of imitation. But have we not as much reafon to believe, that the baptifm of Chrift by an immerfion in Jordan, was defigned as an example for believers through every age, as that his communing with your denomination is defigned as an example for us to imitate? But, the facrilegious practice of imitating Jefus Chrift in his baptifm, has been loudly exploded, by the united efforts of two learned gentlemen,* in a publication with this extraordinary title, "The Baptifm of Jefus Chrift, not to be imitated by Chriftians." A perfon cannot reflect upon this title a moment, without concluding, that fome Pædobaptifts cautiously endeavour not to imitate the baptifm of Jefus Chrift! We can hardly forbear afking, Who do they mean to imitate ? Surely not John; for they fay he was under the law. Not Chrift, because he was baptized before his death. Not Philip, and the Eunuch, for they went down both INTO THE WATER. Not the primitive church; for we are authorized, upon the testimony of Pædobaptifts themselves, to fay, that immerfion was the univerfal practice (except in particular cafes) for nearly thirteen hundred years after the Christian æra.

We cheerfully acknowledge that this is not the cafe with us; for we do really endeavour to imitate the baptifm of Chrift; nor did we ever yet feel confcious of

* Meffrs Fish and Crane.

reproof, for the prefumptuous act! It is an argument of no fmall weight in the minds of many, that our baptifm is an imitation of HIS, who has taught us to take up our cross and FOLLOW HIM. Were it not ne

ceffary to invite you to follow an example fo evidently defigned for imitation, I might address you in the fpontaneous language of a text preffed into your service; Be ye followers of God, as dear children.

Should you think the queftion not fully answered by what has been already obferved, and still inquire, If God communes with the Pædobaptifts, why fhould you be unwilling to follow his example ?'--I would wish to afk, Whether you would think it duty for us to be followers of God, otherwife than according to the rules laid down in his word? You will permit me to remind you, that you have acknowledged, that thofe rules require baptifm antecedent to communion. 'This is evi

dently your meaning when you fay, I do not deny that baptifm was prior to coming to the Lord's table in the apoftolic practice. I fuppofe it was.' I fuppofe fo too, Sir ; and would beg to know, whether there has been any different rule of practice established fince? If fo, by whom was it done, and by what authority? If the fyftem of inspiration was clofed by the apoftles, then undoubtedly the practice of the church, as recorded by them, is a proper rule for us. To this you feem to affent (though with a degree of caution) when you fay, I alfo fuppofe their example to be worthy of imitation in like circumstances.' As if fome circumftances might take place, which might make it neceffary to alter the mode or order of divine inftitutions. But, Sir, if inftitutions are divine, it is not in the power of circumftances, however combined, or any thing elfe fhort of the power which made them, to alter either mode or order. circumftances may render it neceffary to omit, but never to alter an inftitution. The moment we alter an inftitution, we destroy its authority. It can no longer claim the high privilege of a divine origin; but muit be looked upon as the bafe-born offspring of human invention.

Some

That there can be circumftances in our present fituation which may render it neceffary, or even justifiable, to depart from the apoftolic practice, I cannot conceive. Yet here we are not fo happy as to be agreed in opinion; for you fay-I am not certain that there can be no circumstances in which it might be lawful to admit -to the Lord's fupper prior to baptifm.' Especially if the mode of baptifm be immersion. For a real Chris-tian may for many years be fubjected to fuch bodily diforders, that it would be prefumption rather than duty, to be plunged all under water; and yet at certain times he might be able to attend the ordinance of the Lord's fupper. And must he be debarred this privilege, or forbidden this duty, merely because he is unable to be immerfed ?'*

It appears to me, Sir, that you draw conclufions without premises. For you fuppose we debar a person from a privilege in one inftance because he is unable to do his duty in another. I fuppofe you are mistaken in both. For firft, I do not believe that God requires any duty of his creatures, which his holy providence has rendered them unable to perform which is the fuppofed cafe with regard to baptifm. Nor fecondly, do I believe that it is the duty or privilege of any perfon to attend one facred ordinance, while God in his providence prevents his attending another, which has a prior claim on his obedience; and while the latter, by apoftolic practice,' is a neceffary qualification for the former. This idea you have fully illuftrated in your next page, where you obferve, that Many things which are or-, dinarily incumbent duties are not fo in all circumftances.' This obfervation appears perfectly juft, and the very circumftance you have mentioned of the perfon's being unbaptized, renders it inconfiftent with duty for him to partake of the Lord's fupper.

For I can as easily conceive of its being a perfon's duty or privilege to go to meeting, while by the providence of God he is confined at home; as to believe that it is his duty to go to the communion-table, while

* Page 14.

N

by the fame providence, he is unable to attend the previous qualifications which the inftitution requires.

Allowing immerfion to be effential to gospel baptifin, and a person to become a real Christian when but nine years old, and the state of his health fuch as would render it unfuitable for him to be baptized, fhould he live to be nine hundred and fixty-nine, I fhould never fuppofe it to be his duty to conimunicate while in that fituation; nor can I fuppofe any well enlightened Chriftian would ever desire it.

But, should it even be supposed, that the order of the inftitutions might be difpenfed with in particular cafes, fo far as to admit to communion pious perfons, whofe bodily infirmities would not allow of their being baptized-What then? Shall we from hence argue to a general practice, and admit unbaptized perfons to communion who have no fuch infirmities to plead ? If this be not the cafe, your argument lofes the whole of its force; unless your communicants are all invalids !

The inconclufiveness of this argument will more fully appear by attending to the obfervations you have brought to illuftrate it by. The firft is, the inftance of David's taking the fhew bread. You obferve, He was hungry, and had need of it for the fuftenance and prefervation of life;' but will you from hence conclude, that it was lawful for David, or any other person in ordinary cafes, to have taken the hallowed bread, when there was no fuch neceffity? If this be not the cafe, it will not help your caufe; for the matter in difpute is not a cafe of neceffity, but of fuppofed conveniency; and which, in order to its being practifed, must be lawful in ordinary cafes. Your other obfervation refpecting a perfon's being neceffarily detained from the house of God, is much of the fame tenor: for granting that a perfon's infirmities may excufe him from the duty of attending public word ip, fhall we hence infer that this is any excufe for others, or even for the fame perfon when well? Surely we fhall not.

You fuppofe when David violated a pofitive precept, he did it to preferve his life, and that in this fenfe he conducted himself agreeably to the moral law. Now,

Sir, when it can be made to appear, that a person's life, or eternal falvation, depend on communicating at the Lord's table, I cannot say but in such a cafe it may be lawful to go contrary to pofitive institutions; to depart from apoftolic practice; and plunge ourselves into almost every inconfiftency, rather than a weak brother fhould perifh, for whom Chrift died.

Your obfervations in favour of giving the communion to the fick who are not inftitutionally qualified to receive it, lead us to compare it with the ancient custom of baptizing the clinics.

A learned hiftorian obferves, " At first all times were alike, and perfons were baptized as opportunity and occafion ferved; but it was after reftrained to two folemn and stated times of the year, viz. Eafter and Whitfuntide." Thefe included the fifty days between : "Yet if there was a neceffity, (as in case of sickness and danger of death) they might be baptized at any other time."* And notwithstanding they allowed immersion to be the proper mode, yet, in cafe of danger of death, they would fprinkle perfons as they lay in their beds. It is evident they overrated the inftitution; and your notion of giving the communion to the fick who are unable to be baptized, has a little of the fame appearance. I do not find that these ancient Chriftians plead apoftolic authority for this practice, nor did they allow of this mode of baptifmn in ordinary cafes.

But why fhould it be thought neceffary for a real Christian to receive the communion, fo long as his bodily infirmities forbid his being regularly baptized? It cannot be thought neceffary to his eternal falvation; for if a Christian, that is already fecured: nor that the gofpel rule requires it; for that enjoins, that all things be done decently and in order: nor yet the glory of God; for that never requires fubmiffion to any pofuive law, but of those who are capable of the pofitive pre-requifites to obey it. Hence I conclude, that every unbap-` tized Chriftian, whofe infirmities may be fuch, as to render it unfuitable for him to be baptized and join. the visible church, ought fubmiffively to wait, until

Dr. Cave's Primitive Christianity, p. 194.

« FöregåendeFortsätt »