Sidor som bilder
PDF
ePub

which the Doctor adds this obfervation: "He could not find in the Bible the opinions he had adopted, as long as he interpreted that facred book according to its literal fenfe."* It is of little confequence in this difpute, to know that men in the third and fourth centuries approved and practifed infant baptifm. Nor do we conceive that the "impregnable teftimony" of Pelagius, (a man condemned by all the ancient fathers as a heretic) adds any ftrength to Mr. Worcester's argument.

Another argument in favour of fprinkling, and against immerfion, which makes a confiderable figure in thefe difcourfes, and in the writings of fome others, is, that fprinkling is the most eafy and convenient mode. "Of the feveral accounts of baptifms recorded in the fcriptures, I think (fays Mr. Worcester) it will appear that thofe baptifms were performed in the most eafy and convenient mode." (page 70.) He fuppofes that when John's candidates were "affembled upon the banks of the Jordan, the most convenient way would be for them to go down to the brink of the water, and there be baptized by affufion or fprinkling." "On the day of pentecoft, (he adds) when three thoufands were baptized in a very fhort time; they were at the temple in the midst of Jerufalem, where the most convenient, if not the only way, would be to have water brought in a bafon, or fome other veffel, and baptize them in the fame way." (page 72.) It would feem, by thefe obfervations, that the command of God muft yield to our conveniency. What exalted ideas fuch men must have of the authority of God in his pofitive inftitutions, to fuppofe we are to accommodate them to our own conveniency! Had good old Abraham, at the age of ninety-nine, confulted his conveniency, would he not probably have preferred cutting the end of his little finger, to the part appointed by the inftitution of circumcifion?

We have no right nor wish to say, that our brethren fhall not confult their convenience in the administration of the ordinance; but for ourfelves, we hope never to think it inconvenient to obey the commands of Chrift, and follow the example of him who thought it no incon

* Mofheim, Vol. I. page 270, nete.

[blocks in formation]

veniency to travel on foot from Galilee to Jordan, to be immerfed by John in that river.

Sprinkling is also said to have another great advantage over immerfion: It is not only more convenient, but "more compatible with every idea of propriety and DECENCY." (page 73.)

Dr. Ofgood dilates largely on the decency of their practice, and the indecency of ours. "To me, (faith he) indeed, this (fprinkling) appears the only mode in which the ordinance can be adminiftered with that order, decency," &c. He adds, "Their leaving the place of worship, ftreaming away in the open air to fome pond or river, and in all feafons and climates, changing their apparel in order to their being totally immerfed in the water, out of which they come drenched and shivering," &c. (page 8.) He concludes, however, that "baptifm by immerfion might not, perhaps, eighteen hundred years ago, be offenfive in Judea; nor can we fay that it would difguft the uncultivated and unclothed inhabitants of South Africa, even now; but it is certain, that the custom of plunging mixed multitudes of men and women, either in thin veftments or in their ufual drefs, is deemed indecorous by moft people accustomed to polished manners." (page 14.) Eighteen centuries ago, it feems, then, it might not have been offenfive for Jefus and his difciples to be immerfed, but it is now abfolutely "indecorous" to follow their example! And is there nothing, dear fir, "indecorous" in comparing the state of manners in the primitive Chriftian church, containing Chrift and all his difciples, to the lowest dregs of the human race? to the Bofchemen or wild Hottentots of South Africa? Muft not fuch a comparison strike a tender mind with horror, and be confidered as a moft fevere reflection on the great Head of the church, and all his immediate followers? Who can help reflecting on the prophetic language of David, when perfonating Chrift, The reproaches of them that reproached thee are fallen upon me. Is the religion of Jefus, especially its inftitutions, when practifed as they were in "Judea eighteen. hundred years ago, deemed indecorous" by people of † Pfalm lxix. 9.

* Two Difcourfes at Malden.

"polished manners?" Such people would do well to remember, that the friendship of the world is enmity with God; and that Chrift, in order to guard his people againft this temporizing spirit, has faid, Whofoever shall be ASHAMED of me, and of my words, of him fhall the Son of Man be afbamed, when he fhall come in his own glory, and in his Father's, and of the holy angels+

But what aftonishes us most of all, is, that after all this outcry about decency and offending against polished manners, that the Doctor fhould inform the world, that their minifters will be guilty of doing the fame!! Yes, "we are (faith he) far from calling in question the validity of theirs, (meaning our mode of baptifm); nay, in condefcenfion to the confciences of those who request it, our minifters fcruple not to baptize by immerfion." Is it poffible, Doctor? What! will your minifters and their people "go ftreaming away in the open air to fome pond or river?" What! and with as little sense of decency as the Baptifts, be "totally immerfed in the water," and like them "come drenched and shivering' out of it? It is perfectly astonishing! But why do they thus trefpafs upon the customs of "polifhed manners?" Why? not indeed from a confcientious regard to the command or example of Chrift, but "in condefcenfion to the confciences of thofe who requeft it." So great is their condefcenfion, that it feems they can become all things to all men, that by all means they may fave fome—of their people from going over to the Baptifts.

[ocr errors]

Mr. Worcester has mentioned one fpecies of indecency, which he fuggefts was practised anciently in immerfion, which in this age of improvement is wholly done away. He relates the ftory from Dr. Wall, and he from Voffius, and where he got it nobody knows; but it is thus related in the discourses before us: "The ancient Chriftians," fays Dr. Wall, "when they were baptized by immerfion, were all baptized naked, whether they were men, women, or children. Voffius has collected feveral proofs of this, which I fhall omit, because it is a clear cafe." (Note, page 74.) If Mr. Worcester is acquainted with Dr. Wall's writings, as he undoubtLuke ix. 36.

* James iv. 4.

[blocks in formation]

edly is, he muft certainly know that the Doctor has ftrenuously afferted that immerfion was the primitive ordinary mode throughout almoft the whole Chriftian world, for thirteen centuries, and in many countries much longer. Can any man in his fenfes fuppofe that Dr. Wall feriously believed, that during this long period of thirteen or fifteen centuries, there was not a scrap of modefty in the whole Chriftian world? Would he have pleaded for the restoration of a practice that had conftantly been a reproach to decency? We hardly think it.

But we should like to know who this Voffius was, who furnished this indecent ftory, that we may know what degree of credit is due to it. Was it Ifaac Voffsus, who came over from Leyden to England in 1670, whom king Charles made canon of Windfor? Of this perfon an English biographer thus remarks; that Charles knew his character well enough to fay, "there was nothing that Voffius refused to believe, excepting the BIBLE!" He further adds, "He appears indeed by his publicationsto have been a moft credulous man, while he afforded many circumstances to bring his religious faith in question." If there be no other proof that the ancient Christians baptized naked, than what can be gathered from the writings of such a nan, we shall think ourfelves at liberty to doubt it. But, true or false, Mr. Worcester has cleared the Baptifts of the difgraceful ftory. For this practice is faid by Dr. Wall to have been among the ancient Chriftians. But the Anabaptifts, or Antipædobaptists," says our author, "are a fect of modern date. They had their origin fome time. after the reformation under Luther and Calvin." (P. 66.) According to this, the Pædobaptifts may place all these naked folks to their own account. And if they confult Dr. Motheim, (vol. i. p. 227) or Broughton's Historical Library, (vol. i. p. 14) they may find an account of others, who, it is faid, went naked, not indeed into the water, but into their public assemblies.†

*See Part II. Sc. iv. and v.

+ That people in warm climates anciently went almost naked, that is, with only a covering round the waift, no body will difpute. The fanie

EC

By dating the origin of the Baptifts "fome time after the reformation," our opponents exonerate us from all the indecencies, pious frauds, errors, herefies, and perfecutions, which disgraced Christianity before that period.

We must here beg the reader's indulgence while we digrefs a few moments from our fubject, with a view to repel an ungenerous infinuation refpecting our origin. The riot at Munster, in which fome who oppofed and denied infant baptifm were concerned with others who held it, is generally fixed upon as the most dishonourable part of our hiftory. We regret that our limits will not allow us to vindicate ourselves more fully from the unhandfome things which have been fo often fuggefted, from that tranfaction, with a view to injure our character as a religious denomination. But we can here only fay, that we verily believe, that to take the account of the German Anabaptifts, as given by their enemies, nothing will be found either more wicked or difgraceful in this fect, than may be found in the origin of almost any other ancient fect, taking their history from the fame fource.

For inflance; the Independents in England, from whom the prefent refpectable Congregational Churches in this country defcended. If you take their history from Clarendon, Echard, Parker, or even from Rapin, you will find the obfervation juftified. The latter, though a foreigner, is allowed to have written one of the best hiftories of England extant. This illuftrious writer, faith Dr. Motheim, reprefents the " Independents under fuch horrid colours, that, were his portrait juft, they would not deferve to enjoy the light of the fun, or to breathe the free air of Britain; much less to be treated with indulgence and esteem, by those who have the cause of virtue at heart." However unjustly they might be accufed, "the most eminent English writers, (adds the Doctor) not only among the patrons of Epifcopacy, but among those very Prefbyterians, with whom they are now united, have thrown out against them the bit

is ftill practised by the inhabitants of the torrid zone. That they went into the water in their ufual drefs is highly probable; but that any were baptized without a covering round the waist, we have seen no fufficient proof.

« FöregåendeFortsätt »