Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

conspicuous place, and the rule propounded on that occasion, we perceive to have been universally obligatory on believers of that generation.

When we propose to extend the same method of proceeding to our pædobaptist brethren, in the present day, we are repelled; and my opponent reminds us, that we are not authorized to assign, in the present case, the reason for forbearance which was urged by St. Paul, because they are not received, in the sense which he intended. The reason itself, he acknowledges, would be a sufficient justification, could the fact on which it proceeds be established, but he denies the fact.

Their error, it is asserted, is of such a nature, that it places them totally out of the question, and whatever is said on the subject of mutual forbearance in the New Testament is, in the present state of things, to be considered as applicable merely to the conduct of baptists toward each other; from which it necessarily follows, that no part of the precepts or promises of scripture, can be proved to apply to the great body of believers, at present, not even to such as appear preeminent in piety; for all these precepts and promises were originally addressed precisely to the same description of persons, with the injunctions in question; and as it is contended that these belong at present only to baptists, by parity of reason, the former must be restricted to the same limits. On this principle, there is not a syllable in the New

Testament from which a pædobaptist can derive either consolation or direction, as a christian; not a single promise which he can claim, nor a single duty resulting from the christian calling, with which he is concerned; for the class of persons to whom these were originally addressed, was one and the same with those on whom the duty of mutual forbearance was inculcated.

The inscription of the Epistle to the Romans is of the same extent with the injunctions contained in the 14th and 15th chapters, and no greater; the same description of persons are evidently addressed throughout. It was the saints, the beloved of God, mentioned in the beginning of the letter, who, on account of their common relation to the Lord, were commanded to bear with each other's infirmities. Now if it be asserted that infant baptism is an error so different from those which were contemplated by the Author, in that injunction, that its abettors stand excluded from its benefit, how will it be possible to prove that they are saints, that they are beloved of God, or that any of the attributes ascribed to christians in that epistle, belong to them? Mr. Kinghorn may affirm, if he pleases, that the characteristic descriptions are applicable, while the injunctions under discussion are not. He may affirm, but how will he prove it? since both are addressed to the same persons, and the injunction of forbearance enjoined alike on them all.

From a letter, consisting partly of affectionate congratulations, and partly of serious advice, both intended for the comfort and direction of the same persons, to infer that the congratulations apply to christians of all denominations, and the advice to one only, is capricious and unreasonable. The same conclusion holds good respecting the whole of the New Testament. Whatever is affirmed in any part of it, respecting the privilege of primitive believers, was asserted primarily of such only as were baptized, because there were no others originally in the church: all the reciprocal duties of christians were, in the first instance, enjoined on these; among which we find precepts enforcing, without a shadow of limitation, the duty of cultivating christian fellowship. But the last, our opponents contend, are to be restricted to baptists; whence it necessarily follows, unless we had some independent evidence on the subject, that the former must be restricted in the same manner; and that, consequently, all other denominations, however excellent in other respects, are left without any scriptural proof of their interest in the divine favour, or any directions for that part of their conduct which concerns their christian obligations. Were there, indeed, any other medium of proof besides the writings of the apostles, of equal authority, by which it were possible to supply their deficiency, the case would be different. From this independent source we might possibly

R

learn the fact, that other denominations, also, were included within the promise of eternal life; but while our knowledge on the subject is derived from one book, whose precepts for the regulation of the conduct of believers towards each other universally, are affirmed not to extend to our intercourse with pædobaptists, it is impossible to establish that conclusion; for, to attempt to limit the application of scripture in one part, and to make it universal in another, where both were originally intended to be taken in the same extent, is plainly unreasonable.

CHAP. VIII.

On the Argument for Mixed Communion, founded on the Pædobaptists being a Part of the true Church.

THE author of Terms of Communion founded an argument for the admission of sincere christians, of every denomination, to the Lord's table, on their being a part of the true church. He remarked, that whenever that term occurs in scripture, in relation to spiritual matters, it constantly denotes, either members of a particular community, accustomed to meet in one place; or the whole body of real believers, dispersed throughout the world, but considered as united to one head; that this body is expressly affirmed to be the body of Christ, of which every genuine believer is a member; that we are seriously warned against whatever tends to promote a schism in it; and that these admonitions are directly repugnant to the practice, under any pretext whatever, of repelling a sincere christian from communion. If we allow the identity of the church of Christ with his body, which St. Paul expressly affirms, and

« AnteriorContinuar »