صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني

PREFACE.

AFTER having discussed so largely, in some former publications, the question of strict communion, that is the prevailing practice in the Baptist denomination of confining their fellowship to members of their own community, it was not my intention to trouble the public with the subject any farther, not having the least ambition for the last word in controversy. But it has been suggested to me, that it would not be difficult to condense the substance of the argument within a smaller compass, so as to render it accessible to such as have neither the leisure nor the inclination to peruse a large performance. It has been my endeavor to cut off every thing superfluous, and, without doing injury to the merits of the cause, to present the reasoning which sustains it, in a concise and popular form; how far I have succeeded, must be left to the judgement of the reader.

I would only remark here, that all I have seen and heard concurs to convince me that the practice of strict communion, rests almost entirely on authority, and that were the influence of a few great names withdrawn, it would sink under its own weight. Among those of recent date, none has been more regarded than that of the late venerable Fuller; and as he left a manuscript on this subject to be published after his death, he is considered. as having deposed his dying testimony in its favor. That he felt some predilection to a practice to which he had been so long accustomed, and whose propriety was very rarely questioned in his early days, is freely admitted; but that he all along felt some hesitation on the subject, and that his mind was not completely made up, I am induced to believe from several circumstances. First, from the fact of his proposing himself to commune at Cambridge, with the full knowledge of there being Pædobaptists present. Secondly, from a conversation which passed, many years ago, between him and the writer of these lines. In re

ply to his observation that we act precisely on the same principle with our Pædobaptist brethren, since they also insist on baptism as an essential pre-requisite to communion, it was remarked, that this was a mere argumentum ad hominem; it might serve to silence the clamors of those Pædobaptists, who, while they adhered to that principle, charged us with bigotry; but that still it did not touch the merits of the question, since a previous inquiry occurs, whether any thing more is requisite to communion, on scriptural grounds, than a vital union with Christ; his answer was, When mixed communion is placed on that footing, I never yet ventured to attack it. Hence I am compelled to consider his posthumous tract rather as a trial of what might be adduced on that side of the controversy, with a view to provoke further inquiry, than the result of deliberate and settled conviction. Be this as it may, great as his merits were, he was but a man, and as such liable to err, even on subjects of much greater importance. All I wish is, that without regard to human names or authorities, the matter in debate may be entirely determined by an unprejudiced appeal to reason and Scripture.

The prevalence of this disposition to bow to authority, and to receive opinions upon trust, is strikingly illustrated by the following anecdote. A highly respected friend of mine, on asking one of his deacons, a man of primitive piety and integrity, what objections he had to mixed communion, he replied with great simplicity, that he had two-in the first place, Mr. Fuller did not approve of it, and in the next, the Scripture declares, that he who pulls down a hedge, a serpent shall bite him. The good man very properly placed that reason first, which carried the greatest weight with it.

In short, there is a certain false refinement and subtlety in the argument for strict communion which would never occur to a plain man, who was left solely to the guidance of Scripture. In common with almost every other error, it derived its origin from the public teachers of religion, and with a change of sentiment in them, it will gradually disappear; nor will it be long ere our churches will be surprised that they suffered themselves to be betrayed, by specious but hollow sophistry, into a practice so repulsive and so impolitic. Amicus Plato, amicus Socrates, sed magis amica veritas. October 7th, 1826.

SHORT STATEMENT,

&c.

supper

Ir is admitted, by all denominations of Christians, with the exception of one, that the sacrament of the Lord's is of perpetual obligation, and that it was designed by its Founder for one of the principal indications and expressions of that fraternal affection which ought to distinguish his followers. Though the communion of saints is of larger extent, comprehending all those sentiments and actions, by which Christians are especially united, the joint participation of this rite is universally acknowledged to constitute an important branch of that communion. So important a part has it been considered, that it has usurped the name of the whole; and when any dispute arises respecting the terms of communion, it is generally understood to relate to the terms of admission to the Lord's table.

Whether all real Christians are entitled to share in this privilege, whether it forms a part of that spiritual provision which belongs to the whole family of the faithful, or whether it is the exclusive patrimony of a sect, who, (on the ground of their supposed imperfection,) are authorized to repel the rest, is the question which it is my purpose, in the following pages, briefly and calmly to discuss. The first conclusion to which we should naturally arrive, would probably favor the most liberal system; we should be ready to suppose that he who is accepted of Christ ought also to be accepted of his brethren, and that he whose right to the thing signified was not questioned, possessed an undoubted right to the outward sign. There are some truths which are so self-evident, that a formal attempt to prove them has the appearance of trifling, where the premises and the conclusion so nearly coincide, that it is not easy to point out the intermediate links that at once separate and connect them. Whether the assertion that all sincere

Christians are entitled to a place at the Lord's table is of that description, will more clearly appear as we advance; but I must be permitted to say, that a feeling of the kind just mentioned, has occasioned the greatest difficulty I have experienced in this dis

cussion.

It is well known that a diversity of sentiment has long subsisted in this country, in relation to the proper subjects of baptism, together with the mode of administering that rite. While the great body of the Christian world administer baptism to infants, and adopt the practice of sprinkling or pouring the sacramental water, there are some who contend that baptism should be confined to those who are capable of understanding the articles of the Christian religion, or in other words, to adults, and that the proper mode is the immersion of the whole body. They who maintain the last of these opinions, were formerly designated by the appellation of Anabaptists, but as that term implied that they assumed a right of repeating baptism, when in reality their only reason for baptizing such as had been sprinkled in their infancy, was that they looked upon the baptism of infants as a mere human invention, the candor of modern times has changed the invidious appellation of Anabaptist, to the more simple one of Baptist.

It is not my intention to attempt the defence of that class of Christians, though their views are entirely in accordance with my own; one consequence, however, necessarily results. We are compelled, by virtue of them, to look upon the great mass of our fellow Christians as unbaptized. On no other ground can we maintain our principles, or justify our conduct. Hence it has been inferred, too hastily in my opinion, that we are bound to abstain from their communion, whatever judgement we may form of their sincerity and piety. Baptism, it is alleged, is under all possible circumstances an indispensable term of communion, and however highly we may esteem many of our Pædobaptist brethren, yet as we cannot but deem them unbaptized, we must of necessity consider them as disqualified for an approach to the Lord's table. It is evident that this reasoning rests entirely on the assumption, that baptism is invariably a necessary condition of communion-an opinion which it is not surprising the Baptists should have embraced, since it has long passed current in the Christian world, and been received by nearly all denominations of Christians. The truth is, it has never till of late become a practical question, nor could it while all parties acknowledged each other's baptism. It was only when a religious denomination arose, whose principles compelled them to deny the validity of any other baptism besides that which they themselves practised, that the question respecting the relation which that ordinance bears to the Lord's supper, could have any influ

« السابقةمتابعة »