صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني

aggregate of Christian assemblies throughout a province, or a kingdom; nor do we ever read of the church of Achaia, Galatia, et cætera, but of the churches, in the plural number; the word being constantly applied either to the whole number of the faithful, scattered throughout the world, or to some single congregation or society. It is equally obvious, that whenever the word church occurs in its absolute form, it comprehends all genuine Christians without exception, and as that church is affirmed to be his body, it could not enter into the conception of the inspired writers that there was a class of persons strictly united to Christ, who yet were none of its component parts.

By orthodox Christians it is uniformly maintained, that union to Christ is formed by faith, and as the Baptists are distinguished by demanding a profession of it at baptism, they, at least, are precluded from asserting that rite to have any concern in effecting the spiritual alliance in question. In their judgement at least, since faith precedes the application of water, the only means of union are possessed by the abettors of infant sprinkling equally with themselves; who are therefore equally of the "body of Christ, and members in particular." But since the Holy Ghost identifies that body with the church, explaining the one by the other, ("for his body's sake, which is the church,") it seems impossible to deny, that they are fully entitled to be considered in the catholic sense of the term, as members of the Christian church. And as the universal church is nothing more than the collective body of the faithful, and differs only from a particular assembly of Christians, as the whole from a part, it is equally impossible to deny that a Pædobaptist society, is, in the more limited import of the word, a true church.

If we consider the matter in a light somewhat different, we shall be conducted to the same conclusion, and be compelled to confess that Pædobaptist societies are, or at least may be, notwithstanding the practice of infant sprinkling, true churches. The idea of plurality, it will be admitted, adds nothing to the nature of the object to which it is attached. The idea of a number of men differs nothing in kind from that of a single man, except that it involves a repetition, or multiplication of the same idea. But the term church is merely a numerical term, denoting a multitude, or an assembly of men; and for the same reason that a number of men meeting together constitutes an assembly, or church,* in the most comprehensive import of the word, so a number of Christians convened for the worship of God, constitutes a Christian as

*" Acts xix. 32—" For the assembly was confused." The original word is i azzaŋoia, the term usually rendered church.

sembly, or a church. Such an assembly will necessarily be modified by the character of the members which compose it; if their sentiments are erroneous, the church will proportionably imbibe a tincture of error; but to affirm, that, though it consists of real Christians, a society of such assembled for Christian worship is not a true church, is to attribute to the idea of plurality or of number the power of changing the nature or essence of the object with which it is united, which involves a contradiction to our clearest perceptions. If we adhere to the dictates of reason or of Scripture, when we give the appellation of a church to a particular society of Christians, we shall mingle nothing in our conceptions, beyond what enters into our ideas of an individual Christian, with the exception of this circumstance only, that it denotes a number of such individuals actually assembled, or wont to assemble, for the celebration of divine worship. Though the definition of a church has often been the occasion of much confused disquisition, especially when the term has been applied exclusively to the clergy, the Baptists, I believe, are the only persons who have scrupled to assign that appellation to societies acknowledged to consist of sincere and spiritual worshippers; a notion, which, however repugnant to the dictates of candor, or of common sense, is the necessary appendage of the practice, equally absurd, of confining their communion to their own denomination.

Having shown, we trust to the satisfaction of the reader, that Pædobaptism is not an error of such magnitude, as to prevent the society which maintains it from being deemed a true church, I proceed to observe, that to repel the members of such a society from communion, is the very essence of schism. Schism is a causeless and unnecessary separation from the church of Christ, or from any part of it; and that secession cannot urge the plea of necessity, where no concurrence in what is deemed evil, no approbation of error or superstition, is involved in communion. In the case before us, by admitting a Pædobaptist to the Lord's supper, no sanction whatever is given to infant sprinkling, no act of concurrence is involved or implied; nothing is done, or left undone, which would not have been equally so, if his attendance were withdrawn. Under such circumstances, the necessity of preserving the purity of worship, or of avoiding an active co-operation in what we deem sinful or erroneous, (the only justifiable ground of separation,) has no place. The objection to his admission is founded solely on a disapprobation of a particular practice considered, not as it affects us, since no part of our religious practice is influenced by it, but in relation to its intrinsic demerits.

Division amongst Christians, especially when it proceeds to a breach of communion, is so fraught with scandal, and so utterly

repugnant to the genius of the gospel, that the suffrages of the whole Christian world have concurred in regarding it as an evil, on no occasion to be incurred, but for the avoidance of a greaterthe violation of conscience. Whenever it becomes impossible to continue in a religious community, without concurring in practices, and sanctioning abuses, which the word of God condemns, a secession is justified by the apostolic voice; "Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues." On this principle, the conduct of the Reformers, in separating from the Roman Hierarchy, admits of an ample vindication; in consequence of the introduction of superstitious rites and ceremonies, it became impracticable to continue in her communion, without partaking of her sins; and for a similar reason the Nonconformists seceded from the Church of England, where ceremonies were enforced, and an ecclesiastical polity established, incompatible, as they conceived, with the purity and simplicity of the Christian institute. In each of these cases, the blame of schism did not attach to the separatists, but to that spirit of imposition which rendered such a measure requisite. In each instance it was an act of self-preservation, rendered unavoidable by the highest necessity, that of declining to concur in practices at which their conscience revolted. But what similarity to this is discernible in the conduct of the advocates of strict communion? They are not engaged in preserving their own liberty, but in an attack on the liberty of others; their object is not to preserve the worship in which they join, pure from contamination; but to sit in judgement on the consciences of their brethren, and to deny them the privileges of the visible church on account of a difference of opinion, which is neither imposed on themselves, nor deemed fundamental. They propose to build a church, upon the principle of an absolute exclusion of a multitude of societies, which they must either acknowledge to be true churches, or be convicted, as we have seen, of the greatest absurdity; while, for a conduct so monstrous and unnatural, they are precluded from the plea of necessity, because no attempt is made by Pædobaptists to modify their worship, or to control the most enlarged exercise of private judgement. Upon the principle for which I am contending, they are not called to renounce their peculiar tenets on the subject of baptism, nor to express their approbation of a contrary practice; but simply not to sever themselves from the body of Christ, nor refuse to unite with his church.

However familiar the spectacle of Christian societies, who have no fellowship or intercourse with each other, has become, he who consults the New Testament will instantly perceive, that nothing more repugnant to the dictates of inspiration, or to the practice of

the first and purest age, can be conceived. When we turn our eyes to the primitive times, we behold one church of Christ, and one only, in which, when new assemblies of Christians arose, they were considered, not as multiplying, but diffusing it; not as destroying its unity, or impairing its harmony, but being fitly compacted together on the same foundation, as a mere accession to the beauty and grandeur of the whole. The spouse of Christ, like a prolific mother, exulted in her numerous offspring, who were all equally cherished in her bosom, and grew up at her side. As the necessity of departing from these maxims, or of appearing to depart from them at least, by forming separate societies, arose entirely from that spirit of ecclesiastical tyranny and superstition which was gradually developed, so a similar measure is justifiable, as far as that necessity extends, and no farther. In the case of strict communion, it has no place whatever. In that case, it is not a defensive, but an offensive measure; it is not an assertion of Christian liberty, by resisting encroachment; it is itself a violent encroachment on the freedom of others; not an effort to preserve our own worship pure, but to enforce a conformity to our views, in a point acknowledged not essential to salvation. That the unity of the church cannot be maintained upon those principles, that if every error is to be opposed, not by mild remonstrance, and scriptural argument, but by making it the pretext of a breach of communion, nothing but a series of animosities and divisions can ensue, the experience of past ages has rendered sufficiently evident. If, amidst the infinite diversity of opinions, each society deems it necessary to render its own peculiarities the basis of union, as though the design of Christians, in forming themselves into a church, were not to exhibit the great principles of the gospel, but to give publicity and effect to party distinctions, all hope of restoring Christian harmony and unanimity must be abandoned. When churches are thus constituted, instead of enlarging the sphere of Christian charity, they become so many hostile confederacies.

If it be once admitted, that a body of men, associating for Christian worship, have a right to enact as terms of communion, something more than is included in the terms of salvation, the question suggested by St. Paul-"Is Christ divided ?" is utterly futile; what he considered as a solecism is reduced to practice, and established by law. How is it possible to attain or preserve unanimity in the absence of an intelligible standard? And when we feel ourselves at liberty to depart from a divine precedent, and to affect a greater nicety and scrupulosity, in the separation of the precious and the vile, than the Searcher of Hearts; when we follow the guidance of private partialities and predilections, without pre

tending to regulate our conduct by the pattern of our great Master, who is at a loss to perceive the absolute impossibility of preserving the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace? Of what is essential to salvation, it is not difficult to judge; the quiet of the conscience requires, that the information on this subject should be clear and precise; whatever is beyond, is involved in comparative obscurity, and subject to doubtful disputation.

There are certain propositions, which produce on a mind free from prejudice, such instantaneous conviction, as scarcely to admit of formal proof. Of this nature is the following position, that it is presumptuous to aspire to a greater purity and strictness in selecting the materials of a church, than are observed by its divine founder; and those whom he forms and actuates by his Spirit, and admits to communion with himself, are sufficiently qualified for the communion of mortals. What can be alleged, in contradiction to a truth so indubitable and so obvious? Nothing but a futile distinction (futile in relation to the present subject) betwixt the moral, and the positive parts of Christianity. We are told again and again, that the Lord's supper is a positive and arbitrary institution, in consequence of which, the right to it is not to be judged of by moral considerations, and general reasonings, but by express prescription and command.

Willing to meet objectors on their own ground, we request them to point us to the passage in the code of inspiration, where unbaptized Christians are forbidden to participate; and all the answer we receive, consists merely of those inferences and arguments from analogy, against which they protest, so that our opponents, unsupported by the letter of Scripture, are obliged to have recourse to general reasoning, not less than ourselves, however lame and defective that reasoning may be.

When we urge them with the fact, that all genuine Christians are received by Christ, and that his conduct in this instance is proposed as a pattern for our imitation, they are compelled to shift their ground; and, although it is evident to every one who reflects, that we mean to assert the obligation of adhering to that example, only as far as it is known, they adduce the instance of immoral professors, who, though received, as they contend, by Christ, are justly rejected by the church. But how, we ask are we to ascertain the fact, that such persons are accepted of Christ, till they give proof of their repentance? Is it precisely the same thing, to neglect a known rule of action, as to cease to follow it, when it is involved in hopeless obscurity? Admitting for argument's sake, that disorderly livers have uninterrupted union with the Saviour, it is impossible that we should know it, while they continue impenitent, and therefore, on such occasions, it ceases to be a rule. But

« السابقةمتابعة »