صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني

When the advocates for strict communion remind us of the order in which the two positive institutions of Christianity are enjoined, they appear to assume it for granted, that we are desirous of inverting that order, and that we are contending for the celebration of the eucharist previous to baptism, in the case of a clear comprehension of the nature and obligation of each. We plead for nothing of the kind. Supposing a convert to Christianity, convinced of the ordinance of baptism, in the light in which we contemplate it, we should urge his obligation to comply with it, previous to his reception of the sacrament, with as little hesitation as the most rigid of our opponents; nor should we be more disposed than themselves to countenance a neglect of known duty, or a wanton inversion of the order of Christian appointments. Whether in such circumstances the attention of a candidate for Christian communion should first be directed to baptism, is not the question at issue; but what conduct ought to be maintained towards sincere Christians, who, after serious examination, profess their conviction of being baptized already, or who in any manner whatever, are withheld by motives purely conscientious, from complying with what we conceive to be a Christian ordinance. To justify the exclusion of such from the Lord's table, it is not sufficient to allege the prescribed order of the institutions; it is necessary also to evince such a dependance of one upon the other, that a neglect of the first from involuntary mistake, annuls the obligation of the second. Let this dependance be once clearly pointed out, and we give up the cause. It has been asserted, indeed, with much confidence, that we have the same authority for confining our communion to baptized persons, as the ancient Jews for admitting none but such as had been circumcised, to the passover: a simple recital, however, of the words of the law, with respect to that ancient rite, will be sufficient to demonstrate the contrary: "When a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep his passover to the Lord, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come and keep it, and he shall be as one that is born in the land; for no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof." But where, let me ask, is it asserted in the New Testament, that no unbaptized person shall partake of the eucharist?* So far from this, it has been, I trust, satisfactorily shewn, that of the original communicants at its first institution, not one was thus qualified.

* "Was it the duty, think you, of an ancient Israelite to worship at the sanctuary, or to partake of the paschal feast, before he was circumcised? Or was it the duty of the Jewish priests to burn incense in the Holy Place, before they offered the morning or evening service? The appointments of God must be administered in his own way, and in that order which he has fixed."Booth's Apol. p. 143.

I presume it will be acknowledged, that the Jewish law was so clear and express in insisting on circumcision as a necessary preparation for partaking of the paschal lamb that none could mistake it, or approach that feast in an uncircumcised state, without being guilty of wilful impiety; and if it is intended to insinuate the same charge against Pædobaptists, let it be alleged without disguise, that it may be fairly met and refuted. But if it be acknowledged, that nothing but such involuntary mistakes, such unintentional errors, as are incident to some of the wisest and best of men, are imputable in the present instance, we are at a loss to conceive upon what principle they are compared to wilful prevarication and rebellion. The degree of blame which attaches to the conduct of those who mistake the will of Christ with respect to the sacramental use of water, we shall not pretend to determine; but we feel no hesitation in affirming, that the practice of comparing it to a presumptuous violation and contempt of divine law, is equally repugnant to the dictates of propriety and of candor. Among the innumerable descendants of Abraham, it is impossible to find one since their departure from Egypt, who has doubted of the obligation of circumcision, of the proper subjects of that rite, or of its being an indispensable prerequisite to the privileges of the Mosaic covenant. Ainong Christians, on the contrary, of unexceptionable character and exalted piety, it cannot be denied that the subject, the mode, and the perpetuity of baptism, have each supplied occasion for controversy; which can only be ascribed to the minute particularity with which the ceremonies of the law were enjoined, compared to the concise brevity which characterizes the history of evangelical institutes. We are far, however, from insinuating a doubt on the obligation of believers to submit to the ordinance of baptism, or of its being exclusively appropriated to such; but we affirm, that in no part of scripture is it inculcated as a preparative to the Lord's supper, and that this view of it is a mere fiction of the imagination.

When duties are enjoined in a certain series, each of them, on the authority in which they originate, become obligatory; nor are we excused from performing those which stand later in the series, on account of our having, from misconception of their meaning, or from any other cause, omitted the first. To exemplify this by a familiar instance: it will be admitted, that the law of nature enforces the following duties, resulting from the relation of children to their parents: first, to yield implicit obedience in the state of nonage; next, in maturer age to pay respectful deference to their advice, and a prompt attention to their wants; lastly, after they are deceased, affectionately to cherish their memory, and defend their good name. None will deny that each of these branches of con

duct is obligatory, and that this is the order in which they are recommended to our attention. But will it be contended, that he who has neglected the first, ought not to perform the second; or, that he who has failed in the second, ought to omit the third? To such an absurd pretence we should immediately reply that they are all independently obligatory, as respective dictates of the divine will; and that for him who has violated one of them, to urge his past delinquencies as an apology for the present, would only prove an aggravation of his guilt. It is true, that some duties are so situated, as parts or appendages of preceding ones, that their obligation may be said to result from them; as for example, the duty of confessing Christ before men arises from the previous duty of believing on him, and that of joining a Christian society presupposes the obligation of becoming a Christian. In such cases, however, as the connexion betwixt the respective branches of practice is founded on the nature of things, it is easily perceived, and rarely, if ever, the subject of controversy. In a series of positive precepts, this principle has no place; as they originate merely in arbitrary appointment, their mutual relation can only be the result of clear and express command, and as reason could never have discovered their obligation, so it is as little able to ascertain their intrinsic connexion and dependance, which, wherever it subsists, must be the effect of the same positive prescription which gave them birth. It cannot be pretended, that an unbaptized believer is intrinsically disqualified for a suitable attendance at the Lord's table, or that it is so essentially connected with baptism, as to render the act of communion, in itself, absurd or improper. The communion has no retrospective reference to baptism, nor is baptism an anticipation of communion. Enjoined at different times, and appointed for different purposes, they are capable, without the least inconvenience, of being contemplated apart; and on no occasion are they mentioned in such a connexion, as to imply, much less to assert, that the one is enjoined with a view to the other. Such a connexion, we acknowledge, subsisted between the rites of circumcision and the passover; and all we demand of the advocates of strict communion is, that instead of amusing us with fanciful analogies drawn from an antiquated law, they would point us to some clause in the New Testament, which asserts a similar relation betwixt baptism and the Lord's supper. But here, where the very hinge of the controversy turns, the Scriptures are silent. They direct us to be baptized, and they direct us to commemorate the Saviour's death, but not a syllable do they utter to inform us of the inseparable connexion betwixt these two ordinances. This deficiency is ill supplied by fervid declamation on the perspicuity of our Lord's commission, and the inexcusable inattention or pre

judice which has led to a misconception of its meaning; for let the persons whom these charges may concern be as guilty as they may, since they are still acknowledged to be Christians, the question returns, why are they debarred from the communion of saints, and while entitled to all other spiritual privileges, supposed to be incapacitated from partaking of the symbols of a crucified Saviour. How came the deteriorating effects of their error respecting baptism, to affect them but in one point, that of their eligibility as candidates for communion, without spreading farther? That it just amounts to a forfeiture of this privilege, and of no other, is a conclusion to which, as it is certain it cannot be established by reason, we ask to be conducted by revelation; and we intreat our opponents for information on that head again and again, but intreat in vain.

Were we to judge from the ardent attachment which the abettors of strict communion, on all occasions, profess to the positive institutes of the gospel, we should suppose, that the object of their efforts was to raise them to their just estimation, and to rescue them from desuetude and neglect. We should conjecture that they arose from a solicitude to revive certain practices which had prevailed in the purest ages of the church, but were afterwards laid aside, just as the ordinance of preaching was, during the triumph of the Papacy, almost consigned to oblivion; and that the consequence of complying with their suggestions, would be a more complete exhibition of Christianity in all its parts. But their zeal operates in quite a contrary direction. The success of their scheme tends not to extend the practice of baptism, no, not in a single instance, but merely to exclude the Lord's supper. Leaving the former appointment unaltered and untouched, it merely proposes to abolish the latter; and as far as it is practicable, to lay the Christian world under an interdict. The real state of the case is as follows:-On the subject of baptism, and particularly whether it is applicable to infants, opinions are divided, and the majority have come, as we conceive, to an erroneous conclusion. How do they propose to remedy this evil? By throwing all manner of obstacles in the way of an approach to the Lord's table, and as far as their power extends, rendering it impracticable, by clogging it with a condition at which conscience revolts. They propose to punish men for the involuntary neglect of one ordinance, by compelling them to abandon the other; and because they are uneasy at perceiving them perform but one half of their duty, oblige them, as far as lies in their power, to omit the whole. I must confess, I feel no partiality for those violent remedies, which under the pretence of reforming, destroy; or for that passion for order which would rather witness the entire desolation of

the sanctuary, than a defalcation of its rites; and in spite of all the efforts of sophistry, I must be permitted to believe, that our Lord's express injunction on his followers, "Do this in remembrance of me," is a better reason for the celebration of the communion than can be adduced for its neglect.

SECTION III.

The argument from apostolical precedent, and from the different significations of the two institutions, considered.

In vindication of their practice, our opponents are wont to urge the order of administration in the primitive and apostolic practice. They remind us that the members of the primitive church were universally baptized; that if we acknowledge its constitution in that respect to be expressive of the mind of Christ, we are bound to follow that precedent, and that to deviate from it in this particular is virtually to impeach either the wisdom of our Lord, or the fidelity of his Apostles.*

With respect to the universality of the practice of Christian baptism, having already stated our views, it is not necessary to repeat what has already been advanced, or to recapitulate the reasons on which we found our opinion, that it was not extended to such as were converted previous to our Lord's resurrection. Subsequently to that period, we admit, without hesitation, that the converts to the Christian faith submitted to that ordinance, prior to their reception into the Christian church. As little are we disposed to deny, that it is at present the duty of the sincere believer to follow their example, and that, supposing him to be clearly convinced of the nature and import of baptism, he would be guilty of a criminal irregularity who neglected to attend to it, previous to his entering into Christian fellowship. On the obligation of both the positive rites enjoined in the New Testament, and the prior claim of baptism to the attention of such as are properly enlightened on the subject, we have no dispute. All we contend for is, that they do not so depend one upon the other, that the conscientious omission

"The order of administration," says Mr. Booth, "in the primitive and apostolic practice, now demands our notice. That the Apostles, when endued with power from on high, understood our Lord in the sense for which we plead, and practised accordingly, is quite evident. Then they that gladly received his word were, what? admitted to the Lord's table? No, but baptized :-And the same day there were added to them about three thousand souls; and they continued stedfast in the Apostle's doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayer. If our brethren do not look upon the apostolic precedent as expressive of the mind of Christ, and as a pattern for future imitation, to the end of the world, they must consider the Apostles as either ignorant of our Lord's will, or as unfaithful in the performance of it."--Booth's Apol. pp. 47, 48.

« السابقةمتابعة »