صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني

of the first, forfeits the privilege, or cancels the duty, of observing the second; nor are we able to perceive, that what in the present instance is styled apostolic precedent, at all decides the question. To attempt to determine under what circumstances the highest precedent possesses the form of law, involves a difficult and delicate inquiry; for while it is acknowledged that much deference is due to primitive example, there were certain usages in apostolical times, which few would attempt to revive. There is one general rule, however, applicable to the subject, which is, that no matter of fact is entitled to be considered as an authoritative precedent, which necessarily arose out of existing circumstances, so that in the then present state of things, it could not fail to have occurred. The foundation of this rule is obvious. Nothing is of the nature of law, but what emanates from the will of the legislator; but when a particular fact, recorded in an historical narration, is so situated, that the contrary would have appeared incongruous or absurd; in other words, when it could not fail to be the result of previous occurrences, such a fact is destitute of the essential characteristic of a law; it has no apparent dependance upon a superior will.

Hence many practices occur in the history of the apostolic transactions, which it is universally admitted we are not obliged to imitate. It is an unquestionable fact, that the eucharist was first celebrated with unleavened bread, on the evening, in an upper room, and to the Jews only; but as we distinctly perceive, that these particulars originated in the peculiar circumstances of the time, we are far from considering them as binding. On the same principle we account for the members of the primitive church consisting only of such as were baptized, without erecting that circumstance into an invariable rule of action. When we recollect, that no error or mistake subsisted, or could subsist, among Christians at that period, we are compelled to regard it as the necessary consequence of the state of opinions then prevalent. While all the faithful concurred in their interpretation of the law which enjoins it, how is it possible to suppose it neglected? or whence could rebaptized communicants have been drawn? Is this circumstance, to which so much importance is attached, of such a nature, that no account can be given of it, but upon the principle of our opponents? or is it the necessary consequence of the then actual situation of the church? If the latter be admitted, it ceases for the reason already alleged, to be a precedent, or a rule for the direction of future times.

We are willing to go a step further, and to acknowledge that he who, convinced of the divine origin of Christianity by the ministry of the Apostles, had refused to be baptized, would at that period

have been justly debarred from receiving the sacramental elements. While the Apostles were yet living, and daily exemplifying the import of their commission before the eyes of the people, it would have been impossible to pretend ignorance, nor could that sincerity fail to be suspected, which was not accompanied with an implicit submission to their authority.

"He that receiveth you," said our Lord, "receiveth me; he that rejecteth you, rejecteth me." Agreeably to which, we find that the disciple whom Jesus loved, did not scruple to use the following language; "By this ye know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error; he that is of God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us." "Such a conduct was perfectly proper. As there can be but two guides in religion, reason and authority, and every man must form his belief, either by following the light of his own mind, or the information and instruction he derives from others, so it is equally evident it is only by the last of these methods, that the benefit of a new revelation can be diffused. Either we must suppose an infinite multitude of miracles performed on the minds of individuals to convey the knowledge of supernatural truths, or that one or more are thus preternaturally enlightened, and invested with a commission to speak in the name of God to others; endowed at the same time with such peculiar powers, such a control over nature, or such a foresight of future contingencies, as shall be sufficient to accredit or establish his mission.

He who refuses to submit to the guidance of persons thus attested and accredited, must be considered as virtually renouncing the revelation imparted, and as the necessary consequence, forfeiting his interest in its blessings. On these grounds, it is not difficult to perceive, that a primitive convert, or rather pretended convert, who without doubting, that baptism, in the way in which we practise it, formed a part of the apostolic commission, had refused compliance, would have been deemed unworthy Christian communion, not on account of any specific connexion betwixt the two ordinances, but on account of his evincing a spirit totally repugnant to the mind of Christ. By rejecting the only authority established upon earth for the direction of conscience, and the termination of doubts and controversies, he would, undoubtedly, have been repelled as a contumacious schismatic. But what imaginable resemblance is there betwixt such a mode of procedure, and the conduct of our Pædobaptist brethren, who oppose no legitimate authority, impeach no part of the apostolic testimony, but mistaking (in our judgement at least) its import in one particular, decline a practice, which many of them would be the first to comply with, were they once convinced it was the dictate of duty, and the will of heaven. In the one case, we perceive open rebellion, in the

other, involuntary error: in the one, the pride which opposes itself to the dictates of inspired wisdom, in the other, a specimen (an humbling one it is true) of that infirmity, in consequence of which, we all see but in part, and know but in part. Since whatever degree of prejudice or inattention we may be disposed to impute to the abettors of infant sprinkling, the principles on which they proceed are essentially different from those which could alone have occasioned the introduction of that practice in apostolic times, we are at a loss to conceive the propriety of classing them together, or of animadverting upon them with equal severity. The Apostles would have repelled from their communion men, who while they professed to be followers of Christ, refused submission to his inspired messengers; in other words, they would have rejected some of the worst of men: therefore, say our opponents, we feel ourselves justified in excluding multitudes whom we acknowledge to be the best. I am at a loss, whether most to admire the logic, the equity, or the modesty of such a conclusion.

Besides, this reasoning from precedent is of so flexible a nature, that it may with equal ease be employed in a contrary direction, and be turned to the annoyance of our opponents. As it is an acknowledged fact, that in primitive times, all the faithful were admitted to an equality of participation in every Christian privilege, to repel the great majority of them on account of an error, acknowledged not to be fundamental, is at once, a wide departure from the apostolic example, and a palpable contradiction to the very words employed in its first institution; "drink ye all of it; do this in remembrance of me :" words addressed, as has already been proved, to persons who had not received Christian baptism. If it be replied, that though all Christians originally communicated, yet from the period of the Pentecost, at least, they were all previously initiated by immersion, the inquiry returns, were they baptized on account of the necessary connexion of that appointment with the eucharist, or purely in deference to the apostolic injunction? To assert the former, would be palpably begging the question; and if the latter is affirmed, we reply, that as they practised as they did, in deference to the will of God, so our Pædobaptist brethren, in declining the practice which we adopt, regulate their conduct by the same principle.

The show of conformity to apostolic precedent is with the advocates of strict communion, and nothing more; the substance and reality are with us. Their conformity is to the letter, ours to the spirit; theirs, circumstantial and incidental; ours, radical and essential. In withholding the signs from those who are in possession of the thing signified, in refusing to communicate the symbols of the great sacrifice, to those who are equally with themselves

sprinkled by its blood and sharers of its efficacy, in dividing the regenerate into two classes, believers and communicants, and confining the church to the narrow limits of a sect, they have violated more maxims of antiquity, and receded further from the example of the Apostles, than any class of Christians on record.

We live in a mutable world, and the diversity of sentiment, which has arisen in the Christian church on the subject of baptism, has placed things in a new situation, and has given birth to a case which can be determined only by an appeal to the general principles of the gospel, and to those injunctions in particular, which are designed to regulate the conduct of Christians, whose judgements in points of secondary moment differ. These we shall have occasion to discuss in another part of this treatise, where it will, we trust, be satisfactorily shewn, that we are furnished with a clue fully sufficient for our guidance: and when we consider the impossibility of comprehending in any code whatever, every possible combination of future occurrences and events, we shall perceive the necessity of having recourse to those large and comprehensive maxims, which the prospective wisdom of the Father of lights, and the Author of revelation, has abundantly supplied.

Were it not, that more are capable of numbering arguments, than of weighing them, the mention of the following might be omitted. The signification of the two positive ordinances of the gospel is urged in proof of the necessity of baptism preceding the Lord's supper. The first, we are reminded by our opponents, is styled by theologians, the sacrament of regeneration, or of initiation; the second, the sacrament of nutrition.* To argue from metaphors is rarely a conclusive mode of reasoning, but if it were, the regenerate state of our Pædobaptist brethren would surely afford a much better reason for admitting them to the sacrament of nutrition, than their misconception of a particular command for prohibiting them, unless we choose to affirm, that the shadow is of more importance than the substance, or that the sacrament of nutrition is not intended to nourish.

Their actual possession of spiritual life, in consequence of their union to the head of the church, necessarily implies a title to every Christian privilege, by which such a life is cherished and maintained, unless there were an express prohibition to the contrary;

"In submitting to baptism," says Mr. Booth, "we have an emblem of our union and communion with Jesus Christ, as our great representative, in his death, burial, and resurrection. And as in baptism, we profess to have renew. ed spiritual life; so in communicating at the Lord's table, we have the emblem of that heavenly food by which we live, by which we grow, and by virtue of which we hope to live for ever. Hence, theological writers have often called baptism the sacrament of regeneration, or of initiation, and the Lord's supper, the sacrament of nutrition."-Booth's Apology,

nor is it to be doubted, that the acknowledgment of Pædobaptists, as Christians, implies a competence to enter into the full import of the rites commemorative of our Lord's death and passion. To consider the Lord's supper, however, as a mere commemoration of that event, is to entertain a very inadequate view of it. If we credit St. Paul, it is also a federal rite, in which, in token of our reconciliation with God, we eat and drink in his presence; it is a feast upon a sacrifice, by which we become partakers at the altar, not less really, though in a manner, more elevated and spiritual, than those who, under the ancient economy, presented their offerings in the temple. In this ordinance, the cup is a spiritual participation of the blood, the bread of the body of the crucified Saviour; (1 Cor. 11: 16.) and as our Pædobaptist brethren are allowed to be in covenant with God, their title to every federal rite follows of course, unless it is barred by some clear, unequivocal declaration of Scripture; instead of which we meet with nothing on the opposite side, but precarious conjectures, and remote analogies.

Our opponents are extremely fond of representing baptism under the New Testament, as essential as circumcision under the old, inferring from thence, that no unbaptized person is admissible to the eucharist, for the same reason that none who was not circumcised, was permitted to partake of the paschal feast. But besides that this is to reason from analogy, a practice against which, when applied to the discussion of positive institutes, they on other occasions earnestly protest, the analogy fails in the most essential points. Circumcision is expressly stated as a necessary condition of admission to the passover: a similar statement respecting baptism will decide the controversy. The neglect of circumcision, which could proceed from nothing but presumptuous impiety, incurred the sentence of excision; that soul shall be cut off from the people. Whatever may be meant besides by that commination, it will not be doubted, that it included the entire forfeiture of the advantages of that peculiar covenant, which God was pleased to establish with the Israelitish people; and the exclusion from the paschal feast, as well as from the other sacrifices, was the necessary appendage of that forfeiture.

The most violent Baptist will not presume to insinuate, that the neglect of baptism, from a misconception of its nature, is exposed to a similar penalty. It is evident, from the history of the Old Testament, that an Israelite became disqualified for sharing in whatever privileges distinguished that nation, only in consequence of such a species of criminality as cut him off from the covenant. An interest in that covenant, (the particular nature of which it is not necessary to insist upon) and a free access to all the privileges

« السابقةمتابعة »