Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

establish, is justly chargeable with infringing on the legitimate principles of dissent. With this view, we shall briefly examine the substance of our author's arguments on this subject.

We are accused of inconsistency in arraigning the church of England "for introducing rites and ceremonies which have indeed no scriptural authority, but which are pleaded for, merely as decent and venerable customs; while we ourselves tolerate in the church, the neglect of an institution which we are convinced was universally obeyed in the apostolic times, and which was appointed by the highest authority."* To this we reply, that the cases are not parallel; they differ in the most essential particulars.

.

It is one thing to tolerate, and another to practise. The law of God invariably and absolutely forbids the latter; that is, it uniformly prohibits the performance of a single action which we esteem contrary to his will, but to say it in all cases forbids the former, is to insist on an absolute agreement respecting every branch of practice. The objection is brought against us who neither practise nor sanction infant baptism, that we are chargeable with the same criminality which is supposed to attach to the introducers of human rites and ceremonies in religion, ceremonies which they unquestionably both practise and approve.

* Baptism a Term of Communion, p. 123.

The argument of the writer reduced to the form of a syllogism is as follows:

To practise human rites and ceremonies in the worship of God is sinful;

But the advocates of mixed communion suffer to remain in the church, persons who practise a certain ceremony of human invention;

Therefore their conduct is sinful.

Who does not perceive that the second proposition has no necessary connexion with the first, and that the argument is consequently invalid? In order to establish his conclusion, it behoved the author to prove that we practise and approve infant baptism, which he knows to be impossible. If pædobaptists required our concurrence in what we esteem an erroneous practice, nay, if they refused us the liberty of protesting against it, there would be an analogy betwixt the two cases; as it is, there is none.

We are bound by an express law to tolerate in the church those whom Christ has received; and he has, by the acknowledgement even of our opponents, received the pædobaptists. The first of these positions we feel ourselves justified in affirming till it be disproved; which this writer is so far from having done, that no attempt, we shall plainly make appear, was ever more unsuccessful. But whether it be true, or not, that we

are commanded to act thus, such is our opinion; and with this persuasion, we are not at liberty to act in a different manner. But will such as prescribe human rites and ceremonies, pretend to act under a similar conviction, a conviction that they are bound by the law of Christ, to use the cross in baptism, to bow to the east, to kneel at the sacrament, and to exact as a term of communion, a compliance with these and other ceremonies, judged by themselves indifferent, and by us sinful? The most zealous champions of the hierarchy make no such pretension, and we may therefore very consistently censure them for enforcing, under such a penalty, the observation of rites for which no divine precept is urged, while we tolerate pædobaptists in obedience to a divine injunction; unless it be the same thing to practise in the worship of God, what it is allowed he has not commanded, and to comply with an express prescription. If the members of the establishment inquire, On what ground do you receive a pædobaptist? we reply, Because we are expressly commanded to receive him. But if we inquire in our turn, Why do you kneel at the sacrament, and exact that posture of all your communicants, is it affirmed that they will reply in the same manner? It is not true, then, that mixed communion stands upon the same ground with the rites and ceremonies of the church of England; consequently, whatever be its merits or demerits in other

respects, it may be maintained, in perfect consistence with the principle of dissent.

[ocr errors]

To

To the objection that it was as much unknown in the apostolic age as the ceremonies in question, we have already replied, that at that period it was impossible there should be any controversy on the subject of baptism, which was so recently instituted and so fully exemplified in the conduct of the apostles; but that now, when a question has arisen, what is baptism, a new case occurs, in the determination of which we must be guided by the precepts respecting mutual forbearance. this the author replies in behalf of the churchman, Very well; and when the emperors and kings of former days were converted to the christian faith, and were desirous of sanctioning the gospel by their character, their property, and their influence, another new case occurred, of which apostolic times knew nothing. When nations became generally christian, other new cases arose out of the new events of the time."* To this I answer, It is very possible, undoubtedly, for a churchman to utter the same words, and say a new case has arisen; but unless he can say it with the same truth, it will be nothing to the purpose. There is no reason why we should not assert what is true, merely because a false assertion respecting another subject may be couched in the same words. Is it true, or is it not, that a refusal to comply with Baptism a Term of Communion, p. 124.

*

a precept, knowing it to be a command of Christ, is a very different thing from a mere misconception of the nature and import of that command: if it be, will it be asserted that such as had refused to make a profession of his religion, in the way which they were conscious he had appointed, would have been just as excusable as the most candid and impartial of modern pædobaptists ? Unless he will assert this, the author must acknowledge that here is a new case, and that the question how we should treat the wilful contemner of legitimate authority, and the erroneous interpreter of scripture, involves separate inquiries. From a multitude of passages it is manifest, that he himself forms a very different opinion of the present padobaptists, from what he would entertain of such as knowingly and deliberately resisted a positive command. He professes to give them entire credit for their sincerity, and to entertain a firm per suasion of their ready admission into the kingdom of heaven; which would be absurd on the latter supposition. In maintaining a different conduct towards two descriptions of persons, between which there is acknowledged to be a total diversity of character, we are perfectly consistent; unless it be asserted that judgement ought to have no influence on conduct, nor action be controlled by principle.

[ocr errors]

Let the impartial reader judge for himself whe ther it is possible, by any fair mode of argument,

« AnteriorContinuar »