Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

to join with them in those particulars in which we suppose them to have deviated from the will of Christ, is the necessary dictate of allegiance; but to refuse to walk with them, as far as we are agreed, to repel them from our communion, on account of errors and corruptions, in which we are under no necessity of participating, is a very different affair; it is an assumption of infallibility, and a deliberate invasion of the rights of conscience.

[ocr errors]

The logical force of Mr. Kinghorn's conclusion, is exactly on a footing with that of the following argument. If it be right to leave my friend when he repairs to the gaming-table, it is right not to admit him into my house, till he has relinquished the practice of gaming. If I must not go with him to the theatre, I must renounce all sort of intercourse with him, until he has abandoned theatrical amusements: a conclusion to which a stern moralist may easily be supposed to arrive, but which no correct reasoner will attempt to deduce from these premises.

..That the mystical body of Christ is one and one only, and that all sincere believers are members of that body, is so clearly and unequivocally asserted in the sacred Scriptures, that it would be trifling with the reader to enter into a formal proof of a proposition, so obvious and so undeniable. The wildest heretical extravagance has never proceeded so far, as to ascribe two or more mystical

bodies to the same Head, or to deny that Christ is, in that character, really and virtually united to all the faithful. It is equally certain that the term church, whenever it is applied to denote the whole number of believers diffused over the face of the earth, is identified in scripture with the body of Christ. The church is in more passages than one affirmed to be his body. "He is the head of the body, the church. Who now rejoice," saith St. Paul, "in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh, for his body's sake, which is the church."*

In the language of scripture, two classes of men only are recognised, believers and unbelievers, the church and the world; nor is it possible to conceive, in consistency with the dictates of inspiration, of a third. All who are in Christ are in a state of salvation; all who belong to the world, in a state of spiritual, death and condemnation. "The former are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ; the latter, the whole world, lieth in the wicked one." If we allow ourselves to imagine a description of persons, who, though truly sanctified in Christ and united to him as their Head, are yet no parts of his church, we adopt a Utopian theory, as unfounded and extravagant as the boldest fictions of romance.

* Col. i. 10, 23. Eph. v. 23, 30, 32. 1 John iii. 19, 20.

It

[blocks in formation]

is the church, and that only, if we believe the inspired writers, which "Christ so loved as to give himself for it, that he might sanctify it and cleanse it;" it is that alone, which "he will present to himself, a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle."*

It is strange that Mr. Kinghorn should not explicitly inform us, whether pædobaptists are, or are not, to be considered as a part of this universal church. This he ought certainly to have done, or have declined entering on a branch of the controversy which, he must be aware, hinges entirely on that point. If they are admitted to be a part of his church, and he still contends for their exclusion, this is formally to plead for a schism in the body; it is to justify the forcible separation of one member from another, and to destroy the very idea of its unity. On this principle, the pathetic exhortations to perfect cooperation and concord, drawn from the beautiful analogy betwixt the mystical and natural body, insisted upon in the first Epistle to the Corinthians, are completely superseded; and one member, instead of being prohibited from saying to another, "I have no need of thee," is taught to shrink from the contact, as a contamination. Whenever we are invited to concur in practices which we esteem erroneous or corrupt, our refusal to comply is justified by

. Ephes. v. 27.

a principle the most obvious and the most urgent, the previous obligation of obeying God, rather than man; but, if we object to a transient act of communion with a member of the body of Christ, on account of those errors or corruptions in which we are not called to participate, we are guilty of dividing that body. The reason of my adverting to a transient act, is, that I am supposing the cause of separation to rest with us, and that a member of a different community proposes merely to unite in an occasional commemoration of the ineffable love of the Redeemer, without either a formal renunciation of the peculiarities of his sect, or an attempt to introduce them. In such circumstances, occasional fellowship is all that can be looked for; the adoption of different modes of worship, a predilection for different rites and ceremonies, will naturally dispose him to prefer a permanent union with professors of his own persuasion. While, in the mutual intercourse of such societies, a disposition to recognise each other as christians is cultivated, the unity of the body is preserved, notwithstanding their disagreement in particular points of doctrine, or of discipline. Owing to a diversity of judgement, respecting the proper organization of churches, obstacles, at present invincible, may prevent their incorporation; and it is left to the conscience of each individual to determine to which he will permanently unite himself. An enlightened christian

will not hesitate for a moment, in declining to join with that society, whatever be the piety of its individual members, in which the terms of communion involve his concurrence in religious observances, of whose lawfulness he entertains any doubt. Hence arises, in the present state of religion, an impassable barrier to the perfect intercommunity of christian societies. But it is not upon this ground that my opponent objects to the practice for which we are contending. He rests his refusal to commune with members of other denominations, on the principle of their not being entitled to be recognised as christians. He protests against a union with them, not on account of any erroneous or superstitious observances, with which the act of fellowship is necessarily combined, but because he considers them as personally disqualified. His hypothesis is indeed so wild and incoherent, that it is difficult to state it with accuracy, or to preserve a steady conception of it in the mind. According to his theory, the pædobaptists occupy a station the most anomalous and extraordinary that ever entered the human imagination. Many of them are genuine believers, of whose exalted piety he avows the fullest conviction, yet they are not to be recognised as christians; they are members of the mystical body of Christ, or they could derive from him no saving influence or benefit, yet are excluded from all the advantages resulting from the union and cooperation of the

[ocr errors]
« AnteriorContinuar »