Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

them.

But it is, whether an institute delivered by Christ, is to be maintained, or to be given

[merged small][ocr errors]

To this I reply: The advocates of infant baptism are either sincerely of opinion that the rite in question ought to be extended to infants, or they are guilty of prevarication. If there be any of the last description to be found, they are entirely out of the question; for, supposing their character ascertained, they have never been contemplated as proper objects of toleration. With respect to the former, who sincerely believe it was the intention of our Lord to extend the right of baptism to the infant seed of believers, is it possible for them to act otherwise than they do? With what then are they chargeable, except with a misconception of a positive institute? And if we are not to repel the ignorant and the weak, we must either affirm that they are not ignorant in this particular, and thus accuse them, contrary to the supposition, of wilful prevarication, or we must tolerate them. Though we are far from insinuating that our pædobaptist brethren are, in general, either ignorant or weak, yet as ignorance and weakness are undoubtedly adequate to the production of any misconception, on the subject of religion not fundamental, they will consequently account for the error which has given birth to infant baptism ;

串 Baptism a Term of Communion, p. 65.

and just as far as it is capable of being ascribed to this source, its abettors are, by our author's concession, objects of forbearance. And since there is no medium, but all pædobaptists, however discerning in other respects, must either be supposed ignorant in this particular, or to prevaricate; forbearance must be extended to as many of them as are deemed sincere; beyond which we are as unwilling to extend it as he is. While they entertain their present views on the subject of baptism, they must either administer it to infants, or violate the dictates of conscience; and therefore, if they are chargeable with any thing more than a misconception, the matter of that charge must be deduced from their acting like upright men; an accusation, which we hope, for the honour of human nature, will proceed from none but strict baptists.

The sum of what has been advanced on this head is, that the privation of communion is an evil exactly proportioned to the value of that benefit; that as far as the tendency of the exclusive system is concerned, and to the utmost power of its abettors, the evil is extended to every denomination except one; that it is either inflicted on account of moral delinquency, or is utterly unmerited; since, if that ground be relinquished, their exclusion must be asserted to be just, even supposing them perfectly innocent; that whatever blame may be imputed, bears no proportion to

that which incurs the forfeiture of the same privilege in other instances; nor to the faults and imperfections which are daily tolerated without scruple; and, finally, since the practice which is treated with so much severity, is the necessary result of a misconception of the nature of a positive institute, which is only another name for ignorance or weakness in that particular, to make it the pretext of expulsion or excommunication, is repugnant to the maxims even of our opponents.

CHAP. X.

On the Contrariety of the Maxims and Sentiments of the Advocates of Strict Communion, to those which prevailed in the early Ages; in which the Innovation imputed to them by the Author, is vindicated from the Charge of Misrepresen

tation.

In order to comprehend the true state of the question, as it respects the practice of christian antiquity, it may be convenient to distribute it into three periods; the first including the time during which correct sentiments on the subject of baptism universally prevailed; the second, that in which a gradual transition was made from the practice of adult to that of infant baptism; the third, the period in which the latter obtained a general and almost undisputed ascendency.

On the first of these periods little need be said. Where there are no dissimilar elements, there can be no mixture; and therefore to affirm that the practice we are contending for, was unknown in the earliest ages of the christian church, is little more than an identical proposition. While no demur or dispute subsisted respecting either the

form, or the application of the baptismal rite, a punctual compliance with it was expected and enforced by the presidents of christian societies, for precisely the same reason which suggested a similar mode of proceeding to the apostles. It was a part of the will of Christ, in the interpretation of which, no division of opinions subsisted among the faithful. The next period is that, during which an innovation was gradually introduced, by extending the ceremony in question to infants a period which, from the commencement of the third, unto the close of the fourth, probably comprehended the space of two centuries. Supposing the modern practice to have been first introduced towards the end of the second, or the beginning of the third century, which corresponds to the time at which it is distinctly noticed by Tertullian, the first writer who explicitly mentions it, we cannot suppose a shorter space was requisite to procure it that complete establishment and ascendency, which it possessed in the time of St. Austin. During that long interval there must have been some who still adhered to the primitive practice, and others who favoured and adopted the more recent innovations; there must, in other words, have been baptists and pædobaptists cotemporary with each other. What became of that portion of the ancient church which refused to adopt the baptism of infants? Did they separate from their brethren in order to form distinct and

« AnteriorContinuar »