Imagens da página
PDF
ePub

mentary assurances: they have not a ticket, and he has not the honour to know them. And thus he would administer the awful penalty of excommunication with the grace of a Chesterfield.

What, let us be permitted to ask, has been in every age the professed design of all Christian communion, widely as that design has been departed from? To separate between believers and unbelievers, saints and the ungodly, the Church and the world. That this is the theory even of the Established Church, no one can doubt who attends to the provisions of ber rubrics, and the total structure of her ritual. Still less can it be doubtful that this was the grand desideratum which it was one primary object of separate assemblies to realize. For this purpose, all the cautious discipline of Nonconformist churches was adopted, their articles, confessions, covenants, letters of recommendation, &c. ;-unnecessarily minute or objectionably rigid as these might be, their design was, to ascertain the genuine piety of the candidate, and to secure from taint the purity of the society,-to keep out, in short, heretics and worldlings. This ancient land-mark, the principle of strict communion would supersede, and lay down a new boundary, that intersects the Church itself. It has built up a

new wall of separation for the express purpose of excluding, together with heretics and wicked persons, the glorious company of unbaptized' martyrs, confessors, reformers, and saints of every age, under the nice distinction of being not unworthy, but only unqualified.' Like the old terms Jew and Gentile, this new classification into the baptized and unbaptized, levels every moral distinction before a ceremonial qualification, and teaches its abettors to confound, under the opprobrious designation of unbaptized persons, the saint and the sinner, the confessor and the heretic, the holy and the reprobate. Precisely the same language is applied to the pædobaptist as to the wilful despiser of the authority of God; and to admit Baxter, or Watts, or Doddridge to the Lord's table, would have been to be partaker of their sin.' What, then, is the object of strict-communion Baptist churches? Mr. Kinghorn informs us: They consider themselves as having the honour of holding up to notice one neglected truth. Was such the object of the association of the primitive Christians? Did our forefathers separate from the Establishment for such a Quixotic 'What,' indignantly exclaims Mr. Hall, is the purpose? consequence that must be expected from teaching an illiterate assembly, that the principal design of their union is to extend the practice of a particular ceremony?' Mr. Kinghorn denies, in reply, that his words support the inference. If

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

we are not,' he says, ' to state our sentiments without being exposed to such a charge as this, the next step will be that we must not state our opinions at all. Far be it from us to hinder Mr. Kinghorn from stating his opinions; but he must submit to have their natural consequences pointed out. That he did not mean to affirm all that his words imply, we willingly believe; but this does not invalidate Mr. Hall's charge. And we must still think, that both his words and the whole tenor of his reasoning imply, that strict-communion churches have for their distinguishing object, the maintenance of a high spiritual prerogative,-not the exemplification of the Christian character, but the assertion of a particular tenet, not the fellowship of saints, but the propagation of Baptism,-not a separation from the ungodly, but a separation from the unbaptized. Yet, this honour, for which Mr. Kinghorn would sacrifice the peace of the Church, has, like other honours, its draw-backs and inconveniences. When Mr. Hall calls upon' his opponent to reflect on the enormous impropriety of investing-we will not repeat the offensive words, but say,-Abraham Booth or Dr. Gill with the prerogative of repelling from his communion a Howe, a Leighton, or a Brainerd, whom the Lord of Glory will welcome to his presence,'-he endeavours to evade the biting conclusion thus:

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

Are they not to venture an opinion, or to act on their convictions in the presence or in opposition to the wishes of Howe, Leighton, and Brainerd? But even these men, with all their excellencies, whatever they were, would not have given the objects of Mr. Hall's scorn any trouble; for we know of no evidence that any of them adopted his sentiments, or ever thought either of receiving persons whom they declared not baptized, or of soliciting communion with any who would tell them their own baptism was a nullity.'

These men,' these unbaptized men, these uncircumcised ones, might not have wished to give trouble to any Baptist society, especially to any that should have insulted them; but yet, they were meek, humble men, and, had they found themselves in circumstances which left them no alternative but either neglecting the celebration of the Lord's Supper, or soliciting communion with a church who would tell them their baptism was a nullity, we think we can answer for either the Apostolic Brainerd or the heavenly-minded Howe, that he might have done it. Nay, as nothing is more probable than that Howe or Brainerd might have been preaching to this very Baptist community, they might very innocently and naturally give the "Baptist teacher the opportunity of exercising his prerogative of holding up to notice one neglected truth, by repelling the

preacher from communion, not as unworthy, but simply disqualified.' Mr. Kinghorn knows that such cases have again and again occurred, when the disqualified preacher has, during the celebration of the Lord's Supper, been obliged to take his station in the gallery. Why then does he disingenuously evade Mr. Hall's appeal? What does it matter, as regards the propriety or correctness of the principle, whether such men as Howe or Leighton would have applied for communion or not? Is he ashamed of the consequences of his own positions, that he shrinks from meeting them? The strict communionist,' says one of kindred spirit to Brainerd, the estimable Mr. Ward of Serampore, if he and another Baptist, and Doddridge, lived together in a country where there were no churches of Christ, ought, on his own principles, to shut ⚫out Doddridge from communion, though he could commemorate the Lord's death no where else, and though Doddridge ' lived in a state of the highest communion with God, while these two Baptists, perhaps, were almost too loose to be retained in a Christian church.* This is Mr. Kinghorn's principle; and he may indeed esteem himself happy that he is not called to act upon it, and may bless himself that he has no applications from such troublesome quarters; but still, this is the glorious prerogative for which he contends, the right of -repelling the holiest and best of men from communion,―as unqualified.'

We have known some amiable and pious individuals of Mr. Kinghorn's way of thinking, who have groaned under this revolting consequence of their unhappy prejudice; but they fancy they have no option in the business. There is a rule which they find in some part of the Gospel according to Leviticus,' which they take to be peremptory and absolute, that they must not join with a pædobaptist in commemorating the death of their Saviour. They secretly wish that the law were otherwise, or, as they will sometimes say, that they could see the matter of duty in a different light. Were they to follow the impulse of their kindest, holiest feelings, it would lead them to welcome to communion the men whom they repel. But a stern, positive mandate interposes to repress those feelings. Yet, if it is without a murmur, it is not without a pang, that they yield obedience to that imaginary law which divides what Christ has joined, and tears asunder the members of his mystical body. They may think it impious to speculate on the

* Stennett's Memoirs of Ward, p. 191.

Teasons of the prohibition. It is their duty, they think, like Abraham, to seize the knife, and sacrifice their noblest sentiments by an act of implicit obedience. We honour their conscientiousness. But to such individuals we would say, Be sure that what you are obeying is a voice from Heaven. If the error be great, of acting, on the pretended guidance of the Spirit, in opposition to the word of God, there is also a danger of acting, on the supposed authority of Scripture, in opposition to the dictates of the Spirit. Can, then, that be a law of Christ, against which the best feelings of the heart rebel in the very act of obedience? Is there any thing like such a law in the whole code of Christian precept? What, with such saints of God must I not even eat at his Table? What can be in more direct contradiction to the Apostolic reasoning?" Forasmuch, then, as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, what was I that I could withstand God?"

But says Mr. Kinghorn, If we ask for no more than that men come to Christ's terms, are his terms liable to this charge?' Assuredly not. Those who come not to Christ's terms, are not received by Christ; and if he rejects all pædobaptists, doubtless his ministers may. This is precisely what Mr. Hall maintains, that the terms of communion ought to correspond to those of salvation. But when Christ has evidently received an individual, and stamped the seal of the Spirit upon his character, we apprehend that that person must have come to Christ's terms,-to the terms of communion with Christ. Mr. Kinghorn asks for much more than this; but they are his terms, not his Master's. That "God hath re"ceived" the individual, forms no reason, in his view, that the Church should. When Christ made known his terms to his disciples,' he says, baptism was one: let it be shewn that this part of his appointment is abrogated.' This is specious enough, and has imposed upon many simple people. But what can be more unfair than the attempt to confound the abrogation of baptism as an institute, with the abrogation of baptism as a term of communion with Christ? When Christ required baptism as a term of receiving the Holy Spirit, well might the Church require it. When it was a term of salvation, that every one who believed should also be baptized, it was also a legitimate term of communion. But, as a condition of salvation, if it has not been formerly abrogated, it has undergone that silent repeal which has resulted from its being no longer the inseparable concomitant of true faith. It is no longer, even in the view of the strict-communionist, an indispensable mark or a necessary evidence of piety. What Christ

requires of all his followers is, obedience, nor does he receive those who refuse to obey him. If the unbaptized are still to be ranked among the disobedient whom Christ rejects, then Mr. Kinghorn's reasoning is good. If not, it is quite evident that, since the time at which Baptism was appointed, some change in the state of Christ's household has taken place, and that a want of light does not nullify the obedience of those who are thought to mistake the letter of one particular mandate. If he receives the unbaptized, Baptism, considered as a term of admission to his family, is so far abrogated. If he bestows equally his Divine favours on the baptized and the unbaptized, it is manifest that his terms are complied with. Were a pædobaptist to submit to immersion, he would perform no acceptable act, for it would not be, in him, an act of obedience or a reasonable service. As Bunyan judiciously argues, If it is not a person's light that giveth being to a precept, it is his light and faith respecting it, that can alone make him perform it acceptably.' The strict-communionist requires of him terms that it is morally impossible he should comply with, demanding a change of opinion as a test of allegiance; a change of opinion not in the slightest degree involving his religious character; and he endeavours to attach this arbitrary and intolerant requisition as a rider, if we may be allowed the expression, to a law of Christ. But when he says that he asks for no more than that men come to Christ's terms, he says what is manifestly untrue. They are terms of his own making; terms for which Scripture affords not the shadow of support. That there is no direction in the word of God that the unbaptized should not partake of the Lord's Supper, Mr. Kinghorn is obliged to concede; and his only reply is the dogmatic assertion, None were necessary: our rule is the direction that is given.' But the direction that is given, is, to receive those whom Christ has received, and his palpable violation of this rule rests wholly on the assumption that the unbaptized are excepted. The exception is wholly a gratuitous one, a human exception attached to a Divine rule, and requiring Inspiration to make it valid or binding. This is indeed assuming something beyond a dispensing power; for, as good John Bunyan says, it is to be wise above what is written, contrary to God's word and our own principles.' Mr. Kinghorn asks: When that term which Christ devised, became a term which we devised?' We will tell him. As soon as it ceased to be a term of spiritual communion with Christ, as soon as the exacting of it became inconsistent with Christ's own rule, to receive those whom he has received, and fell under the condemnation attached to dividing the body of Christ, and withstanding God.' Vol. XXIII. N.S. 3 A

"

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
« AnteriorContinuar »