« PreviousContinue »
( kple to warrant it, from a way that fession by Baptism: for Baptism is
hath the full current of both? Yet that peculiar act of profession, els they that will admit members with- which God hath chosen lo this use. ia ke out Baptism, do so.” “ It is evi- When a person is absolutely devoten dent," he adds, “ from the very ed, resigned, and engaged to God,
nature and end of Baptism, which in a solemn sacrament, ibis is our 7, he is to be Christ's listing engagiog regular, initiating profession: and only sign; and, therefore, must be ap- it is but an irregular embryo of a pro. Aplied when we first enter his army." fession, which goeth before Baptism
The Reviewer has given a quota- ordinarily." til en tion from Baxter's “Christian Di One cannot but wonder at the ef.
rectory," but does not appear to frontery of the Reviewer, in drawing
have seen, or consulted that work. conclusions from a single passage di He was indebted to Mr. Kinghorn misunderstood, which are directly perb for it, * and has used it apparently opposed to the current opinions of
for the purpose of distorting its Mr. Baxter.
meaning and design. To prove that As if with the intention of holding High he has totally misrepresented Mr. up the strict Baptists to contempt,
Baxter's opinions, I shall give a few the Reviewer has introduced some extracts from that work. The num- coarse and exceptionable language, ber might have been greatly in- employed by opponents of Mr. creased; but these will be sufficient, Bunyan. I shall not attempt a vinif the word of that writer, respect- dication of those writers, neither ing his own sentiments, is to be should I have thought the Reviewer's taken.
remarks respecting them worthy of The reader is referred to the notice, had he not concluded by “ Cases of Conscience about Mat- saying, “ But these are the geters Ecclesiastical," appended to the nuine and original grounds of strict third part of the Christiao Directory. communion, and the practice can -Qu. 13, p. 789: “ Whether there be consistently maintained on do be such a ibing as a visible church, other.” and what it is. This church is the If by the "original grounds of strict universality of baptized visible communion," he refers to the nature Christians, beaded by Jesus Christ of positive law respectiog instituted himself.” Qu. 35, p. 809: “ The worship, I feel no hesitation in saying, case stands thus. God saitb in his If it be admitted to be the reveal. covenant, He that believeth shall be ed will of Jesus Christ that all bis saved, and ought to be baptized to disciples should be baptized at their profess that belief, and be invested admission into his church, then, no in the benefits of the covenant: and one is at liberty to dispense with the he that professeth to believe, (whe observance of that rule; for “ to iber he do or not,) is by the church obey is better than sacrifice;" and to be taken for å visible believer, no circumstances whatever, (except and by Baptism to be received into cases of impossibility, as Mr. Baxter the visible church.” In p. 846, he reasons,) can be a sufficient excuse introduces this “ Objection :-But for disobedience. And unless the it is profession, and pot Baptism, Reviewer can prove that's persons that makes a visible member. Ans. who are regenerated and are joined That's answered before; it is pro- to Christ,” are at liberty to refuse
compliance with a law of Christ for * See Kinghorn's Terms of Communion, able to understand its meaning, or
po oiher reasons than their vot being P. 157,
because they are not willing to obey prey to the teelli" of their opport of the its directions, he must admit, that nents, it will not arise from any want, as those who are bound to keep the of a disposition " to worry whom for an laws of Christ's house are not at lie they cannot devour." He tauntingly split mi berty to dispense with their striet says of Mr. Kinghorn, “ Is he eserci observance. If the Reviewer choose ashamed of the consequences of his nigg Ba to designate a refusal to admit pious own conclusions, that he shrinksite Lon persons to the Lord's Table, who from meeting them ?" And what have not been baptized, “ exclud. are these consequences ? Why, and that a ing Pædobaptists in the character of that "ibe apostolic Brainerd, or the 'ol the moral delinquents ;” and “as ad- heavenly-minded Howe," would ministering the awful penalty of ex. have been rejected communion listat, i communication," we cannot help it. with a strict Baptist church," be sospe We would rather suffer “ the of. cause their Baptism was a pullity." Therefore i fence of the cross," than endeavour I answer again, this refusal coull at the 1 to avoid it, by neglecting to obey not fairly be thought as insulting
, and tot die our Lord's commission, first to bap. or even unkind, if it were considered per cond tize his disciples, and then to teach that it is the scriptural rule that mifid ste them to partake of the Lord's Sup. Baptism, in every case, ougbt to preper, according to his previous com- cede an admission to the Lord's Tale of the mand, though we should thus escape ble. The servants of Christ are to from ihe taunts and bitter invectives conform themselves to their Lord's
, ali even of an Eclectic Reviewer, directions, and " not 10 prefer one Whether he like it or not, we shall above another;" and, therefore
, isted not, while we believe Baptism to be persons not scripturally qualified
, it's a necessary prerequisite to com- which unbaptized persons are not,
teht nol munion, cease from saying, that whatever may be thought of the asall unbaptized persons, (i. e. they sertion, ought not to be sanctioned who have not been immersed on å in the neglect of compliance with credible profession of repentance an ordinance of Christ. A late and faith, however pious, and writer on this subject has said in though we may judge them to be reply to Mr. Hall's statement, quoted regenerate persons, have not the above, “ Admitting, then, that it is scriptural qualification, and be- a matter of service, and not of discause the scriptures do pot recog. cretion, the charge of exercising nise them as obedient disciples, in prerogative,' by repelling from regard to Baptism, that we are not communion à Howe, a Leighton, at liberty to receive them to the or a Brainerd, fails for want of Lord's Table. I am well aware that evidence, Blackstone says, this will expose me to the awful for those things which a seryant may charge made by Mr. Hall, and ap- do on behalf of his master, they proved by the Reviewer, of invest- seem all to proceed upon tbis prins ing every little Baptist teacher," or ciple, that the master is answerable according to the improved version, for the act of his servant, if done by “ Abraham Booth or Dr. Gill, with his command, either erpressly giren the prerogative of repelling from his or implied ; nam qui facit per alium, communion, a Howe, a Leighton, or facit per se. Mr. Hail will vot deny a Brainerd, whom the Lord of glory that ihe apostles understood their will welcome to his presence.” Lord to mean expressly, that per
The Reviewer calis this “a biting sons should be first baptized beconclusion;" and certainly, if the fore they were introduced to comstrict Baptists are not made “a munion in his church; and the
iddi proof of their so having understood it was a term of salvation, that every e This will, as being afforded by their one who believed should also be
uniform and general practice. The baptized, it was also a legitimate L'he Baptist ministers who are charged term of communion. But, as neben 's with exercising prerogative,' by re- condition of salvation, if it has not Esp20i quiring. Baptism as a qualification been formerly (formally) abrogated, and at the Lord's Table, consider they it has undergone that silent repeal, all are safe in imitating the apostles; which has resulted from its being no
and that as servants acting on be- longer the inseparable concomitant e Bain half of their master, they ought not of true faitb." I really cannot comlove's to receive persons who are destitute pliment the Reviewer, even by sayted count of wbat, in the apostolic age, was ing, “ This is specious enough:” as
an indispensable prerequisite. They it is not likely to impose on any but 1 will therefore feel quite at ease, believing very, very “ simple people!" The at Fems that the master whom they serve phrases a term of communion ghter will not despise them, but approve with Christ,” “ a term of receiving
their conduct as that of good and the Holy Spirit," " a term of salvafaithful servants."*
tion,” he employs as synonymous in The Reviewer endeavours to get their meaning, and as referring to No te lo rid of the argument that apostolic the scriptural expressions, " Repent of Us: practice ought to be exacily imi- and be baptized;" “ If thou be
tated, and of the inevitable in- lievest with all thine heart, thou el mapa ference, that, as the apostles never mayest be baptized.” Repentance 24. * admitted unbaptized persons to the and faith, not Baptism, were made
Lord's Supper, such Christians essential to the reception of Christ, 1989 ought not now to be received. Mr. and the enjoyment of his salvation. Sebrae Kinghorn had said, “When Cbrist But where is it said, that Baptism
made known his terms (of com- was so considered ? Neither Bapmunion) to his disciples, Baptism tism, or any other action performed was one; let it be shewn (said he) by a believer in Christ, was ever
that this part of his appointment is condition of salvation;" it was a Se abrogated.” The Reviewer replies, visible profession of faith in Christ,
"This is specious enough, and has an evidence of it, and considered as imposed upon many simple people. one of those fruits of obedience But what can be more unfair than which necessarily grew from it; the attempt to confound the abro. but not as “ the inseparable concogation of Baptism as an institute, mirant of faith in Christ!” The with the abrogation of Baptism as a case of Simon the Magician, and ferm of communion with Christ." others, fully proves, that neither He then adds, and I beg the reader primitive ministers, nor even into observe it, as it shews how hard spired apostles ever did admit perrun a Calvinist, and the Defender of sons to Baptism, from an abilily to Nonconformity, must have been to search the heart; but upon a creemploy such arguments:-“When dible profession of their faith in Christ required Baptism as a term of Christ. It is then most absurd for receiving the Holy Spirit, well the Reviewer to ask, Whether that might the Church require it. When which never existed, viz. Baptism as
a term of SALVATION has been abSee a pamphlet, entitled "
rogated. What Christ required
Baptism the Scriptural and Indispensable Qualifi
. from all his followers, in reference cation for Communion," &c. by Joseph to Baptism, was obedience to his lvimey, p. 80, Seld by Whittemore. command. Has this law been ever
repealed ? Is it this law of which from “ the simplicity of Christ" in a tha the Reviewer says, “ If it has not supposing, first, a state of things to been formally abrogated, it has un- have arisen “ ' by the alterations in ; but dergone a silent repeal ?” Lest we the circumstances of society," which is horny should mistake his meaving, he ex. would affect the law delivered by an effe plains it by saying, “ It is quite evi- Christ, and, secondly, that Baptism Brit Me dent that, since the time at which was a circumstantial in the primijet Baptism appointed, some tive practice," hazards a doubt.M.E change in the state of Christ's He says, “ We doubt much whether hot sabstan household has taken place." the apostles ever inculcated that or
The Reviewer may endeavour, by dinance (church fellowship) on the words Jul special pleading, to make out these unbaptized, or taught it as a duty
, food reason statements. I challenge him, how- detached from the observance of the ever, fairly to meet the question, Is Supper."* Judging solely from the treg te the law of Baptism, as the first pub- scriptures, we have strong evidence lic act of homage to Christ, abro- that they did not: for they first in derles L. gated? Has this law undergone a culcated upon disciples that they silent repeal? What would the Re- should be baptized, Acts ii. 38; and viewer think if a Papist were to say, then those whom they baptized they first and that though Christ had said, re admitted to their fellowship, or comspecting the use of the cup in the munion: v. 42. Nothing can be al towa Lord's Supper, ‘ Drink ye all of it;' more plain than that, in this instance, were yet, in so far as this command re- Baptism preceded their admission to ferred to the laity, it had undergone the Lord's Table: the same thing i were a silent repeal? If the law of Christ, evidently took place in other cases, respecting Baptism as preceding com- nor is there a single passage to be munion, has undergone a repeal, found that ever intimates a different in however silently, what is to prevent order. the repeal of all his laws by similar The Reviewer evidently smarts means? He says, “Mr. Kinghorn under the lash of Mr. Kinghorn, for is obliged to concede there is no di- his having described the spirit of rection in the word of God that the strict Baptists towards open commuunbaptized should not partake of the nion churches, as “both intolerant Lord's Supper.” Admirable reason- and malignant.” He durst not ating this, especially in a Nonconform- tempt the proof from ist! “ You must concede,” says a stances that have recently taken Papist, " there is no direction in the place. The instances which he has word of God that bells, and horses, adduced are mere gratuitous stateand churches, should not be bap- ments without a shadow of evidence
, tized!”, “ You must concede," says If he can produce evidence of any an Episcopalian, “there is no com- Baptist ministers, of the present mand in the word of God why a com- day, who “ have suffered much municant should not kneel at the from the intolerance and unkind. rails.” To both of these the Re- ness of their strict communion viewer could make no reply:. but to brethren,” let him do it. Who will each of then a consistent Dissenter believe, that could he have produced would say, What the scriptures do any such instances, he would have not command, cannot be urged as a omitted to do it? He certainly matter of duty, and what they do ouglit to have made a candid connot repeal we have no authority to declare abrogated.
This passare is very obscure: the The Reviewer having departed could give it.
above is the only intelligible meaning I
I have it
fession, that he had sinned by bear- malignant !' Mr. Hall, with all his ing false witness against his neigh- violence and acrimony, never went bour; but instead of this, he goes this length." back a hundred and fifty years, and It is most amazing effrontery in says in effect, “ 'Though I cannot the Reviewer, to say, “ It is our convict Mr. Kinghorn of shewing a firm persuasion that the grand arguspirit intolerant and malignant to- ment for strict communion, in the wards Mr. Hall, I can produce good view of the majority of its abettors, and substantial evidence, that Dan- is expediency, and expediency only." vers, and Deme, and others, did so We must leave it to the public to towards Jobn Bunyan!” This is as judge, whether this has ever been good reasoning as if a high Church- employed as an argument at all, man should charge Dissenters with much less, as“ the grand argument!" holding rebellious principles, be. The strict Baptists say, “Whatever cause, by some means or other, is right is wise !” They consider it Charles I. was brought to the block; right to obey strictly the order preor as if, at some future period, a scribed by the New Testament for Baptist writer, in proof of the into the discipline of their churches, vot lerant and malignant “ spirit of the doubting but the results, as to their Independents towards Baptists, espe. purity and peace and increase, will cially towards strict-communion Bap- prove the wisdom of their conduct. tists, were to adduce the Eclectic The Reviewer speaks feelingly" on Review for May and June, 1825 ; an instance which came to our knowand were to refer to the manner in ledge very recently," which he thinks which Mr. Kinghorn was there treat- justifies the above assertion. I am ed, merely on account of his having satisfied that the church referred to acted, in regard to communion, upou considered it right to adhere to their the principles which the Reviewer original constitution, and therefore had hiniself defended in a work on opposed their pastor, who had atNonconformity!" One would have tempted, without even consulting the hoped that the spirit of the follow- deacons, to subvert it! Opposing ing passage from Mr. Kinghorn's most decidedly the doctrine of erpepamphlet, would have prevented the dience when a positive institution is Reviewer from showing such a spirit in question, yet if non-admission to as he has done. " When we are christian communion could ever be told,” says Mr. Kinghori), “ that the justified on that ground, it would spirit of our cause is intolerant and have been in this case, where the malignant, we do not design to re: Pædobaptist, who applied for adtaliate; we will not return our ac- mission, had just before most pubcusers railing for railing ; we say, licly aspersed and grossly misrepreLet them alone. We cannot consider sented ihe principles of the church the Eclectic Reriewer as having un- which be wislied to enter, and some fortunately printed what he after- of the most respectable ministers of wards regreited; he has reiterated the Baptist denomination.--Surely his charge: he has endeavoured to the Reviewer must admit the “
very fence it by authority, which we have recent instance" would justify it, examined; he has in substance ex even though he himself were the cused himself by alledging that Mr. person alluded to! Hall said stronger things than he I now leave the matter to the canbas said ; and then be considers his did and serious consideration of the point to be proved, that the spirit of the cause is both intolerant and
Considerations addressed to the Eclectic Reviewer, p. 27.