has not been baptized in infancy, he ought to be, prior to his being received into the church. If he is not, we must conclude, either that it is not believed that Baptism is a permanent institution, or that a part of the will of Christ has been neglected. If it be said, he was admitted, because he was not convinced that Baptism in his circum stances was necessary; does it not unavoidably follow, that the authority of Christ is practically subjected to the opinion of those who ought to obey it, instead of their being required to manifest their subjection to him who is their Lord? "If charity towards those who think differently is pleaded as our excuse, does it not prove that we do not think the institutions of the Lord are worth regarding, when the feelings, or the opinions of men, are in opposition to them? And have we, in the whole New Testament, one instance in which this species of charity was admitted, to the exclusion of any of the direct positive commands of divine authority? If such an instance exists, where is it to be found?" : Mr. Kinghorn's quotation from Dr. Wall, an Episcopalian, must, if possible, be invalidated by the Reviewer; and, therefore, we have a quotation from Hooker to prove that, though "a host of Episcopalian authorities might he cited to show the absurdity of admitting any unbaptized person to partake of the Lord's Supper;" yet as they all contended that Baptism was "a necessary outward mean to our regeneration," "a necessary and outward mean, whereby we receive grace," &c. &c. therefore, their admission weighs nothing in the argument. That some of these writers held the opinion, that Baptism was regeneration, is true; but I do not recollect any declaration which proves they placed Baptism before the Lord's Supper, in consequence of that sentiment. Dr. Wall's reasoning, in his History of Infant Baptism, was certainly of a different kind. For the instances he pro duced, were not brought forward for the purpose of shewing that Baptism was regeneration; but that the ancient Christian writers used the term regeneration, instead of Baptism. It is in vain, therefore, that the Reviewer endeavours to take off the edge of the quotation made by Mr. Kinghorn, from that respectable and candid writer. It is impossible for him to deny, (though he could not get time to refer to Dr. Wall's work "to verify the citation and examine the context,") that what Dr. Wall has said, for the purpose of proving that Baptism always preceded communion in the primitive church, is so clear, that no examination can obscure it. "Among all the absurdities that ever were held, none ever maintained that, that any person should partake of the communion before he was baptized." For the Reviewer to insinuate that Dr. Wall held the sentiment of baptismal regeneration, without pro Dr. Wall says, "The scripture also washing of regeneration. Tit. iii. 5. is the uses it [regeneration] for Baptism: The washing of Baptism.” Hist. Bap. chap it. page 13. If the Reviewer will turn to Wall's ii. London, 1707, he will find the context History, book ii. chap. ix. page 518, Ed. is, the general practice of giving the Eucharist to infants by the Greek and Roman churches, from the third to the ninth century; to which the Doctor adds, continue the practice." He then says, "for very near half the world do still "However it be [i.e. whether there is the same proof from scripture and history for infant communion, as for infant Baptism, or not] the Antipædobaptists cannot make use of this argument, till they have granted that the ancient Christians did baptize infants. So long as many of them endea your to keep their people in an opinion, that infant Baptism is a new thing; so long they will forbear to tell them, that infants did in ancient times receive the Eucharist: since, among all the absurdities that ever were held, none ever maintained that, that any person should ever partake of the communion before he was baptized." ducing any proof from his writings that he did so, is uncandid; but for him to more than insinuate that Mr. Kinghorn's reasoning proceeds upon the same principles, is positively unjust. The Reviewer, having (probably to his own satisfaction) despatched the testimony of Dr. Wall, proceeds to try his hand upon that of Richard Baxter, who, he says, "assuredly held no such popish views of Baptism," [as that it regenerates the infant.] "On the contrary, in his Christian Directory, he only contends, that unbaptized persons ordinarily, are not to be admitted to the rights and communion of the visible church, because we must know Christ's sheep by his own mark." From this the Reviewer infers, that Mr. Baxter "is extremely guarded, and hesitates to deny, that cases might occur in which unbaptized persons should be admitted to communion." An answer to this representation may be found in the note at the foot of the page. To prove that the quotation made by Mr. Kinghorn was not an incau * It does not appear in what precise sense Mr. Baxter uses the term "ordinarily." If he means by it" according to established rules," or "settled method," the Reviewer is only quibbling when he considers it as proof of a cautious manner of speaking. But if he means "commonly," or "usually," then he certainly in tended by it, that this was the rule though there might be exceptions to it. The following extract from his work entitled "Church Concord," &c. p. 63, may explain his meaning. In reply to the question, "What are the necessary terms for the communion of Christians personally in a particular church?" he answers: "The people must be baptized persons," &c. and then he adds, Whether open professed covenanting may not serve without Baptism in case of necessity, where Baptism cannot be had, is a case so extraordinary, that we need not here meddle with it." The exception supposed, establishes, rather than impairs, the force of his argument. * P. 545, + Ibid. tious concession of Mr. Baxter, I will give a few more paragraphs from the same page." All," he says, "that ought to be admitted visible church members, ordinarily ought to be baptized."-" By a visible church member, I mean plainly, one that is a member of the visible church, or of the church as visible. And by admitting, I mean solemn admitting. As I before distinguished between disciples incomplete, and complete, so here I do of church members. As a soldier before listing, [being enrolled,] and as a king before crowning and tak ing his oath; so are we and infants church members before Baptism. But as every one that must be admitted solemnly into the army, must be admitted by listing, as the solemn engaging sign; so every one that hath right to be solemnly admitted into the visible church, must ordinarily be admitted by Baptism: so much to make that plain which was plain before." Again, "If we have neither precept nor example in scripture, since Christ ordained Baptism, of any other way of admitting members, but only by Baptism; then all that must be admitted visible members must be ordinarily baptized. But since Baptism was instituted or established, we have no precept or example of admitting visible members any other way, (but constant precept and example for admitting this way;) therefore all that are admitted visible members must be baptized." § And in the paragraph from whence Mr. Kinghorn has quoted, he says: "I know not what, in any shew of reason, can be said to this, by those that renounce not scripture: for what man dare go in a way which hath neither precept nor exam Plain Scripture Proof, &c. p. 23. § Ibid. which God hath chosen to this use. When a person is absolutely devoted, resigned, and engaged to God, in a solemn sacrament, this is our regular, initiating profession: and it is but an irregular embryo of a pro. fession, which goeth before Baptism ordinarily." ple 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, they that will admit members without Baptism, do so." "It is evident," he adds, "from the very nature and end of Baptism, which is to be Christ's listing engaging sign; and, therefore, must be applied when we first enter his army." The Reviewer has given a quotation from Baxter's "Christian Directory," but does not appear to have seen, or consulted that work. He was indebted to Mr. Kinghorn for it, and has used it apparently for the purpose of distorting its meaning and design. To prove that he has totally misrepresented Mr. Baxter's opinions, I shall give a few extracts from that work. The number might have been greatly increased; but these will be sufficient, if the word of that writer, respecting his own sentiments, is to be taken. The reader is referred to the "Cases of Conscience about Matters Ecclesiastical," appended to the third part of the Christian Directory. Qu. 13, p. 789: "Whether there be such a thing as a visible church, and what it is. This church is the universality of baptized visible Christians, headed by Jesus Christ himself." Qu. 35, p. 809: "The case stands thus. God saith in his covenant, He that believeth shall be saved, and ought to be baptized to profess that belief, and be invested in the benefits of the covenant: and he that professeth to believe, (whether he do or not,) is by the church to be taken for a visible believer, and by Baptism to be received into the visible church." In p. 846, he introduces this "Objection:-But it is profession, and not Baptism, that makes a visible member. Ans. That's answered before; it is pro * See Kinghorn's Terms of Communion, p. 157. One cannot but wonder at the effrontery of the Reviewer, in drawing conclusions from a single passage misunderstood, which are directly opposed to the current opinions of Mr. Baxter. As if with the intention of holding up the strict Baptists to contempt, the Reviewer has introduced some coarse and exceptionable language, employed by opponents of Mr. Bunyan. I shall not attempt a vindication of those writers, neither should I have thought the Reviewer's remarks respecting them worthy of notice, had he not concluded by saying," But these are the genuine and original grounds of strict communion, and the practice can be consistently maintained on no other." If by the "original grounds of strict communion," he refers to the nature of positive law respecting instituted worship, I feel no hesitation in saying, If it be admitted to be the revealed will of Jesus Christ that all his disciples should be baptized at their admission into his church, then, no one is at liberty to dispense with the observance of that rule; for "to obey is better than sacrifice;" and no circumstances whatever, (except cases of impossibility, as Mr. Baxter reasons,) can be a sufficient excuse for disobedience. And unless the Reviewer can prove that "persons who are regenerated and are joined to Christ," are at liberty to refuse compliance with a law of Christ for no other reasons than their not being able to understand its meaning, or because they are not willing to obey its directions, he must admit, that those who are bound to keep the laws of Christ's house are not at liberty to dispense with their strict observance. If the Reviewer choose to designate a refusal to admit pious persons to the Lord's Table, who have not been baptized, "exclud ing Pædobaptists in the character of moral delinquents;" and "as administering the awful penalty of excommunication," we cannot help it, We would rather suffer "the of fence of the cross," than endeavour to avoid it, by neglecting to obey our Lord's commission, first to baptize his disciples, and then to teach them to partake of the Lord's Supper, according to his previous command, though we should thus escape from the taunts and bitter invectives even of an Eclectic Reviewer. Whether he like it or not, we shall not, while we believe Baptism to be a necessary prerequisite to communion, cease from saying, that all unbaptized persons, (i. e. they who have not been immersed on a credible profession of repentance and faith,) however pious, and though we may judge them to be regenerate persons, have not the scriptural qualification; and be cause the scriptures do not recognise them as obedient disciples, in regard to Baptism, that we are not at liberty to receive them to the Lord's Table. I am well aware that this will expose me to the awful charge made by Mr. Hall, and approved by the Reviewer, of" invest ing every little Baptist teacher," or according to the improved version, "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." The Reviewer calis this "a biting conclusion;" and certainly, if the strict Baptists are not made "a prey to the teeth" of their opponents, it will not arise from any want of a disposition "to worry whom they cannot devour." He tauntingly says of Mr. Kinghorn, "Is he ashamed of the consequences of his own conclusions, that he shrinks from meeting them?" And what are these consequences? Why, that" the apostolic Brainerd, or the heavenly-minded Howe," have been rejected communion with a strict Baptist church, "be cause their Baptism was a nullity." I answer again, this refusal could not fairly be thought as insulting, or even unkind, if it were considered that it is the scriptural rule that Baptism, in every case, ought to precede an admission to the Lord's Table. The servants of Christ are to conform themselves to their Lord's directions, and "not to prefer one above another;" and, therefore, persons not scripturally qualified, which unbaptized persons are not, whatever may be thought of the assertion, ought not to be sanctioned in the neglect of compliance with an ordinance of Christ. A late writer on this subject has said in reply to Mr. Hall's statement, quoted above," Admitting, then, that it is a matter of service, and not of discretion, the charge of exercising prerogative,' by repelling from communion a Howe, a Leighton, or a Brainerd, fails for want of evidence. Blackstone says, As for those things which a servant may do on behalf of his master, they seem all to proceed upon this principle, that the master is answerable for the act of his servant, if done by his command, either expressly given or implied; nam qui facit per alium, facit per se.' Mr. Hall will not deny that the apostles understood their Lord to mean expressly, that persons should be first baptized before they were introduced to communion in his church; and the · ་ his will, as being afforded by their uniform and general practice. The Baptist ministers who are charged with exercising' prerogative,' by requiring Baptism as a qualification at the Lord's Table, consider they are safe in imitating the apostles; and that as servants acting on behalf of their master, they ought not to receive persons who are destitute of what, in the apostolic age, was an indispensable prerequisite. They therefore feel quite at ease, believing that the master whom they serve will not despise them, but approve their conduct as that of good and faithful servants."* proof of their so having understood 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 [formally] abrogated, it has undergone that silent repeal, which has resulted from its being no longer the inseparable concomitant of true faith." I really cannot compliment the Reviewer, even by say ing, "This is specious enough:" as it is not likely to impose on any but very, very "simple people!" The phrases "a term of communion with Christ," "a term of receiving the Holy Spirit," "a term of salvation," he employs as synonymous in their meaning, and as referring to the scriptural expressions, " Repent and be baptized;" "If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest be baptized." Repentance and faith, not Baptism, were made essential to the reception of Christ, and the enjoyment of his salvation. But where is it said, that Baptism was so considered? Neither Baptism, or any other action performed by a believer in Christ, was ever "a condition of salvation;" it was a visible profession of faith in Christ, an evidence of it, and considered as one of those fruits of obedience which necessarily grew from it; but not as "the inseparable concomitant of faith in Christ!" The case of Simon the Magician, and others, fully proves, that neither primitive ministers, nor even inspired apostles ever did admit persons to Baptism, from an ability to search the heart; but upon a credible profession of their faith in Christ. It is then most absurd for the Reviewer to ask, Whether that which never existed, viz. Baptism as a term of SALVATION has been abfrom all his followers, in reference rogated. What Christ required to Baptism, was obedience to his command. Has this law been ever The Reviewer endeavours to get rid of the argument that apostolic practice ought to be exactly imitated, and of the inevitable inference, that, as the apostles never admitted unbaptized persons to the Lord's Supper, such Christians ought not now to be received. Mr. Kinghorn had said, "When Christ made known his terms [of communion] to his disciples, Baptism was one; let it be shewn (said he) that this part of his appointment is abrogated." The Reviewer replies, "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." He then adds, and I beg the reader to observe it, as it shews how hard run a Calvinist, and the Defender of Nonconformity, must have been to employ such arguments:-" When Christ required Baptism as a term of receiving the Holy Spirit, well might the Church require it. When See a pamphlet, entitled "Baptism the Scriptural and Indispensable Qualifi cation for Communion," &c. by Joseph Ivimey, p. 80. Sold by Whittemore. |