Page images
PDF
EPUB

From baptism being mentioned first after teaching, it is urged that it ought invariably to be administered immediately after effectual instruction is imparted, and consequently before an approach to the Lord's table. Whence it is concluded that to communicate with such as are unbaptized, is a violation of divine order.*

* "Teach," says Mr. Booth, "is the high commission, and such the express command of him who is Lord of all, when addressing those who are called to preach his word, and administer his institutions. Hence it is manifest the commission and command are first of all to teach; what then?-to baptize, or to administer the Lord's supper? I leave common sense to judge, and being persuaded that she will give her verdict in my favour, I will venture to add, a limited commission implies a prohibition of such things as are not contained in it; and positive laws imply their nega

tive.

For instance, when God commanded Abraham to circumcise all his males, he readily concluded that neither circumcision, nor any rite of a similar nature, was to be administered to his females. And as our brethren themselves maintain, when Christ commanded believers should be baptized, without mentioning any others, he tacitly prohibited that ordinance from being administered to infants; so by parity of reason, if the same sovereign Lord commanded that believers should be baptized-baptized immediately after they made a profession of faith, then he must intend that the administration of baptism should be prior to a reception of the Lord's supper, and, consequently, tacitly

It may assist the reader to form a judgment of the force of the argument adduced on this occasion, if we reduce it to the following syllogism:

The persons who are to be taught to observe all things given in charge to the Apostle, are the baptized alone.

But the Lord's supper is one of these things. Therefore the ordinance of the Lord's supper ought to be enjoined on the baptized alone.

Here it is obvious that the conclusion rests entirely upon this principle, that nothing which the Apostles were commissioned to enjoin on believers, is to be recommended to the attention of persons not baptized; since, as far as this argument is concerned, the observation of the Lord's supper is supposed not to belong to them, merely because it forms a part of those precepts. It is obvious, if the reasoning of our opponents be valid, it militates irresistibly against the inculcation of every branch of christian duty, on persons who in their judgment have not partaken of the baptismal sacrament: it excludes them not merely from the Lord's supper, but from every species of instruction appropriate to Christians; nor can

prohibits every unbaptized person having communion at his table."-Booth's Apology, page 34.

they exhort Pædobaptists to walk worthy of their high calling, to adorn their christian profession, to cultivate brotherly love, or to the performance of any duty resulting from their actual relation to Christ, without a palpable violation of their own principles. In all such instances, they would be teaching them to observe injunctions which Christ gave in charge to the Apostles for the regulation of christian conduct, while they deem it necessary to repel them from the sacrament, merely on account of its forming a part of those injunctions. Nor can they avoid the force of this reasoning, by objecting that though it may be their duty to enjoin on unbaptized believers some parts of the mind of Christ respecting the conduct of his mystical members, it will not follow that they are to be admitted to the Lord's table; and that their meaning is, that it is only subsequently to baptism, that all things ought to be enforced on the consciences of Christians. For if it be once admitted that the clause on which so much stress is laid, is not to be interpreted so as absolutely to exclude unbaptized Christians from the whole of its import, to what purpose is it alleged against their admission to the eucharist? or how does it appear that this may not be one of the parts in which they are comprehended?

When the advocates for strict communion remind us of the order in which the two positive institutions of Christianity are enjoined, they appear to assume it for granted that we are desirous of inverting that order, and that we are contending for the celebration of the eucharist previous to baptism, in the case of a clear comprehension of the nature and obligation of each. We plead for nothing of the kind. Supposing a convert to Christianity convinced of the ordinance of baptism, in the light in which we contemplate it, we should urge his obligation to comply with it, previous to his reception of the sacrament, with as little hesitation as the most rigid of our opponents; nor should we be more disposed than themselves to countenance a neglect of known duty, or a wanton inversion of the order of christian appointments. Whether in such circumstances the attention of a candidate for christian communion should first be directed to baptism, is not the question at issue; but what conduct ought to be maintained towards sincere Christians, who after serious examination profess their conviction of being baptized already, or who in any manner whatever, are withheld by motives purely conscientious, from complying with what we conceive to be a christian ordinance. To justify the ex

clusion of such from the Lord's table, it is not sufficient to allege the proscribed order of the institutions; it is necessary also to evince such a dependence of one upon the other, that a neglect of the first from involuntary mistake, annuls the obligation of the second. Let this dependence be once clearly pointed out, and we give up the cause. It has been asserted, indeed, with much confidence, that we have the same authority for confining our communion to baptized persons, as the ancient Jews for admitting none but such as had been circumcised, to the passover: a simple recital, however, of the words of the law, with respect to that ancient rite, will be sufficient to demonstrate the contrary: "When a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep his passover to the Lord, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come and keep it, and he shall be as one that is born in the land; for no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof." But where, let me ask, is it asserted in the New Testament that no unbaptized person shall partake of the eucharist? So far from this, it has been, I trust,

* "Was it the duty, think you, of an ancient Israelite to worship at the sanctuary, or to partake of the paschal feast, before he was circumcised? Or was it the duty of the Jewish priests to burn incense in the holy place, before they offer

« PreviousContinue »