Gambar halaman
PDF
ePub

1

}

CHAPTER VI.

Concluding arguments in favour of the validity of all modes of Baptism.

IT may be further observed, that the reason of the thing shows that the validity of baptism does not consist in the quantity of water used, nor in the mode of applying it.

One mode may, indeed, be more significant than another, and on that account may be preferable; but the different modes in use among the churches all tend, essentially, to represent the same thing, a renovation or cleansing by means of the death of Christ, and through the sanctifying influence of the Holy Spirit ; and, hence, it appears unreasonable, and arbitrary, to select one of them only, and say that all the rest are invalid.

Baptism is, at most, only an outward purification. It has no inherent influence to wash away sin. Its virtue, therefore, does not consist in the quantity of water used; but in the answer of a good conscience, which may be possessed in the use of different modes.

Again; the gracious King of Zion does not appear to make any difference in his treatment of those ministers and churches who do not practise immersion, and those who do. He continues the light of evangelical truth as clearly, in the former, as in the latter; pours out his spirit as copiously upon them; dwells in their hearts as richly; communes with them at his table as freely; blesses and prospers them as evidently; and acknowledges them, every way, as his, with as much" power and demonstration of the Spirit."

Cer

Hence we have the testimony of God's providence, and the seal of his Spirit, to the truth of the foregoing doctrine. tainly, the Lord does not make any difference in the numerous revivals of religion with which the world is blessed, between those who do not immerse and those who do: to say the least, none that will operate against the former.

And this furnishes evidence that both belong to his Kingdom; the former as truly as the latter, and that the mode of their baptism is as valid.

Surely, the abundant blessings bestowed upon those who wash, pour, or sprinkle in baptism; the honour which the Lord puts upon their ministers and ordinances; his readiness to own and bless them as his people; and the wide-spread and lasting success which attends the word preached by and among them, furnishes living testimony which is entitled to high regard, that they have a true form of baptism; that they are a conspicuous and precious portion of Christ's visible kingdom; and that this dispute about the form of applying water in baptism ought to be relinquished.

When Peter was called to an account by his Jewish brethren for "going in unto the uncircumcised Gentiles, and eating with them," he justified himself by alleging that God gave unto them the like gift to that which was bestowed upon the Jews, pouring out his Holy Spirit upon them, and "purifying their hearts by faith." And "what then," said he, "was I, that I could withstand God?"

In like manner, God's pouring out the like gift upon those who do not immerse, to that which he bestows upon those who do, is a proper and ample vindication of the liberal ground taken in this work.

[ocr errors]

PART III.

OPEN COMMUNION WITH ALL EVANGELICAL CHRISTIANS ILLUSTRATED AND DEFENDED.

CHAPTER I.

The Subject Explained.

It is not my design to teach and defend communion with all who assume the title of Christians; but with all who exhibit the essential characteristicks of Christians-with those churches and members of churches who are regarded as the true followers of Christ.

There are some that call themselves Christians who are so defective in principle and practice as not to deserve the name. Simply professing the name of Christians is not sufficient to entitle any to Christian fellowship.

But those churches and members of churches that profess the essential doctrines of the gospel, and maintain so much uprightness of walk and conversation as to give evidence of piety, are entitled to the privilege of communion, and ought not to be rejected from the table of the Lord.

It is not my intention to point out very minutely what parts of Christian doctrine must be believed, and what degree of Christian practice must be maintained, to constitute the character of evangelical Christians. Every church or class of Christians must be allowed the privilege of judging in this matter for themselves.

Some may set the criterion of judging higher than others. Christians may discover their imperfections, either in being too strict or too lax in regard to judging of the qualifications of those

who claim to be their brethren, and desire communion. Although they are bound to form their opinion of the Christian character of others according to the rules and marks which are furnished by the scriptures, they may, in some instances, fail of judging correctly. Christian charity and fellowship may be extended to some who do not give the requisite evidence of being the disciples of Christ, and withheld from others that do.'

But for Christians to act consistent with themselves, and with the principle now advocated, they should admit to their communion such churches and members of churches as they deem evangelical; i. e. as being the true churches and members of Christ. Although they may see defects both in the principles and conduct of these brethren, yet as they are not so gross as to preclude the idea of their being Christians, they ought to admit them to their communion. If they exclude such from the table of their Lord, they are not open communionists in the sense now plead for.

In defending open communion as now explained, I do not mean to be understood to say that it is not expedient, while Christians are divided in opinion, as at present, to maintain separate societies. This may be, and probably is, expedient, and most for the edification of all. Christians may be more useful and happy in being associated in separate churches, according to their respective opinions on the subject of religion, than to be formed with these discordant views into the same church. Nevertheless, while embodied in these separate societies, they may hold communion with one another, as opportunity presents, and in this way manifest their mutual love, and their oneness in Christ. Frequent occasions offer for their communing together, and they should unquestionably be more frequently sought than they are. Every church ought to invite their Christian brethren of other churches who may be present at their communion seasons to come and partake with them; and individual Christians ought to accept of the invitation, and also to apply for admission to this privilege when Divine Providence places them in circumstances to enjoy it. This is the true doctrine of open communion.

If any refuse to acknowledge those as Christians who actually give the scriptural evidence of being such, and reject them from communion on that ground, they are doubtless chargeable with an errour; but it is a different one from that which consists in rejecting acknowledged Christians from communion. If the former case, although there is an errour committed in not admitting of actual evidence of piety, there is a consistency between the belief and practice of these Christians; but in the

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »