Imatges de pàgina
PDF
EPUB

But, 1. The man acknowledges that this is not in matters fundamental."

2. He acknowledges that the main body of the prayers and service is such as all Christians agree to be necessary, and in which he may join with his mouth and understanding also.

Suppose then, that there be some particular collects or prayers, or clauses of prayers, which he thinks to contain a mistake in them, may he not join with his' brethren in the main, and omit the adding of his Amen to those particular clauses, especially, since no man' requires of him to declare his approbation of the whole and every part? Is not this more Christian-like than' to fly to that dreadful extremity of separation and total disowning, for a disputable point, which may possibly be his own mistake? And if the truth of the matter be, that it is his own mistake, is there any likelier way to come to the knowledge of the truth than by continuing in the body of the church, where the members, the faithful Christians, do by mutual edification help one another? Is not this the very counsel of St. Paul, Phil. iii. 15, 16? And if in any thing ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you. Nevertheless [or however that be] whereto we have already attained, let us walk by the same rule, let us mind the same thing. This last clause, let us mind the same thing, is in the sense of the original, let us be unanimous, as Bishop Stillingfleet has shewn *; and he has at the same place largely shewn, that this advice of the Apostle is intended for this very purpose to which I have here applied it, namely, That such a man as we are here speaking of, should continue in communion, and conform to all that he can, and omit the saying Amen to what he judges a mistake. He confirms this interpretation with so good reasons, and his antagonist opposes it with so weak ones, that it tempts one to think that he would not have opposed it at all, had it not been for fear that, by this course,

* Unreasonableness of Separation, part 2, sect. 19.

the world would in a short time have lost the happiness of having any separate sects. If the reader will please to consult that book, be will have no further need of any arguments against separation.

Some learned Protestants (Melancthon, Calvin, Bucer, Pet. Martyr, and others of the first reformers) have thought that, in cases of necessity, a Protestant might join even in Popish assemblies in those prayers that are sound, provided he did, to avoid scandal, protest against their superstitious ones. But I will not meddle with that.

The argument that some make for separation, because there are many ill men in the church, has been so plainly answered, that nothing more need be said. Whoever reads St. Paul's Epistles, will find there were many scandalous members in all those churches, especially at Corinth (1 Cor. v; 2 Cor. xii. 20, 21); and yet he will find that St. Paul, so far from advising the purer sort to separate from the church, does earnestly forbid any such practice, 1 Cor. i. 10; item xi. 18, &c.

[ocr errors]

When a lawgiver names some particular exceptions of cases in which the law shall not oblige, that law binds the stronger in all other cases not excepted; for it is supposed, if there had been any more, he would have named them too. The Scripture gives a very positive law against separations; it excepts some cases; and it must be a very presumptuous thing to add any more of them of our own heads:- they are these:

1. If a church do practise idolatry. St. Paul, warn. ing the Corinthians of the Heathen idolaters, says,— Come out from among them, and be ye separate, 2 Cor. vi. 17. Though the Popish idolatry be not so rank as that of those Heathens, yet the general words do seem to reach their case. But the ignorant people among many sects of separatists, finding here the word separate, do, indiscriminately, apply it to justify sepa ration from Christians, against whom they do not in the least pretend any accusation of idolatry.

2. If a church teach doctrines encouraging any

[ocr errors]

wickedness, as fornication, &c. or destructive of the fundamentals of the Christian faith. St. Paul mentions some (2 Tim. ii. 17) that denied the resurrection and judgment to come. He commands Timothy to shun them; for their word will eat as a canker.

3. The Scripture commands that no sin be committed to obtain any purpose ever so good. Therefore, a church that will not admit us without our doing a thing that is wicked, or declaring and subscribing something that is false, does thereby thrust us out of her communion; and the guilt of the sin of separation lies at her door.

4. If a church be schismatical, i. e. in a state of unjustifiable division or separation from another church from which she has withdrawn herself, St. Paul commands (Rom. xvi. 17) Mark those that cause divisions and offences, contrary to the doctrine which you have learned, and avoid them.

These exceptions I find in Scripture, and I know of no more that reach to churches (particular men that live wickedly are to be avoided in our conversation, we know). He that separates from any church upon any ground except one of these four, ought to take heed, and be well assured that he fnd his ground in the Scripture.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

Now, to apply what has been said to the Pædobaptists and Antipædobaptists, the main enquiry is, Whether the point in debate between them be a fundamental article of the Christian faith? for if it be, they must indeed separate in their communion, and the guilt will lie on those that are in the error; but ifit be not, there is not, by the rules laid down, any sufficient reason for their separating or renouncing one auother, which party soever be in the wrong.

ad Now, I think, that such a question about the age or time of one's receiving baptisin, does not look like a fundamental, nor is so reputed in the general sense of Christians; and there are these reasons why it should not be so accounted.,

:

1

1. It is a general rule, that all fundamental points are in Scripture so plainly and clearly delivered, that any man of tolerable sincerity cannot but perceive the meaning of the holy writers to be, That we should believe them. Now, baptism itself, viz. That all that enter into Christ's church should be haptized, is indeed plainly delivered in Scripture'; so that we are amazed at the Quakers and Socinians: the one for refusing it; the other for counting it indifferent. But at what age the children of Christians should be baptized, whether in infancy, or to stay till the age of reason, is not so clearly delivered but that it admits of a dispute that has considerable perplexities in it; I mean with those that know not the history of the Scripture times, nor the force of some of the original words in Scripture used. There is, as I have said, no plain example or instance of the baptism of any one that had been born of Christian parents set down at all, either as received by him at full age, or received in infancy, which would have been the surest guide to us; none, I mean, that is plain to vulgar readers of the English translation of Scripture ; for that many of the fathers did take 1 Cor. vii. 14, for a plain instance, I shewed before; and for the commission(Matt. xxviii. 19), and our Saviour's rule (John iii, 5) whether they are to be understood to include infants and all, or only adult persons, is not so plain to the said readers as fundamental points use to be, God's providence does not suffer that the understanding of those places, upon the belief of which the salvation of all, even the meanest and most ignorant Christian does depend (and such are the fundamental articles) should require much skill, learning, or sagacity, but only an honest purpose and desire to learn. This, therefore, being not set down so very plain, does not seem by Scripture to be such a fundamental, as that we should be bound to renounce communion with every one that is not of the same opinion as we are about it.

The Epistle to the Hebrews (ch. vi. ver. 1 and 2) speaking of some things which are styled principles of the oracles of God, reckons amongst them the doc

trine of baptism, and of laying on of hands. Now, whether the meaning of that place be to reckon both these as things that must be believed and owned by all that shall be saved, is a question that needs not be discussed here; for suppose it be, both these parties do own baptism; they differ only about the time or manner of receiving it.

2. The ancient and primitive Christians, for certain, did not reckon this point among the fundamental ones; for they drew up short draughts and summaries of the faith, which we call Creeds; and into these they put all those articles which they thought fundamental or absolutely necessary. Now, though some churches had their creeds a little larger than others, and some councils or meetings of Christians did overdo, in putting some opinions, which they valued more than need was, into their creeds, yet there never was any creed at all that had this article in it, either that infants are to be baptized, or that only adult persons are to be baptized.

Baptism itself does indeed make an article in several old creeds: as for example, in the Constantinopolitan, which is now received in all Christendom, "I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins;" but the determination of the age or manner of receiving it, was never thought fit to make an article of faith.

[ocr errors]

3. As for particular men among the antients, there is, I know, none whom the Antipædobaptists would so willingly hear speak as Tertullian. [100] He has a book about baptism, wherein he first speaks of the matter, water, and of the form of baptism; and then says, chap. x," Having now discoursed of all things that make up the religion [or essence] of baptism, I will proceed to speak (de quæstiunculis quibusdam) of some questions of small moment ;" and it is among those questiuncula that he treats concerning the age of receiving it. I recited the place at large in part 1, chap. 4.

4. As Tertullian [100] thought it a question of lesser moment, so it seems the Christians of that time and

« AnteriorContinua »