I

they terminate, but absolute universal scepticism?' may add, in the words of Dr. Waterland, "As long as religion [or any particular branch of it,] is held in any value or esteem, and meets with opposers, it must occasion warm disputes. Who would wish that it should not? What remedy is there for it, while men are men, which is not infinitely worse than the disease? A total contempt of religion, [or an universal and absolute indifference for any particular article in it,] might end all disputes about it; nothing else will."†

It must, indeed, be acknowledged, that positive rites, forms of worship, and ecclesiastical order, are not of equal importance with doctrines that immediately respect the object of our worship, as rational creatures; the ground of our hope, as criminals deserving to perish; or the source of our blessedness, as intended for an immortal existence. Nor is the most punctual performance of a ritual service, detached from faith in Christ and benevolence to man, worthy of being compared with truly devotional principles and virtuous tempers, though attended with much ignorance relating to the positive parts of divine worship. But is this a sufficient reason for treating the law of baptism as of little or no importance -as if it were obsolete, or as if our great Legislator had no meaning when he enacted it? That mutilation of the sacred supper, which is practised in the Romish communion, has been sharply opposed and loudly condemned by all denominations of Protestants: and is it not lawful, is it not matter of duty, to oppose and condemn such an outrage on divine authority and primitive example? Are we not required to contend earnestly, but with virtuous dispositions, for every branch of that faith which was once delivered to the saints? If, therefore, infants be solemnly sprinkled by divine right, it must be the indispensable duty of Pædobaptists to *Introduct. to Study of Prophecies, serm. viii. + Importance of Doct. of Trinity, p. 206.

contend for it; but if, on the contrary, infant sprinkling be a human invention, the Baptists are equally bound to oppose it, as deserving to be banished from the worship of God, where it has long usurped the place of a divine. institution. If Christ be the only Lord and Lawgiver in his own kingdom, then certainly it is far from being a matter of indifference whether the laws which he enacted be regarded or not: for, with equal reason, might any one question, whether our Saviour should be believed, in what he declares; as whether he should be obeyed, in what he commands. Under the fair pretext of charity, forbearance, and catholicism, we might, with Melancthon and other adiaphorists in the sixteenth century, consider the doctrine of justification by faith alone, the number of the sacraments, the jurisdiction claimed by the pope, extreme unction, the observation of Popish festivals, and several superstitious rites, as things indifferent: * with others, we might assert the innocence of mental error in matters of doctrine and of worship; and so, by unavoidable consequence, render the Bible itself of little worth.

or,

It has been often asserted, both by ancients and moderns, that the followers of Christ should never seek for peace at the expense of truth, nor of religious duty. Thus, for example, Hilary, bishop of Poictiers: "The name of peace is, indeed, very specious, and the mere appearance of unity has something splendid in it; but who knows not, that the church and the gospel acknowledge no other peace than that which comes from Jesus Christ, that which he gave to his apostles before the glory of his passion, and that which he left in trust with them by his eternal command, when he was about to leave them?"†Owen: "We are not engaged in an enquiry merely after

Dr.

* See Mosheim's Eccles. Hist. cent. xvi. sect. iii. part. ii. § 28. Venemæ Hist. Eccles. secul. xvi. § 156.

+ In Claude's Defence of Reformation, part iii. p. 3.

peace, but after peace with truth. Yea, to lay aside the consideration of truth, in a disquisition after peace and agreement, in and about spiritual things, is to exclude a regard unto God and his authority, and to provide only for ourselves....The rule of unity, as it is supposed to comprise all church communion, falls under many restrictions. For herein the special commands of Christ, and institutions of the gospel committed unto our care and observance, falling under consideration, our practice is precisely limited unto those commands, and by the nature of those institutions....We are not obliged to accommodate any of the ways or truths of Christ unto the sins and ignorance of men."*-—— J. A. Turrettin : "There ought to be no charity without truth; no charity that is an injury to truth; no charity which causes us to offend against the truth.... For this ought not to be called charity, but a confederation and a conspiracy of error. 'We wish,' says Jerome, 'for peace; and we not only wish, but also pray for it: but it is the peace of Christ, true peace, peace in which no war is involved.' Otherwise, as Nazianzen teaches, war is more eligible than that peace which separates us from God."t- Mr. Henry: "The method of our prayer must be, first for truth, and then for peace; for such is the method of the wisdom that is from above; it is first pure, then peaceable." With this both prophets and apostles agree; for their language is, Love the truth, and peace-Speaking the truth in love. §

The folly and impiety of pleading for charity and peace, at the expense of divine truth and of religious duty, are well represented and properly chastised by a Pædobaptist author, in the following manner: "A considerable succedaneum for the Christian unity, is the Catholic charity; which is like the charity commended

* Discourse on Evangelical Love and Peace, p. 17, 24, 233. + Oratio de Theologo Veritatis et Pacis Studioso.

Exposit. on Rom. xv. 5.

§ Zech. viii. 19; Eph. iv. 15.

by Paul, in only this one instance, that it groweth exceedingly.-Among the stricter sort, it goes under the name of forbearance. We shall be much mistaken if we think that, by this soft and agreeable word, is chiefly meant the tenderness and compassion inculcated by the precepts of Jesus Christ and his apostles. It strictly means an agreement to differ quietly about the doctrines and commandments of the gospel, without interruption of visible fellowship. They distinguish carefully between fundamentals, or things necessary to be believed and practised; and circumstantials, or things that are indifferent. Now, whatever foundation there may be for such a distinction in human systems of religion, it certainly looks very ill-becoming in the churches of Christ, to question how far HE is to be believed and obeyed. Our modern churches.... have nearly agreed to hold all those things indifferent which would be inconvenient and disreputable; and to have communion together, in observing somewhat like the customs of their forefathers. Many of the plainest sayings of Jesus Christ and the apostles are treated with high contempt, by the advocates of this forbearance.-The common people are persuaded to believe, that all the ancient institutions of Christianity were merely local and temporary, excepting such as the learned have agreed to be suitable to these times; or, which have been customarily observed by their predecessors. But it would well become the doctors in divinity to show, by what authority any injunction of God can be revoked, besides his own; or, how any man's conscience can be lawfully released by custom, example, or human authority, from observing such things as were instituted by the apostles of Christ in his name....This corrupt forbearance had no allowed place in the primitive churches. The apostle, in the Epistle to the Ephesians, required of them, to adorn their vocation with all lowliness and meekness, with long-suffering, forbearing one another, IN LOVE.' But had they dispensed

with the laws of Christ, for convenience and ease, it had been forbearing one another in hatred; for those laws were expressions of his love; the most fervent love that was ever shown among men, directed by infallible wisdom. Whosoever, therefore, would obliterate them, or any how attempt to change them, must either suppose himself wiser than Jesus Christ, or a greater friend to mankind. He must be moved, either by an enormous self-conceit, or by the spirit of malevolence....The more thinking part of religious men, observing what great mischiefs have arisen from contentions about truth, have found it most desirable to let truth alone, and to concern themselves chiefly about living profitably in civil society. To be of some religion, is but decent; and the interests of human life require that it be popular and compliant. If men have different notions of Jesus Christ, his divinity, his sacrifice, his kingdom, and the customs of his religion, even from what the apostles seemed to have; charity demands that we think well of their religious characters, notwithstanding this. It is unbecoming the modesty of wise men to be confident on any side; and contending earnestly for opinions, injures the peace of the Christian church. Thus kind and humble is modern charity! Instead of rejoicing in or with the truth, it rejoiceth in contemplating the admirable piety that may be produced from so many different, yea, opposite principles.... The Christians of old time were taught, not to dispute about the institutions of their LORD, but to observe them thankfully; and hereby they expressed their affection to him and to each other. If that affection be granted to be more important than the tokens of it, it would be unjust to infer that the latter have no obligation; which would imply, that Christ and the apostles meant nothing by their precepts. The Methodists have not, indeed, gone so far as their spiritual Brethren [the Quakers] have done, in rejecting all external ceremonies; but they are taught to believe, that all con