cern about the ancient order and customs of the Christians is mere party-spirit, and injurious to the devout exercises of the heart. Thus the modern charity vaunts itself, in answering better purposes than could be accomplished by keeping the words of Christ. It produces a more extensive and generous communion, and animates the devotion of men, without perplexing them by uncertain doctrines or rigorous self-denial.. Although it supposes some revelation from God, and some honour due to Jesus Christ, it claims a right to dispense with both-to choose what, in his doctrine and religion, is fit to be believed and observed.' While, however, we think it our duty with a resolute perseverance to maintain the purity and importance of baptism, as a divine institution; we are far from considering ourselves as the only disciples of Christ, or our own communities as the only Christian churches. Nor is an idea of that kind justly inferable from our denying communion at the Lord's table to Pædobaptists.† Respecting this particular, Dr. Owen says; "There is no necessity that any should deny all them to be true churches, from whom they may have just reason to withdraw their communion....When we judge of our own communion with them, it is not upon this question, Whether they are true churches, or not? as though the determination of our practice did depend solely thereon. For as we are not called to judge of the being of their constitution, as to the substance of it, unless they are openly judged in the scripture, as in the case of idolatry and persecution persisted in; so a determination of the truth of their constitution, or that they are true churches, will not presently resolve us in our duty, as to communion with them....It is most unwarrantable rashness * Strictures upon Modern Simony, p. 48-55. Luther, in his vehement manner, says; "Maledicta sit charitas quæ servatur cum jactura doctrinæ fidei, cui omnia cedere debent, charitas, apostolus, angelus e cœlo." Comment. in Epist. ad Galat. + See my Apology for the Baptists. and presumption, yea, an evident fruit of ignorance, or want of love, or secular private interest, when, upon lesser differences, men judge churches to be no true churches, and their ministers to be no true ministers."* The same excellent author says; "There is nothing more clear and certain, than that our Lord Christ.... never joined with [the Jews] in the observance of their own traditions and pharisaical impositions, but warned all his disciples to avoid them and refuse them; whose example we desire to follow: for, concerning all such observances in the church, he pronounced that sentence, 'Every plant that my heavenly Father hath not planted shall be rooted up.""† It is against what the author considers as an error in sentiment, and a corruption of worship, that the following Examination of Pædobaptism makes its appearance: errors, not persons, are here opposed. He thinks, with Mr. Leigh, that we should "distinguish between loving of men's persons and their errors;" and, with Bp. Burnet, that "whatever moderation or charity we may owe to men's persons, we owe none at all to their errors, and to that frame which is built on and supported by them."§ Nay, as Dr. Waterland in another case observes, "While we are of a contrary judgment, it cannot but be guilty practice and conduct in us, and very great too, to smother our sentiments, or not to bear our testimony in such a way as Christ has appointed, against all notorious corruptions, either of faith, or worship, or doctrine." || Should this Examination of Pædobaptism have the honour of being regarded as deserving an answer, and * Discourse on Evangelical Love and Church-Peace, p. 82, 83, 84. See Plain Reasons for Dissenting from the Church of England, part i. reason i.; and Stapferi Theolog. Polem. tom. i. p. 518. Enquiry into Orig. and Nature of Churches, p. 253. § In Mr. Robinson's Plan of Lectures, Motto. should any of our opposers write against me, it will not avail to refute some particular parts of the work, detached from the general principles on which I proceed. No; the data, the principal grounds of reasoning, which are adopted from Pædobaptists themselves, must be constantly kept in view, or nothing to the honour of infant sprinkling will be effected. will be effected. For as the grand principles on which my argumentation proceeds, and whence my general conclusions are drawn, are those of Protestants when contending with Papists, and those of Nonconformists when disputing with English Episcopalians; it will be incumbent on such opposer to show, either that the principles themselves are false, or that my reasoning upon them is inconclusive. Now, as I do not perceive how any Protestant can give up those principles, without virtually admitting the superstitions of Popery; nor how they can be deserted by any Dissenter, without implicitly renouncing his Nonconformity; so I conclude, that the whole force of any opponent must be employed in endeavouring to prove, that I have reasoned inconsequentially from those principles. That this might be easily proved, I am not at present convinced; and whether any of our Pædobaptist Brethren will consider this publication as of sufficient importance to excite such an attempt, is to me uncertain. To the conclusions inferred from those very numerous concessions which our opposers have made, (and my reader will find that many of the greatest eminence among them have been the most free in making concessions,) it may, perhaps, be objected: "Notwithstanding all their concessions, they continued in the profession and practice of infant baptism." Granted; but then it should be considered, that this objection is quite futile; because I professedly argue against Pædobaptism, on the principles, reasonings, and concessions of Padobaptists. Besides, though such an exception to my conclusions expresses a fact, yet it pays the consistency of the authors concerned but a poor compliment. In this light similar concessions from Roman Catholics have always been viewed by Protestants; of which the reader will meet with various instances in the course of this work.* Being fully persuaded, that I appear in defence of a divine institution and of apostolic practice, I earnestly commend this publication to the blessing of that sublime Being, who "worketh all things after the counsel of his will." Sincerely praying, that evangelical truth and experimental religion, that purity of worship and the practice of holiness, may flourish among all denominations of Christians, I conclude in the following words of Lord Bacon: "Read, not to contradict or confute, nor to believe and take for granted, nor to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider.”† GOODMAN'S FIELDS, A. BOOTH. * See particularly Vol. I. p. 268, 269, this edition. + In Dr. Edwards's Discourse concerning Truth and Error, p.456. xxii should any of our opposers write against me, it will not avail to refute some particular parts of the work, detached from the general principles on which I proceed. No; the data, the principal grounds of reasoning, which are adopted from Pædobaptists themselves, must be constantly kept in view, or nothing to the honour of infant sprinkling will be effected. For as the grand principles on which my argumentation proceeds, and whence my general conclusions are drawn, are those of Protestants when contending with Papists, and those of Nonconformists when disputing with English Episcopalians; it will be incumbent on such opposer to show, either that the principles themselves are false, or that my reasoning upon them is inconclusive. Now, as I do not perceive how any Protestant can give up those principles, without virtually admitting the superstitions of Popery; nor how they can be deserted by any Dissenter, without implicitly renouncing his Nonconformity; so I conclude, that the whole force of any opponent must be employed in endeavouring to prove, that I have reasoned inconsequentially from those principles. That this mig be easily proved, I am not at present convinced: whether any of our Pædobaptist Brethren will c this publication as of sufficient importance to ex an attempt, is to me uncertain. To the conclusions inferred from those rous concessions which our opposers hav my reader will find that many of the grea among them have b cessions,) it may, ing all their cor and practic should be because I the principles Awes Bes ess expr he most free bjected: Gr bject con ex ay |