Sayfadaki görseller
PDF
ePub
[ocr errors]

error.

Lord, and members of his visible kingdom. They are so by virtue of this visibility of religion. This last idea you deny, without scarce attempting to refute my proofs of it. But we will attend to it again directly. You say, page 20. “One of our principles is, that no person is a fit subject of baptism, unless he be a penitent." If it is, the greater is your But I do not believe it is. It was not Dr. Gill's principle. For, in his Reply to Clark, he says expressly, that "Simon Magus was baptized in a pure and apostolic way." But Simon Magus was not a penitent. Be this however as it may : One of your principles is, that "No person is a member of Christ's church till he is baptized." This reduced you to the necessity of contending, that there may be millions of visible christians, eminently such, who are not in Christ's visible church. One would One would suppose beforehand, that a man must be put to it excessively to maintain such a sentiment as this. Let us confine it to a single individual. David Brainerd according to this principle, lived and died out of the visible church. He was an incomparably pious man, a more perfect image of Paul, than any modern character. But he had no place in the visible church. His separation to his missionary service was invalid, because the work of profane hands. And had

Sedgwick been the place where his creden tials were to be examined, he must have been entirely made over again as a minister. He was visibly of the world, and died in that visible relation. O thou spirit of Brainerd, resting in the bosom of thy much beloved Jesus, dost thou witness the sentence which has been passed upon thee by one of thy fellow disciples in this world? Dost thou hear what is said of thee among men; that when with them, even when thou didst drain the energies of thy nature in importunate prayer, and incessant labors for the conversion of poor heathens, thou wast "without, where are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers?

[ocr errors]

The case my friend Merrill, has its difficulty. To get along with this difficulty you resort to supposition. Suppose," say you, "there be a reformation at this present time in Worcester, where you reside. Suppose fifty persons of the brightest talents be converted. (We care but little about talents by the way, or at least, this has nothing to do with church membership.) Not one of them has been baptized. By chance I meet Mr. Austin in the street, and put this question. Have these very respectable characters who have been of late hopefully converted joined the church, (meaning the visible church ?) Your reply would

B

be ready. No." I must beg leave to answer for myself, and reverse this reply. It would be, yes. What, become converted to Christ, and not join his kingdom? Now, Sir, you may say if you please, that in this "I am contrary from all men you have yet seen." I am with the apostles. And that is all that I am solicitous about. Your breaking up the church of Christ, into little petty detachments, and making it necessary for a man to become. incorporated into one of them in order to his being a member of that church, is unscriptural. Making baptism an initiating act is inconsistent even with this, and worse than it. I appeal to the Bible. It appears you had not well considered this matter. No proposition is more demonstrable. No, not a problem in Euclid's Elements. You are evidently glad to lose sight of the proofs I furnished. But the principle must come down. How do you attempt to demolish it? By mere powder and smoke. You say

2. "Great men and great names can nevchange truth into a lie." Well said. But great men and great names did not constitute the objection. They were men of undeniable piety, men who were sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise; men whom God had cleansed; and whom he had made eminently

instrumental of advancing his kingdom of grace in the world. You say

3. "Your argument against the justness of my principles is not able to prove them wrong." Why? Let us see how you defend yourself. "Great men, and great names have no authority to overturn principles which are founded in revelation." Fie, fie, Mr. Merrill. This is but to repeat a poor sorry misrepresentation. You say again, "As to Confessors you have none." And this you repeatedly introduce, and with some exultation, imagining that here you have a capital advantage against us. By Confessors you mean such as have suffered martyrdom for the doctrine of Padobaptism. I never pretended that we had any. What the reasons are, that we have none, I may not be able to assign. But one reason is, that the Baptists have never had the secular arm at their will. All Pædobaptist persecutions we utterly condemn. At the same time we think your sufferings, so far as they have been on account of your peculiar tenets, have been for nothing at all; and no more prove their truth, than the self immolation of the wives of the Hindoos, proves the correctness of their opinions. You may publish volume after volume on this subject, and your undistinguishing followers may devoutly conclude, We are the pco

ple. And yet, to discerning judges, it will be only marching, without going forward.

You say again, page 22. "If your argument destroy my principles, one of these two things is true, either, 1. That there never were any good men, among any heathen nations where the visible church was not known, or, 2. That these good men belonged to the visible church where there was none. To assert the first would be presumption. To advocate the last, would be absurd; hence my principles are yet out of danger." If they are out of danger, it is because they are as dead as a bat. With respect to the first consequence, I reply, it does not follow. Because a person may belong to the visible church, and yet belong to a nation to whom the visible church is not known. Nay, I will go farther, he himself, may have no knowledge of the visible church. Yet he may know that he is a sinner, and needs forgiveness. He may be made acquainted with Christ, and the way of salvation through him, and believe, to the saving of his soul. This may be known to hundreds of Christians at a distance. He may of course be a member of the visible church. For a man's visibility respects what he is in the eyes of others. Would he not be a member of the visible church if he were baptized? If he

« ÖncekiDevam »