Изображения страниц

without making any divisions, depend upon it, we shall never do any thing of consequence. Was ever any material errour corrected without a struggle? Was ever any attempt made at reformation, either in doctrine or practice, but what met, from some quarter or other, with opposition and reproach ? How was it with Luther and Calvin ? How was it with the Dissenters in England ? How was it with Edwards, Bellamy, and others in our own land, who laboured to reform the errours introduced into the church, in regard to the qualifications for the Lord's Supper, and in regard to the half-way covenant plan of baptizing children? All these reformers were opposed ; yea, opposed with concert and determination.

It does not appear to be the intention of Providence that truth should prevail over errour without a conflict. If reformers should wait till the church generally should admit their plans, without opposition, they would never proceed at all in any case of material importance.

But, in order to success, errour must be attacked boldly, with the expectation that it will be defended to the last. The point or points of reformation must be plainly stated, and faithfully supported, and pressed, and all consequences be left with God.

The several considerations, therefore, just stated, should not deter the friends of the cause herein plead, from exerting, and coming out boldly. Believing these doctrines to be important, they should prepare to support them, and claim the natural, civil, and Christian right of being heard in their defence.While all hard and uncharitable feelings and opprobrious epithets should be carefully avoided, they should speak clearly and persuasively; gird on the harness; and advance coolly and resolutely forward, whatever may oppose. They should avoid injuring the feelings of brethren, or disturbing the publick peace, as far as may be consistent with advocating the truth; but they must not conceal the knowledge which they have of the Redeemer's will; nor forbear to labour, vigorously and unitedly, to put away the aforesaid evils; and to break down the middle walls of partition between the friends of God.

I repeat the observation, that the period has come to defend the scheme illustrated and advocated in this work. Already the number of its friends is very considerable, who are spread abroad through the land. Why should they keep any longer concealed, or remain inactive, and under bonds ? Why should they forbear to show their opinion, when others of the opposite class do not hesitate to show theirs, and to maintain it with all their strength ? Must they keep in the dark, and continue to weep in secret over these evils, till their brethren permit them

[ocr errors]

to come forth, and till they will consent to make no opposition to their plans of reformation ? Must the multitude, who this moment desire gospel baptism, without consenting, either to the baptism of infants, or to close communion, be obliged to be deprived of the privilege of this ordinance, or be impelled for. ward where they do not feel free to go ? Must the many who, though baptized iv infancy, have an ardent desire, and feel strong impressions of the duty of being baptized on their own faith, be left to grieve and lament, because they cannot have the privilege, and, at the same time, be allowed to retain the right of communing with all evangelical Christians ? Or, shall the foregoing system of reformation be openly advocated by its friends, and measures be prudently adopted to carry it into effect ? No candid and enlightened mind will hesitate to say that the latter is the true course. Even our opposers will acknowledge the consistency of this course, or be obliged to condemn their own.

What if the cry of breaking covenant and disturbing the peace

of the church is raised ? What does it amount to ? Is it to be supposed, that the instrument called a church covenant binds Christians to walk with the church in their errours, and to make no efforts to correct them? Or, if these efforts fail, that they must, at all events, continue their relation to the church, or be liable to the charge of breaking covenant, and of causing divisions and offences ? Or does it, merely, bind us to walk with the church so far, only, as they follow Christ, not prohibiting us from reforming errours ; but requiring us to do it when we discover them? And, if we cannot peaceably and profitably remain in our respective churches, does it not manifestly allow us to ask to be dismissed, and, if this is denied, to secede?Surely, a brother or a sister is not in bondage in such a case.”

We may even be the ipnocent occasion of “ divisions and offences,” provided we do not believe, or act, “contrary to the doctrine which we have learned,” i. e. contrary to the blessed doctrine of Christ.

Therefore, none ought to be deterred from coming forward in this cause, firmly believing it to be the cause of God and truth, because of any connexion which may exist between them and other churches of different sentiments. Coming out on the side of truth, is no breach of a church covenant; for we did not, and could not, bind ourselves to do wrong, or to forbear to do right.

Therefore, I would make a solemn appeal to the enlightened understandings, the Christian sympathies, and the benevolent vishes of this class of Christians, and admonish and entreat



them to come to the help of the Lord, and to show themselves men.” The cause is too precious, and involves interests that are too dear, to permit it to lie buried and unplead.

You are called upon, my brethren, to claim only a common privilege with that of your other Christian brethren, and to discharge a similar duty to what they all deem binding on themselves, viz. labouring for the defence and purity of the gospel.

Come forth, then, with warm, cheerful, and united hearts, and labour faithfully, and leave the event with God. Who can tell but the Lord will regard and bless; and though our efforts may appear as diminutive and inefficient to our opponents, as those of Nehemiah and the Jews did, when rebuilding the walls of Jerusalem, to Sanballat and Tobiah, the work, like theirs, may eventually prosper:

And to the ministers and churches both of the Baptist and Pedobaptist denominations, I would respectfully observe, that if the points which have been discussed have been supported from scripture, it is of high importance that you should respectively receive conviction, and adopt this plan of reformation and union. I do not aim any opposition to you, but to your respective errours. I assure you of my affectionate regard to you as ministers and as Christians. But believing that you

have adopted either the one or the other of the errours which have been pointed out, I am under indispensable obligation to expose them. And I invite your candid attention to my remarks and reasons. I claim no regard to any thing that I have said, further than it is based on the truth.

But if the scheme is true, you are bound to adopt it; and each denomination to give up its own errours, and meet the other on the middle ground. You will not fail to see that if this scheme be true, its adoption will, at once, wholly relieve the subject of communion and Christian and ministerial intercourse.

May you, therefore, be enabled respectively to examine and to understand it, and, if it comports with the scriptures, to adopt it; aud, henceforth, to become one in affection and practice, as you belong to one Lord, and are animated by one hope of the high and heavenly calling.

To readers in general, who have not yet adopted the foregoing scheme of baptism and communion, I would earnestly recommend a patient and candid investigation of the subject; a diligent comparing of every thing with the scriptures; and fervent prayer for divine direction. And as you receive the light, walk in it, ascribing all the glory to God through Jesus Christ our Lord.


[ocr errors]
[merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors]
« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »