it is a superstitious relic of Popery. Tenthly, I object to the institution of Godfathers and Godmothers, (or Sponsors,) at the Baptism of an Infant, not merely because I consider it an unscriptural rite, but because I think it impossible for any one (ant especially an infant) to auswer for himself by proxy; but what I chiefly object to in this institution is the exclusion of the Parents from the office of Sponsor, because they are thereby necessarily excused from taking upon them the religious instruction of their offspring. Eleventhly, I object to the Rubric which enjoins all Communicants to kneel at the receiving of the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper; not merely because our Saviour and his Apostles . did not kneel on that occasion, but because such a posture countenances the Popish notion of the real presence in, or transubstan- tiation of the elements of Bread and Wine. Finally, I object to the use of Bells in Churches, and to the Ring in Marriage, as foolish and superstitious. In all these particulars I perceive too favourable an inclination in the Church of England to the Church of Rome, nor can I conscientiously conform to her Communion, until she has perfected her Reformation from the Errors of that Church, by the removal of these obnoxious ceremonies. Fifthly, I dissent from the Church of England, because I believe that she inculcates Doctrines which are not Scriptural. For I. As a UNITARIAN, I cannot subscribe to the doctrine of the Trinity in Unity, because I believe that there is but one person in the Godhead, viz. the Father; I am firmly persuaded that the Scriptures represent Jesus Christ as a mere man, and as having had no existence previously to his birth by the Virgin Mary, and therefore I cannot consider Him a proper object for Divine Worship; I also can find no authority in Scripture for the Deity and Personality of the Holy Spirit. 1 moreover contend, (in contradiction to the Church of England,) that the nature of Adam was not corrupted by the Fall, and, therefore, that there is no degree of moral incapacity in the present race of men. I can see no warrant in the Scriptures for supposing that the Holy Spirit exercises any influence upon the human mind. I cannot admit that any atonement has been made for the sins of men in the death of Christ. I believe that the Soul of men does not take its flight for happiness, or misery, (as the Church of England supposes) immediately after it has left the body, but that it sleeps until the day of Judgment. Finally, I am persuaded that the torments of Hell are not eternal. In all these notions I am opposed to the Church of England, because she is opposed to the Scriptures and to Human Reason. II. As a Member of the Society of FRIENDS, (improperly, although generally denominated QUAKERS,) I differ from the Church of England in several respects, in each of which I am convinced she has differed from Christ, and His Apostles. For, first, I think it incumbent upon all Christians to submit themselves to the Holy Spirit, for whose influence they ought to wait in profound silence; I am of this opinion because I believe that divine inspiration still exists in Man, which when called forth, will communicate a divine glow of warmth and light, which being received by any one, he will hear a celestial voice in the recesses of his soul, because the effects of the divine influence of the Holy Spirit are immediately perceptible by an internal and instinctive consciousness. On this account I believe Scripture to be only of secondary inspiration, because consisting only of words and letters, which are unable to illumine the mind. Secondly, I dissent from the Church of England on account of her two Sacraments, viz. Baptism and the Lord's Supper. For I consider the Baptism alluded to in the New Testament to signify only the gift of the Holy Ghost upon a person, or a mystical purification of the Soul, as is evident from the words of St. John the Baptist," "I indeed baptize you with water, but Christ shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost," and I look upon the Lord's Supper to signify merely the spiritual nourishment of the inward man. Both institutions without doubt are mere Judaical ceremonies, and ought to be abolished from the Christian Church. Thirdly, I object to a distinct order of Clergy. Fourthly, I see no reason why women may not be permitted to preach in the Church as well as men. Fifthly, I consider it unlawful to take an oath, which scruple I found upon our Saviour's prohibition, "I say unto you, swear not at all." Sixthly, I regard it as exceedingly sinful in a Christian to bear arms, because the Scriptures describe wars as crimes or judgments. And, Seventhly, I object to the payment of Tithes. III. As an ANtipŒdobaptist, I consider it my duty to dissent from the Church of England, because that Church authorises the Baptism of Infants, which I am persuaded is expressly contrary to Scripture. Indeed I cannot but think it absurd and ridiculous for an Infant to be entered into covenant with God, because it has no knowledge nor sense; I admit that in the Jewish Church they received Circumcision in their Infancy, yet it is evident that it was not to Infants a "seal of the righteousness of faith," as it was to Abraham, because they were not capable of having any faith at the time of their circumcision, as Abraham had; and moreover also because this covenant was not the same as ours, being only a carnal covenant to give them the land of Canaan, and containing no spiritual privilege or engagement in it. But even admitting (which I am neither bound, nor prepared to admit,) that there is no reason but Christ might have ordered Baptism to Infants proportionably to the use of Circumcision, yet as I cannot find that he has done so, I think myself required to believe that it was not his intention that Infants should be entered (at least by any visible token) now, (although they were formerly;) because neither he, nor his Apostles have expressed any such thing, (as it was plainly expressed before) nor have they given us any example of it in the New Testament; for from the ascension of our Saviour to the first imprisonment of St. Paul at Rome, thirty years had elapsed, which comprise the history of "the Acts of the Apostles," yet in that Book (notwithstanding that the Christians must have had many thousand children born to them in that space of time,) yet none of them are registered in the Acts to have been baptized in infancy; I must therefore conclude that they were not baptized in infancy. Indeed our Saviour in giving his Apostles commission to baptize all nations, required them to "teach" them first, but Infants cannot be supposed to be taught, because not old enough to learn; and therefore in reference to this Sacrament, he says elsewhere, "except a man be born of water," which implies an adult, and not a child. Since, therefore, Baptism was a new ordinance instituted by Christ, his saying nothing of Infants is a sign he meant not to include them. Indeed Infant Baptism was condemned by the Fathers of the Church, especially by Tertullian, a century after the Apostles, and not generally practised until decreed by Pope Innocent, in the year 302. We read also of a great many particular Christians who allowed their children to grow up unbaptized, as the Emperor Constantine, Austin, &c. that had Christian Parents, and yet were baptized when adults. The Baptism of Infants is only recommended by the Church of England upon the shocking notion that all unbaptized children go to a place of eternal torment; and all the arguments brought to favour it, are upon her own confession, but consequential only, whereas I certainly think that in a Sacrament of positive institution, we are to expect direct orders, and to keep close to the letter. Even the Church of England herself has virtually given up the cause to the Antipodobaptist, because in her Catechism, (speaking of Baptism in general) she owns that faith and repentance are required of persons to be baptized; for what she says afterwards of Infants baptised on a promise of these, comes too late, when what she says before is established in the general. It therefore appears to me that Infant Baptism is not warranted by Scripture. For the tenor of Baptism in Scripture generally runs thus: "Repent and be baptized;" "He that believeth and is baptized;" "Baptized, confessing their sins;" "If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest be baptized;" with all which repentance, belief, and confession of sins, Infants have nothing to do. Finally, I object to the mode of administering Baptism, as practised by the Church of England, for instead of dipping the persons to be baptized, she simply sprinkles them, which is not only contrary to the original intention of our Saviour, and the practice of his Apostles, but is at direct variance with the signification of the word "Baptize," which is peculiarly and exclusively to "dip," as expressive of the washing away of the pollution of sin. Or, IV. As a WESLEYAN, I dissent from the Church of England, First, because that Church does not sanction the doctrine of " the Witness of the Spirit," by which I mean an inward impression on the soul, whereby the Spirit of God directly witnesses to a Man's Spirit that he is the Child of God, which witness I consider to be conversion. Secondly, because the Articles of the Church of England do not recognise the doctrine of " Christian perfection," or that complete holiness and sanctification are attainable on earth. Lastly, I dissent from the Church of England because she denies Conversion to be an instantaneous operation for the cases of the dying thief upon the Cross, of St. Paul, of the Jailor at Philippi, and of many others recorded in Holy Writ, prove that this Conversion is completed always suddenly, very frequently in a moment, and with the rapidity of lightning. And V. As a CALVINIST, I dissent from the Church of England because her Clergy do not preach the Gospel; by which I mean the Doctrines of absolute Predestination, (or Election,) of Justification by Faith only, of the Total Depravity of Human Nature, of Irresistible Grace, and Final Perseverance: all of which doctrines are clearly and expressly contained in the Word of God. To conclude, if all these objections can be satisfactorily refuted, I candidly promise, instead of vindicating my present objections, to recant all that I have alleged against the Church of England, and return to her Communion; for I trust that through the Grace of God, I should not for the sake of any worldly interest, how great or promising soever, either resist the evidence of any clear argument tending to my conviction, or act in contradiction to a convinced conscience and judgment, in a matter of this high importance. Although I have not consciously permitted a single objection against the Church of England to escape my notice, I nevertheless consider it my duty to recommend to the impartial Reader a perusal of the following Publications, written in defence of Nonconformity, many of which deserve his most serious attention: Alsop's Melius Inquirendum, or Sober Inquiry Baxter's Plea for Nonconformity Calamy's Defence of Moderate Nonconformity Graham, on Establishments Johnson's, (Thomas) Reasons, and further Newman's Principles of Nonconformity Robinson's Plan of Lectures on Nonconformity Winter's Pastoral Letters of Nonconformity |