JL Dagg Manual Of Theology.mht Theology

User Manual: manual pdf -FilePursuit

Open the PDF directly: View PDF .
Page Count: 296

Download
Open PDF In Browser	View PDF

MANUAL OF THEOLOGY
SECOND PART
A TREATISE ON
CHURCH ORDER
BY

J. L. DAGG

That thou shouldst set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in
every city.--Titus i. 5.

The rest will I set in order when I come.-1 Cor. xi. 34.

____________________________________________________

Entered, according to Act of Congress in the year 1858, by
THE SOUTHERN BAPTIST PUBLICATION SOCIETY,
In the Clerk's Office of the District Court of South Carolina.
________________________________________
Preface
Introduction
Chapter I--BAPTISM
Chapter II--LOCAL CHURCHES

Chapter III--THE CHURCH UNIVERSAL
Chapter IV--INFANT MEMBERSHIP
Chapter V--COMMUNION
Chapter VI--WASHING OF FEET
Chapter VII--PUBLIC WORSHIP
Chapter VIII--THE MINISTRY
Chapter IX--DISCIPLINE
Chapter X--MISCELLANEOUS TOPICS
Conclusion--DUTY OF BAPTISTS
Appendix
PREFACE

IN the Preface to the "Manual of Theology," published last year, it was said:-"This volume contains nothing respecting the externals of religion. The form of
godliness is important, as well as its power, and the doctrine respecting it is a
component part of the Christian system; but I have been unable to include it in
the present work." The defect here acknowledged, the following treatise on
Church Order, including the ceremonies of Christianity, is intended in part to
supply.

In all religious investigations, the Holy Scriptures are our chief source of
knowledge. This is especially true in regard to positive institutes, which derive all
their obligation from the revealed will of the lawgiver. The present work,
therefore, relies wholly on the Bible for proof of its positions, so far as they relate
to subjects on which the Bible professes to give instruction. But the volume of
inspiration was not given to teach us the meaning of words, or the facts of
ecclesiastical history after the times of the apostles. When these subjects come
under investigation, I have made such reference to human authority as the case
seemed to require. It has been my aim, however, so to lay the facts before the
mind of the reader, as to give full scope for the exercise of private judgment,
and a consciousness that he is not bowing to the decisions of any fallible master.

In most of the investigations attempted in these pages, the sacred volume sheds
its light on our path, and enables us to tread the way with confidence; but, at a
few points, the light seems to shine with less clearness. Here, the inquiry
becomes appropriate, whether the very silence of Scripture is not instructive? We
may infer that whatever is not clearly revealed, must be of less importance; and
that difference of judgment respecting it ought not to divide the people of God.

The objections and opposing arguments which this work encounters, are such as
appear to me most likely to embarrass an inquirer. They are generally expressed
in my own language; but, in the discussions on baptism, I am in a few instances
indebted for the language, as well as the thoughts, to the Lectures of Dr. Woods.
In controverting the opinions of Baptist authors, I have, in some instances,
thought it best to present these opinions in the form of direct quotation.

The preparation of this treatise has yielded less religious enjoyment to the
Author, than was experienced in writing the "Manual." The subject has less to do
with the heart, and furnished fewer occasions for those emotions in which
religious enjoyment consists. But the work has been prosecuted under a calm
conviction of duty; and if it shall tend to produce, in those who read it, a
scrupulous adherence to the precepts of Christ, with expansive love to all who
bear his image, the Author's labor will not be in vain. With a hope that it may
contribute somewhat to this result, it is commended to the blessing of him
whose will it attempts to unfold.

Gratitude requires that I should acknowledge my obligations to the Rev. G. W.
Samson, of Washington City, and the Rev. A. M. Poindexter, of Richmond, Va.
These brethren have kindly made suggestions, from which the work has received
valuable improvements; and Mr. Samson has directly contributed the chief article
in the Appendix.

July 31, 1858.
INTRODUCTION

OBEDIENCE TO CHRIST

To love God with all the heart is the sum of all duty. Love must be exercised
according to the relations which we bear. When a parent loves his child, he feels
bound to exercise parental authority over it for its benefit; but the love of a child
towards a parent requires obedience. So love to God produces obedience; for it
is impossible to love God supremely without a supreme desire to please him in all
things. Hence this one principle contains, involved in it, perfect obedience to
every divine requirement.

The loveliness of the divine character is not abated, by being exhibited in the
humble nature of man, in the person of Jesus Christ. In him the glory of the
Father appears, claiming our supreme affections; and he is invested with the
Father's authority, to which perfect obedience is due. The divine perfections are
rendered snore intelligible to us by his mediation; and, in proportion to the
clearness of the discovery, the obligation to love and obey becomes increased.
A powerful motive, to love and obey Christ, is drawn from the love which he has
manifested in dying for us. Paul felt this in an overpowering degree, when he
said, I am crucified with Christ, nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in
me; and the life which I now live in the flesh, I live by the faith of the Son of
God, who loved me, and gave himself for me."(1) The same overpowering
impulse to love and obedience, is brought to view in another declaration of this
apostle: "The love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that if one
died for all, thee were all dead; and that he died for all, that they which live
should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them,
and rose again."(2) When our love to the Saviour grows cold we should repair to
his cross, and fix our thoughts on the exhibition of love there presented. And
when we feel our hearts melt, the recollection that the suffering Saviour is God
over all, must produce a full purpose to yield to him the obedience of all our
powers during our whole existence. From the cross we come forth to be Christ's,
resolved to glorify him with our bodies and our spirits, which are his.

Jesus said to his disciples, "If ye love me, keep my commandments." This claim
of obedience is cordially admitted by every true disciple. When the first emotion
of love to Christ throbbed in the heart of the persecuting Saul, he inquired,
"Lord, what wilt thou have me to do?"

The first disciples were required to serve their Lord and Master by strenuous
efforts to spread his religion through the world; and the same obligation
devolves on us. He came to be the Saviour of the world; and, notwithstanding
the humility of his appearance, and the feebleness of the instrumentality which
he chose, the religion of the despised Nazarene must prevail over the earth, and
bless every nation of mankind. The conquest of the world has not yet been
achieved, but the work is before us; and, if we are loyal subjects of Zion's King,
we must give ourselves to its accomplishment.

The means which our King employs, for diffusing the blessings of his reign, are
not such as human wisdom would have adopted. It has pleased the Lord, "by the
foolishness of preaching, to save them that believe." It has seemed good to
infinite wisdom, that the religion which is to bless mankind, should be

propagated by the simple instrumentality of the Christian ministry and the
Christian churches. If we seek military force, or legislative enactments, to
accomplish the work, we turn away from the simplicity of Christ, and convert his
kingdom into one of this world; and, whenever human wisdom has attempted, in
any particular, to improve the simple means that Christ ordained, the progress of
truth and righteousness has been impeded.

Much that has existed, and that now exists, among the professed followers of
Christ, cannot be contemplated by one who sincerely loves him, without deep
distress. Different creeds, and different ecclesiastical organizations, have divided
those who bear his name into hostile parties, and Christianity has been
disgraced, and its progress retarded. The world has seen hatred and persecution
where brotherly love ought to have been exhibited; and Christ has been crucified
afresh, and put to open shame, by those who claim to be his disciples.

For these evils, what shall be the remedy? Shall we look to the wisdom of this
world, to devise the cure? Human wisdom did not originate the institutions of
Christianity; and it is now unable to give them efficiency. We must return to the
feet of our divine Master, and again receive his instructions. Let us, in the spirit
of obedient disciples, inquire for the good old paths, that we may walk therein.
No individual can accomplish everything; but it is his duty to do what he can. Let
each one show that he possesses the spirit of Christ, and carefully obey all the
commands of Christ. If he cannot cure the existing evils, he will, at least, not
increase them; and the influence of his example may produce salutary effects
beyond his most sanguine hopes.

The true spirit of obedience is willing to receive the slightest intimations of the
divine will. All the truths of Revelation are not equally clear; yet none of them
may be disregarded because of difficulty in their investigation. If some most
needful to be known, are presented prominently on the inspired pages, and
written in characters so large that he who runs may read; there are others which
are discoverable only by diligent search. Yet the truths, thus discovered, are
precious gems dug from an exhaustless mine; and even the very labor of
discovery brings its own reward in the mental and spiritual discipline which it
furnishes. The diligent student of the Scriptures derives an abundant
recompense for his toil, not only from the enlarged and clearer views of divine
truth to which he attains, but also from that constant exercise of humility and
faith, for which he finds occasion at every step of his progress.

As the truths of revelation differ in the clearness with which they are exhibited,
so our faith embraces them with different degrees of strength. A man who does
not investigate for himself, may receive, with unwavering confidence, and
maintain, with obstinate pertinacity, every dogma of his party: but he who uses
his own powers in the search after truth, will find some things to be received as
undoubted articles of faith, others as opinions to be held with various degrees of
confidence, according to the strength of evidence with which they have been
severally presented to the mind. By not furnishing overpowering evidence on
every question of faith and practice, the divine wisdom has given scope for the
moral dispositions of men to exert their influence. A careful inquiry respecting
the minutest portions of duty, and a fixed determination to observe the will of
God in every particular, may exhibit proofs of obedience more strong and
decisive, than would be possible, if all truth and duty were discovered by
intuition.

Our obedience to Christ should be universal. The tithing of mint, anise, and
cummin, is of less moment than the weightier matters of law, judgment, mercy,
and faith; but it is not therefore to be disregarded. Christ taught that both were
to be observed. "These ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other
undone. (3) Church order and the ceremonials of religion, are less important than
a new heart; and in the view of some, any laborious investigation of questions
respecting them may appear to be needless and unprofitable. But we know, from
the Holy Scriptures, that Christ gave commands on these subjects, and we
cannot refuse to obey. Love prompts our obedience; and love prompts also the
search which may be necessary to ascertain his will. Let us, therefore, prosecute
the investigation" which are before us, with a fervent prayer, that the Holy Spirit,
who guides into all truth, may assist us to learn the will of him whom we
supremely love and adore.
1. 1Gal. ii. 20
2. 22 Cor. v. 14, 15.
3. 3Matt. xxiii. 23.

CHAPTER I

BAPTISM

SECTION I.--PERPETUITY OF BAPTISM

WATER BAPTISM IS A CHRISTIAN ORDINANCE OF PERPETUAL OBLIGATION.

The commission of Christ to his apostles reads thus: "Go, teach all nations,
baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost;
teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you; and lo,
I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world."(1) It is not expressly
stated in these words that water must be used in the baptizing which is
enjoined; but so common is the use of water, that a command to immerse,
wash, or sprinkle, naturally implies the use of it, unless something in the
circumstances of the case, or connection of the word, suggests the use of some
other liquid. The word baptize is often used in Scripture where water is implied
without being expressly mentioned. The apostles had been accustomed to the
administration of water baptism. They had been chosen to be Christ's attendants
and witnesses, from the baptism of John;(2) and, in all probability, many of them
saw their Master baptized in the Jordan. They had witnessed John's baptism in
other cases; and some, if not all of them, had been baptized by him. After Jesus
entered on his ministry, it was said that he "made and baptized more disciples
than John."(3) Water baptism must be intended here; and we are expressly
informed that the disciples, and not Jesus himself, administered it. This they did
while they were under the immediate direction of their Master, and were his
personal attendants. His ministry, and their baptisms, were confined to the
nation of Israel. The commission quoted above enlarged the field of their
operation. The presence of their Master was promised, though his body was
about to be removed from them; and the command to teach or make disciples,
and to baptize, would naturally be interpreted by them according to the use of
terms to which they had been accustomed. In their subsequent ministry, they
preached and baptized; and the record, called the Acts of the Apostles, contains
frequent mention of baptisms. In these, no reasonable doubt can exist that
water was used: and sometimes it is expressly mentioned.

The commission was given, just before Christ ascended to heaven, and was
designed for the dispensation which was to follow. The apostles, before
proceeding to execute it, were commanded to tarry in Jerusalem until they
should be endued with power from on high. This promised power was given
when the Holy Spirit was poured out upon them on the day of Pentecost. It is
clear, therefore, that, in the view of the Lord Jesus, water baptism was not

inconsistent with the spiritual dispensation which the day of Pentecost
introduced.

Besides its literal use, the word baptize is sometimes employed figuratively,
when spiritual influence, or overwhelming sufferings, are intended. In such
instances there is always something in the context, or circumstances of the case,
directing to the proper interpretation. When there is nothing that directs to a
figurative interpretation, we are required, by a well known law of criticism, to
take the word in its literal sense. According to this law, we are bound to interpret
literally the language of plain command used in the commission; and, if
"baptizing" must be taken literally, no doubt can exist that the use of water was
intended in the command.

Since the ascension of Christ, no change of dispensation has occurred by which
the commission could be revoked. The promise which it contains, of Christ's
presence until the end of the world, implies its perpetuity. Under this commission
the ministers of Christ now act, and by it they are bound, according to the
manifest intention of his words, to administer water baptism.

In different ages of Christianity some persons have denied the obligation of
water baptism. The modern sect, called Quakers, are of this number. The
objections which they urge deserve our attention.

Objection 1.--The proper rendering of the commission, is, "baptizing into the
name of," &c. The name of God signifies his power, or some influence
proceeding from him. The baptism into spiritual influence cannot be water
baptism.

We admit the correction of the translation, but not the inference drawn from it.
The same Greek preposition is used in other passages which forbid the inference
now drawn. John said, "I baptize you unto [into] repentance." Repentance is a
spiritual duty: but baptism into repentance is not, therefore, a spiritual baptism;
for the words of John fully quoted, are: "I baptize you with water into
repentance." In another passage it is said, "John preached the baptism of
repentance for [into] the remission of sins:" and Peter, on the day of Pentecost,
commanded, "Repent and be baptized for [into] the remission of sins." The
remission of sins is a spiritual blessing, but it does not follow that baptism into
the remission of sins must be a spiritual baptism. John's we know was water
baptism; and when those who received Peter's command are said to have been

baptized, the sacred historian employs the simple language of plain history:
"Then they that gladly received his word were baptized.(4) These examples prove
that the use of the preposition into, is not inconsistent with the literal
interpretation of the commission.

Objection 2.--The baptism of John is, in the Scriptures, carefully distinguished
from the baptism of Christ; the former being with water, the latter with the
Spirit. The apostles were to act for Christ, and the commission authorized them
to administer his baptism. Parallel texts may be found, in which the apostles are
said to impart spiritual gifts.

Although John had predicted, that Christ would baptize with the Holy Spirit; yet
the disciples made by Christ during his personal ministry, were baptized with
water. This was administered by his disciples, and doubtless with his sanction.
The careful mention by the evangelist that Jesus did not himself baptize, shows
that baptism with the Holy Spirit is not in this case intended. John's words, "He
shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost," describe spiritual baptism as Christ's
peculiar personal work, and we do not find any passage of Scripture which
speaks of the apostles, or any other ministers of Christ, baptizing with the Holy
Spirit. Such baptism as they had been accustomed to administer, in the presence
and by the authority of Christ, the commission required them to administer.

It is true that Paul was sent to the Gentiles, to open their eyes, and to turn them
from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God; but these things
are mentioned as the effects of his mission, and not as things directly
commanded. The duty commanded, was to preach the gospel. The blessing of
God on his ministry rendered his mission effectual to open the eyes of the
Gentiles, and to confer the spiritual benefits mentioned in the special commission
which he received. But the baptizing mentioned in the commission given to the
other apostles, is a commanded duty, and the command must be understood
according to the literal import of the words.

Objection 3.--Paul teaches that there is one baptism. Now, there is a baptism of
the Spirit; and if water baptism is a perpetual ordinance of Christianity, there are
two baptisms, instead of one.

Paul says, "One Lord, one faith, and one baptism." As he uses the words Lord
and faith in their literal senses, so he uses the word baptism in its literal sense.
In this sense there is but one baptism. John the Baptist foretold that Christ

would baptize with the Holy Spirit: and Jesus said to his disciples," Ye shall be
baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with." Both these baptisms were
known to Paul. These figurative baptisms were two in number; while the literal
baptism was but one. He must, therefore, have intended the latter.

Objection 4.--Peter has defined the true Christian baptism, both negatively and
positively. It is ("not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of
a good conscience toward God), by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.(5) The first
clause denies that it is water baptism; and the second affirms that it is spiritual
baptism. This is confirmed by the fact that it is said to save, which water baptism
cannot do. Moreover, the words "the like figure," should be rendered the
antitype. When spiritual things are compared to literal, the literal are the type,
and the spiritual the antitype. Hence, as baptism is called the antitype, spiritual
baptism must be intended.

Water baptism, as a Christian rite, is not administered to cleanse the flesh, either
literally or ceremonially. It figuratively represents the burial and resurrection of
Christ, on which the believer relies for salvation. The answer of a good
conscience is obtained by faith in the finished work of Christ, represented in the
rite. In the language of Scripture, a thing is said to be that which it represents:
thus, "The field is the world." "This is my body." "This cup is the new testament."
So Paul was said to wash away his sins in baptism, because it represented their
being washed away: and so in this passage, baptism is said to save, because it
represents our salvation, which is effected by the burial and resurrection of
Christ; not by the removing of any corporeal defilement.

The criticism on the word antitype is inaccurate. The antitype is that which
corresponds to the type; but it is not necessarily spiritual. The earthly sanctuary
is, in one place, called the antitype of the heavenly, "which are the figures
[antitypes] of the true. (6) In this passage "the holy places made with hands" are
the antitype; and heaven is the type to which the antitype corresponds. This
relation between the type and antitype, reverses the order which the objection
assumes to be universal.

Objection 5.--The Jews had divers baptisms, which Paul calls "carnal ordinances

imposed on them till the time of reformation.(7) An ordinance is not rendered
carnal by the time when it is observed; but by its own nature. The Jewish
baptisms were commanded by God, and were significant of spiritual things.
Water baptism cannot have higher authority, or be more significant; and is,
therefore, a carnal ordinance in its own nature, and not suited to Christ's spiritual

dispensation. It belonged properly to John's dispensation, and was designed to
be superseded by Christ's spiritual baptism, according to the words of John, "He
must increase, but I must decrease.(8)

In speaking of the Jewish ceremonies, Paul says, "Which stood in meats and
drinks, and divers baptisms, and carnal ordinances." This passage does not
confound baptisms, with carnal ordinances, but seems rather to distinguish
between them. Nevertheless, as the Jewish baptisms sanctified to the purifying
of the flesh, there may be a propriety in denominating them carnal. Christian
baptism is not administered for this purpose; and, therefore, is not carnal in the
same sense. But, whatever it may be called, if Christ instituted it for the
observance of his followers, we dare not account it unsuitable to his
dispensation. The Jewish dispensation abounded with ceremonies; but amidst
them all, a spiritual service was required; for even then the sacrifices of God
were a broken spirit. The ceremonies were wisely adapted to promote
spirituality, rather than to hinder it. Our more spiritual dispensation needs fewer
helps of this kind: but we are yet in the body, and God has judged it fit to assist
our faith by visible representations. To reject their use, is to be wiser than God.

Water baptism was not superseded by the baptism of the Spirit. While Peter was
preaching to Cornelius, and those who were in his house, the Holy Ghost fell on
them. The apostle did not consider this a reason for omitting water baptism; but,
on the contrary, argued the propriety of administering it, from this very fact:
"Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized which have
received the Holy Ghost, as well as we?(9) Contrary to all his previous views, the
Holy Spirit had guided the apostle to preach the gospel to these uncircumcised
gentiles, and to admit them to Christian baptism. If this rite had been designed
for Jews only, or to be superseded by the baptism of the Spirit, Peter committed
a mistake in commanding these first Gentile converts to be baptized with water.
It is true that he had been mistaken before, in confining his ministry to the
circumcised; and it may be argued, that he may have been again mistaken in
commanding water baptism to the uncircumcised. But the Holy Ghost was now
correcting the first error, and it is wholly improbable that in doing this, he should
have led him into a second. The propriety of admitting gentile converts had not
been determined, as it afterwards was, by a council of the apostles; but Peter
followed the teaching of the Holy Spirit, and the subsequent council justified his
act. Now, if he had again mistaken the mind of the Spirit in commanding the use
of water baptism, it is unaccountable, and inconsistent with the perfection of the
Scriptures that neither he nor the council, in reviewing the transaction under the
influence of the Holy Spirit, discovered the mistake; and that no correction, such
as was made of the former error, is anywhere to be found in the inspired

writings.

When John spoke the words, "He must increase, but I must decrease," the Jews
had said to him, "Rabbi, he that was with thee beyond Jordan, behold the same
baptizeth, and all men come to him." The baptism which they reported must
have been water baptism, and so far as John's words applied to it, they must
denote that water baptism, instead of ceasing under Christ's dispensation, would
be greatly extended.

Objection 6.--Paul states in 1st. epistle to the Corinthians, "Christ sent me not to
baptize, but to preach the gospel;" and he thanked God that he had baptized so
few of them. Now, as he was not a whit behind the chief of the apostles, water
baptism would not have been omitted in his commission, if it had been designed
to be a perpetual ordinance; and if it was as much his duty to baptize as to
preach, he would not have thanked God that he had baptized so few. He would
as soon have thanked God that he had preached so little. He baptized some, as
he circumcised Timothy, accommodating himself to the weakness of men; but he
was thankful that such acts of accommodation had been seldom needed. As he
was the chief opponent of the prevailing judaizing tendency, he was thankful
that, in the matter of baptizing, he had yielded to it in so few instances.

In this quotation from Paul, the word baptize stands alone, without the mention
of water. The objection very properly assumes that water baptism is meant; but,
in so doing, it confirms our rule, that the word baptize, when alone, implies the
use of water. If the word, when standing alone in such a sentence, could mean
the baptism of the Spirit, and if Paul and the other apostles had been
commissioned to administer this baptism, he could not have declared with truth,
"Christ sent me not to baptize."

Paul claimed to be an apostle, not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ.
An apostle is one sent, and Paul was sent by Jesus, who said "to whom I now
send thee." He claimed to be an apostle in the highest sense, because he had
received his commission directly from Christ: "Am I not an apostle? have I not
seen Jesus Christ?(10) Now, in the commission which he received directly from
Christ, he was not commanded, either to be baptized himself or to baptize
others. He received the gospel which he preached without human
instrumentality; but he did not so receive baptism. He submitted to it, at the
command of Ananias, who was not himself one of those originally commissioned
to administer it. In this act, Paul acknowledged the obligation to perpetuate the
ordinance, and the right of Ananias to administer it by authority derived from the

other apostles. At Antioch he was set apart with fasting, prayer, and imposition
of hands, for ministerial labor; and, whether this was done with reference to the
missionary service on which he immediately entered, or whether it was his first
ceremonial investiture with the ministerial office, we learn, from what was done,
that his direct commission from Christ, was not designed to set aside the Church
order which had been previously established by the other apostles. Both in
receiving his own baptism, and in being set apart to the work to which the Holy
Ghost had called him, Paul acted as an ordinary Christian. His apostleship for
preaching the gospel was directly from Christ, and not by man; but his baptism,
and his authority to baptize, were received by man, and in a way which
respected and honored the established order of things among the disciples of
Christ. While he said with truth, "Christ sent me not to baptize," it was
nevertheless true, that the baptisms which he did administer were not
unauthorized. He considered the administration of the ordinance not his proper
apostolic work; and since the Corinthians had divided themselves into parties,
claiming Paul, Apollos, and Cephas, for their leaders, he was thankful that so few
of them could claim him as their leader on the ground of having received
baptism from him.

Paul did not baptize out of mere accommodation to the weakness of others.
Because of the Jews who were in that quarter, he circumcised Timothy, whose
mother was a Jewess; but when the judaizers desired to have Titus also
circumcised, who was a Greek, he steadfastly and successfully opposed them. As
a minister of the uncircumcision, he watchfully and zealously defended the
gentile converts in the enjoyment of liberty from the Jewish yoke of bondage.
But not a word can be found in all that he said or wrote, claiming for them
freedom from the obligation of Christian baptism. On the contrary, he uses
considerations derived from their baptism, to urge them to walk in newness of
life. The rule of interpretation, confirmed by the very objection which we are
considering, requires us to understand literal baptism to be meant, when it is
said, "So many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ, were baptized into his
death;"(11) and again, when it is said, "As many of you as have been baptized
into Christ, have put on Christ.(12) A public profession of Christ was, in the view
of Paul, the design of this ceremony, involving an acknowledged obligation to be
his, and to walk in newness of life. All that Paul taught, like his own example,
tends to establish the perpetuity of Christian baptism.

SECTION II.--MEANING OF BAPTIZE

TO BAPTIZE IS TO IMMERSE.

We have seen that the commission which Christ gave to his apostles, instituted
baptism as an ordinance to be observed by his disciples to the end of the world.
It becomes important, therefore, to ascertain the meaning of the word
"baptizing," by which this duty is enjoined.

The commission has come down to us in the Greek language; land the word
translated " baptizing" is a participle of the Greek verb baptizo. Our present
inquiry is, what does this Greek verb mean?

In the ordinary process of translating the writings of a Greek author, when we
wish to ascertain the meaning of some word that he uses, we satisfy ourselves,
for the most part, by consulting a Greek lexicon.(13)

The laws of interpretation require us to take the primary signification of words,
unless there be something in the context, or nature of the subject, inconsistent
with this signification. As there is no such difficulty in the present instance, our
first decision, if we follow the lexicons, must be in favor of the sense to immerse.

When, from any cause, the decision of lexicons is unsatisfactory, the ultimate
recourse is to Greek authors who have used the word in question. We search out
the various examples of its use; and, by an examination of these, we learn in
what sense the authors used the word. Since use is the law of language, the
sense in which Greek authors used a word is its true meaning. The lexicons
themselves yield deference to this law, and cite examples from authors in proof
of the significations which they assign to words.

Our search of Greek authors, for the use of baptizo, is greatly facilitated by the
labors of learned men who have preceded us in the investigation.
Professor Stuart(14) has collected, from different Greek writers, a number of
examples in which baptizo, and its primitive, bapto, occur, with a view to
determine the meaning of the words. To his collection, which he considered
sufficiently copious for the purpose, I have added many other examples, from a
similar collection by Dr. Carson, and a few others, from a smaller collection by
Dr. Ryland. All these are included in the following tables, which may, therefore,

be regarded as a fair exhibition of the use made of these words in Greek
literature. The examples are so classified as to render the examination of them
easy. In rendering the words in question, I have not closely followed the learned
men of whose labors I have availed myself, but have aimed at a more literal and
uniform translation. This is always put in italics; and the reader may consider the
spaces, occupied by the italicized words, as so many blanks which he may fill
with any other rendering that he may think better fitted to express the author's
meaning. Let it be regarded as a problem to be solved, how these several blanks
shall be filled, so that the supply may fit every example, and, at the same time,
be consistent, throughout the table, as the meaning of the same word.

In a few of the examples the italicized words are marked with an asterisk. In
these cases they are renderings, not of the verbs themselves, which are placed
at the head of the tables, but of substantives or adjectives derived from them,
and involving the same signification. In the English prepositions which are
construed with the verbs, I have sometimes followed Professor Stuart, when,
without his authority, I should have been inclined to adopt other renderings. This
remark applies especially to the use of "with," in Class III. of Table II. A different
rendering would correspond more exactly with the idea of immersion; but it has
been my wish to give immersion no advantage to which it is not clearly entitled.

TABLES OF EXAMPLES

TABLE I
EXAMPLES OF BAPTO

CLASS I

TO DIP LITERALLY AND STRICTLY

1. For the purpose of imbuing or covering.--1. He took a thick cloth and dipped it
in water.(15) 2. Dipping sponges in warm water.(16) 3. And a clean person shall
take hyssop, and dip it in the water, and sprinkle it upon the house.(17) 4. Send
Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water.(18) 5. Cakes dipped in sour

wine.(19) 6. Dip thy morsel in the vinegar.(20) 7. One of the twelve that dippeth
with me in the dish.(21) 8. Who dippeth his hand in the dish.(22) 9. And when he
had dipped the sop.(23) 10. Dipping hay into honey, they give it them to eat.(24)
11. Venus dipped the arrows in sweet honey.(25) 12. He put forth the end of the
rod that was in his hand, and dipped it in a honeycomb.(26) 13. Ye shall take a
bunch of hyssop, and dip it in the blood which is in the basin.(27) 14. The priest
shall dip his finger in the blood, and sprinkle of the blood.(28) 15. The priest shall
dip his finger in the blood of the bullock, and sprinkle it.(29) 16. He dipped his
finger into the blood.(30) 17. And shall dip them and the living bird in the
blood.(31) 18. And he shall dip it into the blood.(32) 19. The Greeks dipping the
sword and the Barbarians the spear-head [in blood.(33)] 20. Having dipped a
crown into ointment.(34) 21. The priest shall dip his right finger in the oil that is in
his left hand.(35) 22. :Dip the probes in some emollient.(36) 23. Dipping the rag in
white sweet-smelling Egyptian ointment.(37) 24. :Dipping the rags in ointment.(38)
25. By reason of heat and moisture, the colors enter into the pores of things
dipped into them.(39) 26. They dip it [into the dye-stuff.(40)]
2. For the purpose of filling, or of drawing out, the verb sometimes taking the
sense to dip out.--27. The youth held the capacious urn over the water, halting
to dip it.(41) 28. Take a vessel, ancient servant, and having dipped it into the sea,
bring it hither.(42) 29. The bucket must be first dipped and then be drawn up
again.(43) 30. The lad directed his large pitcher towards the water, hastening to
dip it.(44) 31. He dipped his pitcher in the water.(45) 32. Instead of water, let my
maid dip her pitcher into honeycombs.(46) 33. Bubbling water dipped up with
pitchers.(47) 34. To-day, ye bearers of water, dip not [from the river Inachis].(48)
35. Dip up the sea-water itself.(49)
3. For the purpose of cleansing.--36. The Egyptians consider the swine so
polluted a beast, that if any one in passing touch a swine, he will go away and
dip himself with his very garments, going into the river.(50) 37. It shall be dipped
into water: so shall it be cleansed.(51) 38. First they dip the wool in warm water,
according to ancient custom.(52)

4. For the purpose of hardening.--39. The smith dips a hatchet into cold
water.(53) 40 Iron dipped.(54)
5. For other purposes.--41. Bring the torch, that I may take and dip it.(55) 42.
They cannot endure great changes, such as that, in the summer time; they
should dip into cold water.(56) 43. If the crow has dipped his head into the
river.(57) 44. The feet of the priests that bare the ark were dipped in the brim of

the water.(58) 45. Of which the remedy is said to be a certain stone which they
take from the sepulchre of a king of ancient times, and having dipped it in wine,
drink.(59) 46. If any one dips anything into wax, it is moved as far as he dips.(60)
47. Having melted the wax, he took the flea, and dipped its feet into the wax.(61)
48. With his own hand, he shall dip his sword into the viper's bowels.(62) 49. He
dipped his whole chin into the belly of the ram.(63) 50. The one dipped his spear
between the other's ribs, who at the same moment [dipped his] into his belly.(64)
51. Taking his sounding scimitar from the dead, he dipped it into the flesh.(65)

CLASS II

TO DIP IN A LESS STRICT SENSE
I. In appearance.--52. If the sun dip himself cloudless into the western flood.(66)
53. Cepheus dipping his head or upper part :into the sea.(67)
2. In effect.--54. From the dew of heaven, his body was dipped [as wet as if it
had been dipped.](68) 55. Having dipped [wetted or filled as if he had dipped] the
hollow of his hand, he sprinkles the tribunal.(69) 56. He was clothed with a
vesture dipped [colored as if it had been dipped] in blood.(70)

CLASS III

TO COLOR

1. By dipping.--57. The color of things dyed is changed by the aforesaid
causes.(71) 58. The dyers,* when they are desirous to dye wool so as to make it
purple; . . . and whatever may be dyed in this manner, the thing dyed becomes
strongly tinctured. If any one dye other colors. That they may receive the laws in
the best manner, as a dye,* that their opinion may be durable. And those
streams cannot wash out the dye,* although they are very efficient to wash
out.(72) 59. Some dyed with hyacinth, and some with purple.(73) 60. Thou hast
well dyed thy sword against [in close conflict with] the Grecian army.(74) 61. For
the wife has deprived each husband of life, dyeing the sword by slaughter.(75)
2. Without regard to mode.--62. When it drops upon the garments, they are
colored.(76) 63. Nearchus relates that the Indians color their beards.(77) 64. He

endeavored to conceal the hoariness of his hair by coloring * it. 65. The old
man-with the colored hair.(78) 66. Does a patron affect to be younger than he is?
Or does he even color his hair?(79) 67. This garment, colored by the sword of
Aegisthus, is a witness to me.(80) 68. He fell, without even looking upward, and
the lake was colored with blood.(81) 69. Garments of variegated appearance,
colored* at great expense. 70. A colored* bird.(82) 71. Lest I color you with a
Sardinian hue.(83) 72. Then perceiving that his beard was colored, and his
head.(84) 73. The physiologists, reasoning from these things, show that native
warmth has colored the above variety of the growth of the things before
mentioned.(85) 74. Using the Lydian music or measure, and making plays, and
coloring himself with frog-colored [paints.](86)

CLASS IV

METAPHORICAL USE
1. Allusion to dipping.--75. Let him dip his foot in oil.(87) 76. Thy foot may be
dipped in the blood of shine enemies.(88) 77. Thou hast dipped me deeply in
filth.(89) 78. They are all dipped in fire.(90) 79. Dipping up pleasure with foreign
buckets.(91)

2. Allusion to coloring.--80. Dyer, who dyest all things, and dost change them by
thy colors; thou hast dyed poverty also, and now appearest to be rich.(92) 81. For
the soul is colored by the thought: color it then by accustoming yourself to such
thoughts.(93)

TABLE II
EXAMPLES OF BAPTIZO

CLASS I

TO IMMERSE LITERALLY AND STRICTLY

I. Sinking ships.--1. Shall I not laugh at the man who immerses his ship by
overlading it?(94) 2. Such a storm suddenly pervaded all the country, that the
ships that were in the Tiber were immersed.(95) 3. When the ship was about to

be immersed.(96) 4. For our ship having been immersed in the midst of the
Adriatic Sea.(97) 5. The wave high-raised immersed them.(98) 6. They were
immersed with the ships themselves. 7. How would not his ship be immersed by
the multitude of our rowers.(99) 8. They were either immersed, their ships being
bored through.(100) 9. Those from above immersing them [ships] with stones and
engines.(101) 10. They immersed many of the vessels of the Romans.(102) 11. The
ships being in danger of being immersed.(103) 12. Many of the Jews of distinction
left the city, as people swim away from an immersing [sinking] ship.(104) 13.
Whose ship being immersed.(105) 14. As you would not wish, sailing in a large
ship adorned and abounding with gold, to be immersed.(106)
2. Drowning.--15. He would drive him from the bank, and immerse him
headlong, so that he would not be able again to lift up his head above water.(107)
16. He may save one in the voyage that had better be immersed in the sea.(108)
17. The boy was sent to Jericho by night, and there by command, having been
immersed in a pond by the Galatians, he perished.(109) 18. Pressing him down
always as he was swimming, and immersing him as in sport, they did not give
over till they entirely drowned him.(110) 19. The river being borne on with a more
violent stream, immersed many.(111) 20. Killing some on the land, and immersing
others into the lake with their boats and their little huts.(112) 21. The dolphin,
vexed at such a falsehood, immersing him killed him.(113) 22. Many of the land
animals immersed in the river perished.(114)
3. For purification.--23. Naaman immersed himself seven times in Jordan.(115) 24.
He that immerseth himself because of a dead body.(116) 25. He marveled that he
had not first immersed before dinner.(117) 26. Except they immerse, they eat
not.(118) 27. Divers immersions.(119)* 28. She went out by night into the valley of
Bethulia, and immersed herself in the camp at the fountain of water.(120) 29. He
who is immersed from a dead [carcass] and toucheth it again, what does he
profit by his washing?(121) 30. The immersion* of cups and pots, &c.(122)
4. Other cases.--31. The person that has been a sinner, having gone a little way
in it [the river Styx], is immersed up to the head.(123) 32. He breathed as persons
breathe after being immersed.(124) 33. Then immersing himself into the Lake
Copais.(125) 34. Immerse yourself into the sea.(126) 35. They marched a whole day
through the water, immersed up to the waist.(127) 36. The bitumen floats on the
top, because of the nature of the water, which admits of no diving; nor can any
one who enters it immerse himself, but is borne up.(128) 37. But the lakes near
Agrigentum have indeed the taste of sea water, but a very different nature, for it
does not befall the things which cannot swim to be immersed, but they swim on
the surface like wood.(129) 38. If an arrow be thrown in, it would scarcely be

immersed.(130) 39. As when a net is cast into the sea, the cork swims above, so
am I unimmersed.(131)* 40. When a piece of iron is taken red hot out of the fire
and immersed in water, the heat is repelled.(132) 41. Thou mayest be immersed,
O bladder! but thou art not fated to sink.(133) 42. Having immersed some of the
ashes into spring water, they sprinkled.(134) 43. I found Cupid among the roses;
taking hold of him by the wings I immersed him into wine.(135) 44. The sword
was so immersed in blood that it was even heated by it.(136) 45. He set up a
trophy, on which, immersing his hand into blood, he wrote this inscription.(137)
46. They are of themselves immersed and sunk in the marshes.(138) 47. He
immersed his sword up to the hilt into his own bowels.(139)

CLASS II.

TO IMMERSE IN A LESS STRICT SENSE

1. In appearance.--48. But when the sun immerses himself in the water of the
ocean.(140)

2. In effect.--49. Certain uninhabited lands which at the ebb are used not to be
immersed [covered over as if they had been immersed], but when the tide is at
the full, the coast is quite inundated.(141)50. And were all immersed [surrounded
on all sides as if they had been immersed] unto Moses in the cloud and in the
sea.(142)

CLASS III

METAPHORICAL USE

1. For drunkenness.--51. I am one of those who immersed yesterday [who drank
wine freely].(143) 52. Having immersed Alexander with much wine.(144) 53. Seeing
him in this condition, and immersed by excessive drinking into shamelessness
and sleep.(145) 54.. They easily become intoxicated before they are entirely
immersed.(146) 55. Immersed with wine.(147) 56. Immersed by drunkenness.(148)
57. He is like one dizzy and immersed.(149)
2. For afflictions.--58. Perceiving that he was altogether abandoned to grief and
immersed in calamity.(150) 59. Since the things you have met with have immersed

you.(151) 60. Iniquity immerses me.(152) 61. I have an immersion* to be immersed
with.(153) 62. immersed by misfortune.(154) 63. Else what shall they do who are
immersed for the dead?(155) 64. Are you able to be immersed with the
immersion* that I am immersed with?(156)
3. Other uses.--65. The mind is immersed [drowned like plants by excessive
watering] by excessive labor.(157) 66. Immersed with business.(158) 67. Immersed
with innumerable cares--having the mind immersed on all sides by the many
waves of business, immersed in malignity.(159) 68. Immersed into sleep.(160) 69.
He [Bacchus] immerses with a sleep near to death.(161) 70. When midnight has
immersed the city with sleep.(162) 71. Immersed with sins.(163) 72. But the
common people they do not immerse with taxes.(164) 73. They immersed [sunk
as a ship] the city.(165) 74. This as the last storm immersed [sunk as a ship] the
tempest-tossed young men.(166) 75. Being immersed in debts of fifty millions of
drachmae.(167) 76. He shall immerse you in the Holy Spirit.(168) 77. In one spirit
have we been immersed into one body.(169)

REMARKS ON TABLE I

The chief difficulty in classifying Table I., respects Class III. Under it I have
placed all the examples in which the sense to color is given to the word, either
by Professor Stuart, or Dr. Carson. Many of these examples might have been
placed in Class I., 1; and others in Class II., 2.

To color.--Some learned men have maintained that the verb never signifies to
color, without regard to mode. It is possible to explain the examples in which it
appears to have this signification, like Ex. 56. Here the translators of the English
Bible supposed the word, though denoting color, to be used with a reference to
its primary meaning. :But when we consider how many words from the root BAP
were used for things pertaining to the dyer's art; and how frequently the verb
bapto was used to denote to color; it seems most probable, that when employed
for this purpose, it suggested to the minds of the Greeks in their familiar use of
it, the idea of color directly, without that process of thought which was necessary
to deduce this meaning from its primary sense to dip.

To smear.--Professor Stuart has assigned smear, as a secondary sense of the
verb, and cites in proof from the Greek classic writers, Ex. 60, 61, 74. To the first
two of these the rendering to smear is quite inappropriate. The warrior in battle
does not redden his sword by smearing over it the blood of his enemies, but by

plunging it into their bodies. In the other example, the rendering is less
objectionable; but even here caution is necessary lest it mislead us. The verbs
dip, plunge, immerse, wash, wet, pour, sprinkle, and smear, are construed with
reference to two substances: one a solid, and the other a liquid. The first five
have the solid for their direct object: to pour has the liquid for its direct object.
We say to dip the hand in water, and to pour water on the hand; but not to dip
water on the hand, or to pour the hand with water. The last two verbs, to
sprinkle and to smear, admit both constructions. We say, to sprinkle the floor
with water, and to sprinkle water on the floor; to smear the body with paint, and
to smear paint over the body. In both these constructions, they always denote
an application of the liquid to the solid, agreeing in this particular with the verb
to pour. The verb bapto is always construed with the solid as its direct object.
Throughout the table of examples, there can be found but one exception, which
will be noticed hereafter. Even when it signifies to color, the verb takes for its
object the solid, and does not signify that the color is produced by applying the
coloring matter, as is done in the process of smearing. Hence, the rendering to
smear is liable to mislead us into the belief that bapto like to smear, may signify
an application of the liquid to the solid. The verb never signifies this process. It
may signify the effect of it, but never the process itself.

To dip out.--The exception above referred to, is Ex. 35. In this, which is
Nicander's comment on the preceding example, the verb takes the liquid for its
direct object, and assumes the sense to dip out. In the metaphoric use of the
word, Ex. 79 conforms to this construction. It is worthy of remark that the
English verb to dip is used in the same way, taking the liquid for its direct object,
contrary to its usual construction; thus: He dips water from the pool. We never
say, He plunges, or immerses water from the pool. In this sense of abstracting a
part of the liquid from the rest, the verb bapto when it takes the solid for its
direct object, may be construed with the genitive of the liquid, either with, or
without the preposition apo This remark will explain Ex. 13,15, 21; to which
Professor Stuart has given the sense to smear, because the verb is construed
with APO They do not signify to smear with blood or oil by applying it; but to dip
into it so as to bring away a part of it from the rest.

RELATION BETWEEN Bapto AND Baptizo
Our search is for the meaning of baptizo. This is a derivative from bapto; and
because some aid in ascertaining its meaning, has been expected from the
primitive word, examples in which this occurs, have been introduced in the
preceding collection.

Some lexicographers have regarded baptizo as a frequentative, and have
rendered it to immerse repeatedly. Robinson says it "is frequentative in form, but
not in fact." Professor Stuart has examined this question at length, and decides
"that the opposite opinion, which makes baptizo a frequentative (if by this it is
designed to imply that it is necessarily so by the laws of formation, or even by
actual usage), is destitute of a solid foundation, I feel constrained, on the whole,
to believe. The lexicographers who have assigned this meaning to it, appear to
have done it on the ground of theoretical principles as to the mode of formation.
They have produced no examples in point. And until these are produced, I must
abide by the position that a frequentative sense is not necessarily attached to
baptizo; and that, if it ever have this sense, it is by a specialty of usage of which
I have been able to find no example." The termination izo, is, with greater
probability, supposed by others to add to the primitive word the signification of
to cause, or to make, like the termination ize in legalize, to make legal; fertilize,
to make fertile. According to this hypothesis, if bapto signifies to immerse,
baptizo signifies to cause to be immersed. This makes the two words nearly or
quite synonymous. But, however nearly two words may agree with each other in
their original import, it seldom happens that they continue to be used in practice
as equally fitted for every place which either of them may occupy. We must,
therefore, examine the usus loquendi, to ascertain the peculiar shades of
meaning which they acquire. In studying the preceding table of examples, the
following things may be observed:--

1. bapto more frequently denotes slight or temporary immersion, than baptizo.
Hence, the English word dip, which properly denotes slight or temporary
immersion, is more frequently its appropriate rendering. In nearly one-half of the
examples in which baptizo occurs in the literal sense, it signifies the immersion
which attends drowning, or the sinking of ships.

2. bapto appears, in some cases, to be used in the secondary sense to color,
without including its primary signification to immerse. No example occurs in
which baptizo has lost the primary meaning. A similar fact may be observed in
the use of the English words older and elder. The words have the same primary
meaning; or, rather, they are different forms of the same word: yet, while older
has inflexibly retained its primary meaning, elder has adopted a secondary
signification, in which it denotes an officer without regard to age.

3. Bapto sometimes signifies to dip up: baptizo never takes this sense.

DEDUCTION FROM TABLE II

Though lexicographers frequently assign numerous significations to a word, they
regard one as the primary or radical meaning from which all the rest are derived.
If meanings have no relation to each other, they do not belong to the same
word: hence to lie, signifying to be recumbent; and to lie, signifying to speak
falsehood, though agreeing in orthography and pronunciation, are accounted
different words, because their significations are independent of each other. No
one imagines that there are two Greek verbs, baptizo. We must, therefore, seek
for one primary or radical meaning, and endeavor to account by it for all the
uses to which the word is applied.

An important distinction needs to be made between the proper meaning of a
word, and the accidental signification which it may obtain from the connection in
which it is used. This distinction may be illustrated by the following passage:--"If
I wash myself with snow water, and make my hands never so clean; yet thou
shalt plunge me in the ditch, and mine own clothes shall abhor me."(170) In this
sentence the word plunge, besides its proper meaning, obtains the signification
to defile, from the connection in which it is used. This accidental signification is
the most prominent and important idea conveyed by the word; yet it is not,
strictly speaking, any part of its meaning. We may substitute defile for it, and the
general sense of the passage will be conveyed; yet to plunge and to defile are
different things. We must not conclude that we have ascertained the meaning of
a word, when we have found another word which may be substituted for it in a
particular sentence.

Since the lexicons give immerse for the primary meaning of baptizo, let us try
the meaning in the examples in which the word occurs, that we may ascertain
whether this signification will suffice to account for all the uses to which the word
is applied.

In the several examples, in which the word is applied to sinking ships, it obtains
the accidental signification to cause to sink to the bottom. On this account it has
been explained, in such connections, by the word buthizo, to throw into the
deep. But the fact that immersed ships sink to the bottom is not affirmed by the
word baptizo. It is a natural consequence of their immersion. There is no
necessity for supposing it to be included in the meaning of the word. The same
distinction must be made in the examples which relate to drowning. The
drowning is a consequence of the immersion, and is not included in the meaning
of the word baptizo. In several of the examples the immersion denoted by the

word is clearly distinguished from the effect produced by it. So in 3, we must
distinguish between the immersion and the purification resulting from it. The
immersion only is properly denoted by the word. All the other examples in Class
I. perfectly agree with the sense to immerse; and some of them clearly require
it. From Ex. 36, 37, 38, 39, it appears that substances which float on water are
not baptized. This proves conclusively that the mere application of water to a
part of the surface does not satisfy the meaning of the word. Ex. 41 proves that
sinking to the bottom is not necessary to its meaning; but the other examples
just referred to, prove that descent below the surface is indispensable.

The examples in Class II. require the meaning to immerse. The same is true of
the examples in Class III. The propriety and force of the metaphorical allusions
cannot be understood, if the word does not signify to immerse.

After thoroughly examining the collection of examples, we find that they fully
establish the meaning to immerse. Christ, in giving the commission, must have
employed the word in its usual sense. The commission is given in the language
of plain command, and every other word in it is used in its ordinary signification.
We are not at liberty to seek for extraordinary meanings, but are bound to take
the words according to their ordinary import, where no reason to the contrary
exists. What they mean, according to the ordinary rules of interpretation, is the
meaning of Christ's command; and, if we do not receive and observe it in this
sense, we are disobedient to his authority.

Let us now re-examine the collection of examples, trying any of the other
significations which have been proposed, as, to wash, to purify, to wet, to
sprinkle, to pour. The experiment will soon convince us that none of these is the
proper meaning of the word. Immersion, and nothing but immersion, will always
satisfy its demands.

CONFIRMATION OF THE RESULT

The correctness of our deduction is confirmed by the circumstances which
attended some of the baptisms recorded in the Bible. The forerunner of Christ is
called "the Baptist," because he administered this rite. He was sent to baptize,
and it must be supposed that he understood the meaning of the word. Now, if a
small quantity of water will suffice, why did John resort to the Jordan for the
administration? The reason must have been that which the inspired historian has
expressly assigned for his baptizing in Enon, near to Salim; namely, "because

there was much water there." The people were baptized by John in the Jordan.
In this river our Lord was baptized, and his own example explains the meaning
of his command.

The baptism of the Ethiopian eunuch is very circumstantially described. The style
in which he travelled forbids the supposition that he had no drinking vessel, in
which a sufficient quantity of water might have been brought into the chariot to
wet the hand of the administrator. But, if they chose not to perform the rite in
the chariot, there was certainly no need for both of them to go into the water, if
the mere wetting of Philip's hand was sufficient. Why did they both go into the
water? and why did the sacred historian so particularly state this fact? "They
both went down into the water, both Philip and the eunuch, and they both came
up out of the water." These circumstantial facts are described in language which
no one ought to misunderstand, and which no one ought to overlook, who
desires to know his duty.

The Greek language continued to be spoken for many years after the times of
the apostles. During all this period they, to whom the word baptizo was
vernacular, understood it to signify immerse; and immersion has always been the
practice of the Greek church to the present day. The Greeks must have
understood the meaning of their own word. The Latin fathers also understood
the word in the same way; and immersion prevailed in the western as well as in
the eastern churches, until near the time of the reformation. Affusion was
allowed instead of immersion, in case of sickness; but it was accounted an
imperfect baptism. The testimony to these several facts I prefer to give in the
words of Professor Stuart:

"In the writings of the apostolic fathers, so called, i. e., the writers of the first
century, or, at least, those who lived in part during this century, scarcely
anything of a definite nature occurs respecting baptism, either in a doctrinal or
ritual respect. It is, indeed, frequently alluded to; but this is usually in a general
way only. We can easily gather from these allusions that the rite was practiced in
the church; but we are not able to determine, with precision, either the manner
of the rite or the stress that was laid upon it.

"In the Pastor of Hermas, however, occurs one passage (Coteler. Patr. Apostol.
I., p. 119, sq.), which runs as follows: "But this seal [of the sons of God] is
water, in quam descendunt homines morti obligati, into which men descend who
are bound to death, but those ascend who are destined to life. To them that seal

is disclosed, and they make use of it that they may enter the kingdom of God.

"I do not see how any doubt can well remain, that in Tertullian's time the
practice of the African church, to say the least, as to the mode of baptism, must
have been that of trine immersion.

"Subsequent ages make the general practice of the church still plainer, if, indeed,
this can be done. The Greek words kataduo and katadusis were employed as
expressive of baptizing and baptism, and these words mean going down into the
water, or immerging.

"The passages which refer to immersion are so numerous in the fathers, that it
would take a little volume merely to recite them.

"But enough. 'It is,' says Augusti (Denkw. VII., p. 216), 'a thing made out,' viz.,
the ancient practice of immersion. So, indeed, all the writers who have
thoroughly investigated this subject conclude. I know of no one usage of ancient
times which seems to be more clearly made out. I cannot see how it is possible
for any candid man who examines the subject to deny this.

That there were cases of exception allowed, now and then, is, no doubt, true.
Persons in extreme sickness or danger were allowed baptism by effusion, &c. But
all such cases were manifestly regarded as exceptions to the common usage of
the church."

BURIAL IN BAPTISM

The significancy of baptism requires immersion. Paul explains it: "Know ye not
that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ, were baptized into his
death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death; that, like as
Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also
should walk in newness of life.''(171) And again: "Buried with him in baptism,
wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God,
who hath raised him from the dead."(172) Peter alludes to the same import of the
rite, when he says: "The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save
us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good

conscience toward God) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ."(173)

The faith which we profess in baptism is faith in Christ; and the ceremony
significantly represents the great work of Christ, on which our faith relies for
salvation. We confess with the mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in the heart
that God has raised him from the dead.(174) His burial and resurrection are
exhibited in baptism, as his broken body and shed blood are exhibited in the
supper. In both ordinances our faith is directed to the sacrifice of Christ. Under
the name of sacraments they have been considered outward signs of inward
grace; and, in this view of them, they signify the work of the Holy Spirit within
us. But faith relies, for acceptance with God, on the work of Christ. It is a
perverted gospel which substitutes the work of the Spirit for the work of Christ
as the object of our faith; and it is a perverted baptism which represents the
faith that we profess, as directed, not to the work of Christ, the proper object of
faith, but to the work of the Holy Spirit in our hearts.

Objection 1.--There is an antithesis between the burial and resurrection which
are here mentioned. The resurrection is moral, being to newness of life; and the
same appears in the parallel passage in Colossians, where it is said to be "by the
faith of the operation of God." If the resurrection is moral, the antithetic burial
cannot be physical.

If consistency of interpretation requires the burial to be moral the baptism must
also be moral. The Quakers suppose that the baptism first mentioned in the
passage is moral: "So many of us as were baptized into Christ." But Pedobaptists
admit that physical baptism is intended in this clause. Now, in passing from
physical baptism at the beginning of the passage, to moral resurrection at its
close, there must be a point in the progress where we pass from what is physical
to what is moral. Where is that point? Some have imagined that it stands
between the clause last quoted, and that which immediately follows, "were
baptized into his death;" they suppose that "to be baptized into Christ," is
physical; but that to be baptized into his death is moral. The passage in
Galatians has been quoted as parallel: "For as many of you as have been
baptized into Christ, have put on Christ." The first clause in this verse, they say
refers to physical baptism; and the last to moral. But this is an erroneous
interpretation. To put on Christ, is to put on his religion by outward profession,
the profession which is made in baptism. The baptism and the profession are
alike, in implying a moral change in the subject, only so far as he is sincere.
Some are physically baptized, who do not morally put on Christ; but this, though
unquestionably true, is directly contradicted by the passage, if the proposed
interpretation of it is correct. So in the passage under consideration, it is affirmed

that the same persons, and the same number of persons that are baptized into
Christ, are baptized into his death. This could not be true, if the first baptism is
physical, and the second moral. Between these two clauses, therefore, there is
no place for a division between what is physical and what is moral.

We extend our examination further to find a place for the division, and we find it
plainly marked by the word "should;" even so we also should walk in newness of
life. Here the obligation to suitable morals is deduced from what goes before.
This obligation is deduced from the physical baptism with which the passage
begins, and everything in the passage, until we arrive at the word "should," is
closely connected with this physical baptism, and explanatory of it. These
intermediate links of explanation are necessary to connect the moral obligation
at the close, with the physical baptism at the outset of the passage. If these
intermediate links were moral, the proper position for the word "should," would
be in the first sentence--thus, so many of us as are baptized into Christ, should
be baptized into his death

In the parallel passage referred to in Colossians, the expression is "Buried with
him in baptism." The word baptism stands without adjuncts. It is not baptism
into death; but simply baptism. If the word baptism, thus standing alone, can
signify something wholly moral, it will be difficult to reject the Quaker
interpretation of these passages, and of "baptizing" in the commission. In the
preceding verse, circumcision is mentioned; but that we may know physical
circumcision not to be intended, it is expressly called "the circumcision made
without hands;" and "the circumcision of Christ." No such guard against
misinterpretation attends the mention of baptism; and when it is recollected that
Christians are not bound to receive physical circumcision, but are bound to
receive physical baptism, we must conclude that physical baptism is here
intended. The completeness of Christians requires the moral change denoted by
circumcision, and also the obedience rendered in physical baptism. In all who are
thus complete, this physical act is performed "in faith of the operation of God."
This passage does not, like that in Romans, deduce moral obligation from
baptism; and, therefore, the word should is not introduced: but it affirms the
completeness of true believers in their internal moral change, and in their very
significant outward profession of it.

0bjection 2.--Everywhere else in Scripture, water is an emblem of purification;
and it violates all analogy to suppose that in baptism it is an emblem of the
grave, which is the place of putridity and loathsomeness.

That water in baptism is an emblem of purification, is clear from the words
"Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins." But that water is an emblem
of nothing but purification, cannot be affirmed. In numerous passages it is an
emblem of afflictions, of deep afflictions, without any reference to purification.
When the Saviour said, "I have a baptism to be baptized with;" an immersion is
intended, not into a means of purification, but into sufferings and death.

The grave is a place of putridity and loathsomeness, but not until the corruptible
body is deposited in it; and when it leaves the grave the corruptible will put on
incorruption. Even the- grave, therefore, is a place of regeneration and
purification; and, instead of bearing no analogy to the purifying water of
baptism, the analogy is striking.

Some of the Scripture allusions to baptism, are made to it as a purifying rite, but
this is not true of all. An exception is found in 1 Cor. x. 2. On this Professor
Stuart remarks: "Here, then, was the cloud which first stood before them, and
then behind them; and here were the waters of the Red Sea, like a wall on their
right hand and on their left. Yet neither the cloud nor the waters touched them.
'They went through the midst of the sea upon dry ground.' Yet they were
baptized in the cloud and in the sea. The reason and ground of such an
expression must be, so far as I can discern, a surrounding of the Israelites on
different sides by the cloud and by the sea, although neither the cloud nor the
sea touched them. It is, therefore, a kind of figurative mode of expression,
derived from the idea that baptizing is surrounding with a fluid. But whether this
be by immersion, effusion, suffusion, or washing, would not seem to be decided.
The suggestion has sometimes been made, that the Israelites were sprinkled by
the cloud and by the sea, and this was the baptism which Paul meant to
designate. But the cloud on this occasion was not a cloud of rain; nor do we find
any intimation that the waters of the Red Sea sprinkled the children of Israel at
this time. So much is true, viz., that they were not immersed. Yet, as the
language must evidently be figurative in some good degree, and not literal, I do
not see how, on the whole, we can make less of it, than to suppose that it has a
tacit reference to the idea of surrounding in some way or other." This author
urges the objection which we are considering, as his "principal difficulty in
respect to the usual exegesis;" yet we have here, according to his own
exposition, an allusion to baptism, without any reference to purification. Another
such reference is found in 1 Peter iii. 21, and again in the words of Christ before
quoted, "I have a baptism to be baptized with."

Objection 3.--Very little resemblance can be found, between a man's being
dipped in water, and Christ's being laid in a sepulchre hewn out of a rock. The

supposed allusion requires resemblance.

Positive proof of allusion must be attended with difficulty; because, if it be mere
allusion, it is always made without express affirmation,. The proof of allusion
must therefore be circumstantial; yet there may be circumstances which exclude
all rational doubt of its existence.

If there is no resemblance between immersion and Christ's burial, the passage
before us contains no allusion. If the resemblance is so slight, that but few
persons are able to perceive it, the probability is, that the supposed allusion
exists only in the fancy of those who imagine they see it. But if men have
generally believed that allusion exists in the passage, the fact goes far to prove,
that there is resemblance.

Have men generally believed in the existence of the supposed allusion? It is not
necessary to examine the writings of authors attached to every different creed,
and differing from each other in their views of baptism. Professor Stuart tells us
their opinion in few words: "Most commentators have maintained, that
sunetaphemen has here a necessary reference to the mode of literal baptism,
which they say, was by immersion; and this, they think, affords ground for the
employment of the image used by the apostle, because immersion (under water)
may be compared to burial (under the earth). It is difficult, perhaps, to procure a
patient rehearing for this subject, so long regarded by some as being out of fair
dispute." Now this general agreement of commentators, answers the objection
which we are considering, far more successfully than any efforts of ours to point
out the resemblance, which these commentators have perceived. The fact that it
is seen is the best proof that it exists. The Scripture nowhere affirms that Paul, in
this passage, alluded to a resemblance between immersion and Christ's burial;
and, therefore, "the common exegesis" cannot be sustained by positive proof
from Scripture; but it finds proof, the best proof that the nature of the case
admits, in the fact that men generally have seen and felt the allusion.

Although positive proof of the common exegesis cannot be found in Scripture, a
circumstantial proof may be drawn from the passage itself, amounting to little
less than full demonstration. After making mention of baptism into Christ's death,
Paul, before he refers to Christ's resurrection, goes out of the usual course to
speak of Christ's burial. This was not necessary for the moral instruction which
he designed to convey, if nothing but moral conformity to Christ's death was
intended. It was not necessary for the purpose of finding an antithesis to the
resurrection of Christ. The Scriptures usually speak of Christ's rising from the

dead, not from the grave: and his death is the common antithesis to his
resurrection. An example occurs in the present chapter, "If we have been
planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of
his resurrection." In Colossians, after the passage "Buried with him in baptism,"
the antithesis is again made, between the death (not the burial) of Christ, and
his resurrection: "Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ, from the rudiments of the
world, why, as though living in the world, &c."(175) "If ye then be risen with
Christ, seek those things which are above," &c. "For ye are dead, and your life is
hid with Christ in God."(176) Why did the apostle step out of the usual course, in
two different passages to mention the burial of Christ? and to mention it in
connection with baptism? It cannot be accounted for if the common exegesis be
rejected.

The objection states that little resemblance can be found between immersion
and Christ's burial: and the same might be said with respect to the resemblance
between a loaf of bread, and the body of Christ. A well executed picture of the
crucifixion, such as may be seen in Catholic chapels, has much more
resemblance to the body of Christ, than is furnished by a piece of bread; yet,
considering all the ends to be answered by the Eucharist, the divine wisdom has
determined that we should keep Christ's death in memory, not by looking at a
crucifix, but by the eating of bread. In like manner, some means might have
been devised for representing the burial and resurrection of Christ, supplying a
nearer resemblance than is furnished by immersion in water. But when we
consider that baptism not only represents the burial and resurrection of Christ,
but also our fellowship with him in both, and the consequent removal or washing
away of our guilt, nothing could more conveniently, aptly, and instructively
accomplish all these ends at once.

ARGUMENTS FOR ANOTHER MEANING

Argument 1.--There are many reasons for supposing that baptizo, being a
derivative from bapto, has a less definite and less forcible sense than the
original. And yet even bapto does not always signify a total immersion. This is
perfectly evident from Mat. xxvi. 23: "He that dippeth his hand with me in the
dish." Mark has it o embaptomenos, he that dippeth himself. Now, whatever
liquid the dish contained, it cannot be supposed, that Judas plunged his hand all
over in that liquid; much less that he dipped his entire person.
What the "many reasons" are, for supposing that baptizo has a less definite and
less forcible signification than bapto, the argument does not inform us. The mere

fact that it is a derivative, furnishes not the slightest proof; for derivatives may
be amplificative or intensive. To assume that they must be diminutive, would be
utterly fallacious. The termination izo, whether it be frequentative, or causative,
is not diminutive. Our examination of the preceding tables has shown, that the
primitive generally denotes a slight and temporary immersion; but that the
derivative, in nearly one-half of the examples in which it is used, literally signifies
total and permanent immersion. This fact is decisive against the supposition, that
baptizo is less definite and forcible.
But if the less forcible primitive bapto had been used in the commission, no
sufficient reason would exist, for supposing anything less than dipping to be
intended. The meaning even of this word, is clearly to dip. The numerous
examples of its use which have been adduced, establish this point; and even the
very example brought forward in the argument, proves it. Judas dipped his hand
in the dish. He did not wash, purify, wet, sprinkle, or pour his hand; but he
dipped it. To dip, therefore according to this very example, is the meaning of
bapto; and if this word had been employed in the commission, the command
would have been, "Go teach all nations, dipping them." Dipping was commanded
in many of the ceremonies prescribed in the Old Testament, and the word bapto
expresses the duty enjoined. No one imagines that it signifies, in these cases, to
sprinkle or pour. Had this word been used in the commission, Christian
worshippers would be less obedient than the Israelites, if they satisfied
themselves with anything less than dipping.

But it is alleged, that the word does not always denote total immersion. On reexamining the Table of Examples, we find that frequently, in the use of bapto,
less frequently in the use of baptizo, the immersion is not total; but, in no case,
does this arise from any defect in the meaning of either verb. When a teacher
directs his pupil to dip his pen in the ink for the purpose of writing, no one
understands that an immersion of the whole pen is intended. When we read,
"Send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my
tongue;"(177) every one understands that the whole of the part designated, the
tip of the finger, is to be immersed. The difference in the two cases does not
arise from any difference in the meaning of the verb dip. It is the same word in
both cases, and has the same meaning; but the purpose for which the act is to
be performed determines the extent to which the immersion is to proceed. If the
pupil should stupidly mistake the teacher's design, the command would be
explained, "Dip the nib of the pen in the ink;" and this is all that the first
command meant. The greater definiteness of the last command, does not arise
from any greater definiteness given to the verb dip. It is definite in the last case,
and was equally definite in the first; but in the first, by a very common figure of
speech, the whole pen was put for a part. The teacher relied on the nature of

the case to limit the meaning of his command, and language is always
sufficiently definite, so long as there is no danger of being misunderstood. We
say that a pen is dipped, when in strict language the nib only is dipped; but the
nib is totally immersed, and hence, in its proper meaning, to dip signifies total
immersion. In all cases where the command is to dip, so far as depends on the
meaning of the word, total immersion must be understood; and if we had
received the commission in English, Go teach all nations, dipping them, it might
safely be left to the common sense of mankind to determine whether partial or
total immersion was intended.

The middle voice of Greek verbs is used, when an agent acts for his own benefit.
This sufficiently explains Mark's use of embaptomenos in the example cited in
the argument. What Judas dipped in the dish, is said by Matthew to have been
his hand. A hand may be totally immersed in the cavity of an empty dish, or of a
dish containing solids; but the probable meaning in the present case is, that
something which the hand held, was dipped in a liquid which the dish contained.
The hand, by a figure of speech, is put for what it held; and the dish, by a like
figure, is put for what it contained: but amidst these figures, the word dip retains
its literal and proper meaning; and nothing was literally and properly dipped,
except what was totally immersed.

If the reader will again look through the examples in which baptizo occurs, he
may observe that, with very few exceptions, they are all cases of total
immersion. Among the few exceptions, there are three (Ex.'s 31, 35, 49) in
which the immersion is partial by expressed limitations: "up to the head;" "up to
the waist;" "up to the hilt." The fact that these limitations are expressed,
demonstrates that without them, the word would signify total immersion. This is
the word which is used in the commission, without any limiting clause, and
without anything either in the context, or the nature of the subject, to suggest
that partial immersion was intended. Because an example may be found, in
which, from the nature of the case, the immersion denoted is partial, we are not
justified in inferring that partial immersion is here intended. The humble and
teachable disciple desires to know and do what his divine Master meant that he
should do; and the language of the command is as definite, as if it had been
expressed in English, "Go, teach all nations, immersing them." It does not read
totally immersing; but if any one will refuse total immersion until he finds this
expressly written, we must leave him to his own conscience, and to the
judgment of Him who gave the command.

Argument 2.--Baptizo does indeed signify to immerse but it also signifies to
wash, and under this last meaning, ceremonial purification is included. The

Syrian leper was commanded to wash in Jordan; and the act of obedience to this
command, is expressed by baptizo. A dispute between the Jews and John's
disciples about his baptism, is called "a question about purifying."(178) The
Hebrew purifications were performed in various ways; chiefly by sprinkling
consecrated water. Among their rites, "divers baptisms" are mentioned.(179) The
word divers is the same that is applied to spiritual gifts in Rom. xii. 6, and
signifies, of different kinds. Now, the baptisms could not be of different kinds, if
they were all performed by immersion. Moreover, one of these kinds is expressly
stated in the context to be "sprinkling." Further, the Pharisees are said to have
baptized themselves, after returning from market, when nothing more than the
washing of hands is intended. They are also said to have held the baptism of
pots, cups, brazen vessels, and tables; or, as the last word should have been
translated, of beds, or the couches on which they reclined at meals. That all
these purifications, and especially of the beds, were performed by immersion, is
wholly incredible.

If to immerse, and to wash or purify are two different senses of baptizo, the
question arises, in which of these senses did Christ use the term in the
commission? We are not at liberty to take either of them at our pleasure. When a
teacher commands his pupil to "dip the pen in the ink," the pupil may, by turning
to Johnson's Dictionary, find that the word dip has four senses; and that one of
these is to wet, to moisten. This sense is exemplified by a quotation from Milton:

"A cold shuddering dew dips me all o'er."

With so high authority for this interpretation of dip, the pupil may conclude to
wet or moisten the pen, by putting the ink into it in some other way: and he may
adopt this conclusion with the less hesitation, because all the purpose for which
he understands the command to have been given, will be as well accomplished.
But when he has filled his pen in some other mode, has he obeyed his teacher's
command? Every one knows that he has not. But why? Does not the word dip
signify to wet or moisten? We answer, it does not usually signify this; and the
usual sense, is that in which the teacher employed the term. So Christ used the
word baptizo in its usual sense; and we as truly disobey his command, if we do
not obey it in the sense which he intended, as if we substituted some other
command in its place. What the usual sense of the word was, the examples
which have been adduced fully establish.

But does baptizo signify to wash? Lexicographers say that it does, just as
Johnson says that to dip signifies to wet or moisten. Words acquire secondary or

accidental significations, from peculiar connections, or tropical usage; and these
are enumerated by lexicographers as distinct meanings. Nor are they to be
censured for this. Their design is, to give a view of the language, and not a mere
collection of primary meanings. Our care, however, should be, when strict
accuracy is required, to distinguish what is merely accidental in the signification
of a word, from what is its true and proper meaning. To immerse and to wash,
cannot both be the primary meaning of baptizo. The last meaning cannot
account for the use of the word, in the various examples in which it occurs; and
the other meaning, to immerse could not well be derived from it. On the other
hand, to immerse, accounts fully and satisfactorily for every use of the word. It
must therefore be the primary sense; and so lexicographers have decided. The
secondary sense, which is unknown to a large part of the examples, is, in strict
criticism, merely the purpose for which the immersion happens to be performed.
When the immersion is designed for the purpose of washing, or of ceremonial
purification, the accidental signification to wash or purify is ascribed to the word:
but its proper meaning remains unchanged, just as the proper meaning of bapto,
in Job ix. 30, remains unchanged, by the accidental signification, to defile, which
it acquires. In sound criticism, such accidental significations of words are not,
strictly speaking, any part of their meaning, as was stated on p. 34. They are
ideas, not expressed by the words, but suggested by the connection in which
they are used.

A further proof that baptizo does not signify to wash, to purify, to wet, to
sprinkle, or to pour, may be drawn from the fact, that the copiousness of the
Greek language supplies distinct words to express all these several ideas. If
Jesus designed to command any one of these acts, why did he not use the
proper word for denoting it? Why did he employ a word which properly denotes
a different act, and which, therefore, could not convey his meaning, or must
convey it very doubtfully?

The Syrian leper was commanded to wash in Jordan, and, for this purpose, he
immersed himself in the river. The word baptizo, denotes the immersion; and
informs us, not only that he obeyed the command, but also how he obeyed it.
He did not wash, by sprinkling a few drops on his face.

We are informed that "there arose a question between some of John's disciples
and the Jews about purifying."(180) What the precise question was, we are not
told; and it is impossible to determine, what its relation was to John's baptism.
But the passage contains no proof, that to baptize and to purify are identical.

Paul says of the Hebrew worship: "Which stood in meats, and drinks, and divers
baptisms, and carnal ordinances." It is true, as stated in the argument, that the
same word "divers" is applied to the gifts mentioned in Rom. xii. 6; but these
"gifts" were all gifts. They were gifts of various kinds; but the variety did not
cause any of them to cease to be gifts. In like manner, the divers baptisms, or
immersions, mentioned in this passage, are all immersions. Their variety does
not change them into something different from immersions. The immersion of
divers persons and things, at divers times, under divers circumstances, and for
divers kinds of uncleanness, constitutes divers immersions, without the
supposition that some of them were performed by sprinkling. Had the phrase
been, divers sprinklings, instead of divers immersions, no one would have
inferred that some of these sprinklings were performed by immersion.

But it is alleged, that Paul has informed us in the context, that some of these
divers baptisms were performed by sprinkling. This is a mistake. Paul mentions in
the context, "the sprinkling of the ashes of an heifer, sanctifying to the purifying
of the flesh. "He classifies the various rites under four heads: 1. Meats. 2. Drinks.
3. Divers immersions. 4. Carnal ordinances, or ordinances concerning the flesh.
Under the last of these heads, the sprinkling which sanctified to the purifying of
the flesh, was manifestly included. The assumption that it was one of the divers
baptisms, is unauthorized and erroneous.

In maintaining that sprinkling and immersion are divers baptisms, the argument
opposes the position usually taken by the advocates of sprinkling. Jewish
baptisms were divers; but Christian baptism Paul declares to be one: "One Lord,
one faith, one baptism." In explaining this passage, the advocates of sprinkling
allege that sprinkling and immersion are merely different modes of the same rite;
but different modes of one baptism do not constitute divers baptisms. If
sprinkling is really a different baptism how can the use of it be reconciled with
the unity of the Christian rite?

The word baptizo, in Mark vii. 4, does not signify the mere washing of the hands.
This act is expressed in the preceding verse, by nipto, the proper word for
denoting it. Instead of confounding the meaning of the two words, the sense of
the passage requires that they should be carefully distinguished. The act which
one of them denotes, was performed on ordinary occasions; but the act denoted
by the other, was performed on extraordinary occasions: "when they came from
the market." Some understand an immersion of the things brought from the
market; some, an immersion of the arm up to the elbow; and some, an
immersion of the whole body. I suppose the last to be the true meaning; but, for
our present purpose, there is no necessity of deciding between these

interpretations. According to either of them, the word retains its usual
signification to immerse.

What has been said on this passage, will assist in explaining a similar one in
Luke: "When the Pharisee saw it, he marvelled that he had not first washed
[baptized] before dinner."(181) Jesus had been mingling with a crowd of people,
who had "gathered thick"(182) around him; and the danger of ceremonial
defilement was as if he had come from the market. Hence, the Pharisee
expected him to use immersion before dinner, as necessary to the proper
sanctity of a religious teacher.

The immersion of beds, the argument rashly pronounces incredible. Dr. Gill, in
his comments on the passage, has proved that such immersions were practiced,
by quoting at length the regulations of the Rabbins respecting them. To
pronounce the statements of the Bible incredible, unless the words be taken in
an unusual sense, is not honorable to divine inspiration.

Argument 3.--The Jewish rites were of two kinds; some atoning; others,
purifying. The Christian sacraments are a summary of the Jewish rites: the
eucharist corresponding to those which were atoning, and baptism to those
which were purifying. If both of them took the place of the atoning rites, by
referring to the work of Christ, the Christian system would be defective, in
having no ceremony to represent the purifying work of the Holy Spirit. But if
baptism represents this, it is sufficient to perform it in any mode that will
represent purifying; and especially by sprinkling, which is the mode that was
commonly employed for this purpose.
It is better to learn the design of the Christian rites, from the Holy Scriptures,
than from our own reasonings, as to what is necessary to render the Christian
system complete. The supper represents the atoning work of Christ, and it, at
the same time, represents our feeding on Christ by faith, which is produced by
the influence of the Holy Spirit. Because the supper represents the atoning work
of Christ, we have no right to confine it to this single purpose, and refuse to eat
and to drink, because these acts do not represent a part of Christ's work.
Baptism represents our purification from sin; but it, at the same time, represents
our fellowship with Christ in his burial and resurrection; and if we so perform it
as to make it serve one of these purposes only, we do what no one claims the
right to do with respect to the other Christian ceremony. We mutilate an
ordinance of Christ, and render it unfit to fulfil all the purposes which his wisdom

had in view.

Argument 4.--The language of the New Testament, although written in Greek
letters, is not the Greek of classic authors; but modified by peculiarities of
Hebrew origin. On this account, it avails but little, in ascertaining the sense of
baptizo in the New Testament, to collect examples of its use by profane authors.
The examples in which the word has reference to purification, Cl. I. 3, are
numerous in the Greek Scriptures. As the primitive bapto loses the original sense
to dip, when it takes the secondary sense to color; so baptizo was used by the
Hebrews in the sense to purify, without regard to the primary sense to immerse.
By profane writers, the word was usually construed with the preposition eis; but,
in the Scriptures, it is usually construed with the preposition en, and sometimes
with the dative without a preposition. This peculiarity of construction may be
regarded as proof, that the sense of the word is not identical with that in which it
is employed by Greek classic authors.

We cheerfully admit that the Greek of the New Testament contains many
Hebrew idioms. It is also true, that some of the words are used to denote things
which were unknown to writers unacquainted with the religion of the Hebrews;
and these words must therefore be used in a peculiar sense. But notwithstanding
all this, the language of the New Testament is Greek. This language, because of
its general prevalence, was wisely selected to be the vehicle of the New
Testament revelation. The Holy Spirit made the revelation for the benefit of
mankind, and not for the Jews exclusively. The selection of a language which
was generally understood among the nations, was in accordance with this
design; provided the words were generally employed in their known signification.
But if the words were used in senses to which men were unaccustomed, the
prevalence of the language was a strong objection to its use. Men would
unavoidably be misled, by taking words which were familiar in the customary
sense.

Baptizo did not denote something peculiar to the Hebrew religion or customs, but
an act which had no necessary connection with religion, and which was as well
known in every heathen land as it was in the land of Judea. If a peculiar use of it
could be proved to have prevailed in Judea, it might still be questioned, whether,
in a revelation designed for all nations, the Holy Spirit would have conformed to
this peculiar usage. But no such proof exists. Not a single passage can be found,
either in the Septuagint, or the New Testament, in which the word departs from
its ordinary signification. When it denoted immersion, performed for the purpose
of ceremonial purification, the meaning of the word was precisely the same, as if
the immersion had been performed for any other purpose. Bapto frequently

occurs in the Old Testament in commands which enjoin religious observances.
Yet no one concludes that this word had a Hebrew sense different from that
which it obtained among the Gentiles; and the supposition that baptizo had a
peculiar Hebrew sense, is destitute of foundation.

The language of Christ, "I have a baptism to be baptized with," cannot be
explained, on the supposition that the Hebrew mind attached the sense purify to
the word baptize. To render the phrase intelligible and expressive, we must
admit the classical sense immerse.

Josephus was a Jew, and wrote soon after the time of Christ. From his use of the
word, we may learn what it signified to the mind of a Jew. Table II. contains
several examples from this author, in not one of which does the supposed
Hebrew meaning to purify appear; but the meaning in all is precisely the same as
in the Greek of gentile authors.

That the Hebrews attached the ordinary meaning to the word, may be learned
from Jewish proselyte baptism. All admit that this was immersion. Many have
maintained that this baptism was practiced as early as the time of Christ. If it
was, the fact decides what the word meant in that age and country. But if, as is
more probable, the practice did not originate till the second century, the proof is
still decisive, that the Jews had not been accustomed to a different sense of the
word.

The use of immersion for the purpose of purifying, was not confined to the
Hebrew nation. One design of bathing, a process which classic Greek sometimes
expresses by baptizo, is the cleansing of the body. The dipping denoted by
bapto, in Ex. 36 and 38, is clearly for the purpose of cleansing. The peculiarity in
the Hebrew use of these words is, that the immersion which they signify, was
performed for the purpose of religious purification. This resulted from the
religious character of the nation, and not from a peculiar sense of the terms.
Immersion, when performed for religious purification, does not cease to be
immersion.

We admit that bapto has a secondary sense to color, as well as the primary
sense to dip; but both these senses are found in classic, as well as sacred
literature. The case, therefore, furnishes no analogy which can give countenance
to the supposition, that to purify is a secondary sense, in which the primary
sense of baptizo is lost. No one pretends that this secondary sense is found in

classic Greek.

The alleged peculiarity of construction in the New Testament, does not prove
that the word has a different meaning in Scripture, from that which prevailed in
uninspired writings. As, in English, we say to dip into, or to dip in; so, in Greek,
baptizo is construed with either eis or en. Both these prepositions agree perfectly
with the sense to immerse. Were one of them invariably used in the Scriptures in
construction with the verb, the circumstance would furnish no valid argument for
a peculiar meaning in the sacred writing. Though en is commonly used, eis is
also found;(183) and the example in which it occurs, Mark i. 9, so connects the
sacred use of the word with the classical, as to deprive the argument for a
peculiar meaning, of the plausibility which an invariable use of one construction
might be supposed to give it. The fact that both constructions appear in the
inspired writings, supplies additional assurance that the meaning of the verb is
not peculiar. We feel that the Greek language is the same, whether we read it on
the sacred or the classic page. Dr. Campbell, in his notes on Matt. iii. 11, says:-"In water--in the Holy Spirit . . .Vulgate in aqua in Spiritu Sancto. Thus also the
Syr., and other ancient versions. . . . I am sorry to observe that the Popish
translations from the Vul. have shown greater veneration for the style of that
version than the generality of Protestant translations have shown for that of the
original. For in this the Latin is not more explicit than the Greek. Yet so
inconsistent are the interpreters last mentioned, that none of them have scrupled
to render en to Iordane in the sixth verse, in Jordan, though nothing can be
plainer, than that if there be any incongruity in the expression in water, this in
Jordan must be equally incongruous. But they have seen that the preposition in
could not be avoided there without adopting a circumlocution, and saying, with
the water of Jordan, which would have made their deviation from the text too
glaring. The word baptizein, both in sacred authors, and in classical, signifies, to
dip, to plunge, to immerse, and was rendered by Tertullian, the oldest of the
Latin fathers, tingere the term used for dyeing moth which was by immersion. It
is always construed suitably to this meaning."

Argument 5.--If it were the case that baptizo clearly signifies to dip, or immerse
all over in water, when applied to other subjects, it would by no means certainly
follow, that it has this signification, when applied to the Christian rite of baptism.
The word supper in English, and deipnon in Greek, have a very different sense,
when applied to the eucharist, from what they have in ordinary cases. Eating a
morsel of bread does not constitute a supper, in the ordinary sense; but it is
called a supper, in this religious rite. Now, if the word which denotes one
Christian rite, has a sense so very different from its usual sense; why may it not
be so, with the word which denotes the other Christian rite? Why may it not
signify, instead of a complete dipping or washing, the application of water in a

small degree?

This argument claims. that words may have a peculiar sense in religious rites. It
does not claim this for Greek words only; for it does not object to supper as a
proper rendering of deipnon. It claims that these words, both the Greek and the
English, have a sense unknown elsewhere, when they are applied to the
eucharist. There is. therefore. no necessity in controverting the argument, to
transport ourselves to the foreign territory of the Greek language; but we are at
liberty to meet it, and try its validity, on English ground. It does not object that
immerse is an improper rendering of baptizo; but it claims that these words,
when applied to a religious rite, may have a meaning which they possess in no
other case. We are consequently at liberty, in trying the validity of the argument.
to use the word immerse as a correct translation of the

The whole argument rests on what is supposed to be a peculiar use of a single
word, deipnon; and it deserves special consideration, that there is but a single
instance of this peculiar signification, even with respect to this word. The
instances are exceedingly numerous, in which other words are used with
reference to religious rites; and even deipnon is frequently used with reference
to the paschal supper. In all these instances it is invariably true, that words when
applied to religious rites, have the same signification as in other cases, and are
subject to the same rules of interpretation. If deipnon in 1 Cor. xi. 20, is an
exception, it is a solitary exception. It is certainly the part of true criticism, in
determining the meaning of baptizo to follow the general rule rather than the
single exception. Besides, we have frequent use of bapto with reference to
religious rites. The Jewish priests seem never to have thought, that, when Moses
enjoined dipping in religious rites, he meant a diminutive dipping, or one that
might be performed by sprinkling; and no one has suggested, that these priests
mistook the meaning of their lawgiver. Is it not infinitely more probable, that
baptizo follows its kindred word bapto, in obeying the general rule, than that it
follows a very different word in a solitary deviation from all rule and analogy?

If on a single instance we may establish a rule, that words, when applied to a
religious rite, may have a meaning which they obtain nowhere else; who will limit
the application of this rule, and tell us, how many of the words which apply to
religious rites, obtain an extraordinary meaning, or how far their meaning differs
from that which they obtain elsewhere? Perhaps the words, which, in the
institution of the supper, are rendered eat and drink, although they have this
meaning everywhere else, signify, when applied to a religious rite, nothing more
than to handle and to look upon. Who will determine for us? Has the legislator of
the Church committed to any one a lexicon of ritual terms, by which his simple-

hearted disciples may find out what he meant? Or has he given to any persons
on earth authority to decree what ceremonies they may think proper, by
assigning to all the ritual terms of Scripture what sense they please?

That the terms used in reference to religious rites, may sometimes have a
figurative rather than the literal meaning, a secondary sense rather than the
primary, may be admitted. But this is what happens in all other speaking or
writing, and the same rules of criticism are to be applied in this as in other cases.
We must prefer the literal and primary signification, if nothing forbids it. We
understand the word is, in the phrase "This is my body," to signify represents;
because the literal primary signification would make the sense absurd and false.
But this word has the same signification, when not applied to a religious rite, in
the phrase, "The field is the world." For the same reason, the phrase "As often
as ye drink this cup," is to be interpreted according to a common figure of
speech, as often as ye drink the liquor contained in this cup. The same literal
sense of the terms, and the same rules of figurative interpretation, are found
here, as in all other cases.

The premises stated in the argument, cannot, in any view of them, justify the
conclusion that baptism may be administered by using a small quantity of water.
The proper conclusion would rather be, that we ought to change our mode of
administering the eucharist. If we do not literally and fully obey the divine
command when we restrict ourselves in this ordinance to a morsel of bread and
a few drops of wine, we do wrong so to restrict ourselves; and we ought rather
to correct the error than establish it as a precedent.

It deserves to be noticed, further, that baptizo and deipnon are not applied to
the two religious rites in the same manner. One of them is found in the words of
Christ's command; the other is not, but is, at most, merely a name which the rite
has received. Our conduct, in obeying the commands of Christ, must be
regulated, not by the names which His institutions may receive, but by the words
of his commands. Believers are said, in Scripture, to be buried with Christ in
baptism, at least twice as often as the Eucharist is called a supper. Baptism may,
therefore, be called a burial; but no one would infer hence that the body should
be left for a long time under the water, as in a real interment. Baptism
represents a real burial, in which the body of Christ continued three days in the
grave. The eucharist represents the free and abundant communion in which the
Lord sups with His people,(184) in which a great supper is spread,(185) and which
will be perfected at the marriage supper of the Lamb.(186) Yet Christ did not say,
"Go, teach all nations, burying them;" nor, "Take a supper in remembrance of
me." His command in the latter case is, "Eat this bread and drink this cup;" and

he did not institute this ordinance as a supper, but "after supper." Now, if the
command is eat, drink, could this command be obeyed any otherwise than by
eating and drinking? Would it suffice merely to apply the bread and cup to the
lips? In like manner, when Christ said, "Go, teach all nations, immersing them,"
can the command be obeyed in any other way than by performing a real
immersion? In the eucharist, he commanded to eat bread and drink wine, but
not to take a full meal; and we know, from the circumstance that this ordinance
was instituted immediately after the disciples had taken a full meal, that a full
meal was not intended. The Corinthians, when they converted this ordinance into
a full meal, did truly eat and drink, yet they did not fulfil the command more
strictly and literally than we do; while, on the other hand, they departed from
the example, and manifest intention of Christ, and were censured for so doing by
the Apostle Paul.

We have suggested that the eucharist may possibly be called a supper, because
of the spiritual feast which it represents. So one of the Jewish feasts was called
the Passover, because of what it commemorated. But, after all, it is not certain
that the eucharist is, in Scripture, called a supper. The eucharist is several times
mentioned in the New Testament, but is never called the Lord's Supper, unless in
this instance; and many learned men are of opinion that, what is here called by
this name, is not the eucharist itself, but the Love Feast which was anciently
celebrated in connection with it. Perhaps it denotes the perversion which the
Corinthians made of the eucharist. The phrase is without the definite article in
the original text, and might be rendered "a supper of the Lord." Paul does not
deny that the Corinthians had made a supper of it, but he denies that it was a
supper of the Lord--a supper which the Lord had instituted, or which he
approved. What proof, then, is there, that the Holy Spirit has ever called the
eucharist by the name Lord's Supper? We have no objection to the name in itself
considered; but, when so much is made to depend on it, the authority for it
needs to be examined. If a universal law of Biblical interpretation, respecting
ritual words, is to be established on a single fact, the fact should be well
ascertained.

Everywhere throughout the New Testament, the words baptize and baptism are
applied to one of the Christian rites; if the word supper is ever applied to the
other, it is but in a single instance, and it may be that it is there applied to it as
converted by abuse into a full meal. The word baptize was used in Christ's
command, and directly expresses the act commanded. The word supper was not
used in the command; and, if it be used as a name of the institution, is not
directly descriptive of it. The two cases have no analogy between them to
sustain the argument.

Argument 6.--The circumstances attending the baptisms of the New Testament,
do not, in any case, prove that they were administered by immersion.

They who urge this argument have alleged that, in the account of Christ's
baptism, the phrase "went up straightway out of the water," ought to have been
translated, "went up straightway from the water."(187) The emendation of the
translation leaves us without proof, they say, that he went into the water to be
baptized. We admit, in this case, the correction of the translation. This clause,
we concede, does not prove that Christ was in the water. But we have proof of
this, in another verse of the same chapter: "And were baptized of him in
Jordan."(188) The testimony of Mark to the same point, is very decisive. His record
of the transaction may be properly translated thus: "And was immersed by John
into the Jordan."(189)

In the account of the eunuch's baptism, the phrases, "they went down into the
water," and "they came up out of the water," have been subjected to a similar
criticism. It has been alleged that these may be translated with equal propriety,
"they went down to the water," and "they came up from the water." This we
deny. The preposition apo used in the former case, is not found here, and our
translators have, in the present case, rendered the prepositions eis and ek
according to their usual import. The opponents of immersion do not deny this, or
maintain that they must be translated otherwise; but a departure from their
ordinary signification ought not to be supposed without necessity. That these
prepositions signify into and out of, in the common use of them by Greek
authors, might be proved by innumerable citations; but, instead of these, the
following extracts from Robinson's Lexicon ought to suffice:--

"Apo is used of such objects as before were on, by, or with another, but are now
separated from it (not in it, for to this ek corresponds)." "Ek [is] spoken of such
objects as before were in another, but are now separated from it."

This decides that our common version gives the true sense of the passage, in the
rendering, "they went up out of the water." It follows that they must have been
in the water when the baptism was performed; and that they must have gone
down into the water for its performance.

It has been argued that, if going down into the water proves immersion, Philip
was immersed as well as the eunuch; for they both went down into the water. If
we maintained that going down into the water signifies going beneath its

surface, this argument would be applicable; and it might also be argued against
us that the clause which the inspired historian has added, "he baptized him," is
superfluous. But we understand the immersion to be denoted by this last phrase;
and which of the two persons was immersed, the context clearly shows. But
while the phrase, they went down into the water, does not express the
immersion, it proves it. No other satisfactory reason, for going into the water,
can be assigned. But in truth this circumstantial proof is not needed. The phrase,
"he baptized him," states expressly what was done.

In the passage, "John was baptizing in Enon, near to Salim, because there was
much water there,"(190) it has been alleged that the proper translation is many
waters; and it is argued that the waters were many small springs or rivulets, not
adapted to the purpose of immersion, but needed for the subsistence and
comfort of the crowds that attended John's ministry.

The word rendered water properly denotes the element, and not a spring or
rivulet. It was used in the plural, as we use the word ashes to denote the
element, and not separate collections of it. In the phrase "ofttimes it hath cast
him into the fire and into the water,"(191) fire is singular, and water is plural in the
original text. If the latter word was put in the plural form, to denote the different
collections of the element into which the afflicted youth fell at different times,
the word fire would, for the same reason, need to be plural. Hence the phrase
many waters does not signify many small springs or streams. When Isaiah said,
"The nations shall rush like the rushing of many waters;"(192) when David said,
"The Lord on high is mightier than the noise of many waters, yea, than the
mighty waves of the sea;"(193) and again: "He drew me out of many waters;"(194)-when John said, "His voice was as the sound of many waters;"(195) the
supposition that many little springs or rivulets are intended, is inadmissible. The
same phrase, many waters, is used for the river Euphrates.(196) It follows,
therefore, that the proposed change of translation, can be of no avail to lessen
the evidence of the passage in favor of immersion. As to the allegation, that the
water was needed for the subsistence and comfort of the people; we answer,
that this, whether true or not, is not what the historian has stated. "John was
baptizing, because there was much water." Water was needed for baptizing; and
the connection of the clauses shows that the place was selected with reference
to the administration of the rite.

Argument 7.--In several cases the circumstances which attended baptism forbid
the belief that it was administered by immersion.

This is a dangerous argument. If the Holy Spirit affirms persons were baptized,
and if to baptize signifies to immerse, it becomes us to receive his testimony;
and, if any difficulty respecting the probability of the fact presents itself to our
imagination, we should ascribe it to our ignorance. If an ordinary historian
relates what cannot be believed, when understood according to the established
laws of language, we do not invent new laws to relieve his veracity; but we
pronounce his statement incredible. They who urge this argument, should
beware lest they impugn the veracity of the Holy Spirit.

It has been imagined that there was not sufficient water to be obtained in
Jerusalem for the immersion of three thousand on the day of Pentecost.
Jerusalem was the religious capital of a religious nation, whose forms of worship
required frequent ceremonial purifications. These purifications were not
performed exclusively by the sprinkling of consecrated water; but in various
cases, the defiled person was required to wash his clothes, and bathe himself in
water.(197) Provision for such bathing was needed throughout the land. At Cana,
an obscure town of Galilee, a poor family unable to supply a sufficient quantity of
wine for a wedding feast, had six water pots of stone containing two or three
firkins apiece, for the purpose of purifying.(198) Such provision was specially
needed at Jerusalem, the centre of their worship. Here their sacrifices were to be
offered, and here the whole nation were required to assemble for their appointed
feasts; and these they were forbidden to celebrate, if in a state of defilement. In
preparation for these feasts, we know from the express testimony of John, that
the people went up to Jerusalem "to purify themselves."(199) Some provision,
therefore, must have existed, accessible to the people, and sufficient for their
use, at these great gatherings. The privilege which was open to the whole
multitude out of every nation under heaven at this pentecostal feast, belonged
equally to the apostles, and to the three thousand who were baptized; for all
these were Jews, fully entitled to enter the temple, and unite in all the public
services of the nation. If any of the rulers were inclined to hinder them, they as
yet feared the people; for when these baptisms were performed, the
administrators and subjects had "favor with all the people." If, therefore, any
one persist in asking where water was found to immerse so many, we ask in turn
where was water found sufficient for the purifying of the assembled nation?

In Jerusalem, as it now is, there are large cisterns of water on the grounds
attached to private dwellings; and we may suppose that, when the city was in its
ancient prosperity, such reservoirs were far more numerous. It is probable that
access to these, as to rooms for keeping the Passover, was often obtained by the
assembled worshippers. Of the converts who were baptized on the day of
Pentecost, it is likely that many resided in the city; and if the use of private tanks
was needed for baptism, their tanks were doubtless at the service of the

apostles. There were also public pools, of which Chateaubriand, who visited
Palestine about the beginning of the present century, gives the following
account:--

Having descended Mount Zion on the east side, we came, at its foot, to the
fountain and pool of Siloe, where Christ restored sight to the blind man. The
spring issues from a rock, and runs in a silent stream. The pool, or rather the
two pools of the same name, are quite close to the spring. Here you also find a
village called Siloan. At the foot of this village is another fountain, denominated
in Scripture Rogel. Opposite to this fountain is a third, which receives its name
from the blessed Virgin. The Virgin's fountain mingles its stream with that of the
fountain of Siloe.

We have now nothing left of the primitive architecture of the Jews at Jerusalem,
except the Pool of Bethesda. This is still to be seen near St. Stephen's Gate, and
it bounded the temple on the north. It is a reservoir, one hundred and fifty feet
long, and forty wide; the pool is now dry, and half filled up. On the west side
may also be seen two arches, which probably led to an aqueduct that carried the
water into the interior of the temple.

The dimensions of the Pool of Bethesda, as given by Maundrell, are one hundred
and twenty paces long, forty broad, and eight deep. Even the smaller dimensions
given by Chateaubriand, indicate a sufficient supply of water in this single pool
for the whole pentecostal baptism. A doubt has been recently raised, whether
the excavation measured by these travellers, is identical with the ancient
Bethesda: and attention has been directed to a neighboring intermittent
fountain, the water of which, instead of flowing equably, sometimes rises by a
sudden movement, and, after a time, subsides to its former level. This has been
thought to agree with John's account of the ancient pool: "For an angel went
down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water.(200) The
hypothesis is liable to strong objections, which our purpose does not require us
to present. Nor is it necessary for us to defend the correctness of the tradition,
which points to this excavation as the ancient Bethesda. Much water was needed
in the city; and, when so many tanks were dug at great labor and expense, it is
altogether probable that a cavity, which could hold a large supply of the needed
element, was not permitted to remain useless. If it contained water, the pool, by
whatever name called, may have been the baptizing place on that memorable
day.

But the Pool of Bethesda was not the only reservoir sufficiently capacious for the
immersion of three thousand. The facilities for travelling which the present times
afford have rendered visits to the old world frequent; and men now living, have
greatly increased our knowledge of its geography and antiquities by their
investigations. The learned Dr. Robinson has twice explored Palestine, with a
special view to biblical illustration; and the result of his researches has been
given to the world in a large work abounding with valuable information. The Rev.
George W. Samson has also visited the same country within a few years, and has
directed particular attention to the question now before us, in a short but
excellent work entitled, "The Sufficiency of Water for Baptizing at Jerusalem, and
elsewhere in Palestine, as recorded in the New Testament." In this work, the
present condition of the pools at Jerusalem, six in number, is described; and the
dimensions of five, according to the measurement of Dr. Robinson, are given in
feet as follows:--

Length Breadth Depth
Pool of Bethesda

360

130

75

Pool of Siloam

53

18

19

316

200

18

Old or Upper Pool in the Highway of the Fuller's
Field
Pool of Hezekiah

218
240

140

595

245

35

275

42

Lower Pool of Gihon

The depth of the Pool of Hezekiah varies, its bottom being an inclined plane, and
the sides of the Lower Pool of Gihon, which covers more than four acres of
ground, are sloping. In these any convenient depth of water for baptizing might
be readily obtained. When facilities for immersion were so abundant we can have
no plea for inventing a new meaning for the word which the sacred historian has
employed in recording the baptisms at Jerusalem. If we were unable to offer any
probable conjecture with respect to the supply of water, we ought still to receive
the testimony of the Holy Spirit according to the proper import of his words, and
to believe his statement to be true; but the investigations which have been made

remove all difficulty.

It has been further imagined, that there was not time for the immersion of so
many; but this difficulty is not one which ought to impair the credibility of the
narrative. Many, if not all of the seventy whom Christ had commissioned, were
probably present on the occasion; and the apostles had undoubted authority to
command their services in the administration of the rite. With so many agents,
the work required but little time. In modern revivals, the number of persons
immersed on profession of faith is sometimes large; and, from observing the
time required, some have maintained that the apostles themselves could have
baptized all the converts on the day of Pentecost. Sprinkling, if performed with
the solemnity due to a religious rite, would require not much less time than
immersion. We may therefore believe the sacred narrative, without inventing a
new meaning for the word baptize.

It has been supposed that the baptism of the Philippian jailer and his household
could not have been by immersion; because it took place at night, and in the
prison. As to the time; the persecution which had been raised against Paul and
Silas, and the relation which the jailer sustained to the government of the city,
rendered it more convenient to administer the immersion at night than to
postpone it till the next day. As to the place; there is no proof that it was
administered in the jail. Paul and Silas had been brought out, and had preached
the Word to the jailer, and "to all that were in his house." After the preaching,
they must have left the house for the administration of baptism; for it is
expressly stated that the jailer afterwards "brought them into his house and set
meat before them."(201) Where the rite was performed we are not told. There
may have been, as is common in the East, a tank of water in the prison
enclosure; and we know, because the inspired historian has so informed us, that
there was a river(202) near at hand. There was, therefore, no want of water.

Argument 8.--Jesus said to his disciples, "John truly baptized with water; but ye
shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence."(203) This promise
was fulfilled on the day of Pentecost. The Spirit was then poured out upon them;
and since Christ called this baptism, we have proof that pouring is baptism.
The Holy Spirit is not a material agent; and all representations of his operation,
drawn from material things, are necessarily imperfect. To immerse in the Spirit,
and to pour out the Spirit, are figurative expressions, and the things which they
signify are conceived to bear some resemblance to immersion in water, and to
the pouring out of water. But the resemblance is in our conception, and not in

the things themselves; for between what is spiritual and what is material, there
cannot, strictly speaking, be any likeness. Different figures may be employed to
represent the same thing, and if the figurative expressions pour out the Spirit,
and baptize with the Spirit, referred to precisely the same thing, it would not
follow that the figures by which they represent it are identical. But if the figures
are not identical, they can furnish no proof that to pour is to baptize.
God had promised by the prophet Joel, "I will pour out of my Spirit;"(204) and
Christ had promised his disciples, "Ye shall be immersed in the Holy Spirit."(205)
Both the promises were fulfilled on the day of Pentecost; but the two promises
exhibit the influence of the Spirit then communicated, in different aspects. In one
it is viewed as proceeding from God, and is likened to water poured out; in the
other it is viewed as affecting all the powers of the apostles, surrounding and
filling them, as water surrounds and imbues substances which are immersed in
it. The figures, therefore, not only differ from each other, but are employed to
represent different things. Hence, they can furnish no proof that to pour is to
baptize.

ARGUMENTS AGAINST LITERAL OBLIGATION

Argument 1.--Baptism is a mere ceremony, and, in the sight of God, is of far less
importance than moral duties. In instituting it, Christ did not design to bind his
followers to the very letter of his command; but intended that they should be at
liberty to accommodate the mode of their obedience to circumstances which
might arise, provided they accomplished the end which he had in view. He
commanded his disciples to wash the feet of one another. This command was
given at a time when the washing of feet was a usual act of hospitality; and we
now rightly judge, that since this usage has passed away, we ought to fulfil the
command in some other way. So he commanded to immerse, when immersion
for the purpose of purification was in almost daily use; but to us whose ordinary
ablutions are partial, another mode of representing purification is better adapted.
This has been the judgment of the pious; and God's abundant blessing on them,
shows that they have his approbation.

Baptism is indeed a ceremony; but it is a ceremony of God's appointing. In moral
duties arising from the relations which we bear, and founded on reasons which
we are able to comprehend, the duty must vary according to the varying
relations, and there is scope for the exercise of enlightened reason; but positive
institutes are founded on the mere will of the lawgiver, and with respect to them,
to obey or disobey is the only question, and the only variety. A ceremony of

positive institution may possibly be in itself of little moment; but obedience in
performing it, is of great value in God's sight; and disobedience to mere
ceremonial requirements, he has in some cases punished in an exemplary
manner. If he abundantly blesses many who neglect the baptismal command,
the fact proves his great goodness, and not their innocence.

They who, acknowledging a departure from the letter of Christ's command,
satisfy themselves with the belief that they attain all the ends of baptism, though
they be not immersed, assume that they fully comprehend the subject, and all
the ends which the lawgiver had in view. Is not this arrogating too much? It is
certainly safer to believe that Christ is wiser than we are, and to render implicit
obedience to his precepts. If baptism represents the burial and resurrection of
Christ, as well as the washing away of sin, they do not attain all the ends of
baptism who neglect immersion. We have reason to believe that positive
institutes were in part given, to test and to promote the spirit of obedience They
who fail to comply strictly with the divine precepts, not only fail to accomplish
these ends which infinite wisdom had in view, but counterwork the designs of
the lawgiver.

The command to wash one another's feet, is not parallel to that which enjoins
baptism. The latter, the advocates of sprinkling acknowledge to be of perpetual
obligation, a Christian ceremony of positive institution; but the former they do
not so regard. This is not the proper place to enter on the inquiry, whether the
washing of feet was designed to be a ceremony of perpetual obligation. In our
judgment it was not. If it can be made to appear that we have judged wrong, it
will be our duty, not to make our error an argument for disobedience, but to
amend our practice, and conform strictly to every divine requirement.

Argument 2.--When Christ instituted the eucharist, he commanded, "this do."(206)
Yet no one imagines that we are bound to do all that he did on that occasion. He
met in an upper room, and at night; and he reclined while eating. We do not
suppose ourselves under obligation to imitate him in these particulars; but only
to do so much as is necessary to the moral ends of the institution. By the same
rule of interpretation, we are not bound to a literal compliance with the
command of baptism.

No reason exists for supposing that the pronoun "this," in the command "this
do," refers to the place, the time, or the manner, in which Christ ate the last
supper. It evidently refers to the acts of eating bread and drinking wine; and
precisely what it does signify, is what we are bound to do; and precisely what

the word baptize signifies, is what we are bound to do in obeying the command
which enjoins baptism. To relieve ourselves from the obligation of strict
obedience, on the plea that the moral ends of Christ's institutions may be
attained without it, is to legislate for Christ.

Argument 3.--Christ designed his religion to be universal, and adapted to every
climate of earth, and every condition and rank among men. Immersion is not
suited to cold climates--is frequently impossible to the infirm and sick--is
repulsive to the delicate and refined; and the invariable observance of it cannot
have been required by him who said, "My yoke is easy, and my burden is light."

Our simple reply to this argument is, that it is Christ's command. We dare not, by
our fallible reasonings from general principles, attempt to determine the will of
our divine lawgiver, when we have in our possession his express command on
the very subject. Christ knew all the climates of the earth, and all the conditions
and ranks among men, and he has adapted his religion to these as far as
appeared best to his infinite wisdom. If the infirm and sick cannot obey, there is
an end of responsibility in their case. If the delicate and refined will not, they
must leave the pleasure of obedience to those, who think it no humiliation to
tread where they find the footsteps of their Lord and Master. Though Christ's
yoke is easy, it is still a yoke; and pride and false delicacy may refuse to wear it;
but love can make it welcome and delightful.

SECTION III.--SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM

THOSE ONLY ARE PROPER SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM WHO REPENT OF SIN AND
BELIEVE IN CHRIST.

Repentance and faith are associated graces in the hearts of the regenerate, each
of them implying the existence of the other. Sometimes one of them is
particularly mentioned as a qualification for baptism, and sometimes the other.
They manifest themselves by confession of sin; by profession of dependence on
Christ, and subjection to his authority; and by holy obedience.

John the Baptist required repentance, with its appropriate fruits, in those whom
he admitted to baptism. It has been denied that the rite which he administered

was identical with Christian baptism; but, for our present purpose, nothing more
is necessary than to satisfy ourselves, that John did not require more spiritual
qualifications for his baptism, than were required by Christ and his apostles. . If
he proclaimed repentance to be necessary because the kingdom of heaven was
at hand, it could not be less necessary after the kingdom was established. That
John did require repentance, as a qualification for baptism, the following
Scriptures testify: "Repent ye, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand . . . and
were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins."(207) "Bring forth, therefore,
fruits meet for repentance; and think not to say within yourselves, We have
Abraham to our father."(208)

During the personal ministry of Christ, he made and baptized disciples. "There he
tarried and baptized."(209) "The Lord knew how the Pharisees had heard that
Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John."(210) Those only were
baptized by Christ, who were made disciples; and discipleship implies repentance
and faith.

The commission which Christ gave to his apostles, connects faith and discipleship
with baptism as qualifications for it: "Go, preach the gospel to every creature. He
that believeth, and is baptized, shall be saved."(211) "Go, make disciples of all
nations, baptizing them."(212)

In executing the commission of Christ, the apostles and their fellow-laborers
required repentance and faith as qualifications for baptism. Several passages in
the Acts of the Apostles clearly indicate this: "Repent and be baptized, every one
of you, in the name of Jesus Christ. . . . Then they that gladly received the word
were baptized."(213) "When they believed Philip preaching the things concerning
the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both
men and women."(214) "And the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth
hinder me to be baptized? And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart,
thou mayest."(215) "Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized
which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we."(216) "Whose heart the Lord
opened, that she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul. And when
she was baptized."(217) "He was baptized, he and all his straightway . . . and
rejoiced, believing in God with all his house."(218) . . . `` Many of the Corinthians
hearing, believed and were baptized."(219)

In the Epistles of the New Testament, baptism is mentioned in such connections
as prove that all the baptized were believers in Christ: "Know ye not, that so
many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death."(220)

Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through faith."(221)
"Ye are all the children of God by faith; for as many of you as have been
baptized into Christ have put on Christ."(222) "Baptism doth now save us, . . . the
answer of a good conscience toward God."(223)

All these quotations from Scripture harmonize perfectly with each other, and
incontrovertibly establish the truth, that repentance and faith are necessary
qualifications for baptism. This is universally admitted with respect to adult
persons; but a special claim is urged in behalf of infants, and the practice of
administering the rite to them has prevailed very extensively. The arguments in
its defence will be examined in the Chapter on Infant Membership.

SECTION IV.--DESIGN OF BAPTISM

BAPTISM WAS DESIGNED TO BE THE CEREMONY OF CHRISTIAN PROFESSION.

The religion of Christ was intended for the whole world, and it is made the duty
of his followers to propagate it. Men are required not only to receive, but also to
hold forth the word of life. The lepers who found abundance of food in the
Syrian camp, could not feast on it by themselves while their brethren in the city
were famishing; and, if any one thinks that he can enjoy the blessings of
religion, and shut up the secret in his own breast, he mistakes the nature of true
Christianity. The light kindled within must shine, and the Spirit of love in the
heart must put forth efforts to do good.

Profession is, in general, necessary to salvation. With the heart, man believeth
unto righteousness; and with the mouth, confession is made unto salvation.(224)
Divine goodness may pardon the weakness of some, who, like Joseph of
Arimathea, are disciples secretly through fear; but it nevertheless remains a
general truth, that profession is necessary. Christ has made the solemn
declaration, "Whosoever shall be ashamed of me, and of my words, in this
adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed,
when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels."(225)

Profession is the appointed public outset in the way of salvation The apostles
exhorted, "Save yourselves from this untoward generation."(226) The world lies in

wickedness, and under the curse of God. They who would be saved, should
escape from it, as Lot escaped from Sodom. God calls: "Come out from among
them, and be ye separate."(227) This call is obeyed, when converted persons
separate themselves from the ungodly, and publicly devote themselves to the
service of Christ. They then set out in earnest to flee from the wrath to come.
The resolution to flee must first be formed in the heart; but the public profession
may be regarded, in an important sense, as the first manifest step in the way of
escape.

The profession of renouncing the world, and devoting ourselves to Christ, might
have been required to be made in mere words addressed to the ears of those
who hear; but infinite wisdom has judged it better that it should be made in a
formal and significant act, appointed for the specific purpose. That act is
baptism. The immersion of the body, as Paul has explained, signifies our burial
with Christ; and in emerging from the water, we enter, according to the import
of the figure, on a new life. We put off the old man, and put on the new man:
"As many of you as have been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ."(228)

The place which baptism holds in the commission, indicates its use. The apostles
were sent to make disciples, and to teach them to observe all the Saviour's
commands; but an intermediate act is enjoined, the act of baptizing them. In
order to make disciples, they were commanded, "Go, preach the gospel to every
creature." When the proclamation of the good news attracted the attention of
men, and by the divine blessing so affected their hearts, that they became
desirous to follow Christ, they were taught to observe his commandments, and
first to be baptized. This ceremony was manifestly designed to be the initiation
into the prescribed service; and every disciple of Christ who wishes to walk in the
ways of the Lord, meets this duty at the entrance of his course.

The design of baptism is further indicated by the clause "baptizing them into the
name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." The rendering of
our version, "in the name of," makes the clause signify that the administrator
acts by the authority of the Trinity; but the more literal rendering "into the name
of," makes it signify the new relation into which the act brings the subject of the
rite. He is baptized into a state of professed subjection to the Trinity. It is the
public act of initiation into the new service.

The design of baptism proves its importance. The whole tenor of the gospel
forbids the supposition that there is any saving efficacy in the mere rite: but it is
the appointed ceremony of profession; and profession, we have seen, is, in

general, necessary to salvation. As the divine goodness may pardon disciples
who fear to make public profession, so it may, and we rejoice to believe that it
does pardon those, who do not understand the obligation to make ceremonial
profession, or mistake the manner of doing it. But God ought to be obeyed; and
his way is the right way, and the best way. Paul argues from the baptism of
believers, their obligation to walk in newness of life. The ceremony implies a vow
of obedience, a public and solemn consecration to the service of God. The
believing subject can feel the force of the obligation acknowledged in the act,
and Paul appeals to this sense of obligation: "Know ye not, that so many of us as
were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?"(229) Though it is an
outward ceremony, it is important, not only as an act of obedience, but as
expressing a believer's separation from the world, and consecration to God, in a
manner intelligible and significant, and well adapted to impress his own mind
and the minds of beholders.

The faith which is professed in baptism, is faith in Christ. We confess with our
mouths the Lord Jesus Christ, and believe in our hearts that God has raised him
from the dead.(230) If the doctrine of the resurrection be taken from the Gospel,
preaching is vain, and faith is vain. So, if the symbol of the resurrection be taken
from baptism, its chief significancy is gone, and its adaptedness for the
profession of faith in Christ, is lost. Hence appears the importance of adhering
closely to the Saviour's command, "immersing them."

The obligation to make a baptismal profession of faith, binds every disciple of
Christ. Some have converted the Eucharist into a ceremony of profession; but
this is not the law of Christ. Baptism was designed, and ought to be used, for
this purpose. If infant baptism be obligatory, the duty is parental; and if it be a
ceremony in which children are dedicated by their parents to the Lord, it is a
different institution from that in which faith is professed. He who has been
baptized in infancy, is not thereby released from the obligation to make a
baptismal profession of faith in Christ. If it be granted, that his parents did their
duty in dedicating him to God, he has, nevertheless, a personal duty to perform.
The parental act of which he has no consciousness, cannot be to him the answer
of a good conscience toward God. Had it left an abiding mark in the flesh, an
argument of some plausibility might be urged against the repetition of the
ceremony. But the supposed seal of God's covenant is neither in his flesh, nor in
his memory, and his conscience has no Scriptural release from the personal
obligation of a baptismal profession.

SECTION V.--CONNECTION OF BAPTISM WITH CHURCH ORDER

It will be shown hereafter, that in a Church, organized like the primitive
churches, none but baptized persons can be admitted to membership. On this
account, the present chapter on baptism has been introduced, as a necessary
preliminary to the subsequent discussions on church order.
1. Matt. xxviii. 19, 20.
2. 2 Acts i. 22. 3.
3. John iv. 1.
4. Acts ii. 41.
5. 1 Peter iii. 21.
6. Heb. ix. 24.
7. Heb. ix. 10.
8. John iii. 30.
9. Ps. li. 17.
10. 1 Cor. ix. 1.
11. Rom. vi. 3.
12. Gal. iii. 27.
13. The Lexicons of Donnegan, and of Liddell and Scott, are in common use and
high repute. They give the meaning of the word as follows:--

Donnegan.--"To immerse repeatedly into a liquid; to submerge, to soak
thoroughly, to saturate; hence to drench with wine Met., to confound totally; to
dip in a vessel and draw.--Pass. Perf.. bebaptismai, to be immersed, &c."
Liddell and Scott.--"To dip repeatedly, to dip under. Mid. to bathe; hence to
steep, wet; metaph. oi bebaptismenoi, soaked in wine; to pour upon, drench,
eisphorais ophlemasi beb. over head and ears in debt. Plut. meirakion

Baptizomenon, a boy overwhelmed with questions, Heind. Plat. Euthyd.--to dip a
vessel, draw water--to baptize. N. T."
14. Dissertation on the question, "Is the mode of Christian Baptism prescribed in
the New Testament?"
15. 2 Kings viii. 15.
16. Hippocrates.
17. Num. xix. 18.
18. Luke xvi. 24.
19. Hippocrates.
20. Ruth ii. 14.
21. Mark xiv. 20.
22. Matt. xxvi. 23.
23. John xiii. 26.
24. Aristotle.
25. Anacreon.
26. 1 Sam. xiv. 27.
27. Ex. xii. 22.
28. Lev. iv. 6.
29. Lev. iv. 17.
30. Lev. ix. 9.
31. Lev. xiv. 6.
32. Lev. xiv. 51.
33. Xenophon.
34. Aelian.

35. Lev. xiv. 16.
36. Hippocrates.
37. Hippocrates.
38. Hippocrates.
39. Aristotle.
40. Plato.
41. Theocritus.
42. Euripides.
43. Aristotle.
44. Theocritus.
45. Hermolaus.
46. Theocritus.
47. Euripides.
48. Callimachus.
49. Nicander.
50. Herodotus.
51. Lev. xi. 32.
52. Aristophanes.
53. Homer.
54. Plutarch.
55. Aristophanes.
56. Aristotle.
57. Aratus.

58. Josh. iii. 15.
59. Aristotle.
60. Aristotle.
61. Aristophanes.
62. Lycophron.
63. Philippus.
64. Dionysius of Halicarnassus.
65. Euripides.
66. Aratus.
67. Aratus.
68. Dan. iv. 33, v. 21.
69. Suidas.
70. Rev. xix. 13.
71. Aristotle.
72. Plato.
73. Josephus.
74. Sophocles.
75. Aeschylus.
76. Hippocrates.
77. Arrian.
78. Aelian.
79. Nicolas of Damascus.
80. Aeschylus.

81. Homer.
82. Aristophanes.
83. Aristophanes.
84. Plutarch.
85. Diodorus Siculus.
86. Aristophanes.
87. Deut. xxxiii. 24.
88. Psalms lxviii. 23.
89. Job ix. 31.
90. Moschus.
91. Lycophron.
92. Helladius.
93. Marcus Antoninus.
94. Hippocrates.
95. Dion Cassuis.
96. Josephus.
97. Josephus.
98. Josephus.
99. Dion Cassius.
100. Dion Cassius.
101. Dion Cassius.
102. Polybius.
103. Aesop.

104. Josephus.
105. Diod. Siculus.
106. Epictetus.
107. Lucian.
108. Themistius.
109. Josephus.
110. Josephus.
111. Diodorus Siculus.
112. Heliodorus.
113. Aesop.
114. Diodorus Siculus.
115. 2 Kings v. 14.
116. Ecclus. xxxiv. 30.
117. Luke xi. 38.
118. Mark vii. 4.
119. Heb. ix. 10.
120. Judith xii. 7.
121. Ecclus. xxxiv. 25.
122. Mark vii. 8.
123. Porphyry.
124. Hippocrates.
125. Plutarch.
126. Plutarch.

127. Strabo.
128. Strabo.
129. Strabo.
130. Strabo.
131. Pindar.
132. Heraclides Ponticus.
133. Plutarch.
134. Josephus.
135. Anacreon.
136. Dionysius.
137. Plutarch.
138. Polybius.
139. Josephus.
140. Orpheus.
141. Aristotle.
142. 1 Cor. x. 2.
143. Aristophanes.
144. Plato.
145. Josephus.
146. Philo Judaeus.
147. Chrysostom.
148. Justin Martyr.
149. Lucian.

150. Heliodorus.
151. Heliodorus.
152. Isa. xxi. 4.
153. Luke xii. 50.
154. Heliodorus.
155. 1 Cor. xv. 29.
156. Mark x. 38.
157. Plutarch.
158. Plutarch.
159. Chrysostom.
160. Clemens Alexandrinus.
161. Plutarch.
162. Heliodorus.
163. Justin Martyr.
164. Diod. Siculus.
165. Josephus.
166. Josephus.
167. Plutarch.
168. Matt. iii. 11; Acts i. 5.
169. 1 Cor. xii. 13.
170. Job ix. 30,31.
171. Rom. vi. 3,4.
172. Col. ii. 12.

173. 1 Peter iii. 21.
174. Rom. x. 9.
175. Col. ii. 20.
176. Col. iii. 1-3.
177. Luke xvi. 24.
178. John iii. 25.
179. Heb. ix. 10.
180. John iii. 25.
181. Luke xi. 38.
182. Ver. 29.
183. In classic Greek also, both constructions are found. Ex. 45 has eis; Ex. 17
has en.
184. Rev. iii. 20.
185. Luke xiv. 16.
186. Rev. xix. 9.
187. Matt. iii. 16.
188. Matt. iii. 6.
189. Mark i. 9.
190. John iii. 23.
191. Mark ix. 22.
192. Isaiah xvii. 13.
193. Ps. xciii. 4.
194. Ps. xviii. 16.

195. Rev. i. 15.
196. Jer. li. 13.
197. Lev. xiv. 8, 9; xv. 5, 8, 11, 22; xvi. 26, 28.
198. John ii. 6.
199. John xi. 55.
200. John v. 4.
201. Acts xvi. 34.
202. Acts xvi. 13.
203. Acts i. 5.
204. Acts ii. 17.
205. Acts i. 5.
206. Luke xxii. 19.
207. Matt. iii. 2, 6.
208. Matt. iii. 8, 9.
209. John iii. 22.
210. John iv. 1.
211. Mark xvi. 15, 16.
212. Matt. xxviii. 19.
213. Acts ii. 38, 41.
214. Acts viii. 12.
215. Acts viii. 36, 37.
216. Acts x. 47.
217. Acts xvi. 14, 15.

218. Acts xvi. 33, 34.
219. Acts xviii. 8.
220. Rom. vi. 3.
221. Col. ii. 12.
222. Gal. iii. 26, 27.
223. 1 Peter iii. 21.
224. Rom. x. 10.
225. Mark viii. 38.
226. Acts ii. 40.
227. 2 Cor. vi. 17.
228. Gal. iii. 27.
229. Rom. vi. 3.
230. Rom. x. 9.
CHAPTER II

LOCAL CHURCHES

SECTION 1.--MORAL CHARACTERISTICS

A Christian Church is an assembly of believers in Christ organized into a body,
according to the Holy Scriptures, for the worship and service of God.

ASSEMBLY

The word church, when it occurs in the English New Testament, is, with one
exception, the rendering of the Greek word ekklesia. The Greek word, however,
sometimes appears in the original text, when it could not, with propriety, be
translated church. No one would render Acts xix. 32, "For the church was
confused;" or verse 39, "It shall be determined in a lawful church;" or verse 41,
"He dismissed the church." It is hence manifest, that the two words do not
precisely correspond to each other in signification.

The meaning of an English word, is ascertained by the usage of the best English
authors. By such writers, the word church is often employed to denote religious
societies, consisting of persons who, because of the wide extent of territory
which they occupy, never assemble in one place for divine worship. The
principles on which these societies are formed, are various; their modes of
government differ from each other; and they do not agree in the doctrines which
they profess. If we should refuse to call any one of these societies a church, the
usage of the best English writers might be cited against us; and the usage of
such men is the law of the language.

But the disciples of Christ have another law, to which they appeal when they
seek direction in forming and organizing churches. This law is contained in the
Holy Scriptures. The question then is not, what does the English word church
mean, or to what religious societies may the name be applied; but what is a
church, according to the teaching of the inspired word.
The Greek word ekklesia denotes an assembly; and is not restricted in its
application to a religious assembly. But every reader of the New Testament
discovers, that the first Christians were formed into religious assemblies, to
which epistles were directed; and which acted, and were required to act, as
organized bodies. The word is ordinarily used, in the New Testament, to denote
these assemblies; and it is only with this use of the term, that we are at present
concerned.

The Greek word denotes an assembly; and, in this particular, differs from the
:English word church, which is often used to signify the house in which men
assemble for religious worship. The word "churches," in Acts xix. 37, denotes the
temples in which the heathen gods were worshipped; but this is the exception
before referred to, in which the Greek word ekklesia does not appear in the
original text. This word never denotes the house in which the worshippers
assemble. The word synagoge was used, not only for the assembly, but also for
the house in which the assembly met; and hence, we read "He hath built us a

synagogue."(1) But the word ekklesia differs from it in this particular. The
passage of Scripture which most favors the opinion, that the word was applied to
a material edifice, is, "Have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye
the Church of God, and shame them that have not?"(2) Here an antithesis has
been supposed, between the private dwellings of the Corinthian Christians, and
their house of public worship. But this interpretation weakens the force of the
passage. The word "despise," like the word "shame" which follows, has persons
for its object; and the injurious treatment which it implies, would be far less
criminal, if it affected merely the material edifice in which the church assembled.

The word ekklesia, as used by classic Greek authors, signified an assembly. It
was used to denote the assembly of the citizens in the democratic towns of
Greece, met to decide on matters appertaining to the State. With this use of it,
precisely agrees that which is found in Acts xix. 39: "It shall be determined in a
lawful assembly." The multitude there convened, were not a lawful ecclesia. But
we learn from the last verse of the chapter, that the word was not restricted in
its use to a lawful ecclesia, for it is applied to the very company congregated on
this occasion. "He dismissed the assembly." In the Septuagint, it is the word
usually employed to denote the assembly of Hebrew worshippers, called the
Congregation of the Lord; but it is also applied to assemblies not organized for
religious purposes or business of state.(3) On the whole, therefore, when we
meet with the word, we are sure of an assembly, and of nothing else, so far as
depends on the word itself.

When we turn to the New Testament, and examine the use of this word in its
application to the followers of Christ, we find it for the most part so employed
that an assembly is manifestly denoted. "If he shall neglect to hear them, tell it
unto the church," "but if he neglect to hear the church," &c.(4) The church in this
passage, is an assembly, addressed by the party complaining, and addressing
the party offending. Frequently the churches have their place of meeting
specified, and are hence called the church at Jerusalem;(5) the church at
Antioch;(6) the church at Corinth;(7) the church at Ephesus, &c.,(8) and when
mention is made of the Christians in a district of country, so large as to render
their habitual and frequent meeting for the worship of God impracticable, the
term church is not applied to them in the singular number. Hence, we read, "the
churches throughout all Judea, Galilee, and Samaria;"(9) the churches of
Galatia;(10) the churches of Macedonia;(11) the churches of Asia.(12) It is clear,
from these passages, that the term in the singular number, denoted the separate
local assemblies in those districts or countries, and not the whole number of
Christians inhabiting a kingdom or province. This is further confirmed by the fact,
that the meeting of the Christians in the city of Corinth, is called the meeting of
the whole Church, if the whole church be come together into one place.(13) If

they had been called the church at Corinth, merely as belonging to a class of
persons widely scattered through Achaia or the whole world, to whom,
contemplated in the aggregate, the name church was given; the phrase "the
whole church" would necessarily denote the entire aggregate; and it could not be
said with truth that the whole church was assembled, when only the Christians in
the city of Corinth formed the assembly.

Further proof that the word denoted a particular or local assembly, appears in
this, that the churches are mentioned as distinct from one another. "They
ordained elders in every church."(14) Also in this, that the churches were
compared with each other: "For what is it wherein ye were inferior to other
churches?"(15) "No church communicated with me as concerning giving and
receiving, but ye only."(16) "As distinct bodies, they sent and received
salutations,"(17) and held intercourse by messengers.(18)

By the proof which has been adduced, it is fully established that the word

church, in such names as The Church of England, The Church of Scotland, The
Presbyterian Church, The Episcopal Church, The Methodist Church, does not
correspond in signification with the Greek word ekklesia. These churches never
assemble in one place, because their members are dispersed over too large an
extent of territory. They are, therefore, not churches in the New Testament
sense of the word. It is true that some of these churches have supreme
judicatories in which the power of the whole body is supposed to be
concentrated; and in these the whole church is conceived to be assembled: thus,
the Presbyterian Church has its General Assembly. But whenever the General
Assembly of the Presbyterian Church is mentioned, the very title indicates that
the Assembly is one thing, and the Church another. The Assembly may be seen
in some spacious room, transacting the business of the Church; but no one will
affirm that the Church itself is literally there; and no one calls the Church itself
an assembly. The people of the United States are conceived to be assembled in
Congress; and the people of the several states in their several legislative
assemblies; but no one understands this to be literally true, and no one calls the
people of the United States or of any single state an assembly. But whenever the
word ekklesia is used, we are sure of an assembly; and the term is not applicable
to bodies or societies of men that do not literally assemble.

In defending the Presbyterian form of church government, it has been argued
that the term ecclesia is applied in the New Testament to denote all the
Christians in a large city, when their number was so great that they could not all
assemble for worship in one place. In a large city of the present day, a single
denomination of Christians may have many churches assembling at their several

places of worship at the same hour. The same division of the worshipping
assemblies, is supposed to have existed in ancient times; and yet, it is remarked,
we never read in the New Testament of several churches in one city; and it is
inferred that the word ekklesia in the singular number, included in these cases all
the separate worshipping assemblies.
Dr. Dick(19) urges the argument just stated, and refers particularly to the church
at Jerusalem, and the church at Antioch, as bodies too large for all the members
to assemble in one place. It is unfortunate, however, for the argument, that
these very churches are expressly declared in the Holy Scriptures to have
assembled. Although the disciples in Jerusalem were numbered by thousands,
yet, when their number "had multiplied,"(20) the apostles gathered the whole
multitude together, and directed them to choose out from among themselves
seven men to have charge of the distribution to the poor. And when Paul and
Barnabas returned to Antioch, after having performed a tour of missionary labor,
it is left on record that they gathered the church together, and rehearsed what
the Lord had done by them.(21) Against these express declarations of the sacred
historian, the conjecture that the number of disciples in these cities was too
great to permit them to assemble in one place, is entitled to no consideration.

It is further argued by Dr. Dick, that all the disciples in Jerusalem could not have
assembled in one place, because of the persecution to which they were exposed.
But an important fact is here overlooked. For a considerable time after the day of
Pentecost the Christians had "favor with all the people."(22) The rulers were
opposed to them; but the favor which they had among the people stayed the
hand of persecution. While this state of things lasted, they remained one church,
one assembly. But when persecution scattered them, they were compelled to
hold their assemblies in several places, and they are no longer regarded as
constituting one church; but the historian, with strict regard to accuracy of
language, calls them "churches."(23)

If the word ekklesia in the singular number, could denote several distinct
assemblies in a large city, no good reason can be assigned why it might not also
denote the assemblies of Christians throughout a province or kingdom. But it is
admitted that when applied to these, the word is always used in the plural form.
All this exactly accords with what was before stated--that the word always
assures us of an assembly.

MEMBERS

Whether the assembly denoted by the word ekklesia was religious or political,
lawful or unlawful, the word itself does not determine. We must look beyond the
word itself, to learn the character of the members who composed the churches
of the New Testament; and the purpose for which they were associated.

The character of the persons who composed the New Testament churches, may
be readily learned from the epistles addressed to them. They are called "The
elect of God;"(24) "Children of God by faith;"(25) "Sanctified in Christ Jesus, called
to be saints;"(26) "Saints in Christ Jesus ;"(27) "Followers of the Lord;"(28) "Beloved
of the Lord."(29) No doubt can exist that these churches were, in the view of the
inspired writers who addressed them, composed of persons truly converted to
God.

We may learn the same from the Acts of the Apostles. The first church admitted
to membership those who repented and gladly received the word;(30) and the
Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.(31) Some have preferred
to translate the passage last cited, "The Lord added to the church such as were
saved." The former rendering does not so fully determine that the persons added
had already undergone a saving change. Neither rendering, however, gives the
precise sense of the original, which, by the use of the present participle,
describes the salvation as neither future nor past, but in present progress. Men
who had entered the way of salvation, and were making progress therein, were
added to the church in Jerusalem, and all the members of the church were
persons of like character, for the multitude were "of one heart."(32) When
persecution scattered this first church, its dispersed members formed other
churches precisely like the parent church in the character of the members. None
were admitted but as believers in Christ.

What has been said must not be understood to imply that none but true
believers ever entered the primitive churches. We know from the Acts of the
apostles, that Ananias, Sapphira,(33) and Simon the Sorcerer,(34) had a place for a
time among the true disciples of Jesus; and we know from the apostolic epistles,
that false brethren were brought in unawares into the churches.(35) But we are
clearly taught that they were considered intruders, occupying a place that did not
properly belong to them, and were ejected when their true character became
apparent. Although, even in apostolic times, such men obtained admittance into
the churches, they crept in unawares,(36) and, therefore, if we would tread in the
footsteps of the apostles, we cannot plead their authority for admitting into the
churches any who are not true disciples of Christ.

In our definition of a church, we have called it an assembly of believers in Christ.
This definition tells what a church is according to the revealed will of God, and
not what it becomes by the criminal negligence of its ministers and members, or
the wicked craft of hypocritical men who gain admittance into it. When we study
the word of God to ascertain what a church is, we must receive the perfect
pattern as presented in the uncorrupted precepts of that word, and not as
marred by human error and crime.

ORGANIZATION

A church is an organized assembly. The organization cannot be certainly inferred
from the mere name. This is supposed to signify, properly, an assembly legally
called together or summoned; and the derivation of the word from ekklesia, to
call out, accords with this meaning. A legal summons implies obligation to obey
it; and the persons who were under this obligation must be supposed to have
been bound, not only to assemble, but also to co-operate with one another in
the business for which the assembly was convoked. Although the term was
sometimes applied to an assembly not legally convened, or a loose and
disorderly assembly, yet it commonly signified an assembly of persons bound to
act together as a body for some specified object. This is true of the New
Testament churches.

The church at Jerusalem is clearly distinguished, in the sacred narrative, from
the loose multitude that heard Peter's sermon on the day of Pentecost. Many of
these became "added to the church;" but the church, it is manifest from the
record, was a distinct and separate body, and their union and co-operation are
plainly exhibited in the sacred history.

A passage in the first epistle to the Corinthians shows that the church at Corinth
was a distinct assembly, not including others who might chance to be present in
their meeting: "If the whole church be come together into one place, and all
speak with tongues, and there come in those that are unlearned or
unbelievers."(37) Had the church been a loose or unorganized assembly, these
visiters who came in would have formed a part of it. But the distinction between
them and the church is marked and clear. Moreover, the phrase, "If the whole
church be come together," manifestly implies that there was a definite number of
persons who were expected to convene, and who, when convened, constituted
the entire body. This would not be true of an unorganized assembly. Let it be
further noted, that the word ekklesia is here used to denote the body, not as
actually assembled, but as a body of which it was possible for some of the

members to be absent when others were present. Sometimes the word was used
to denote an actual assembly, as in the passage, "When ye come together in the
church"(38)--that is, in the assembly or public meeting: but in the phrase, "If the
whole church be come together," the term manifestly applied to the church, not
as a body actually assembled, but as organized. Their organization had doubtless
a reference to their assembling for the purpose of carrying the design of their
organization into effect; and the name ekklesia was given to the body because of
its actual assembling, or because the members were obliged to assemble by the
terms of their organization.

This distinction in the use of the term, as sometimes denoting an organized
body, and sometimes an actual assembly, appears also in the Septuagint. The
Congregation of the Lord was an ecclesia, whether actually assembled or not;
but, in the phrase, "in the day of the assembly," the term ekklesia is used to
denote the actual assembly that stood before Mount Sinai. This is the meaning of
the word in 1 Cor. xiv. 34, "Let your women keep silence in the churches"--that
is, in the assemblies, or public meetings. It is added: "For it is a shame for a
woman to speak in the church." This shame does not attach to her as a member
of an organized body, but as being in a public assembly.

The English word church always refers to an organized body; but it does not
necessarily imply an actual assembly, being very frequently applied to bodies
that never actually assemble. On this account, it is not an accurate rendering of
ekklesia when this term denotes an actual assembly without reference to
organization. Dr. Doddridge has very properly rendered Acts vii. 38: "This is he
that was in the assembly in the wilderness." If this principle of translation were
applied throughout the New Testament, and the word church were admitted only
when an organized body is intended, something would be gained in respect of
perspicuity.

We have not argued the organization of the primitive churches from the mere
use of the Greek name ecclesia. The name was appropriately used to denote an
organized assembly; but this was not its exclusive signification. Other
considerations which have been adduced, prove that the local churches of the
New Testament were, in general, organized bodies; but a doubt exists with
respect to the churches or assemblies in private houses, of which four cases are
mentioned.(39) In those times, houses had not been erected for the special
accommodation of Christian assemblies; and meetings for religious worship were
doubtless often held in private houses. That in some cases a regularly organized
church may have held its stated meetings in a private house, is by no means
improbable. But we cannot affirm that every Christian assembly to which the

word ecclesia was applied, was a regularly organized church. We may admit that
the word assembly would be a more suitable rendering in these cases of meeting
in private houses; and yet the proof is abundant that the churches commonly
spoken of in the New Testament were organized assemblies.

INDEPENDENCE

Each church, as a distinct organization, was independent of every other church.
No intimation is anywhere given that the acts of one church were supervised by
another church, or by any ecclesiastical judicatory established by a combination
of churches. In the direction given by Christ, for settling a difficulty between two
members, the aggrieved brother is commanded to report the case to the church,
and the action of the church is represented as final. The church at Corinth
excommunicated the incestuous person, by its own act and without reference to
a higher judicatory. As if to settle the question of church independence, Paul,
though possessing apostolic authority, and though he commanded the act to be
done, yet required it to be done by the assembled church, as the proper agent
for performing the work. Again, when the same individual was to be restored,
the action of the church became necessary, and this action completed the deed.
In the book of Revelation, distinct messages were sent to the seven churches of
Asia. The character and works of each church are distinctly and separately
referred to; and the duties prescribed are assigned to each church separately,
and that church alone is required to perform them.

The only case in which there is an appearance of appeal to a higher judicatory, is
that which is recorded in Acts xv. This was not a case of appeal to a higher
judicatory established by a combination of churches, but to the single church at
Jerusalem, with the Apostles and Elders; and the decree, when issued, went
forth with the authority of the Holy Ghost.

DIVINE RULE

After we have proved that the primitive churches were organized societies, an
important question arises, Whether we are under obligation to regulate the
church order of the present time in conformity to ancient usage. Was that usage
established by divine authority, and designed to be of perpetual obligation; or
was the whole matter of order and government left to human prudence? If the
primitive churches consisted wholly of baptized believers, are we now at liberty

to receive unbelievers and unbaptized persons

If the primitive churches were independent organizations, are we now at liberty
to combine many churches in one organization? If the ancient pastors were all
equal in authority, are we now at liberty to establish gradations in the pastoral
office, and give one minister authority over others?

It must be admitted, that the Scriptures contain very little in the form of direct
precept relating to the order and government of churches. But we have no right
to require that everything designed for our instruction in duty, should be made
known to us only in the way of direct command. Judicious parents give much
instruction to their children by example; and this mode of instruction is often
more intelligible and more useful than precept. It was made the duty of the
apostles to teach their converts whatsoever Christ had commanded, and to set
the churches in order. If, instead of leaving dry precepts to serve for our
guidance, they have taught us, by example, how to organize and govern
churches, we have no right to reject their instruction, and captiously insist that
nothing but positive command shall bind us. Instead of choosing to walk in a
way of our own devising, we should take pleasure to walk in the footsteps of
those holy men from whom we have received the word of life. The actions of a
wise father deserve to be imitated by his children, even when there is no
evidence that he intended to instruct them by his example. We revere the
apostles, as men inspired with the wisdom which is from above; and respect for
the Spirit by which they were led, should induce us to prefer their modes of
organization and government to such as our inferior wisdom might suggest.

But the Apostles designed that their modes of procedure should be adopted and
continued. Paul commended the church at Corinth, because they had kept the
ordinances as he had delivered them. Some things which needed further
regulation, he promised to set in order when he came; evidently implying that
there was an order which ought to be established. Titus, whom he had
instructed, he left in Crete,(40) to ordain elders in every city, and to set in order
the things that were wanting. To Timothy, he said: "The things which thou hast
heard of me, the same commit thou to faithful men who shall be able to teach
others also."(41) As matters of church order formed a part of his own care and
action, and a part of what he had committed to Titus, so we must believe that
they formed a part of that instruction which he had given to Timothy, to be
transmitted by him to other faithful men, and by them to their successors.

The commission which the Lord gave to his apostles, required them to teach the
observance of all that he had commanded. Many discourses which he delivered,
previous to his crucifixion, are mentioned in the four gospels, without being
recorded at length; and he doubtless delivered many others of which no mention
is made. In the interviews which he had with the apostles after his resurrection,
we are informed that he discoursed with them on the things pertaining to the
kingdom of God;(42) and that this subject was so prominently before them, as to
induce the inquiry, "Lord, wilt thou at this time again restore the kingdom to
Israel?"

They were the chosen and commissioned agents for establishing his kingdom,
having been appointed by him to "sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve
tribes of Israel."(43) They were to proceed on the work assigned them, and were
now waiting in Jerusalem, until they should be endued with power from on high
for its successful prosecution. But what directions he gave them, in the
interesting conversations that have not been committed to record, we have no
other means of knowing than the precepts and examples which they have left.
His parting command and promise were, "Teach them to observe all things
whatsoever I have commanded you; and lo! I am with you alway, even unto the
end of the world."(44) This plainly implies that commands had been given to
them, which were to be observed to the end of time; and that these were to be
learned from their instructions. The organization and government of the
churches, which were to hold forth the word of life, and be the golden
candlesticks, among which the glorified Jesus was to walk,(45) were matters
intimately pertaining to his kingdom; and it cannot be supposed that he gave no
instruction respecting them. Whatever he had commanded on these points, the
commission required that they should teach men to observe; and the
accompanying promise of his presence till the end of the world clearly
demonstrates that the observance was to be perpetual. We arrive, therefore, at
the conclusion that, whatever the apostles taught, whether by precept or
example, had the authority, not only of the Holy Spirit by which they were
guided into all truth, but also of their Lord who had commissioned them.

It may be objected, that the example of the apostles is clearly not always to be
followed; as, for instance, the conduct of Paul in shaving his head at
Cenchrea,(46) in purifying himself at Jerusalem,(47) and in having Timothy
circumcised.(48) But how do we know that these acts of Paul are not to be
imitated? We learn it from the instruction and example of the same great
apostle. He has taught us to distinguish between acts of personal obligation and
acts performed from regard to the weakness and prejudice of others. He became
all things to all men. To the Jews he became a Jew, that he might gain the Jews.
He had Timothy circumcised, because of the Jews which dwelt in that quarter:

and the other acts which have been cited were performed in the same
accommodation to Jewish prejudice. But when it became necessary to defend
the rights and privileges of Gentile converts, he boldly asserted their rights, and
strenuously opposed the circumcision of Titus.(49) If, with an humble and
teachable spirit, we study the instructions as well as the example of the apostles,
we shall find it scarcely possible to err in deciding which of their acts were
accommodated to particular circumstances, and which of them are proper
examples for our imitation. If any doubt should remain in any particular case, it
would be highly rash and criminal, on account of it, to throw away the benefit of
apostolic example entirely.

When we have made our deductions from the instruction and example of the
apostles, we may use them with great profit to interpret the brief directions
which the divine Master himself gave. Twice only, so far as the record states, did
he use the word church, during all his personal ministry. In one case, he gave a
promise of stability and perpetuity: "Upon this rock I will build my church; and
the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." I From this promise we might infer,
even if we had not apostolic instruction on the subject, that the church was to be
built of durable materials, of living stones, of real saints. In the other case, the
Master gave a precept to his disciples, with reference to personal difficulties that
might arise among them: "If thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell
him his fault between thee and him alone; if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained
thy brother. But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more,
that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. And
if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it to the church; but if he neglect to hear the
church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican." What kind of
persons are concerned in the supposed difficulty? They are brethren. The
direction was given to the disciples, and the very offender is called "thy brother."
The direction was not designed for a case of injury from persecuting Scribes and
Pharisees, but for a case of difficulty between Christian brethren. The second
step in the process is thus described: "Take with thee one or two more." Who
are the persons to be taken? Not persecuting Scribes and Pharisees; not
strangers who will have no interest in adjusting the difficulty; but beyond all
doubt, they were to be other brethren. In the third step it is directed, "Tell it to
the ecclesia," the assembly. What assembly? The assembly of Israel, the
Congregation of the Lord, collected from all places to keep their feasts at
Jerusalem? The assembly of Jewish worshippers met in a synagogue? Jesus did
not direct his disciples to refer their matters of grievances to such arbitrators.
Evidently the ecclesia consists of the same kind of persons as those concerned in
the preceding steps of the process. It is the assembly of the brethren. The
constituents are Christian disciples, and none other. It is the assembly, and not
an assembly that might be accidentally convened. The distinctness of the
assembly, and to some extent its organization, are here implied. Tell it to the

assembly; an assembly actually convened, and capable of being addressed; and
not a society scattered through a province or kingdom. "If he will not hear the
church." The ecclesia not only hears, but decides; not only decides, but
announces its decision. Here organization is clearly implied, and also right of
jurisdiction: "Let him be to thee as an heathen man and a publican." This proves
the decision to be final, and without appeal to a higher judicatory; otherwise the
offended brother would be bound to await the issue of such an appeal. Thus we
discover, that this admirable passage contains, in its brief dimensions, an
epitome of the doctrine concerning church order and discipline, which was more
fully developed afterwards in the instruction and example of the apostles. If the
divine authority of their instructions were doubtful, these words of Jesus give
them his sanction.

While we find proof that the church order established by the apostles, was
designed to be perpetuated to the end of time, we do not find either precept or
example for the regulation of every minute particular in the doings of a church.
Marriage is a divine institution; and the rules given respecting it are obligatory,
though much is left to the judgment and pleasure of the parties. So the
regulations prescribed in the word of God for the organization and discipline of
churches, are all obligatory, though some things are still left for human prudence
to determine.

Objection 1.--A community of goods existed in the church at Jerusalem. This was
the first church, and was established under the supervision of all the apostles. If
primitive usage were obligatory on all succeeding time, a community of goods
would be an indispensable part of church order.

We are informed, concerning the members of the first church, "Neither said any
of them that aught of the things which he possessed was his own, but they had
all things common."(50) But in this no intimation is given, that any church
regulation was established obliging all to give up their private property. The
surrender was spontaneous on the part of those who made it. It is not said that
the church or the apostles called the possession of each member public property;
but the accounting of it public property is attributed entirely to the owner
himself. That each member had a full right to retain his property, is evident from
the words of the apostle Peter to Ananias, "While it remained, was it not thine
own?"(51) The crime of Ananias and Sapphira, was not that they kept back a part
of their possessions, but that they lied about it. The clear recognition of their
right to retain possession of the whole, is an explicit declaration from the apostle
Peter, that a community of goods had not been established by apostolic

authority.

If it could be proved that the apostles established a community of goods in the
church at Jerusalem, we should be compelled to class the act with those acts of
Paul before noticed, which were the result of peculiar circumstances. In the
churches which were afterwards organized, we know that the distinction of rich
and poor existed, and that the members were expected to contribute according
to what they had. The possession of private property is unquestionably implied;
and the apostles, who had the care of all the churches, if they had designed to
make a community of goods a permanent arrangement in the churches, would
not have permitted a necessary part of church order on a matter of great
importance to be wholly neglected.

The circumstances of the church at Jerusalem were peculiar. From that church
the gospel was sounded forth through all the world. It was regarded by Paul as
having a claim on the carnal things of churches subsequently formed, in return
for the spiritual things communicated. The liberality of that church in its
contributions to sustain the cause of Christ was extraordinary, because the
circumstances were extraordinary; and an extraordinary claim to remuneration
for having impoverished themselves in support of the cause was founded on it.
Paul commended the liberality of the churches of Macedonia, because "to their
power, and beyond their power" they had contributed to the Lord's cause.(52)
Jesus commended the liberality of the poor widow who threw all her living into
the Lord's treasury. So the liberality of the church at Jerusalem was pleasing to
the apostles, and also to the Lord; and the more pleasing, because it was a freewill offering, and not extorted by any church order which the apostles had
established.

Objection 2.--The church order which you profess to deduce from the Scriptures,
does not agree with that which, according to ecclesiastical history, prevailed in
the times that followed the age of the apostles. There is reason, therefore, to
suspect that your deductions are erroneous.

In attempting to learn from ecclesiastical history what usages prevailed in the
apostolic churches, there is danger of error from two causes: the writers of
ecclesiastical history were uninspired men, and therefore fallible; and the
churches of the times after the apostles, may have departed from the order first
instituted Neither of these causes of error can mislead us in the course of
investigation which we have pursued. The writers on whom we rely were
inspired; and the churches concerning which we have inquired, were the first

and purest, organized by the apostles under the infallible guidance of the Holy
Ghost. Moreover, we have the assurance of inspired authority, that the
Scriptures are sufficient to render the man of God perfect, thoroughly furnished
unto every good work. If every duty appertaining to church order cannot be
learned from the Scriptures, they have not the sufficiency and perfection which
Paul ascribed to them. If ecclesiastical history can make any suggestion that will
assist us in fairly interpreting the Scriptures, we may thankfully accept its aid.
But if it goes beyond the Scriptures, it leaves divine authority behind it; and if it
opposes the Scriptures, we must reject it, lest we make void the law of God
through our traditions.

But ecclesiastical history says nothing that can lead us to suspect the accuracy of
our deductions from Scripture. On the contrary, the nearer we ascend with it to
the time of the apostles, the more exact is the agreement which it exhibits
between the order of the churches, and that which we have ascertained from the
Scriptures to have been established by Christ and his apostles.

The following quotations from Gieseler's Ecclesiastical History will suffice to show
the gradual progress of infringement on the original church order, with respect
to the independence of the churches, the equality of the pastors, and the right of
the people to elect their church officers. The historian considers it a progress of
improvement, rendering the churches "better organized and united ;" but we
think it a progress towards popery.--

"The influence of the bishops increased naturally with the increasing frequency
of synods, at which they represented their churches. Country churches which
had grown up around some city, seem with their bishops to have been usually in
a certain degree under the authority of the mother-church. With this exception,
all the churches were alike independent, though some were especially held in
honor on such grounds as their apostolic origin, or the importance of the city in
which they were situated."--A. D. 117, 193.(53)

"We have seen that the sphere of individual influence amongst the bishops was
gradually enlarging, many churches in the city and its vicinity being united under
one bishop, a presbyter or a country bishop presiding over them. But we have
now to speak of a new institution, at first found chiefly in the east, which had the
effect of uniting the bishops more intimately amongst themselves. This was the
Provincial Synod, which had been growing more frequent ever since the end of
the second century, and in some provinces was held once or twice a year. ...By
these associations of large ecclesiastical bodies, the whole church became better

organied and united."--A. D. 193, 324.(54)

" When once the idea of the Mosaic priesthood had been adopted in the Christian
church, the clergy soon began to assume a superiority over the laity. ...The old
customs, however, were not yet entirely done away. Although the provincial
bishops exercised a very decided influence in electing a metropolitan, the church
was not excluded from all share in the choice."--A. D. 193, 324.(55)

Objection 3.--God has in other cases unfolded his plans of operation gradually;
and it is at least probable, that, in planting the church, the principles of church
order were incorporated in the organization seminally, to be developed
afterwards in the progress of Christianity. It is, therefore, improper to take for
our model, the first embryo of the church.

God has been pleased to unfold the plan of his grace gradually. The first
revelation of it in the garden of Eden, was exceedingly obscure; but, like the
dawn of day, the light continued to increase, until at length the Sun of
righteousness arose, and the full revelation of the gospel was given to mankind.
This progress was made by new light from heaven. From time to time were
added new revelations from God, through inspired men, whom he commissioned
to make known his will. Now, if the principles of church order, inculcated by
Christ and his apostles, were left too imperfect for our guidance, the analogy
suggests that the additional disclosure which is needed, ought to come down
from above. But the objection does not claim, and no one will pretend, who does
not claim infallibility for the church, that the progressive change made in church
order, was directed by inspired men. What Christ and the apostles planted, could
not possibly receive any further improvement, unless God gave the increase; and
since we have no proof that the increase was from God, we may fear that men
marred the Lord's work, instead of mending it.

In the developments which God makes of his plans of operation, the progress is
ever towards perfection: but in the change of church order, to which the
objection refers, the progress terminated in the revelation of the Man of Sin. All
the steps in the progress tended to this full disclosure. If the wisdom which
directed it was from above, we ought to follow its entire guidance. The doctrine
of church infallibility must be admitted, and we must take it in all its
consequences. The doctrines and practices of the Roman church, however
contrary to the word of God, must be taken as developments of the seminal
truth which the Bible contains. If we are not willing to go all this length, where
shall we stop? Is there a point in the progress of the church, at which it attained

its highest perfection, and from which it sunk into the depths of the papal
apostasy? If so, how can we ascertain which this point was? If the word of God
does not tell us, and if we have no infallible church to tell us, we are left in the
dark on this important subject. The only escape from this darkness, is, by flight
to the sure word of prophecy, to which we do well to take heed as unto a light
that shineth in a dark place.

But were the changes of church order which took place, a development of
principles inculcated by Christ and his apostles? If Christ forbade his disciples to
call any man master, and constituted them all brethren--is prelacy, or the Roman
hierarchy, a development of the principle which he inculcated? If he made final
the decision of an ecclesia of the brethren, to which an injured brother might tell
his grievance--is the establishment of appellate tribunals a development of his
principle? If he established a converted church-membership--is not the admission
of unconverted members, a corruption rather than a development of his
principle? The progress of the divine development is towards that ultimate state,
in which the wicked will be completely and for ever separated from the
righteous. His destruction of the old world by a flood, from which righteous Noah
was preserved, was a step in this development. After corruption and idolatry had
again prevailed, another step was taken, in the call of Abram from his kindred,
and the removal of him to a different land in which his descendants were to be a
separate nation, maintaining a purer religion. Another separation was made,
when John the Baptist preached, "Think not to say within yourselves, we have
Abraham to our father;" "The axe is laid unto the root of the trees;" "Whose fan
is in his hand," bc. From that time, a converted church membership was
established, which was to be separate from the world, though not removed out
of the world. The next step will be, its complete and final separation. Now, after
Christ, with his forerunner and apostles, has established a converted churchmembership, the admission of unconverted members is a step, not in the
direction of God's progressive development, but in a direction backward. Instead
of leading to a more perfect state, it leads back to that state which it was a
grand aim of John's ministry to alter.

Objection 4.--The mode of church organization and government, which you
profess to have deduced from the Scriptures, is not wise, and, therefore, cannot
be from God.

The consideration of this objection will be reserved for Chapter X., Section I.

DESIGN

Every man, as an accountable creature, is bound to worship and serve God; but
to render this worship and service apart from all his fellow-creatures, would not
accord with his social nature. Many acts of devotion and obedience may be
performed more advantageously and more acceptably, by companies of men,
than by each man separately. Prayer is acceptable to God, though poured forth
from a solitary heart excluded from all the world, and unknown to all the world:
but a special promise is recorded in word of God, for the encouragement of
united prayer. Union tends to strengthen our faith, and warm our devotions; and
the united petition rises with more acceptance to the ear of him who hears and
answers prayer. Churches are companies of men who assemble for united
prayer. The first church prayed fervently and effectually, when the number of
their names was one hundred and twenty;(56) and they continued in prayer when
their number was increased to thousands.(57) When Peter was in prison, prayer
was made for him by the church.(58) Praise also is acceptable to God, though
offered in secret; but when Paul and Silas sang praises unto God in the prison,(59)
their companionship strengthened their hearts, and gave increased sweetness
and power to their music. United praise entered largely into the worship of the
ancient temple; and the members of Christian churches are enjoined to speak to
one another in psalms, and hymns, and spiritual songs, singing and making
melody in their hearts to the Lord.(60) The duty and acceptableness of church
praise, may be inferred from the words, "In the midst of the church will I sing
praise unto Thee."(61) The commemoration of Christ's death in the breaking of
bread, is an ordinance committed to the churches. The disciples at Troas, and at
Corinth, assembled for this purpose. By the union of Christians, greater efficiency
is given to efforts for the spread of the gospel. Hence from the churches
sounded out the word of the Lord. Association in public assemblies, gives
opportunity for the spiritual instruction, which Christ commanded in the
commission given to his ministers; and for the members of the church to
promote each other's spiritual interests by mutual exhortation. Accordingly Paul
enjoins: "Forsake not the assembling of yourselves together, but exhort one
another; and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching."(62) These are
among the important purposes, for which it is the will of God that believers in
Christ should form themselves into churches.

SECTION II.--CEREMONIAL QUALIFICATION FOR MEMBERSHIP

Baptism is a prerequisite to membership in a local church.

The considerations presented in chapter 1, section 4, determine the proper
position of baptism in the course of Christian obedience. It stands at the head of
the way. In this act, the believer gives himself to God, before he gives himself to
the people of God, to walk with them in church relation. The duties connected
with church-membership are included among the commands which are referred
to in the commission, and which are to be taught after baptism. The members of
every Christian church must profess subjection to Christ. They cannot walk
together in obedience to his commands, unless they are agreed on this point. As
profession is necessary to church-membership, so is baptism, which is the
appointed ceremony of profession. Profession is the substance, and baptism is
the form; but Christ's command requires the form as well as the substance. In
reading the Scriptures, it never enters the mind that any of the church-members
in the times of the apostles were unbaptized. So uniformly was this rite
administered at the beginning of the Christian profession, that no room is left to
doubt its universal observance. The expression, "As many of you as have been
baptized into Christ, have put on Christ,"(63) I might in some other connection
suggest that all had not been baptized. But it follows the declaration, "Ye are all
the children of God by faith in Jesus Christ," and is added to prove the
proposition; but it could not prove that all were in the relation specified, if the
phrase, "as many as," signified only some. The same phrase is used by Gamaliel,
where all are intended: "And all, as many as obeyed him, were scattered."(64)
The same phrase, with the same meaning, is used in Rom. vi. 3: "So many of us
as were baptized into Christ, were baptized into his death." Paul argues from
this, the obligation of all to walk in newness of life. It follows, therefore, that all
the members of the Galatian churches, and of the church at Rome, were
baptized persons; and the same must be true concerning all the primitive
churches. We conclude, therefore, that the authority of Christ in the commission,
and the usage established by the apostles, give baptism a place prior to church
membership.

Many unbaptized persons give proof that they love God, and are therefore born
of God, and are children in his spiritual family. If they belong to Christ, it may be
asked, why may they not be admitted into his churches? That there are such
persons among the unbaptized, we most readily grant; for such persons, and
such only, are entitled to baptism. To every such person, an apostle of Christ
would say, "And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized." We have not
the authority of apostles, but we have the words of Christ and the apostles in our
hands; and we owe it to our unbaptized Christian brother, to tell him, by their
authority, his proper course of duty.

Objection 1.--Many good men do not understand the words of Christ and the
apostles as we do, and consequently do not obey in this particular; yet they give
satisfactory evidence, in other ways, that they love God, and conscientiously
obey him. Paul says: "Him that is weak in the faith, receive ye;" and he urges, as
a reason for receiving him, that "God has received him." Now, if we have
satisfactory proof that God has received an unbaptized Christian brother, we are
bound to receive him.

We admit the obligation to receive such a brother, but not in any sense that
requires an abandonment or neglect of our own duty. We ought not to despise
the weak brother. We ought not, by our knowledge, to cause the weak brother
to perish. We ought to receive him into our affections, and endeavor to promote
his best interests; but if he, through his weakness, disobeys God in any
particular, our love for him degenerates into weakness, if it induces us to disobey
also. We owe nothing to a weak brother which can render it necessary for us to
disobey God. If a weak brother feels himself reproved when we yield our
personal obedience to the Lord's command, we are not at liberty to neglect the
command, for the sake of keeping the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. As
I am bound to exercise my affection for a weak brother in such a manner as not
to neglect my duty, so is a church. Every church owes its first obligation to
Christ, and is bound to regulate its organization and discipline in obedience to
Christ's command. If, by strict adherence to the divine rule, we cannot secure
the co-operation of a weak brother, we must do our duty, and leave the result to
God. Nothing in the law of church organization forbids the receiving of a brother
into membership, who is weak in the matter of eating herbs, the case to which
Paul refers. But if a church be required, for the accommodation of a weak
brother, to give up the principles of organization learned from Christ, and adopt
others, she owes it to Christ, and to the weak brother himself, firmly to refuse.

Objection 2.--If baptism is a prerequisite to church-membership, societies of
unbaptized persons cannot be called churches; and the doctrine, therefore,
unchurches all Pedobaptist denominations.

Church is an English word; and the meaning of it, as such, must be determined
by the usage of standard English writers. Our inquiry has been, not what this
English word means, or how it may be used. We have sought to know how Christ
designed his churches to be organized. This is a question very different from a
strife about words to no profit. In philological inquiries, we are willing to make
usage the law of language; and we claim no right, in speaking or writing English,
to annul this law. But our inquiry has not been philological. We have not been
searching English standard.writers, to know how to speak; but the Holy Bible, to

know how to act. Even the Greek word ecclesia was applied to assemblies of
various kinds; and we are bound to admit the application of it to an assembly of
unbaptized persons, solemnly united in the worship of God. But we have desired
to know how an ecclesia, such as those to which Paul's epistles were addressed,
was organized; and we have investigated the subject as a question of duty, and
not of philology. The result of our investigation is, that every such ecclesia was
composed of baptized persons exclusively.

SECTION III.--FALSE PROFESSORS

The disciples of Christ, in obeying their Master's command to love one another,
are liable to mistake the proper objects of the love enjoined. Men who have not
the Christian spirit, frequently assume the Christian name; and, since none but
God can search the heart, such men frequently obtain admittance among the
followers of Christ, and are for a time reckoned true disciples. For wise reasons,
some of which we are able to comprehend, Christ did not pray that his people
should be taken out of the world. Though the relation which they sustain to the
men of the world is often an occasion of painful trial, it gives an opportunity for
duties that are profitable to themselves and to mankind, and honorable to God.
In like manner, their relation to false professors, gives occasion for the exercise
of patience and forbearance, and of careful self-examination.

Local churches possess external organization; and in this organization, human
agency is employed. Men unite in it, on the principle of mutual recognition of
each other as disciples of Christ. Since God has not endowed the members of a
church with the power to search the heart, it is possible for persons, whose
hearts have not been sanctified by the Holy Spirit, to obtain admission into a
local church. It is not Christ's law that such persons should be received; but they
obtain admittance through the fallibility of those to whom the execution of the
law has been intrusted.

Since every church on earth has probably one or more false professors in it, and
since Christ has not authorized the admission of false professors, it may be
questioned whether, strictly speaking, there is a Christian church on earth. But it
may be questioned, with equal propriety, whether any individual man should be
called a Christian, since no man is fully conformed to the law of Christ. Some, on
the other hand, have thought that because no church on earth is perfectly free
from false professors, it is folly to aim at a perfect church. But we may, with

equal propriety, charge any individual man with folly who is striving after
personal perfection. The duty of every individual is, to press toward the mark, for
the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus; and the duty of every church,
and of every church-member, is, to strive in every lawful way for church
perfection. Though full perfection may not be attained, yet approach to it
sufficiently rewards our continual effort; and, apart from all respect to reward,
we are obliged to this course, by the command of Christ.

It may be objected, that if the Lord had designed the churches to be free from
false professors, he would not have committed the management of them to
fallible men. We may grant that it was not God's purpose to preserve the
churches free from false professors by the exertion of his omnipotence. Had this
been his purpose, it would not have failed to be accomplished. But, as in other
parts of God's moral government, responsible agents are employed who have
laws prescribed, which as free agents they may or may not obey. The fact that
the law is not obeyed, disproves neither its perfection nor its obligation.

But the objection may be presented in another form. The failure of a church to
keep out false professors, does not necessarily arise from moral delinquency in
its members; it may be wholly owing to the unavoidable fallibility of human
judgment. Since their failure is not criminal, it is not a violation of divine law;
and, therefore, the divine law does not provide for a perfectly pure church.

The objection in this form would be embarrassing, if the church which admits a
false professor, were the only party concerned in the transaction. But the false
professor himself is a party, and the most responsible party. He does not love
Christ; and this want of love not only unfits him for a place in the church, but is
criminal. He is certainly in fault; and it too often happens that the members of
the church are also in fault. Were they less conformed to the world, the
distinction between Christians and men of the world would be more apparent,
and fewer cases of mistake in the reception of members would occur. Churches
are often criminally careless, both in the reception of members, and in the
discipline of them when received. If the piety of churches were very fervent, men
of cold hearts could not remain happy among them, and could not continue to
have their true character concealed.

The possession of love to Christ is required of every one who seeks admission
into a Christian church. The members who admit him are required to demand a
credible profession made in obedience to Christ's command. Beyond this they

cannot go, and here their responsibility ceases. But in every case in which a false
professor is admitted, the law of Christ is violated by one or both of the parties.
1. Luke vii. 5.
2. 1 Cor. xi. 22.
3. Ps. xxvi. 5; Judith vi. 16; xiv. 6.
4. Matt. xviii. 17.
5. Acts viii. 1.
6. Acts xiii. 1.
7. 1 Cor. i. 2.
8. Rev. ii. 1.
9. Acts ix. 31.
10. Gal. i. 2; 1 Cor. xvi. 1.
11. 2 Cor. viii. 1.
12. 1 Cor. xvi. 19.
13. 1 Cor. xiv. 23.
14. Acts xiv. 23.
15. 2 Cor. xii. 13.
16. Phi. iv. 15.
17. Rom. xvi. 16; 1 Cor. xvi. 19.
18. 2 Cor. viii. 23.
19. Theology, 96, 98.
20. Acts vi. 1,2.
21. Acts xiv. 27.

22. Acts ii. 47.
23. Acts ix. 31.
24. Col. iii. 12.
25. Gal. iii. 26.
26. 1 Cor. i. 2.
27. Phil. i. 1.
28. 1 Thes. i. 6.
29. 2 Thes. ii. 13.
30. Acts ii. 39, 41.
31. Acts ii. 47.
32. Acts iv. 32.
33. Acts v. 1.
34. Acts viii. 13.
35. Gal. ii. 4.
36. Jude 4.
37. 1 Cor. xiv. 23.
38. 1 Cor. xi. 18.
39. Rom. xvi. 5; 1 Cor. xvi. 19; Col. iv. 15; Philem. 2.
40. Titus i. 5.
41. 2 Tim. ii. 2.
42. Acts i. 3.
43. Matt. xix. 28.
44. Matt. xxviii. 20.

45. Rev. i. 20.
46. Acts xviii. 18.
47. Acts xxi. 26.
48. Acts xvi. 3.
49. Gal. ii. 3.
50. Acts iv. 32.
51. Acts v. 4.
52. 2 Cor. viii. 1, 3.
53. P. 102.
54. P. 152.
55. P. 156.
56. Acts i. 14, 24.
57. Acts ii. 42; iv. 24.
58. Acts xii. 5.
59. Acts xvi. 25.
60. Eph. v. 19.
61. Heb. ii. 12.
62. Heb. x. 25.
63. Gal. iii. 27.
64. Acts v. 36.
CHAPTER III

THE CHURCH UNIVERSAL

SECTION I.--MEMBERSHIP

The Church Universal is the whole company of those who are saved by Christ.

Whether the term church is used in the Scriptures to denote the whole body of
Christ's disciples, is simply a question of fact. Were we to regard it as an
etymological question, we might doubt whether a word, which always assures us
of an assembly, could be used to denote a body that has never assembled on
earth since the time of the first persecution, which scattered the disciples from
Jerusalem. But some reason for such an application of the term may exist; and,
if we ascertain the fact that it is so applied, the reason for this peculiar use will
afterward become a proper subject of inquiry.

The following are examples in which the word is used with this wide signification:
"Gave him to be the head over all things to the church."(1) "Unto him be glory in
the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end."(2) Let any
one attempt to interpret these and similar passages, on the supposition that the
term church always denotes a body of Christians assembling at one place--as the
church at Rome, at Corinth, or at Ephesus-- and he will become fully convinced,
that the interpretation is inadmissible. In some of the passages the extension of
the term to the whole body of believers, is perfectly apparent. In others, though
it is not so apparent that the entire body is intended, yet this signification
perfectly harmonizes with the use of the term, the context, and scope of the
passage.

We shall hereafter investigate the question, whether the term church, in this
wide signification, includes those who profess faith in Christ, but are not true
Christians Such false profession has become very common in modern times; but
we are inquiring into the use of the term in apostolic times, when fewer motives
to false profession operated. Even in those ancient times, some intruded
themselves into the brotherhood, who were false brethren, brought in unawares.
But the intrusion of such persons was not authorized by the head of the church;
and in our effort to ascertain what the church is, we should seek to know what it
is as Christ instituted it, rather than what it is as man has misconceived or
corrupted it.

After having ascertained the fact that the word is used in the extended sense,
the next inquiry which presents itself respects the reason or propriety of this use.

Some have thought that this use of the word is not properly collective, but
generic. When we say, gold is heavier than sand, the terms gold and sand are
used generically. Were they used collectively to denote all the gold and all the
sand in the world, the proposition would not be true; for there is a far greater
weight of sand in the world, than of gold. But the comparison is made between
the two kinds of matter, without regard to the quantities of them that exist. In
the generic use of names to denote the various kinds of unorganized matter, the
noun is not preceded by an article: thus--fire, air, earth, and water, as names of
elements, are used without an article. So man is used generically without an
article; and we do not say, the man, unless some particular man is meant. When
the names of other organized bodies are used generically, the definite article the
generally precedes them: thus we say, the horse is more tractable than the
mule; the cedar is more durable than the oak. So the phrase, the church, is
supposed by some to be used generically to denote the kind of organization
existing in local churches.

It is an argument in favor of this opinion, that the idea of an assembly is thus
fully retained in the signification of the word. Each local church is an assembly.

This generic theory is advocated by Mr. Courtney, a fictitious character in
"Theodosia Ernest," a popular work recently published, which maintains, in
general, the true doctrine of Scripture on baptism and church organization. The
arguments of Mr. Courtney, on the question now before us, are the best that I
have met with; we shall, therefore, proceed to examine them.

The question is not, whether the phrase, the church, may be grammatically used
in a generic sense; but whether the Scriptures do so employ it. This also is
simply a question of fact. We must examine the passages in which the word
extends its signification beyond a single local church, and endeavor to determine,
whether in these cases it is generic or not.

"Upon this Rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail
against it."(3)

This is the first text which Mr. Courtney examines in relation to this question. He
regards the church which was to be built, as a visible organization; and
maintains that no visible organization more extensive than a local church, was
instituted by Christ. He hence infers that a local church is the thing here
intended; and that the term obtains an extended signification, by being used
generically. To this argument, we oppose two objections: 1. There is no proof
that the church referred to in the passage, is a visible organization in the sense
of Mr. Courtney. The opposing force denoted by the phrase "the gates of hell," is
not such an organization; and the text contains no proof that the church differs
from it in this particular. 2. The passage does not admit a consistent
interpretation, on the supposition that the word "church" is to be taken
generically.

It is agreed by all, that this text does not refer to any particular local church--as
the church at Jerusalem, at Corinth, or at Rome. The promise of perpetuity was
not designed to apply to any one of these churches. One of them may be totally
scattered by persecution; another may waste away by gradual decay; and a third
may be so overrun by corruption as to become a synagogue of Satan, and no
longer a church of Christ. By the universal consent of interpreters, the proper
application of this text extends beyond any one local church, and somehow
embraces the followers of Christ throughout the world; but how the word church
obtains the extended signification, is the question. Most interpreters have
supposed that it is used as a collective name for the whole body of Christ's
people; but some, with Mr. Courtney, suppose it to be merely a generic use of
the term--and our present inquiry is confined to this point: Is the word church, in
this passage, a collective or a generic term?

When collective terms are used to denote the subject of any affirmation, what is
affirmed may respect the entire body signified by the term, or it may respect the
individuals composing that body. On this distinction, a well known rule of
grammar is founded: "A noun of multitude, or signifying many, may have a verb
or pronoun agreeing with it, either in the singular or plural number, yet not
without regard to the import of the word, as conveying unity or plurality of idea."
When we say the crowd is large, because the verb is in the singular number, the
largeness is predicated of the crowd as a whole; and the meaning is, that there
are many persons in it: but when we say the crowd are large, the largeness is
predicated of the individuals who compose the crowd; and the meaning is, that it
consists of large men. On the same principle the pronouns which refer to
collective nouns, may be either singular or plural according to the sense. We may
say the crowd is large, but we fear not to meet it; or the crowd are large, but we
fear not to meet them. The pronoun it refers to the crowd as a whole; and the

pronoun them to the individuals who compose it.

With regard to generic nouns, our grammars do not give, and the usage of
language does not authorize any such rule. In every well constructed sentence in
which they are found, the verbs and pronouns which agree with them are always
singular; and the things affirmed respecting them always relate to the
individuals, and not to the genus or species as a whole. We say "the oak is
large," but never "the oak are large;" and the largeness which this sentence
predicates of the oak, relates to the dimensions of each single tree, and not to
the number of individuals contained in the species.

To illustrate the use of generic terms, appropriate reference is made in
Theodosia to the passages in the book of Job, which speak of behemoth,
leviathan, and the war horse. All these passages may serve also to exemplify the
rule laid down in the preceding paragraph. The verbs and pronouns are all
singular; and the things affirmed all relate to the individual animals, and not to
their several species considered collectively.

Let us now apply this rule to the interpretation of the text under consideration.
On the supposition that church is here a generic term, the rule determines the
sense to be, that each individual church is built on the rock, and each individual
church has the promise that the gates of hell shall never prevail against it. But
this, as Mr. Courtney himself has admitted, cannot be the meaning of the
passage.

But is the rule universal? May there not be exceptions, in which the affirmations
that refer to generic terms, relate to the species as a whole, and not to the
individuals? That there are exceptions, is admitted. A sentence may be so
constructed that, if interpreted according to the rule, it makes no sense, or a
sense known not to have been intended by the writer: we are, therefore,
compelled to account it an exception. Such a sentence Mr. Courtney has given
us: "The jury is 'built' upon the 'rock' of the constitution, and the councils of
tyrants can never 'prevail against' or overthrow it." This sentence does not
conform to the rule. It was constructed for the purpose of furnishing a parallel to
the words of Christ: but we may well doubt whether Mr. Courtney himself would
ever write such a sentence in the ordinary course of composition. Besides, it
does not appear that the sentence expresses what is required by its supposed
parallelism to the words of Christ. The promise of perpetuity to the church had
not failed, when corruption overspread all the earth, except in the valleys of
Piedmont, or the mountains of Wales. But if tyranny had banished the mode of

trial by jury from all the earth except in a single obscure court, would any writer
say, The jury is built, &c., and the councils of tyrants have not prevailed against
it? Any one who should speak or write thus, would depart from all the usual
forms of language.

Another difficulty still remains, arising from the use of the pronoun my: "I will
build my church." Although the phrase, the horse, may be used generically, the
phrase, my horse, is never so used; and the presence of the pronoun is very
unfavorable to the interpreting of "my church" as generic. Mr. C. thinks that the
juries in the dominions of Queen Victoria, acting by her authority, may be
generically called her jury but if her Majesty, in an address to Parliament, should
say, "My jury is built on the rock of the constitution, and the councils of tyrants
can never prevail against it," we may well doubt whether her language would be
understood.

In the interpretation of Scripture, unusual forms of expression are never to be
supposed without necessity; and the most natural interpretation, that
interpretation which most nearly conforms to the usus loquendi, is always to be
preferred. The difficulties which attend the interpretation of the text under
consideration, when the phrase, my church, is taken generically, vanish when it
is understood to be a collective term, including the whole body of Christ's people
in every age and country.

The rule which has been given respecting generic nouns might be illustrated by
innumerable examples. It is said of leviathan: "The arrow cannot make him
flee."(4) The intrepidity here attributed to him, is attributed to each individual
animal of the species. It belongs to the whole species, yet not to the whole as an
aggregate body, but to every individual. We may say, "The hyena is ferocious;
and no human skill has ever tamed him." The ferocity here attributed to the
hyena belongs to each individual of the species; and the taming of any one
hyena would falsify the assertion. On the same principle, the declaration of
Christ, The gates of hell shall never prevail against it, cannot be true, if the
pronoun "it" refer to church as a generic noun; for not only one, but many, very
many, individuals of the genus have been prevailed against.

Scarcely any rule of language is without exception. Men consult convenience in
speaking or writing; and, when they have no fear of being misunderstood, they
allow themselves much liberty in the use of words and forms of speech. If any
one choose to try his skill in inventing sentences which will not conform to the
rule that we have stated, he may succeed; but he will find, on careful

examination, that there is some peculiarity which allows the departure from rule.
Mr. C. has very properly regarded the generic noun as "representative." One
individual is contemplated and spoken of, as representing every individual of the
genus. If a noun, generic in its form, is so used as not to retain the
"representative" character, but to denote the entire genus directly, and without
representation, it becomes in fact a collective noun. It is possible to construct
sentences of this kind, which will be apparent exceptions to the rule; and if the
text under consideration be an exception of this kind, the word church, instead
of being generic or representative, is collective. If the term "church" signifies a
local church., considered as a representative of all local churches, the promise
that the gates of hell shall never prevail against it, must belong to every local
church. But this is not true; and, therefore, the generic interpretation of the
passage is inadmissible.
"Because I persecuted the church of God."(5) "Beyond measure I persecuted the
church of God, and wasted it."(6) "Concerning zeal persecuting the church." (7)

These passages cannot be relied on for proof, that the signification of the word
church ever extends beyond the limits of a local assembly. During the time of
Saul's persecution, the only church in existence, so far as we have information in
the sacred history, was the church of Jerusalem. Of this church he made havoc,
and to this church the three texts above quoted may be understood to refer. But
when it has been ascertained from other Scriptures, that, in some manner, the
word obtains a more extended signification, the possibility is suggested that it
may have a wider signification in these texts. Paul does not say that he
persecuted the church which was at Jerusalem. Although this was the only
church in existence at the time of his persecution, many others had been planted
before he wrote these words. Had his mind, in speaking of his persecutions,
been fixed on the church at Jerusalem as a local assembly, it would have been
natural to distinguish it from the numerous other local churches that had
afterwards originated. When Paul wrote, the church at Jerusalem was no longer
the church, but only one of the churches. It is, therefore, probable that he used
the phrase, the church, in its wide signification; and the question again comes
up, How does it obtain this extended signification? Is it as a collective or as a
generic term?

When Christ met Saul on his way to Damascus, he said to him, "Why persecutest
thou me? I am Jesus whom thou persecutest." The meaning of this language
may be learned from the words which, we are informed, he will use on the last
day, "Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren,
ye have done it unto me."(8) His charge was brought against Saul, because he

persecuted his followers, the members of his mystical body. This persecution is
explained elsewhere: "Many of the saints did I shut up in prison. And when they
were put to death, I gave my voice against them. And I punished them oft in
every synagogue, and compelled them to blaspheme; and being exceedingly
mad against them, I persecuted them even to strange cities."(9) The saints were
the objects of Saul's persecution, and not an institution of Christ called the
church. It was not the institution that he put into prison, condemned to death,
and compelled to blaspheme, but "men and women;" were the objects of his
hatred and fury. He did not persecute the institution, either as the individual
institution in Jerusalem, or as a genus, of which this individual institution served
as a specimen and representative. But he persecuted the saints; and the term
church denotes the saints in no other way than as a collective noun. As a generic
term, the word church could not denote the object of the persecution.

As in the former case, so in this, Mr. C. constructs a sentence which he considers
parallel to the words of Paul. "I am a cotton planter, and yet I am not worthy to
be called a cotton planter, because, some twenty years ago, I was bitterly
opposed to Whitney and the cotton-gin." Here the name cotton-gin is clearly
generic. The object of dislike is the machine or organ, and not the wood and iron
which composed it. Just so, if the persecution of Saul was directed against the
church generically understood, it was against the church as an organization, and
not against the men and women who were members of it. But the exceeding
madness of Saul was against the persons, not against their ecclesiastical
organization.

In the sentence, "I persecuted the church and wasted it," there is a peculiarity
which deserves to be noticed. As the object of persecution, the term church
conveys plurality of idea; for the persecution fell on the individual members, and
not on the body as a unit: but as the object of the wasting, unity of idea is
presented; for it was the body, and not each individual member, that was laid
waste. This two-fold use precisely accords with what is known concerning
collective nouns, and recognised in the rule of grammar before cited; but it ill
accords with the usage respecting generic nouns. A cotton planter might hate
and oppose the cotton gin as a genus; but how he could lay it waste generically
or representatively is not clear. No good writer would say, he destroyed the
snake and the tree in the island, using the terms snake and tree generically; but,
to express the meaning in language which usage approves, he would say, "he
destroyed the snakes and the trees in the island." Other sentences may be
constructed in which the uncouthness of such generic use of nouns may be less
apparent, but it is never in accordance with prevalent usage. Common sense
which Mr. Courtney very highly and very justly commends, seeks to interpret
language according to common usage; and it will naturally and readily

understand Paul to mean that he wasted the church by persecuting its members;
and, therefore, conceived of the church as a collection of men, and used the
name by which he designated it as a collective, and not as a generic noun.

The distinction between an organization, and the individuals composing it, is very
strongly drawn by Mr. C. when he inveighs against various ecclesiastical
organizations of the present day, and charges them with being rebels against
Christ; but, at the same time, explains, that he does not make this charge
against the individual members. If common sense will keep this distinction
steadily in view, when interpreting the texts under consideration, it will clearly
perceive, that the object of Paul's hatred and persecution was not the
organization, but the men and women, whom he regarded as worthy of death;
not because of the organization, but because of their being Christians.

"To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places,
might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God."(10)

"Unto him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world
without end. Amen."(11)

Mr. Courtney thinks the term church used generically in both these passages.
According to his custom, he constructs sentences which he regards as parallel.
The first is: "In order that unto kings and princes, in their palaces and on their
thrones, might be made known through the engine [steam-engine] the manifold
skill of the inventor." As the skill of the mechanic is exhibited in the construction
of the steam-engine, so the wisdom of God is exhibited to the admiration of
angels in the institution of the church; that is, of local churches as a genus. This
he understands to be the import of the first passage.

Paul's mind, when he penned this chapter, was filled with grand subjects--the
unsearchable riches of Christ, the love of Christ which passeth knowledge, and
the manifold wisdom of God. In the beginning of the epistle, he had spoken of
the great scheme of salvation, in which God "has abounded toward us in all
wisdom and prudence." This wonderful scheme, in which Christ is exhibited as
the wisdom of God, and into which the angels, those bright intelligences that
have long contemplated the wisdom of God in creation and providence, desire to
look, that they may learn the higher wisdom displayed in redemption; this
wonderful scheme, in all its glorious provisions, was still before the mind of Paul
when he wrote the third chapter of the epistle. The whole context proves this. It

was the wisdom of God in the redemption and salvation of the universal church,
that, in his view, engaged the attention of angels. How does the sublimity of the
thought vanish, in Mr. Courtney's interpretation of the passage! It represents the
angels as learning the manifold wisdom of God, from the institution of local
churches, and their adaptedness to the purposes for which they were designed.
These bright spirits leave their celestial abodes, and come down to contemplate
a local church of the right order, and admire the manifold wisdom of God in the
contrivance of such a machinery; and its superiority to the ecclesiastical
organizations of human contrivance. Lest my reader may suspect that I
misrepresent Mr. Courtney's interpretation of the text, I will quote his words:--

"The idea in the first of these two passages is, that the angels of God, who are
elsewhere called principalities and powers, might look at this wonderful
contrivance of Jesus Christ for the execution of his laws, and the promotion of
the comfort and piety of his people, and see in it evidences of the wisdom of
God. It was a divine contrivance, and characterized by infinite wisdom. Nothing
else could possibly have done so well. Men have not believed this. Men have all
the time been tinkering at God's plan and trying to mend it. Men have set it
aside, and substituted others in its place; but to the angels it appears the very
perfection of wisdom. And it was one object of God in having the church
established, that his wisdom might, through it, be known to those heavenly
powers and principalities. But now, what was this plan? What was this church? It
was, as we have seen, a local assembly, in which each member was the equal of
every other, and by whom, in the name of Christ, and by authority from him, his
ordinances were to be administered, and his laws enforced."

The sentence constructed as a parallel to the other text, is as follows: "Let the
poetry of Shakespeare be honored in the theatre by managers and actors, even
to the end of time." We make no objection to this sentence, but its parallelism to
the text fails in an important particular. Paul did not say, "Be glory in the church
to the end of time." Local churches, like theatres, exist only in the present world;
and when the end of time arrives, they will cease to exist. It is therefore
impossible that this text should refer to local churches, either as a genus, or as
individuals; for it speaks of glory in the church, world without end.

Several passages in the New Testament speak of the church as identical with the
body of Christ. It, therefore, becomes important in our present inquiry, to
investigate the meaning of this last phrase. Mr. Courtney commences this
investigation, by citing Romans xii. 4, 5: "As we have many members in one
body, and all members have not the same office, so we being many, are one

body in Christ, and every one members one of another."

From this passage, we learn that the body of Christ is not a conglomeration of all
the local churches. They who hold this opinion, may defend it from the
arguments of Mr. Courtney, as best they can. The members of Christ's body are
individual Christians, and not churches: but the question remains, whether it
includes all Christians, or only some of them. Mr. C. thinks it perfectly clear that,
in this passage, it signifies only the saints who were members of the church at
Rome, to whom this epistle was addressed; and he quotes, as decisive on this
point, the words, "I say to every man that is among you,"(12) putting the pronoun
"you" in small capitals. But this is not the only pronoun which might be so
distinguished in the passage. Paul says, "We, being many, are one body in
Christ,"(13) including himself among the members of Christ's body, to which the
saints at Rome belonged. But Paul was not a member of the local church at
Rome. When he wrote this epistle, he had never seen that church; but expected
to see them for the first time, when he should make his contemplated journey
into Spain.(14) It is hence clear, that the body of Christ included more than the
members of that local church. The same may be inferred from ver. 13,
"distributing to the necessities of saints." The kind affections, which Paul
enjoined on them to exercise, were not to be confined to the saints at Rome, as
if they only were members of this body; but all saints were to be accounted comembers with them, and entitled to their sympathies. This appears also in the
words, "given to hospitality." Rome was the centre of the Roman empire, the
great city of the world, to which men flocked from all nations; and the hospitality
here enjoined, must be understood to have for its objects, not the members of
that local church only, but all the disciples of Christ who might visit the
metropolis.

Mr. Courtney's exposition of the phrase "the body of Christ," is liable to a serious
and fatal objection. It converts the beautiful figure which the Holy Spirit employs
to represent the union between Christ and his people, into a monster, having
one head and many bodies. Every local church is considered a body of Christ;
and he is therefore the head of as many bodies, as there are local churches in
the world. In Paul's view, Christ's body is one, and not many, though consisting
of many members. "We, being many, are one body." His doctrine contemplates
one God, one Lord, one Spirit, one faith, one hope, one baptism, and also one
body;(15) but the doctrine of Mr. C. destroys the last of these seven unities, and
makes it, not one, but thousands.

The doctrine of Mr. C. cannot be relieved from this objection, by the
consideration that the churches, though many, are generically one. The

members of the church at Rome, were members of a particular, and not of a
generic church. A generic church cannot have actual existence, any more than a
generic horse, which is neither black, white, bay, nor speckled; but exists only as
a mental conception. Mr. C. objects strongly to the opinion, that the term church
denotes the church universal, because, he alleges, that this universal body exists
only in the imagination; but this misapplied objection falls with crushing weight
on his own ideal church generic.

"Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular." As the other body of
Christ means, according to Mr. C., the church at Rome, this body of Christ means
the church at Corinth. The same difficulty as before, recurs here. Paul considered
himself a member of the church here intended: "By one Spirit are we all baptized
into one body." And it appears,(16) that he was not the only apostle whose
membership was in this church: "God hath set some in the church; first,
apostles." Peter had a party in this church, who said, "We are of Cephas;" but no
one has hence inferred, that Peter's church-membership was at Corinth--and
there is as little proof that Paul and Apollos, though made heads of factions
there, had membership in that particular locality. Paul does indeed say to the
Corinthians, "Ye are the body of Christ;" but he says also, "By one Spirit are we
all baptized into one body." Paul contemplated the saints at Corinth, as members
with himself and all the apostles, of that one body in which the one Spirit
operated; and by whose operation, all, whether Jews or Gentiles, are brought
into one body. So it is said in another place "He hath broken down the middle
wall of partition between us [Jews and Gentiles], to make in himself of twain one
new man, and that he might reconcile both unto God in one body."(17) This one
body, this one new man, was not the local church at Corinth, or any other local
church, or the church generic; but the universal church, the body of which Christ
is the head, and all his people are members.

"And gave him to be head over all things to the church, which is his body, the
fulness of him that filleth all in all."(18) This passage declares the church, and the
body of Christ, to be identical; and what is affirmed, by no means agrees with
the supposition that the body intended, is a local church, the church at Ephesus.
Christ was not made head over all things, for the special benefit of this church;
and this church was not the fulness of him that filleth all in all. Nor can this
passage refer to the church generic. The nouns in apposition, "body and
fulness," forbid this interpretation. The word body is generic in the phrase "the
body without the Spirit is dead," and the generic use of it in this case, is
apparent to common sense; but common sense cannot comprehend how the
body of Christ can be generic. His literal body was not a genus; and to suppose
his mystic body to be a genus, perplexes common sense, and obscures plain
Scripture. The word "fulness" is abstract; and to take it generically, requires a

generalization of abstractions which confounds common sense. Besides, if "the
church" signifies the church at Ephesus, or any other local church, as a
representative of the genus, it follows that each particular church, however
small, is the fulness of him that filleth all in all. This notion, therefore, multiplies
not only the body of Christ, but also the divine fulnesses, to an extent equal to
the number of local churches; but the context leads to the true interpretation of
the passage--an interpretation simple, clear, and free from all obscurity. The
grand scheme of redemption and salvation by Christ, filled the expanded mind of
Paul. The gathering together of all things in Christ, the riches of the glory of his
inheritance in the saints, and the admission of the Gentiles to be fellow-citizens
with the saints, and of the household of God, are subjects which engaged his
thoughts, and burst forth from his full soul, in the sublime language in which he
here writes. And who are the saints that constitute Christ's inheritance, among
whom the Ephesians had been admitted as fellow-citizens? Unquestionably not
the church at Ephesus. They can be no other than the whole redeemed people of
Christ, the whole household of faith. Jews and Gentiles were united under the
gospel; constituted one fold, under Christ, the one shepherd; one body, of which
he is the head; one family, gathered together in him; one house, over which he,
the Son, presides. This body was not a local church. The epistle to the Hebrews
was not addressed to a local church; and Paul says of all the Hebrew Christians,
"Whose house are we, if we hold fast the confidence; and the rejoicing of the
hope firm unto the end." Amongst these Hebrew Christians, believing Gentiles
had been received into the same family as members of the same household. To
this united family, the entire household, the whole context alludes; and any
interpretation which turns the thought from this great body, to a local church, is
wholly unsuited to the subject of the apostle's discourse.

In commenting on the last verse of the third chapter, we argued that the church
there referred to cannot be local, either particular or generic, because it is to
endure world without end. The same argument applies to the interpretation of
the phrase, the body of Christ. If it signifies a local church, or the genus of local
churches, it is not immortal and indivisible. If the church at Rome was the body
of Christ referred to in Rom. xii., that body saw corruption. Every local church,
and the genus of local churches, will cease to exist; and the mystical body of
Christ, according to this interpretation, will cease to exist, having yielded to
dissolution. The promise that the Lord would not suffer his Holy One to see
corruption, was fulfilled in respect of his flesh; much more may we expect it to
be fulfilled, in respect of his spiritual body.

In the context, Paul refers to the church under other figures: "a building;" "the
whole building;" "a holy temple." These figures do not present to our view an
edifice, or genus of edifices, temporary as local churches; but a structure that,

with the foundation on which it is built, will endure for ever. It is no objection to
this view, that the indefinite article is used in the phrases, "a holy temple," "a
habitation of God." Mr. C. notices this last phrase, and seems to infer from it that
God has many such habitations. But the inference is unauthorized. He who says
that God is an infinite being, does not authorize the inference that there are
many infinite beings.

The fourth chapter of the epistle abounds with the same subject, and exhibits it
clearly and impressively. Paul exhorts the Ephesians to keep the unity of the
Spirit. This one Spirit was not confined to the local church at Ephesus; but
actuated the saints everywhere. He adds "For there is one body, and one Spirit;
even as ye are called in one hope of your calling."(19) The oneness of the body,
like that of the Spirit which vitalized and actuated it, was not confined to this
local church, but included all who were called with "the one calling." The church
at Ephesus does not appear to have included any of the apostles among its
members; but the one body of which Paul speaks had apostles in it, with other
ministers, who were designed by the head of the church for the perfecting of the
saints, the edifying of the body of Christ. All the saints are included in this body;
and the design was, that "all should come in the unity of the faith, unto a perfect
man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ." Christ's body is to
be perfect and complete; and all the ministry, appointed and given by the
ascended Saviour, was designed to effect this: but all the labor of these is not
expended on any one local church. The conception of one head with many
bodies never entered Paul's mind; but, in his view, as the head is one, so the
whole body is one.

In the fifth chapter, we meet again with the same subject: "The husband is the
head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church; and he is the Saviour
of the body."(20) Here the church is again presented to view as the one body, of
which Christ is the one head and Saviour; and there is no intimation that the
church is more than one. Everything which follows in the chapter respecting the
church, agrees with its unity: "Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also
loved the church, and gave himself for it; that he might sanctify and cleanse it
with the washing of water by the word; that he might present it to himself a
glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing. ...No man ever
yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the
church: for we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. For this
cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife,
and they two shall be one flesh. This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning
Christ and the church."(21)

Mr. Courtney thinks he finds a key to the interpretation of all this in the words
first quoted: "the husband is the head of the wife."(22) As the wife here referred
to is not any one wife in particular, but is to be understood generically, so, he
thinks, the church is to be understood generically throughout the passage. But at
verse 28, the generic form of speech is dropped, with respect to the wife, and
the plural substituted: "so ought men to love their wives as their own bodies."
Yet the plural churches is nowhere found in the passage. When the husband is
singular, the wife is singular; and when husbands are spoken of in the plural,
wives also are mentioned in the plural. This accords with what is said elsewhere:
"Let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own
husband."(23) When one of these correlative terms is used generically, the other
is also used generically. When Christ and the church are named together, Christ
is not generic, and yet the church is supposed to be. Christ, as the husband of
the church, is one; but the church, as the wife of Christ, is, according to the
interpretation, not one, but a genus--a whole family of wives! This polygamy,
introduced into the interpretation of Paul's words, is wholly discountenanced by
the scope of the discourse, and particularly by the clause, "and present it to
himself a glorious church"--one glorious church, and not a family of churches.

But Mr. C.'s interpretation represents the object of Christ's conjugal love as the
institution. Though the churches are many, the institution is but one; and in this
view, the notion of polygamy is excluded. But the institution, apart from the
churches instituted, is a mere abstraction: and is the bride of Christ a mere
abstraction? Is it an abstraction that Christ loved and gave himself for, that he
might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word? It was not
an abstraction that he designed to perfect and present to himself. He did not
expend his love and sufferings to perfect the ecclesiastical institution. Nor was it
his design to perfect the instituted churches, and present them to himself as a
glorious family of churches. The object to be presented is a church. The bride,
the Lamb's wife, is but one. Another consideration effectually excludes Mr. C.'s
interpretation of this passage. The presentation of Christ's bride to him is
reserved for the future world, when the marriage supper of the Lamb will be
celebrated. But then, according to Mr. C.'s interpretation, Christ will have no
bride; for local churches, as individuals and as a genus, will not then exist.

"And fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his
body's sake, which is the church." (24)

This passage agrees with Eph. i. 22, 23, in declaring that the church and the
body of Christ are identical. What was said on the other text, is applicable to

this.

"I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the church will I sing
praise unto thee."(25)

"But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the
heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels, to the general
assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God
the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect, and to Jesus the
mediator of the new covenant."(26)

These two passages present much difficulty to the advocates of the generic
theory. The first of them contains two parallel clauses, in which "my brethren"
and "the church" are corresponding phrases, and signify the same persons. The
brethren of Christ are the "many sons" whom he, as the captain of their
salvation, is conducting to glory.(27) He declares God's name to the brethren, and
in the midst of the church, the assembly of these brethren, he celebrates the
praise of God. This is the church universal; for he says, concerning them, in
presenting them to the Father, "Behold, I and the children which God hath given
me."(28) This cannot be consistently interpreted of a local church, either single or
generic.

The other text describes the same company, not on their way to glory, but
already arrived in the heavenly city. To them all, as the brethren of Christ, and
sharers of the glory which the Father had given him, and joint heirs with him of
the inheritance, belong all the dignity and rights of first-born sons. Their names
are enrolled as citizens of the New Jerusalem. Believers on earth are citizens of
the same city: "The Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us
all."(29) Our citizenship is above. We are made "fellow-citizens with the saints,
and of the household of God."(30) Paul says, concerning the saints yet on earth:
"Ye are come to the church of the first-born." All make one household, one
church. Some having already arrived, and others on the way. The river Jordan
separated two and a half tribes of ancient Israel, on the one side, from the
remaining tribes who were on the other side; but they constituted one nation,
and they united as one, in their festal assemblies, in the earthly Jerusalem. So
death separates the saints below from the saints above; but they are one--one
company, one church; and the heavenly Jerusalem is the place of their joyful
meeting in one glorious and happy assembly. This is the church in which there
will be glory to God by Jesus Christ, throughout all ages, world without end.(31)

The text last considered shows clearly the propriety of applying the term ecclesia
to the entire body of the saints. Though they do not meet in one assembly on
earth, they belong to the assembly above, and are on their way to join it. They
have been called out of the world, with the heavenly calling which is the
summons to meet in the assembly. In obedience to this summons, they quit the
world, count themselves no more of it, and are on their march to the city of
which they claim to be citizens, and to the company with which they are to be
eternally united. As the church at Corinth were an ecclesia, considered as bound
to assemble in one place, though not actually assembled; so believers in Christ,
considered as bound for heaven and on their way thither, are one ecclesia with
the saints who have already arrived at the place of final meeting.

Some have thought that the extended sense of the word is metaphorical; like
body, flock, fold, house, temple, applied to the same subject. They suppose it to
mean the whole body of Christ's disciples, not literally assembled, but bearing a
relation to each other, similar to that which the members of a local church bear
to each other. But, on the general principle of interpretation, the literal meaning
is to be preferred whenever the subject admits it. The other terms cannot be
taken literally; but a literal assembly of Christ's disciples is not only possible, but
is expected by all of them, and is in part the hope of their calling. Besides, if we
have not mistaken the sense of the passage last considered, this literal assembly
is presented to view in it, and the relation which the saints on earth bear to the
church above. To this may be added, that the term church is used as explanatory
of the metaphorical phrase the body of Christ, a use to which it would be less
adapted if the terms are alike figurative. But the question concerning the reason
of applying the term to denote the universal church, is wholly distinct from the
question whether a universal church exists. The first question may remain
undecided, without affecting in the least the doctrine concerning the existence
and nature of the universal church.

In the first use of the term ecclesia that occurs in the New Testament, it denotes
the church universal. No local church at that time existed; and it is, therefore,
improbable that the application of the term to the universal church, should be a
metaphor derived from its local signification. When the first church at Jerusalem
was formed, it included, for a considerable time, all the disciples of Christ, and
was the universal church, as far as it was practicable for that body to be
assembled on earth. The distinction of local churches never existed until the
church at Jerusalem was scattered: it is, therefore, improbable that the name of
the universal body was derived from that of the particular associations
subsequently formed. Even the term, as contained in Christ's directions,(32) was
first applicable to the one church at Jerusalem, and was not applicable to the

separate local churches until the first church had become dispersed.

The most remarkable use of ecclesia as a classical word, is its application to the
democratic assemblies of the Grecian cities. It is not to be supposed that the
name given to those assemblies, implied in itself the powers of the assemblies or
the qualifications to membership in them. It would be useless, therefore, to look
to the mere word for information respecting the qualifications of church
members, or the nature and design of ecclesiastical organizations. It denoted, in
the political use of it, the assembly of all those who had the full rights of
citizenship; and the place of assembling was in the city to which they belonged.
These particulars agree well with the application of the term to the church
universal, which includes all the citizens of the heavenly Jerusalem, whose place
of meeting is in the glorious city.

In the Septuagint, the word is applied to the body called in the Hebrew
Scriptures the Congregation of the Lord. This use of it corresponds better with
the Christian use in application to the universal church, than to local churches.
The Hebrew ecclesia was the assembly of all in the whole nation, who could
lawfully unite in the worship of Jehovah according to the forms prescribed in the
ceremonial law. The place of this general meeting was in the city Jerusalem. In
this city the first Christian ecclesia assembled. It consisted of Jews, who were
attached to their holy city, their temple, and the forms of worship to which they
had been accustomed. At first they had no conception that gentiles were to be
admitted to equal privileges in the Christian dispensation; and they probably
expected that Jerusalem was to be the great centre of Christian worship, as it
had been for the people of Israel; but persecution soon taught them their
mistake. Driven from the city of their affections, and scattered abroad through
the earth, they learned to look to another city in which they were to unite in the
worship of God, beyond the reach of persecution. They regarded themselves as
strangers and pilgrims in the earth, travelling to the city prepared for them by
God. As the Israelites, members of the Congregation of the Lord, had been
accustomed to travel from all parts of the land which they inhabited, to appear
before the Lord in Jerusalem, and to keep their sacred feasts in his presence; so
the spiritual Israel are on their pilgrimage to the heavenly Jerusalem, to unite in
the great congregation, and enjoy the bliss which God has prepared for them.
The pious Hebrews, when journeying to their holy city, longed to appear before
God in the great congregation; and often directed their prayers towards his holy
temple. In this distant worship, little companies of them would naturally unite in
the exercise of like affections, and for mutual encouragement and benefit. So the
Christian pilgrims to the heavenly Jerusalem unite in temporary associations, for
the worship of God and their spiritual good. Such are the local churches in which

they unite on earth.

Although the term church occurs much more frequently in the New Testament in
its application to local churches, than to the church universal; yet it is apparent
on the face of the sacred pages, that membership in this was far more important
than in those. Little is anywhere said of membership in a local church; but the
common recognition of Christians is as members of the church universal, the
great brotherhood: "Of this way,"(33) "the sect everywhere spoken against,"(34)
"having their names in the book of life."(35) Phebe is mentioned as "a servant of
the church at Cenchrea," but she is also recognised as "our sister,"(36) and this
relation to the great fraternity, the universal family, has everywhere the chief
prominence.

Thus far we have had no occasion for the distinction which theologians have
made between the church visible and the church invisible. We have supposed all
who profess Christ to be true believers. In apostolic times, the exceptions were
comparatively few; and, moreover, in those days, true believers did not delay to
receive baptism, the appointed ordinance of profession. In this state of things,
there was no practical necessity for the distinction referred to; and the apostle
addressed the professors of religion who composed the churches, as true saints,
members of the universal ecclesia, citizens of the heavenly Jerusalem, heirs of
the incorruptible inheritance.

In this state of things which we have contemplated, the church universal
includes all the local churches; but yet it does not include them as organizations.
We have before noticed, that the members of the universal church are individual
Christians, and not local churches. Moreover, all the local churches taken
together do not make up the church universal; for it includes the saints in
heaven as well as those on earth. Besides, there may be saints on earth, as the
Ethiopian eunuch, who belong to the family of saints, and have not yet been
received into any local church.

SECTION II.--VISIBILITY

The Members of the Universal Church are known by their profession of Christ
and their obedience to his commands.

The religion of Christ was not designed for concealment. From its very nature, it
cannot be hid. It inclines every one who possesses it, to do good to all mankind,
and to make known the gospel by which all mankind are to be blessed. At every
point of contact with human society, Christian benevolence will exhibit itself.
Christ's followers are described as lights in the world.(37) They are a candle which
is lighted, not to be put under a bushel, but that it may give light to all who are
in the house.(38) They are a city on a hill, which cannot be hid.(39) They are
commanded, "Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good
works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven."(40) Their obedience to this
command has distinguished them in all ages, and made them visible to the
world.

The disciples of Christ are bound to profess their attachment to him before the
world. This obligation is taught in such passages as the following: "If thou shalt
confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in shine heart that God
hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved."(41) "Whosoever shall
confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in
heaven."(42)

But something more than mere profession is necessary to distinguish the true
followers of Christ. Many say Lord, Lord, who do not the things which he has
commanded. To such persons, however loudly they may profess his name, he
will say, "Depart from me, ye that ork iniquity."(43) He recognises those only as
his followers who are obedient to his precepts; and he has taught us to
recognise them in the same manner: "By their fruits ye shall know them."(44) "Ye
are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you."(45) A life of holy obedience
to Christ is readily distinguishable from the common course of this world; and
where it is exhibited, men cannot fail to see it.

The visibility of the church consists in the visibility of its members. Our Divine
Master came, "a light into the world;" and all his followers are lights; some of
them burning and shining lights, and others stars of less magnitude. But, as the
constellations of heaven have no other light to render them visible than that
which the several stars emit, so it is with the church. All its light is the light of its
members, and all its visibility depends on their lustre.

Writers on theology have distinguished between the church visible, and the
church invisible; but a church in this world to be invisible must consist, not of
children of light, but of those whose light is darkness. Were we to use these
designations according to their proper import, we might call the saints in heaven

the invisible church, because they are removed beyond the reach of human
sight; and the saints on earth, the visible church, because they still remain on
earth to enlighten this dark world. But the saints above and the saints below,
make only one communion, one church; and theologians, when they mean to
distinguish these two parts of the one whole from each other, are accustomed to
call them the church militant and the church triumphant. By the church invisible,
they mean all true Christians; and by the church visible, all those who profess
the true religion. The invisible consists wholly of those who are sons of light; and
the visible includes sons of light and sons of darkness in one community. We
have seen that Christ does not recognise mere professors as his disciples, and
that he has taught us not so to recognise them. A universal church, therefore,
which consists of all who profess the true religion, is a body which Christ does
not own. To be visible saints, a holy life must be superadded to a profession of
the true religion; and they who do not exhibit the light of a holy life, whatever
their professions may be, have no scriptural claim to be considered members of
Christ's church.

Membership in a local church, is not always coincident with membership in the
church universal. This appears on the one hand, in the fact that the pure light of
a holy life may sometimes be so successfully counterfeited, as to deceive
mankind. Paul has taught us, that Satan may transform himself into an angel of
light; and that it is no marvel, if his ministers do the same.(46) John says, "They
went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us;"(47) and
we hence infer, that they were not manifest before. But this passage teaches us,
that their profession of religion, and their successful imitation of the Christian
life, were not enough. It was still true, "they were not of us." Simon, the
sorcerer, was thought for a time to be a convert; but when his true character
was disclosed, Peter decided, "Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter, for
thy heart is not right in the sight of God."(48) If mere profession rendered him a
member of the universal church, his membership in it was not affected by the
discovery that his heart was not right, so long as his profession was not
renounced. If membership in the local church at Samaria rendered him a
member of the universal church, the local church had not disowned him. When
Paul would have the incestuous person at Corinth excommunicated from that
local church, he did not pronounce the sentence of excommunication by his
apostolic authority; but left it with the church to perform the act.(49) So Peter did
not use his apostolic authority, to exclude the sorcerer from the church at
Samaria; but pronounced on his relation to the whole community of the saints. It
is hence apparent that membership in a local church may be superadded to
profession in those who have no part in the matter. They of whom John says
"They were not of us," were for a time members of some local church; and so
are many to whom the Saviour will say in the last day, "I never knew you."

On the other hand, men sometimes judge too unfavorably. The church at
Jerusalem was unwilling, for a time, to receive the converted Saul as a true
disciple; but the Lord Jesus had received him, and given him the place of an
apostle in his universal church.

Notwithstanding the errors which human judgment may commit in individual
cases, it still remains true, that the light of piety is visible. Time often corrects
these errors. The sorcerer, and John's false professors, were made manifest; and
the conversion of Saul to the faith which he once destroyed, became universally
admitted. Doubtless there are cases which will not be understood till the last
judgment; but it nevertheless remains a general truth: "By their fruits ye shall
know them." Because some cases are doubtful, and some may be mistaken, it
does not follow that sin and holiness are undistinguishable, or that the world and
the church are undistinguishable.

The epithet "invisible" applied to the true church of Christ, is not only incorrect,
but it has led into mistake. Men have spoken of this church as a mere mental
conception; and they have asked, whether Saul persecuted an invisible church.
They seek a church possessing more visibility than proceeds from Christian
profession and a life of piety; and they find it, as they think, in some form of
organization, which they deem necessary to constitute the church. Such an
organized body, they call the visible church. But Saul did not inquire, whether
those whom he persecuted, as professed followers of Christ, and devotedly
attached to his cause and doctrine, were also members of some external
organization. He persecuted them as Christian men and women. But the
existence of such men and women, like the persecutions which they suffered,
was something more than a mere mental conception. Organization is not
necessary to visibility; much less is any particular species of it. Rocks and
mountains are as visible as plants and animals.

SECTION III.--UNITY

The Unity of the universal church is spiritual.

Material bodies are formed by an aggregation of particles which have an
attraction for each other. In like manner, living beings are brought together into
bodies, or societies, by various attractions which subsist among them. Bees,

birds, and various species of animals, exhibit the social propensity; and it
operates in man, as a part of his natural constitution. Together with this innate
tendency to seek society, the interests and necessities of men bind them
together in various forms of association. In these cases, the principles of
association are natural; and a new nature, or a new heart, is not indispensably
requisite. But the church is a society, in which this qualification is indispensable.
Its members are bound to one another by an attraction which is unfelt by men of
the world: "If ye were of the world, the world would love his own; but because
ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the
world hateth you."(50)

The distinctive principle which separates Christians from the world, and binds
them together, is produced in them by the regenerating influence of the Holy
Spirit. "The fruit of the Spirit is love." "Beloved, let us love one another; for love
is of God."(51) "Every one that loveth is born of God. "(52) We know that we have
passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren."(53) The same
spiritual influence that sheds abroad the love of God in the heart, produces love
to all who bear the image of God: "He who loveth God, loveth his brother
also."(54) Brotherly love was especially enjoined on the followers of Christ, by
their divine Master: "A new commandment I give unto you, that ye love one
another."(55) All who feel the love of Christ constraining them, are drawn by its
influence to love those whom he loved, and gave himself for. Not only is
brotherly love enjoined, but it flows spontaneously from the new heart: "But as
touching brotherly love, ye need not that I write unto you; for ye yourselves are
taught of God to love one another."(56)

Love, which is sometimes called charity in our translation of the Bible, is declared
to be "the bond of perfectness."(57) It binds all the people of God together, and
makes them one. It is the essential principle of that sympathy, so beautifully
described in 1 Cor. xii., as subsisting between the various members of Christ's
body. It is this that cements the living stones of the spiritual temple, which as it
groweth together, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love.
This was the principle of union in the first church at Jerusalem, of which it is
recorded: "The multitude of them that believed, were of one heart, and one
soul."(58) Persecution drove the members of this church from one another; but it
could not sever the tie that bound them together, and made them one. The love
of the brethren was never confined to a local church. After Paul had said to the
church of the Thessalonians, "Concerning brotherly love, ye have no need that I
write unto you," he adds, "and indeed ye do it towards all the brethren which are
in all Macedonia."(59) Their love extended beyond the boundaries of their church,
into all the region round about. Wherever a child of God, a disciple of Jesus, was
found, this love embraced him as one of the spiritual brotherhood. "Every one

that loveth him that begat, loveth him also that is begotten of him."(60)

The bond of perfectness which unites the people of God on earth, makes them
one with the church in heaven, who are made perfect in love. This grace is not
destroyed by death, nor does death deprive it of its cementing power. Faith and
hope may cease, and the unity of faith and the unity of hope belong more
properly to the church on earth; but love never faileth, and the unity of love
binds and will for ever bind all the redeemed together, as it binds them all to
Christ.

The attraction of love, which draws all the people of God to heaven, causes
them, while on their way thither, to unite with each other, as they have
opportunity, in the worship and service of God. Even without a divine command
not to forsake the assembling of themselves together, grace within would incline
them to form such societies. It is said of the first Christians, on the memorable
day of Pentecost, "They were all with one accord in one place."(61) And when
their number was greatly increased by the ministry of the word, it is said, "All
that believed were together."(62) The word "together" is a translation of the same
Greek phrase that is rendered in the first verse "in one place." The new converts
were of one heart and one soul with the original one hundred and twenty; and
formed with these one society accustomed to meet for the worship of God. The
unity of this assembly was disturbed by persecution; but the tendency to
assemble was not destroyed. The disciples were scattered from Jerusalem; and
we immediately after read of the churches in Judea, Galilee, and Samaria. The
same principle of unity pervaded the whole body; and by it, from the necessity of
the case, local churches were multiplied.

The brotherly love which characterizes and unites the followers of Christ, has not
for its object all who profess the true religion. Christ did not enjoin such exercise
of it; but instructed his disciples to beware of wolves in sheep's clothing. These
dangerous intruders into the fold were to appear as professors of the true
religion; otherwise, it could not be said that they wore the clothing of sheep.
Paul, in his last interview with the elders of the Ephesian church, gave a similar
warning: "I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in
among you, not sparing the flock; Also of your own selves shall men arise,
speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them."(63) He elsewhere
speaks of false brethren, brought in unawares. If these false brethren had not
professed the true religion, they could not have found entrance, even for a short
time. Such agents of mischief are not the proper objects of brotherly love. Even
the beloved disciple, whose heart was so full of love, and who urged the duty of
brotherly love with the utmost earnestness, commanded to try the spirits;(64) and

directed, concerning such mischievous professors, not to receive them, nor bid
them God speed. (65)

Again, all who profess the true religion do not exercise the brotherly love of true
Christians. The wolves in sheep's clothing were enemies of the flock. Among
others who had not their deadly designs, it was still true, even in the apostolic
times, that iniquity abounded, and the love of many waxed cold.(66) In later
times, the pages of what is called church history give accounts that contrast
painfully with the beautiful exhibitions of brotherly love found in the Holy
Scripture. Those who, according to their profession, ought to have laid down
their lives for the brethren, have, in multitudes of instances, persecuted them
unto death; and, while professing the true religion, have shed the blood of the
saints.

From what has been said, it follows clearly that the church, the body of Christ,
does not consist of all who profess the true religion. To constitute membership
therein, the profession must proceed from love in the heart; in which case it will
be manifested externally by obedience to his commandments. Only so far as this
evidence of true discipleship appears, are we required, or even authorized, to
exercise brotherly love.

SECTION IV.--ORGANIZATION

The church universal has no external organization.

Organization has respect to action, and is an arrangement and adaptation of
parts fitting them to act together to a common end. A society is said to be
organized when its members are brought into such connection and relation, that
they can act together as one body. A family is a society in which persons are
connected with each other in the relations of husband and wife, parent and child.
They act towards each other in these relations for the common good of the
family, and each family stands as a distinct whole in the community. The tie of
affection which unites the members of the family, is an internal bond of union;
but superadded to this, there is an external organization which makes them one
family, even though the internal tie of affection were severed. A nation is a
society organized for the purpose of civil government, and the common good of
the whole. The members may all love their laws, institutions, and governors; and

patriotism, an internal bond of union, may make them one. But an external
organization is superadded which would constitute them one nation, even if
patriotism failed. A local church is an assembly of believers organized for the
worship and service of God. Internal piety is a bond of union; but while piety and
brotherly love would bind them equally to saints of other churches, they have an
external organization which brings them into special relation to each other, and
constitutes them one church.

Believers in Christ may be regarded as composing one family. God is their
Father, and all they brethren; but the relationship is spiritual. Believers in Christ
compose a nation, a holy nation, over which Christ is the king. They obey his
laws, and strive to gain conquests in his cause, but they fight not with carnal
weapons; and the bond of their union to each other and to their king is spiritual.
The members of a local church may be known by the record of their names in
the church book; but the church of the first born are written in heaven, and no
record on earth determines their membership. It may be known by their fruits of
righteousness, but these are the fruit of the Spirit which dwells and operates in
each member, and by immersion in which they are formed into one body.

In the preceding section, the unity of the church universal was proved to be
spiritual. Unity may exist in material bodies without organization. A pebble is
one, though its parts are not organically united; but in living bodies the parts are
organically united, and the organism is necessary to their vitality. The church is
called the body of Christ: and the members operate on each other and cooperate with each other like the members of the human body; but the organism
is spiritual. The qualification of every member to occupy his proper place and
perform his proper duties, is ascribed to the Holy Spirit, who divides to every
man severally as he will; and who operates in and through all. Christ is the head
of this body, and every member is organically united to the head: but "he that is
joined to the Lord is one spirit;" and, therefore, the organization is spiritual.

Theological writers have maintained the existence of what they call the Visible
Church Catholic, consisting of all who profess the true religion. They regard this
as distinct from the body of true saints, which they designate the Invisible
Church. The propriety of this designation we have denied, on the ground that
true religion is visible in its effects. But the question as to the propriety of the
names used to designate these bodies, is altogether different from the question
whether these bodies actually exist. We have maintained the existence of what
theological writers have called the Invisible Church, consisting of all who are
spiritually united to Christ. Is there another body consisting of all who profess

the true religion?

The possibility of uniting all who profess the true religion in one mental
conception, and of designating them by a collective name, cannot be disputed.
In this way we conceive and speak of the vegetable kingdom, the animal
kingdom, &c. If it were impossible to unite all who profess the true religion in
one mental conception, the doctrine that a visible church Catholic exists would
be an absurdity; but this no one will assert. The existence of such a body in our
mental conception is one thing, and the existence of it in fact is another. All who
profess the true religion do not form one body by mere juxtaposition, as a
number of men gathered together form one assembly; but they are scattered
abroad everywhere over the face of the earth. The simple fact that they are alike
in professing the same religion is sufficient for the purpose of mental
classification; but to constitute them really one body, some species of
organization is necessary. Do they compose an organized body?

The Holy Scriptures contain no proof that the followers of Christ, after the
dispersion of the church at Jerusalem, ever acted together as one externally
organized society. Previous to their dispersion, they were of one heart and one
soul, and they were one by juxtaposition as a congregated assembly, and they
united as one body in the outward services of public worship, and in such church
action as the election of deacons. After their dispersion, they continued to be of
one heart and one soul; and they continued to act under the influence of one
Spirit to one common end. Their spiritual union and their spiritual organization
continued; but their external union and external organization ceased. They no
longer constituted one assembly, and they never acted together as one society.
They constituted separate local churches which acted independently in their
distinct organizations, but never formally united in counsel or in action as one
body.

The only fact in sacred history which at all favors the opinion that the churches
acted in general council, is recorded in the 15th chapter of Acts. The church at
Antioch sent messengers to the church at Jerusalem to consult on a point of
duty. After consultation, the church at Jerusalem, with the apostles and elders,
sent forth a decree which the disciples of Christ everywhere were required to
observe. There is not the slightest intimation that delegates went from the other
churches, which were now numerous, and scattered through different countries.
The whole church met in the council: not the entire body of those in every place
who professed the true religion, but the church at Jerusalem. To this church the
messengers from Antioch were sent, and before this church they laid the
question. When the decision was made, it was announced, not as the decision of

the universal church assembled in general council by its delegates, but as the
decision of the church at Jerusalem with the apostles and elders. The decision of
this church would have been entitled to respect, as the oldest and best informed
of all the churches, and especially in the present case, in which the disturbers of
the church at Antioch had claimed the authority of established usage in this, the
mother church. But the decree of the assembled body was sent forth with an
authority above that of any single church or council of churches: "It seemed
good to the Holy Ghost, and to us."(67) The inspired apostles were present in this
consultation, and their decision went forth with divine authority: "Whatsoever ye
shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven."(68) No ecclesiastical council can
justly claim this synod at Jerusalem as a precedent for its action, unless it can
also claim to act by inspiration, and send forth its decrees with the authority of
the Holy Ghost.

No ecclesiastical organization of modern times can, with any show of propriety,
claim to be the Visible Church Catholic. No one of them includes all who profess
the true religion. Some of them may claim to be The Church; but most of them
have more modest pretensions, and claim to be only branches of the church.
Each branch, however, has its own organization, and all the branches do not
unite in one organized whole. Were there a combination of all the separate
ecclesiastical organizations into one body, and were this body to act as an
organized whole, it would possess no authority from the Holy Scriptures; but no
such combination does in fact exist. The state of the Christian world falsifies the
doctrine.

The bishop of Rome and his adherents, claim to be the Catholic or universal
church. They are united by external organization, for the organization itself
points out the head, the subordinate officers, and the members of the body.
These hold their several positions, whatever may be their moral or spiritual
qualifications. The organization is a strong one, as the history of its acts
demonstrates; and this history, stained with blood, equally demonstrates that the
body is not energized by the spirit of peace and love. This external organization
needed an external head, and the bishop of the imperial city became the
acknowledged vicar of Jesus Christ. Sitting in the temple of God, and showing
himself that he is God, he claims a headship which belongs exclusively to the
Lord Jesus Christ. This assumption of power is founded on the doctrine of the
visible church Catholic. Destroy the foundation, and nothing remains for the
superstructure to stand on. We have, therefore, good reason to regard the
doctrine with suspicion, and to examine carefully its claims on our faith.

It will be instructive to notice how naturally the papal usurpation arose out of
this doctrine. On the supposition that Christ instituted a universal church of
external organization, the declarations and promises which have respect to his
spiritual church. would naturally be applied to this external body. It would appear
incredible that he should leave this body to degeneracy and corruption, after
having promised to be with it always to the end of the world, and that the gates
of hell should never prevail against it; and after having constituted and declared
it the pillar and ground of the truth. If external organization connects the
universal church with the church of apostolic times, it will be difficult, if not
impossible, to set aside the pretensions of the Romanists. We may argue that
they have lost the doctrine and the spirit of the apostles; but if the church is a
body of external organization, the continuity of the organization must determine
the true church. If its failure to preserve the truth and spirit of the primitive
times has unchurched it; then these last attributes are the distinguishing
characteristics of the true church, rather than external organization. Here, then,
is the grand controversy between Christ and Antichrist. Jesus Christ has not two
universal churches. He is not the head of two bodies, the husband of two wives.
His true church is a spiritually organized body, and spiritually joined to him its
only head. The body claiming to be the church on the ground of external
organization is a substitute, and its head is a substitute for Christ. They first take
the place of the true church and its true head, and afterwards oppose and
persecute. They who see and deplore the mischief which the papal usurpation
has wrought, should learn the secret of its power. The substitution of
ecclesiastical organization for spiritual religion has wrought all the evil. Let the
pernicious effects teach us to guard against the cause which produced them.

The doctrine of the visible church catholic, is much favored by the use of the
epithet visible. Things are predicated of the true church which cannot be true of
an invisible body. Saul persecuted the church, and this he could not have done if
the church had been invisible. We fully admit the visibility of the church, but we
distinguish between visibility and organization. Herod persecuted the infants of
Bethlehem; but it does not follow that those babes composed an organized
society. The rage of the persecuting Saul was directed against the saints, and
not against their ecclesiastical organization. To have disbanded their external
organization, would not have disarmed his rage. This they might have retained, if
they had blasphemed the name of Jesus and renounced his doctrine. The truth
and spirit of Christianity are hateful to the world; and without external
organization, have been sufficiently visible to awaken the opposition and rage of
persecutors.

An argument for an externally organized universal church, is derived from 1 Cor.
xii. 28: "God hath set some in the church; first, apostles; secondarily, prophets;

thirdly, teachers; after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments,
diversities of tongues." The universal church is here meant, and the offices
enumerated imply that the body to which they belong is organized; but the
organization is not external. The church which includes all who profess the true
religion, contains bad members, and bad officers, as well as good ones. Even in
the primitive times, there were, among those who professed the true religion,
false apostles and false prophets; pastors who devoured the flock; teachers who
brought in damnable heresies; and governments that lorded it over God's
heritage, and loved to have the pre-eminence. Considering the church as an
externally organized society, these men were as truly officers in it as the most
self-denying of its ministers. In the Roman church, the pontiff holds the supreme
place, whatever may be his moral character. The priests hold the sacraments,
and dispense their mysterious benefits, however unclean may be their hands. If
a similar organization existed in apostolic times, the false apostles and other
ungodly officers were truly members of the church. Now, did God "set" such men
in the church? Did he set them there "for the perfecting of the saints, for the
work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ?" Such men were not
the ministers of God, but ministers of Satan, transforming themselves into
ministers of righteousness; and the church which excludes them from its
boundaries must have those boundaries determined, not by external
organization, but by genuine piety. With this view, the whole context of the
passage agrees. The qualifications for the officers enumerated are mentioned in
the first verses of the chapter, and attributed to the Holy Spirit, dividing, not
according to the vote of the church, but according to his own will. The members
are brought into the body by immersion in the Spirit; and the sympathy which
pervades the body is spiritual. It is no objection to this view, that some of the
offices enumerated have respect to local churches, which are confessedly bodies
of external organization. The man who labors in the pastorship or government of
a local church, if called of God to his office, is a member of the true universal
church, and qualified for his office by the Spirit that pervades and animates that
body, and is required to labor with reference to the good of the whole. The local
church to which he belongs, if organized according to the mind of Christ, consists
of real saints; and he labors to introduce no others into their fellowship. Ho
officiates to them as members of Christ's body, and does not bound his aims by
the local organization. So Paul taught the elders of :Ephesus to consider
themselves laboring for the whole redeemed church: "Take heed therefore unto
yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you
overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own
blood."(69) So Peter taught the elders whom he addressed: "Feed the flock of God
which is among you. ...Neither as being lords over God's heritage."(70) Every
faithful pastor shares in the universal pastoral commission given to Peter: "Feed
my sheep--feed my lambs." Though laboring for a part of the flock, he labors for
the good of the whole. He who, in his official labors, limits his view to the local
organization with which he is connected, and which is temporary in its duration,

degrades his office; and so far yields to the antichristian spirit which substitutes
external organization for spiritual religion, and a visible for an invisible head.

The opinion has been held, almost as a theological axiom, that baptism is the
door into the church. It is not the door into the spiritual universal church; for
men enter this by regeneration, and are, therefore, members of it before they
are fit subjects for baptism. It is not the door into a local church; for, though it is
a prerequisite to membership, men may be baptized, and remain unconnected
with any local church. But those who hold that there is a visible church catholic,
commonly maintain that it receives and includes all the baptized. They differ
among themselves respecting the extent and boundaries of the church, because
they differ as to what constitutes valid baptism. Since Baptists admit nothing to
be valid baptism but immersion on profession of faith, those of them who hold
the doctrine of a visible church catholic, make this church substantially identical
with the Baptist denomination. This Baptist modification of the doctrine was its
earliest form. While immersion was the universal practice of the churches, and
infant baptism had not yet prevailed; before sprinkling was substituted for
baptism, and babes for believers; the notion obtained, that the kingdom is the
visible church catholic, and that men are born into it by water. In this notion,
Pedobaptism and Popery originated.

Much mischief to the cause of truth has resulted from a misinterpretation of the
words of Christ just referred to: "Except a man be born of water and of the
Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."(71) Not a word is said in this
text about baptism and not a word in the whole discourse, of which this verse is
a part, leads to the supposition that baptism was intended. But it is not
necessary for our present purpose to enter into a discussion of this question. If
we admit that the phrase "born of water" intends baptism, it is clear that this
alone does not introduce into the kingdom; for it is also an indispensable
condition, that a man be born of the Spirit. We have, therefore, the boundaries
of the church so narrowed, that it includes none but those who have been both
regenerated and baptized.

Persons who have been both regenerated and baptized, are the baptized part of
the true universal church; but they do not of themselves constitute a church.
They are not the generic church of Mr. Courtney. Each local church is liable to
contain false professors; and, therefore, the genus of local churches does not
consist of regenerated persons exclusively. They are not the visible church
catholic of theologians. This body consists of all who profess the true religion;
and, therefore, includes false professors as well as true Christians. Besides, these
regenerated and baptized persons do not, in the sense of theological writers,

compose a visible church. Their regeneration is a spiritual qualification, and is
not determined by outward ceremony or external organization. This baptized
part of the true spiritual church is as invisible, in the technical sense of the term,
as the entire body called the invisible church. No man can say with infallible
certainty of any one, though baptized, that he is born of the Spirit. These
regenerated and baptized persons do not compose the universal church of the
Holy Scriptures; and the church that Christ loved and gave himself for, includes
many who, like the penitent thief on the cross, never received baptism. They will
form a part in the general ecclesia of the heavenly city; and God will be glorified
in them by Jesus Christ, throughout all ages, world without end. This universal
church is not limited to the baptized; and in no proper sense does the baptized
part of it constitute an ecclesia. The true universal church includes the whole
company of those who are saved by Christ; and their spiritual organization is not
dependent on outward ceremony.

SECTION V.--PROGRESS AND DURATION

The Church Universal is in progress of construction, and will be completed at the
end of the world, after which it will endure for ever.

The words of the Saviour, "On this rock will I build my church," prove that the
building was not then completed. In another place, speaking of the church under
the figure of a fold: "Other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I
must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one
shepherd."(72) The calling of the gentiles, and the introduction of them into the
privileges of the gospel, are here intended. By the ministry of the word
accompanied with the influence of the Holy Spirit, great multitudes were
converted in the days of the apostles. These converts are described by Peter as
lively or living stones, built on Christ the living stone disallowed of men, but
chosen of God and precious.(73) Paul uses the same figure; and both of these
inspired writers speak of the edifice as a growing temple.(74) The work is still in
progress; and innumerable multitudes are yet to be gathered, who are to
complete the glorious structure. On the last day, when all the redeemed shall
have been brought in, Jesus will present them to the Father: "Behold, I and the
children which God hath given me."(75) This will be the church completed in
number, sanctified and glorified, a glorious church, without spot, wrinkle, or any
such thing. The church will remain throughout eternity: "Unto him be glory in the
church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end."(76)

Some difficulty exists in determining the date at which the church of Christ may
be properly said to have commenced. The same difficulty exists respecting the
beginning of the gospel, and of Christ's mediatorial reign. Mark dates the
beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ from the ministry of John the Baptist;(77)
but Paul says that the gospel was before preached unto Abraham.(78) The reign
of Christ is dated from the time of his exaltation at the right hand of the Father;
yet saints were saved by his mediation, and he was David's Lord, under the
former dispensation. So Christ said, "on this rock will I build my church," as if the
work was still future; and yet the edifice is said to be built on the foundation of
the prophets, as well as of the apostles.(79) The Scriptures represent a gathering
of all things under Christ, both in heaven and on earth,(80) at the time of his
exaltation in human nature to supreme dominion. The Old Testament saints who
had been saved by the efficacy of his blood before it was shed, and who had
desired to understand what the Holy Ghost signified when it testified to their
prophets concerning the sufferings of Christ, and the glory which should follow,
were waiting in heaven for the unfolding of this mystery. Moses and Elias
evinced their interest in this theme, when, during their brief interview with the
Saviour on the mount of transfiguration, they discoursed of the decease which
he was to accomplish at Jerusalem.(81) The angels had desired to look into this
mystery, but the fulness of time for its disclosure did not arrive until the man
Christ Jesus entered the heavenly court, and was crowned with glory and honor.
Then the angels gathered around and worshipped the Son. Then the saints drew
near, and adored him as their Lord and Saviour. The proclamation was made
throughout the courts of glory, and every inhabitant of heaven rendered willing
homage to the Mediator. The Holy Spirit brought the proclamation down to
Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost, that it might go thence through all the earth.
They who gladly received it, were received into his royal favor, made citizens of
the heavenly Jerusalem, and members of the great ecclesia.

In the words of Christ before cited, the church is represented as a building. The
beginning of an edifice may be dated back to the first movement in preparing
the materials. In this view the church was begun, when Abel, Enoch, Noah, and
Abraham first exercised faith. But in another view, the building was commenced
when the materials were brought together in their proper relation to Jesus
Christ. To the Old Testament saints, until gathered under Christ with the saints
of the present dispensation, Paul attributes a sort of incompleteness, which may
be not unaptly compared to the condition of building materials not yet put
together: "These all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not
the promise: God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us
should not be made perfect."(82)

SECTION VI.--RELATION TO CHRIST'S KINGDOM

The doctrine of the Scriptures concerning the kingdom of Christ, has been
investigated in the Manual of Theology, pp. 221-229. The result of the
investigation, so far as our present subject is concerned, may be briefly stated as
follows:--

The kingdom of Christ is the kingly authority with which he, as mediator, is
invested, and which he exercises over all things, for the glory of God and the
good of his church. The peculiarities of this divine reign are, that it is exercised in
human nature, and that it grants favor to rebels. An incomplete administration of
it commenced, immediately after the fall of man; but the full development was
not made till the man Christ Jesus was crowned with glory and honor, and
seated at the Father's right hand. The subjects of his reign are divided into two
classes; the obedient, and the disobedient. To the obedient, all the blessings of
his reign are promised; and the disobedient, he will ultimately gather out of his
kingdom, and banish to everlasting misery. The obedient subjects of his reign,
are the same persons that compose the church universal, which has been
defined "the whole company of those who are saved by Christ." For the benefit
of this church, his kingly authority over all things is exercised.

As theological writers have maintained that there is a visible church catholic,
distinct from the spiritual universal church of the Scriptures; so some of them
have maintained that there is a visible kingdom of Christ, a society of external
organization, into which men enter by baptism. But the kingdom of Christ is not
a society of men, bound together by external organization, like a family, a
nation, or a local church. This view of it is not authorized by the Holy Scriptures.

The kingdom of Christ is properly the kingly authority with which he is invested;
and the phrase is used, by metonymy, to denote the subjects of his reign, and
especially the obedient subjects on whom the blessings of his reign are
conferred. But the tie which binds these obedient subjects to their king, and his
reign, is internal. "Every one that is of the truth, heareth my voice."(83) These
men constitute a holy nation, a nation bringing forth the fruits of the kingdom;
but they are not made a nation by external organization.
Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world."(84) We are not to understand this
declaration to imply, that his reign had nothing to do with the men and things of
this world. The other sentence just quoted, which was spoken in connection with

this declaration "Every one who is of the truth, heareth my voice," claimed the
men who receive and love the truth as the subjects of his kingly authority.
Having all power in heaven and earth committed to him, he rules in the army of
heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth. Hence every relation among
men, and all the duties arising from it, come under his authority. The family, the
nation, and the local church, are all institutions in his kingdom, or under his
reign; and the external organization of these institutions should be regulated
according to the will of the sovereign king; but the kingdom itself exists,
independent of all external organization.

Some passages of Scripture have been supposed to favor the opinion, that the
kingdom of Christ is a society of external organization, including good men and
bad. The kingdom of heaven is compared to a net cast into the sea, which
brought good fish and bad to the shore;(85) to a sower, who sowed seed that fell
in bad ground as well as in good;(86) to a field, which contained tares as well as
wheat.(87) These parables are designed to illustrate important truths connected
with the reign of Christ. The gospel of the kingdom was to be preached to every
creature; and the commission to preach it, was accompanied with the
declaration, "He that believeth, and is baptized, shall be saved; but he that
believeth not, shall be damned."(88) However variously men may be affected by
the word preached, and however difficult it may be to distinguish their true
character, and separate the bad from the good in the present life, the separation
will be made in the last day, and none will be admitted to enjoy the blessings of
the reign but obedient subjects. To suppose an organized religious society,
including good men and bad, to be intended by the net which enclosed good fish
and bad, or the field containing tares and wheat, is to overstrain and misapply
the parables. The Saviour does not so explain them. The field is the world, and
not an organized society in the world. The command was given that the tares
and wheat should be permitted to grow together until the harvest, which is the
end of the world. Then the King will sit in judgment on the whole world, and not
on a particular society in it; and will separate the good from the bad, whom he
has permitted to remain together in his kingdom. Then he will remove out of his
kingdom all that offends; and will say concerning his enemies, in the midst of
whom he now reigns, "Those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign
over them, bring hither, and slay them before me."(89) Yet it is the will of the
King that bad men and good should be permitted to remain together in the
world; but instead of commanding that they should be permitted to grow
together in religious association with each ocher, he commands his followers,
"Come out from among them, and be ye separate."(90) Moreover, though the
tares and the wheat grow together in the field, the tares are called the children
of the wicked one; and the good seed, the children of the kingdom. The kingdom
does not embrace the good and bad alike, as sustaining the same relation to it;

but a society embraces all its members, irrespective of their moral character.

Families, nations, and local churches, are societies of external organization; and
they are organized for the present world. At the end of the world, all these
organizations will cease. The kingdom of Christ is not of this world; but at the
end of the world, when earthly organizations shall have passed away, he will
gather the wicked out of his kingdom; and the kingdom itself, freed from all
rebellious subjects, will continue for ever. Then shall the righteous, who alone
are the children of the kingdom, shine as the sun, in the kingdom of their Father.

SECTION VII.--RELATION TO LOCAL CHURCHES

If none but true believers were admitted into the churches, there would be an
exact agreement between the character of the membership in the local churches,
and in the church universal. And if all believers professed their faith without
delay according to the law of Christ, and united with the local churches, the
aggregate membership of the local churches, and that of the universal church, so
far as it exists on earth, would be identical. Nothing but disobedience to the law
of Christ gives occasion to distinguish between the church universal, and the
great body of professing Christians united in the several local churches; and in a
pure state of Christianity, the distinction might be overlooked. When the church
universal was spoken of in the times of the apostles, the thoughts of men were
naturally directed to the great body of professing Christians; and for all the
ordinary purposes of speaking and writing, the distinction between this
aggregate of professors and the true body of Christ was unnecessary. So when
we speak of a wheat-field, we disregard the fact that tares may be here and
there intermixed with the wheat. The name does not signify this intermixture,
but is applied as if nothing but wheat were in the enclosure. In like manner, the
name church was used in some cases for the aggregate of Christian professors,
although in its strict signification, false professors are not included.

The fact that the same name ecclesia that is applied to local churches, is also
applied to the church universal, is liable to mislead into the opinion that the
membership must be strictly homogeneous; and, therefore, the universal church
must include false professors as well as the local churches. So the name brass,
denotes the same mixture of metals, whether it is applied to a large mass or a
small one. The cases, however, are not analogous. The name brass denotes the
metal without respect to its quantity, and is as applicable to a particle as to a

mass. But the name ecclesia does not denote the material of which a church is
composed, and is not applicable to a single member. It signifies the quantity
rather than the quality. There may be an ecclesia of wicked men as well as of
righteous. It applies to a local church, because the members of it actually
assemble; and it applies to the church universal, because the members of it will
actually assemble in the presence, and for the everlasting worship of God. The
mere fact that the same name is applied, gives no ground for the conclusion that
the membership in the two cases is strictly homogeneous. In the epistles to the
local churches, the members are addressed as saints and faithful men in Christ.
This was their character according to their profession, and what they ought to be
according to the law of Christ. False professors who might chance to be among
them, were not of them. When excluded, they were not deprived of rights which
had belonged to them. Hence, the churches were addressed as if composed
entirely of true Christians.

Though unconverted persons are not entitled to membership according to the
law of Christ, they nevertheless obtain admittance into local churches through
human fallibility. Membership in the church universal is determined by God
himself. When Paul described the Hebrew saints as come "to the church of the
first born," he described them as come also "to God, the judge of all." The
infallible judge determines membership in the great ecclesia; but fallible men
admit to membership in the local churches. Hence, a corrupt element finds
entrance into local churches, and because of it they are not strictly homogeneous
with the universal spiritual church. This want of homogeneousness existed in
some degree, even in the purest age of Christianity; but it became much more
manifest when corruption overspread the churches, and the evils attending it are
now painfully felt by the lovers of Zion.
1. Eph. i. 22.
2. Eph. iii. 21.
3. Matt. xvi. 18.
4. Job xli. 28.
5. 1 Cor. xv. 9.
6. Gal. i. 13.
7. Phil. iii. 6.
8. Matt. xxv. 40.

9. Acts xxvi. 10, 11.
10. Eph. iii. 10.
11. Eph. iii. 21.
12. V. 3.
13. V. 5.
14. Rom. xv. 24.
15. Eph. iv. 4-6.
16. V. 13.
17. Eph. ii. 14, 16.
18. Eph. i. 22, 23.
19. V. 4.
20. V. 23.
21. Eph. v. 25-32.
22. V. 23.
23. 1 Cor. vii. 2.
24. Col. i. 24.
25. Heb. ii. 12.
26. Heb. xii. 22-24.
27. V. 10.
28. V. 13.
29. Gal. iv. 26.
30. Eph. ii. 19.
31. Eph. iii. 21.

32. Matt. xviii. 17.
33. Acts xi. 2.
34. Acts xxviii. 22.
35. Phil. iv. 3.
36. Rom. xvi. 1.
37. Phil. ii. 15.
38. Matt. v. 15.
39. Matt. v. 14.
40. Matt. v. 16.
41. Rom. x. 9.
42. Matt. x. 32.
43. Matt. vii. 21, 23.
44. Matt. vii. 20.
45. John xv. 14.
46. 2 Cor. xi. 14, 15.
47. 1 John ii. 19.
48. Acts viii. 21.
49. 1 Cor. v 4, 5.
50. John xv. 19.
51. Gal. v. 22.
52. 1 John iv. 7.
53. 1 John iii. 14.
54. 1 John iv. 21.

55. John xiii. 34.
56. 1 Thes. iv. 9.
57. Col. iii. 14.
58. Acts iv. 32.
59. 1 Thes. iv. 10.
60. 1 John v. 1.
61. Acts ii. 1.
62. Acts ii. 44.
63. Acts xx. 29, 30.
64. 1 John iv. 1.
65. 2 John 10.
66. Matt. xxiv. 12.
67. Acts xv. 28.
68. Matt. xviii. 18.
69. Acts xx. 28.
70. 1 Peter v. 1, 3.
71. John iii. 5.
72. John x. 16.
73. 1 Peter ii. 4, 5.
74. Eph. ii. 21.
75. Heb. ii. 13.
76. Eph. iii. 21.
77. Mark i. 1, 2.

78. Gal. iii. 8.
79. Eph. ii. 20.
80. Eph. i. 10.
81. Luke ix. 31.
82. Heb. xi. 39, 40.
83. John xviii. 37.
84. John xviii. 36.
85. Matt. xiii. 47-50.
86. Matt. xiii. 3-8.
87. Matt. xiii. 24-30.
88. Mark xvi. 16.
89. Luke xix. 27.
90. 2 Cor. vi. 17.
CHAPTER IV

INFANT MEMBERSHIP

WE have ascertained that believers in Christ are the only persons who have a
Scriptural right to membership in the Christian churches. But this right has been
claimed for infants; and the number, talents, and piety of those who make the
claim, entitle the arguments by which they defend it, to a careful and thorough
examination.

SECTION I.--DIRECT ARGUMENTS FOR INFANT MEMBERSHIP.

Argument 1.--In epistles written to church-members, Paul addresses children;
and, at the same time, exhorts the parents to bring them up in the nurture and
admonition of the Lord. It is clear, therefore, that young children were among
the church-members to whom these epistles were written. If such children were
in these churches, it cannot be doubted that they were in all the churches, and
that they were admitted in infancy.

Because children were addressed in an epistle directed to a church, it does not
necessarily follow that they were members of the church. As parents were
required to bring up their children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, the
same epistle that enjoined this duty on the parents, might appropriately contain
a direct command from the Lord, requiring the children to obey their parents. In
performing the duty enjoined on them, the parents would naturally and properly
take their children with them to the public worship of the church, where the
apostolic epistles would be read in their hearing. The fact, therefore, that an
apostolic command was addressed to them, proves nothing more than that the
apostle expected it to reach them, and claimed the right of commanding them in
the name of the Lord.

But the probability is, that the children whom Paul addressed were members of
the church. The command, "Obey your parents in the Lord,"(1) is so expressed,
as apparently to imply that the obligation was to be felt and acknowledged by
them, because of their relation to the Lord. The children to whom Paul addressed
this command must have possessed intelligence to apprehend its meaning, and
piety to feel the force of the motive presented in these words, "For this is well
pleasing unto the Lord."(2) Timothy, from a child, had known the Holy Scriptures.
Intelligent piety has, in all ages, been found in children who have not yet
reached maturity; and such children have a Scriptural right to churchmembership.

The argument that the children were so young as to need the care and discipline
of their parents to bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, does
not prove that they were destitute of personal piety. Adult church-members need
instruction and discipline adapted to their circumstances; and the instruction and
discipline of wise and pious parents are of inestimable advantage to their pious
children.

The argument contains a fallacy which deserves to be noticed, in the
assumption, that the children who were commanded to obey, and the children
who were to be brought up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, were the

same. Masters were commanded how to treat their servants, and servants were
commanded to obey their masters; but it would be wrong to infer that no
masters were so commanded but those who had pious servants, or that no
servants were so commanded but those who had pious masters. On the
contrary, those servants who had believing masters are distinguished from those
whose masters were unbelievers; and yet the latter class were commanded to
obey, as well as the former. The relation of master and servant existed, in some
cases, when both of the parties were members of the church; and, in other
cases, when one party was in the church and the other party out of the church.
No proof exists, that the relation of parent and child may not have been divided
in the same manner. Parents were not commanded to bring up their children in
the nurture and admonition of the Lord because the children were churchmembers; and children were not commanded to obey their parents because the
parents were church-members. The supposition, therefore, that the children in
the two cases were the same, is an assumption without proof.

The inference that, if there were children in the primitive churches, they were
admitted in infancy, and not because of personal piety, is illegitimate. It cannot
be made to appear that they were destitute of personal piety; and, as this was
the established condition of church-membership in all other cases, the fair
inference is that their membership in the church stood on the common ground.

Argument 2.--The King of Zion has expressly declared, in Matt. xix. 14, that the
privileges of his kingdom belong to infants; and, among these privileges, that of
church-membership must be included. Children are to be received in the name of
Christ, or because they belong to Christ;(3) and this must imply that they are
members of his church.

In interpreting and applying the phrase, "Of such is the kingdom of heaven," an
important question must be decided; whether the word "such" denotes literal
children, or persons of child-like disposition. As the clause stands in our common
version, it seems to import that the kingdom consists of such persons
exclusively. Now, no one imagines that the kingdom is a community consisting of
literal infants only; and, therefore, this rendering, if retained, greatly favors the
other interpretation, according to which the whole community are properly
described as persons of child-like disposition. The disciples of Christ are humble,
confiding, teachable, and free from malice and ambition; and these qualities
characterize all who have a part in the kingdom.

But the advocates of infant church-mermbersliip have proposed another
rendering of the clause. They remark that it corresponds, in grammatical
construction, with the clause in Matt. v. 3: "Theirs is the kingdom of heaven;"
but, since the word "such" has no genitive in English corresponding to the
genitive "theirs," the sense must be expressed thus: "To such belongs the
kingdom of heaven." After a careful consideration, I am inclined to think that this
rendering gives the true sense of the passage. It makes it analogous to the
clause in Matt. v. 3; while the other rendering is, I think, without any analogy in
the New Testament. The kingdom does not consist wholly of its subjects; but it
has also its king, its laws, its privileges, and its enjoyments. We have Scripture
analogy for saying, that the subjects receive the kingdom, enter into the
kingdom, inherit the kingdom, and have part in the kingdom; but none for saying
that they compose or constitute the kingdom. Hence the rendering, "To such the
kingdom belongs," is recommended to our adoption, as the best interpretation of
the Saviour's words. So much having been granted to the advocates of infant
church-membership, we proceed to inquire into the true sense of the passage.

In the parallel passage, "theirs is the kingdom of heaven," the persons intended
are "the poor in spirit;" and these include all the loyal subjects of the kingdom. If
the parallelism between the passages is complete, the word "such" must, in like
manner, include all the loyal subjects of the Redeemer's reign, and cannot
therefore signify literal children. But if we take the word "such," to signify a part
only of those to whom the kingdom belongs, we shall still be compelled to
consider the declaration as importing that the kingdom belongs to all such.
Nothing in the words, nothing in the context, nothing in the nature of the
subject, leads to the supposition that the kingdom belongs to some infants, and
not to others. But the most consistent advocates of infant church-membership,
do not admit all infants indiscriminately. If the word "such" was intended to
signify any qualifications for membership, peculiar to these children, and not
found in all children, no clue whatever has been left us, in the whole context, for
ascertaining what these peculiar qualifications were. If Jesus had designed to
instruct his apostles how to discriminate between the children to be admitted,
and all other children, it is unaccountable that he should have given his
instruction with so much obscurity and indefiniteness.

The words demand an interpretation, which will make the term "such" include all
who have a right to the kingdom, and no others; and this is precisely the
interpretation to which the context leads. Immediately after uttering the words,
Jesus explained them: "Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a
little child, he shall not enter therein."(4) To be a little child, and to act as a little
child, are different things; and the latter, not the former, is what the Saviour
intended. His explanation shows this clearly; and that the explanation was made,

we are expressly informed by Mark and Luke. Matthew has omitted it; but he has
recorded, in the preceding chapter, a discourse of Christ on the same subject,
giving the same instruction fully and clearly: "At the same time came the
disciples unto Jesus, saying, Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven? And
Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them, and said,
Verily I say unto you, except ye be converted and become as little children, ye
shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. And whoso shall receive one such
little child in my name, receiveth me. But whoso shall offend one of these little
ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged
about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea."(5) Here, a
child is made the representative of him who was to be greatest in the kingdom;
and the phrase, "one such child," denotes one who possesses a child-like
disposition. Jesus was accustomed to call his disciples "little children;"(6) and he
here calls them, "these little ones which believe in me." In this discourse, no
room was left for doubt as to the import of the phrase, "one such child," and this
discourse had prepared the minds of the disciples to understand his meaning,
when he afterwards said, "To such the kingdom belongs," even if no explanation
had followed; but when he added an explanation, reiterating the very teaching
which he had before given, no doubt ought to remain, that the same kind of
qualification for his kingdom was intended--not literal childhood, but a child-like
disposition.

A further demand for this interpretation is found in the nature of Christ's
kingdom. Those who suppose literal children to be intended, assume that the
kingdom is the visible church catholic; and they understand that membership in
this body is here affirmed to belong to infants. Our inquiries in the last chapter
have brought us to the conclusion, that Christ's kingdom is not identical with the
visible church catholic of theological writers; and that such a body as this does
not in fact exist. In Christ's kingdom, there are two classes of subjects; the loyal,
and the disobedient. To the former class exclusively, the kingdom belongs,
according to the uniform teaching of the Scriptures; and the passage under
consideration corresponds precisely with this teaching, if persons of child-like
disposition be intended. But if the kingdom belongs to literal infants, who are
such by natural birth, it must be a different kingdom from that of which Jesus
discoursed to Nicodemus, when he said, "Except a man be born again, he cannot
see the kingdom of God."

Some persons understand the clause under consideration to import that the
kingdom of glory belongs to little children; and they argue that if they have a
right to the church in heaven, they ought not to be shut out from the church on.
earth. But infants have not an unconditional right to the kingdom of glory. If they
die in infancy, they are made fit for that kingdom and received into it; but if they

remain in this world till they grow up, they cannot obtain that kingdom without
repentance and faith. Since the right of children to the kingdom of glory depends
on the condition, either that they die in infancy or that they become penitent
believers, no inference can be legitimately drawn from it that they have a
present and unconditional right to membership in the church on earth. Children
are not taken to heaven without being made fit for it; but churches on earth are
organized for the worship and service of God, and infants are not fitted for these
duties. Even the privileges of the church on earth they are confessedly unfit for.
A right to baptism is claimed for them, but a right to communion at the Lord's
table is not; yet without this right, it cannot be said that the church or kingdom
belongs to them. If by any mode of inference from the passage the right of
infants to the church on earth can be established, it must include a right to
communion at the Lord's table.

It has been objected to our interpretation of this passage, that the word "such,"
properly denotes the kind or quality of the thing to which it is applied, and not
the resemblance which something else bears to it. In proof of this, such
passages as the following have been cited: "Because they suffered such
things."(7) "With many such parables spake he unto them."(8) In the first
example, such things means these very things; and in the second, such parables
means these parables and others like them. In like manner it is argued, such
children must mean either these very children or these children and others like
them. Hence, it is alleged that an interpretation which excludes the children
present from the import of the word "such," is inadmissible.

It is true that the word such denotes the kind or quality of the thing to which it is
applied; but just so far as it does this, it denotes also the resemblance which
another thing bears to it, if that other thing is of the same kind or possesses the
same quality. It denotes the kind or quality of the thing, and not the thing itself.
In this particular, it differs from this or these. If the first of the above examples
had read "because they suffered these things," the identical sufferings would
have been signified, and not their kind or quality. Hence, such does not mean
these. So in the other examples "such parables" does not mean these and other
parables, for it denotes the kind and quality of the parables, and this the phrase
these and other would not do. The fact that "such things" in the first example,
denoted the identical sufferings which had just been mentioned, is not
determined by the meaning of the word such, but by the connection in which it
is used. Any other sufferings of like kind would suit the meaning of the word
equally as well. So any parables of like kind equally suit the meaning of the
phrase "such parables." The fact that the sufferings and parables previously
mentioned are denoted by the word such, or included in its meaning, is
accidental. Such does not mean these, and does not include these in its

meaning, unless by accident. However frequent this accidental use of the term
may be, its essential meaning refers to kind or quality, and not to particular
things. When it is said, "They which commit such things, are worthy of death;"(9)
the particular things that had been mentioned are not necessarily intended or
included; but any things of like kind are denoted. In the words of Paul, "I would
to God, that not only thou, but also all that hear me this day, were both almost,
and altogether, such as I am, except these bonds."(10) The word such neither
intends nor includes "I," but merely denotes likeness; and that likeness is
confined to spiritual endowments and privileges, and does not extend to the
body or the external condition. So the word such in the case before us, does not
intend or include the children present, but denotes a likeness to them; and that
likeness does not respect the body or outward condition, but those mental
qualities which made them fit representatives of converted men.

If we were unable to distinguish between the essential meaning of the word such
and its accidental use, we might still be preserved from an erroneous conclusion
in the present case by a due regard to Matt. xviii. 5. In this verse the same word
is used by the same speaker with reference to the same subject, and in like
circumstances, a little child being present as the children were present in the
other case. Yet in this case, the word such does not intend or include the child
present, but denotes those qualities in which that child was made a
representative of converted persons. The verse preceding proves this: and the
words which follow the use of the term such in the other case, prove the same.
The analogy is complete, with the single exception that the explanation follows in
one case, and precedes in the other. But it follows immediately as if uttered by
the same breath, for it was spoken before Jesus laid hands on the children. If
any importance can be attached to the order of time in which the explanation
was given, it should be remembered that the whole of the discourse in the 18th
chapter preceded the transaction recorded in the 19th, and prepared the minds
of the disciples for understanding it. When all these facts are considered, we
need not be staggered, though numerous examples be adduced in which such
may appear to have a different meaning. True criticism will regard the analogy of
the cases rather than their number; and if the word has different meanings, will
prefer that which is supported by an analogy so remarkable and complete. But
the truth is, criticism has no choice to make between different meanings of the
word, for in every case the meaning of the word is the same.

If the criticism which we have set aside were just, it would fail to justify the
conclusion that has been drawn from it. In the passage recorded in Luke ix. 47,
48, the word such is not used: "Jesus, perceiving the thought of their heart, took
a child, and set him by him, and said unto them, Whosoever shall receive this
child in my name, receiveth me; and whosoever shall receive me, receiveth him

that sent me: for he that is least among you all, the same shall be great." Here
the expression is, "this child;" but the meaning is not to be taken literally. The
whole transaction was symbolical. The disciples had desired the highest place in
their Master's kingdom. It was their ambition to sit on his right hand and on his
left. But Jesus set the little child by him, and constituted that child his prime
minister and representative: "Whoso shall receive," &c. All this was symbolical;
and was designed to teach the disciples what they must be, to obtain the honor
which they coveted. If criticism could convert the word such into these, and the
clause, "of such is the kingdom," into theirs is the kingdom; there would be
sufficient reason, even then, to regard the children as only symbols or
representatives of converted or humble and child-like persons.

It has been further objected, that the clause, "for of such is the kingdom of
heaven," could not, according to our interpretation, contain a reason for
admitting into Christ's presence the children that were brought to him. We
cheerfully grant, that the connection of this clause with what precedes would be
quite obvious, if it could be shown to declare the right of infants to churchmembership; and if it could also be shown that these infants were brought to
Christ to be initiated into his church. This last has been supposed by some, but
without any proof from the sacred narrative. The purpose for which they were
brought to Jesus is thus expressed: "that he should put his hands on them, and
pray;"(11) "that he should touch them."(12) If initiation into the church was the
design, it is unaccountable that all the inspired writers should have failed to
mention it, and that they should have described the act as performed with a
different design. If it was usual for infants to be admitted to church-membership,
the apostles must have known it; and their opposition, in the present case, is
unaccountable. Moreover, if these infants were brought to be initiated into the
church, and if Jesus declared their right to the privileges of his church, it cannot
be supposed that they were sent away without the benefit desired. But were
they initiated? If so, by what rite? Baptism has been considered the rite of
initiation; but there is no evidence that these children were baptized. When Jesus
made disciples, they were baptized, not by himself, but by his disciples. There is
no evidence that he put these children into the hands of the disciples, with a
command to baptize them; but, on the contrary, he took them into his own
arms, not to baptize, but to bless them.

On a careful examination of the passage, we discover that the conjunction "for"
connects the clause which follows with the command, "forbid them not." This
command was addressed to the disciples; and the reason which follows may be
supposed to have been introduced for their sake, rather than for the sake of the
children. He was displeased with his disciples, and designed to rebuke them.
Now, to understand his rebuke, we must view it in connection with the fault of

which the disciples had been guilty. They expected their Master to set up a
temporal kingdom; and all his teachings to the contrary, and even his crucifixion
at last, did not convince them that his kingdom is not of this world. They were
ambitious to have the highest place in his kingdom; and this sinful ambition
remained, till they ate the last passover with him. He had recently set a little
child before them, and used it as a representative of the chief favorite in his
kingdom. This discourse they had not understood. Like other discourses designed
to explain the nature of the kingdom, and of the qualifications for it, the
instruction which it contained was not properly received until after Christ's
departure, when the Holy Spirit brought it to their remembrance. Ambition and
worldly policy blinded their minds. How they understood the Saviour's discourse,
we cannot certainly determine; but they seem, like the advocates of infant
church-membership, to have understood the word such to refer to age, and not
to moral qualities. Hence, the words, "Whoso receiveth one such child," placed
little children before their minds as rivals for the highest place of dignity in the
kingdom. Whether they feared that Christ would postpone the setting up of his
kingdom until these young rivals should be of age, or whether they apprehended
that he would, among the miraculous works which he performed, endow them
supernaturally, even in infancy, for holding office in his kingdom, we have no
means of ascertaining. But, whatever may have been their notions, they seem to
have conceived a jealousy of these young rivals. The ministers of Eastern
monarchs guarded the way of access to their sovereign. This right of guarding
the way of approach to their Master, the disciples assumed on this occasion.
Jesus, who never denied access to any that sought favor at his hands, was
displeased with their conduct and the worldly ambition which instigated it. To
them, and for their benefit, he said what may be thus paraphrased: "Suffer the
children to come unto me, and forbid them not. Do not, by this usurpation of
power, think to exclude these dreaded rivals from my presence and favor; for to
such as these the privileges and honors of my kingdom belong, rather than to
those who, like you, are actuated by worldly ambition. Instead of driving these
children away, imitate their spirit; for whosoever shall not receive the kingdom
as a little child, shall not enter therein."

Whether we have succeeded or not in discovering the true connection of the
clause with what precedes, the clause itself does not affirm the right of infants to
church-membership. The proofs which have been adduced on this point are clear
and decisive.

What has been said, sufficiently explains Mark ix. 27, the other passage quoted
in the argument. We admit that to receive one of such children in the name of
Christ, is to receive him because he belongs to Christ; but the passage does not
teach that literal infants are members of Christ's church. We have proved that

the Saviour employed the phrase, such children, to denote persons of child-like
disposition. Hence, the doctrine of infant church-membership cannot be inferred
from the passage.

Some Congregationalists have held that children are members of the church
universal, but not of local churches. This distinction may perhaps account for
their admission to baptism, and exclusion from the Lord's supper; but it accounts
in such a way as to show clearly, that the privileges of the kingdom do not
belong to them. No one maintains that unregenerate infants are members of the
spiritual church. If they are members of a universal church, it must be the visible
church catholic. Now, if such a body exists, it never meets or acts; and the
privileges of membership in it, to those who are denied membership in local
churches--what are they? To the local churches belong the regular worship of
God, a stated ministry, the benefits of discipline and mutual exhortation, and the
communion of the Lord's table. The baptized children grow up, without the
membership which entitles to these privileges. How, then, can it be said that the
kingdom belongs to them?

Argument 3.--Paul declares, that the children of certain members of the
Corinthian church were holy.(13) The word holy, or saints, was used by him to
denote church-members, that is, persons consecrated to God. We have,
therefore, ground for the conclusion, that these children were members of the
church.
The passage referred to, reads as follows: "For the unbelieving husband is
sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else
were your children unclean; but now are they holy." This passage, if the holiness
of which it speaks signifies church-membership, will prove too much. The word
"sanctified," which is applied to the unbelieving husband and unbelieving wife,
means made holy. These unbelievers, therefore, were also holy; and must,
according to the interpretation, have been members of the church. The text is a
process of reasoning; and the laws of reasoning require, that the term "holy" in
the conclusion, should be used in the same sense as in the premises. If holiness
implies church-membership, when predicated of the children, it must imply the
same when predicated of the unbelieving husband and wife. But no one
imagines that those unbelievers were members of the church; and, therefore,
the holiness affirmed of the children, is not church-membership.

If it be asked, what holiness could be predicated of these children, or of the
unbelieving husband and wife, which did not include church-membership--the

answer is at hand. The Jews accounted gentiles unclean, and thought it unlawful
to enter their houses, to keep company or eat with them, or to touch them. The
Jewish Christians retained this opinion, as is manifest from Gal. ii. 12. According
to this opinion, they with whom familiar intercourse was lawful, were considered
holy; and all others were unclean. The question had arisen among the
Corinthians, probably from the influence of Judaizing teachers, whether familiar
intercourse with unbelievers is lawful.

In the fifth chapter of the epistle, Paul discusses this question, and decides that
association in church-membership with such persons, was unlawful; but that
ordinary intercourse with them must be admitted, or Christians "must needs go
out of the world." As the principle which he opposed had produced a doubt
among the Corinthians, whether it was lawful for Christians to live in familiar
intercourse with unbelieving husbands or wives, Paul considers this case in the
seventh chapter. He decides that, if this principle may disturb the domestic
relations, it will separate parent and child, as well as husband and wife. If
familiar intercourse with the unconverted is unlawful in one case, it is unlawful in
the other also. This is the argument of the apostle; and it is precisely adapted to
meet the difficulty. But this argument presupposes, that the children, like the
unbelieving husband and wife, were not members of the church. The text,
therefore, furnishes decisive proof, that infant church-membership was unknown
in the time of the apostles.(14)

Argument 4.--The writers of the New Testament used words in the sense in
which they were accustomed to read them in the Scriptures of the Old
Testament. The Greek word Christ, corresponded to the Hebrew word Messiah;
and both words denoted the same person. The Greek word ecclesia, was not a
newly-invented term; but it was the word by which the LXX. had rendered the
Hebrew cahal, of the Old Testament, and must therefore be understood to
denote the same thing, the Congregation of the Lord. Hence the church was not
a new organization. It was the Hebrew congregation, continued under the new
dispensation; and, as children were included with their parents, in the former
dispensation, the right of membership cannot now be denied to them. The
identity of the church under both dispensations is further apparent in the fact,
that the names Zion and Jerusalem, derived from the places where the Old
Testament worshippers assembled, are given to the church of the New
Testament.
It is true that the Hebrew word Messiah, and the corresponding Greek word
Christ, denoted the same person; but it cannot be hence inferred as a universal
truth, that identity, either of person or things, always attends identity or

correspondence of name. The Hebrew name Joshua is applied in Scripture to
different persons;(15) and the corresponding Greek name Jesus, is applied to
persons different from these, and different from one another.(16) The English
words assembly, convention, association, &c., are in common use as names of
organized bodies; but the character of the organization cannot be inferred from
the name. The name Assembly sometimes signifies the legislative body of a
state, and sometimes an ecclesiastical judicatory. With this name the Hebrew
and Greek words for congregation and church very nearly correspond in
signification; but were the correspondence perfect, it could not be inferred that
organized societies denoted by them must be identical.

But the correspondence between the designations of the church and of the
Hebrew congregation is not perfect. Two Hebrew words, cahal and edah, were
used to denote the Hebrew congregation, and neither of these is invariably
rendered by the Greek word ekklesia;. In the sixth verse of Exodus 12, the
chapter in which the Hebrew congregation first appears on the sacred page, both
Hebrew words occur, and one of them the LXX have rendered plathos, and the
other synagoge. In Numbers xvi. 3, both words occur, and both are rendered
synagoge. If any one should argue from hence, that whenever the New
Testament writers use the words plathos and synagoge, they must mean the
Hebrew congregation, he would err egregiously. The argument which would be
so fallacious when applied to these words, cannot be valid when applied to
ekklesia.

The single words which we have noticed, are, when used to designate the bodies
to which they are applied, often accompanied with adjuncts. The Hebrew
congregation was called the Congregation of the Lord or Jehovah, and the
Congregation of Israel. It was a congregation instituted for the worship of
Jehovah as the God of the Hebrew nation. The church is called the church of
God, and the church of Christ. These full designations of the two bodies are by
no means coincident; but we have proof that the two bodies are not identical,
which is far more to be relied on than a want of coincidence in their names.

When the New Testament church is first introduced in the sacred writings, Jesus
calls it not the cahal or ecclesia of Israel, but my ecclesia. He moreover speaks of
it as yet to be constructed: "On this rock will I build my ecclesia." It cannot be
that he intended the cahal of Israel which was instituted in the time of Moses,
and its organization completed in the most minute particulars. The next
occurrence of the word ecclesia in the New Testament is still more remarkable:
"Tell it to the ecclesia. If he will not hear the ecclesia, let him be, &c." Can it be
true that the New Testament writer who recorded these words, understood the

word ecclesia in the sense in which he had been accustomed to read it in the
Scriptures of the Old Testament, as referring to the Hebrew cahal? Can it be that
Jesus meant it to be so understood? Did he mean that his followers should refer
their matters of grievance to the great congregation of Jewish worshippers, their
enemies and persecutors, and be governed by their decision? Incredible! The
next mention of the New Testament ecclesia is equally decisive: "The Lord added
to the ecclesia such as should be saved." The time was the feast of Pentecost,
when the worshippers of the Hebrew cahal were assembled at Jerusalem. From
this assembly the converts to the new religion were made; and when made, they
were added to the ecclesia. No proof more decisive can be desired; that the
ecclesia to which they were added, was not the cahal to which they had
previously belonged.

The argument from the name may be retorted with effect. When Jesus said,
"Tell it to the church;" the Christian churches in which discipline was to be
exercised had not yet been organized. The master of the family was still present
to manage the affairs of the household by his direct authority; but he gave the
command to be observed after his departure, as a perpetual rule of discipline.
The unguarded manner in which he speaks of the ecclesia, furnishes proof of no
inconsiderable force, that the word which he employed, was not at the time in
familiar use as a name for the congregation of Jewish worshippers. Had it been,
this application of the word would have been natural to the disciples, and some
accompanying explanations would have been needed to guard them from
mistake. When intending that which did not yet exist, of which they had no
personal knowledge, and which never had existed, he would not, without
explanation, have employed a term to denote it, with which they were familiar as
the name of something that had long existed and was well known to them. The
conclusion to which this argument tends, is strongly corroborated by the fact,
that although the word ecclesia occurs in the New Testament more than a
hundred times, it never, with but one exception, denotes the people of Israel;
and in this single exception, "He that was in the ecclesia in the wilderness,"(17) it
does not denote the people of Israel as an enduring organization, but refers to a
particular time in their history, when they were assembled at Sinai to receive the
law, and for this reason it should have been translated assembly. As an enduring
body, they are called the house of Israel, the commonwealth of Israel, the
people, the nation; but the ecclesia they are never called.
The passage, "In the midst of the ecclesia I will sing praise unto thee,"(18) is
quoted from the Old Testament, where the word cahal is used, and where there
is an allusion to the Hebrew congregation; but as used by Paul, the ecclesia
intended consists of the "many sons" brought to glory, who are mentioned in the
context. The same ecclesia is afterwards spoken of, "The church of the first

born," with an apparent allusion to the assembly of Old Testament worshippers.
This allusion may be readily accounted for by the fact, that the worship of the
Old Testament dispensation was "a shadow of good things to come." Zion and
Jerusalem were types of heaven, the future meeting place of the saints; and the
congregation of Israel assembled for the worship of God, typified that future
assembly in which the redeemed of the Lord shall come from the east, the west,
the north, and the south, and shall sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, in
the kingdom of Heaven. This fully accounts for the use which the prophets have
made of the names Zion and Jerusalem, in predicting the glory of the church.

The Hebrew cahal was an actual assembly. Three times in the year the tribes
were required to meet for public worship in the place where the Lord would put
his name.(19) This obligation continued as long as the ordinances of their worship
were obligatory; and ceased when the handwriting of them was nailed to the
cross of Christ. An intimation that the obligation to meet at Jerusalem was to
cease, is given in the words of Christ to the woman of Samaria: "The hour
cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship
the Father."(20) When men were no longer required to meet in Jerusalem, the
cahal of Israel was dissolved.

The distinction between the church and the Hebrew congregation, may be
further elucidated by an attentive consideration of the design with which the
congregation was instituted.

Although, in the divine purpose, a sufficient sacrifice for sin had been provided
from eternity, yet it did not seem good to Infinite Wisdom that it should be
immediately offered, when sin first entered into the world. Four thousand years
of ignorance and crime, God winked at, or overlooked as unworthy of his regard,
or unfit for his purpose; and fixed his eyes on that period denominated "the
fulness of time," when it would best display the divine perfections, for the
Redeemer to atone for transgression; and repentance and remission of sins to be
preached in his name, among all nations. As, in the exercises of an individual
Christian, the discovery of salvation in Christ is withheld, until an anxiety is
excited in his breast that makes the discovery welcome; so in the history of the
world, the Messiah makes not his appearance, until mankind have felt the
necessity of such a deliverer; then he comes, the desire of all nations. It pleased
God that a full experiment should be made of man's power and skill to find a
remedy for his moral disease, before God's remedy for the healing of the nations
should be revealed and applied. "After that, in the wisdom of God, the world by
wisdom knew not God, it pleased God, by the foolishness of preaching, to save

them that believe."

The experiment which, in the wisdom of God, opened the way for the
Redeemer's entrance into the world, was of a two-fold nature; or, rather, there
were two distinct experiments, demonstrating distinct truths. When the bolder
enemies of God and religion make their appeal from the volume of inspiration to
the volume of nature, and assert the sufficiency of the latter to enlighten and
direct them in the search after God; we can refer to actual experiment, to
ascertain how far fallen man, without the oracles of God, can advance toward
the knowledge of the Divine character. With the light of nature, the bright beams
of science, and the keen eye of natural genius, the wisest men of antiquity still
felt in the dark, after the unknown God.(21)

When those who profess to receive the truth, deny the doctrine of grace, and
maintain that man has sufficient native virtue, if properly cultivated, to render
him acceptable to God; that there are influences of the Word or Spirit common
to all men, which are sufficient, without any additional special influence, to bring
him to know and enjoy the Most High; we have in the wisdom of God, another
completed experiment, which decides against this doctrine, with as much
certainty as is anywhere to be found within the limits of experimental philosophy.
In the sacred record is the history of a people, who had the advantage over
every other people much every way. They were not left to read the volume of
nature only; but to them were committed the oracles of God. They were not left
with unmeaning forms, and unauthorized rites of religion; but they had
ordinances of divine service, instituted on the authority of God. "To them
pertained the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the
law, and the service of God, and the promises." Nor were they without
instructors in religion; but holy men were raised up among them, who spake as
they were moved by the Holy Ghost. Neither were they without motives to
obedience; but a covenant was made with them, containing every threat which
might deter--every promise that might allure. The experiment was made fairly
and completely. Jehovah himself said, "What could have been done more to my
vineyard, that I have not done?" And what was the result? It was clearly
demonstrated that man is totally depraved; that the best institutions,
instructions, and motives, with all common influences of the Spirit, whatever
such there may be, are altogether insufficient to restore his fallen nature; and
that a direct special influence upon his heart, by the effectual working of Divine
power, is indispensably necessary, in order to make him delight in the law of
God, and render acceptable obedience to its holy requirements. See Heb. viii. 8,
9, 10.

That society of persons which was the subject of the last-mentioned experiment,
is frequently denominated the Congregation of the Lord. It appears to have been
the only divinely instituted society, organized for religious worship, that ever
existed before the coming of Christ. That God designed by the Mosaic
dispensation, of which this congregation was the subject, to give a clear
demonstration of man's depravity, may be inferred from the end which has
actually been accomplished, and from such declarations of Scripture as the
following: "The law was added because of transgression until the seed should
come. The law entered that the offence might abound." Since unto God all his
works from the beginning are known, he well knew the imperfections of the
Mosaic covenant, even from the time of its institution, and what would be the
result of the experiment. He found fault with it long before its abrogation; and so
prepared it at first, that it typified and foretold a better covenant that should
succeed it, established upon better promises.

The first account that the Scriptures give of the Congregation of the Lord, we
find in the twelfth chapter of Exodus. When a new order of things was
introduced; when the year received a new beginning, and became, as it has
been called, the ecclesiastical year; when God took his people by the hand, to
lead them out of the land of Egypt;(22) when that code of laws for the regulation
of religious worship, which the apostle means by the first covenant throughout
his epistle to the Hebrews, began to be promulgated; and the Passover, as one
of the ordinances of divine service pertaining to the first covenant, was
instituted; then, first, are the Israelites recognised as a worshipping
congregation. Before this, the word of the Lord had come to individuals, and
individuals had performed religious rites; but now, the word is sent to a whole
congregation, and that congregation, by divine appointment, perform a rite of
divine worship simultaneously. Before this, the Israelites had indeed been
distinguished from the rest of mankind; but not by the characteristics of a
worshipping society. That there were persons among them who worshipped God
in sincerity and truth, will not be disputed. But where were their public altars?
Where was their sanctuary? Where were their public ministers of religion? Where
were their appointed sacrifices? Where their statute book, the laws of their
worship, the rules of their society, &c.? A worshipping society, without forms,
and rites, and rules of worship, God never constituted.

The seed of Abraham were destined to be the subjects of special dispensations,
throughout all their generations. This appears no less in their history since the
Christian era, and before their deliverance from Egyptian bondage, than in the
intermediate time. But, during all this intermediate time, they were the subjects
of that peculiar, experimental, preparatory dispensation, which we have been
considering. They were constituted, and continued to be, the Lord's peculiar

cahal, his only worshipping congregation.(23) But while the ordinances of. their
worship were wisely contrived to be types and prophecies of Christ, at the same
time that they afforded to the world that experiment, which appears to have
been so important a part of their design; in like manner, an instructive intimation
of the future exclusion of the Jews from gospel privileges, and of the admission
of the gentiles, appears to have been given, in the character of the members
who composed this sacred congregation. The great body of its constituents were
the descendants of Abraham; but provision was made in its charter, that
Israelites in some cases should be excluded, and that gentiles might be
admitted.(24) Nothing like this can be found in the covenant made with Abraham
and his seed, as recorded in the 17th chapter of Genesis. This covenant received
into its arms every circumcised son of Jacob (in whom the seed was ultimately
called), without any exception; and thrust from its embrace every Gentile,
without any distinction. It was, indeed, one of its stipulations that every Israelite
should have all the males of his. house circumcised; but there is no intimation
that they were all thereby incorporated among the covenant seed, or that they
had more right to the territory granted in the covenant, than had Ishmael, or the
sons of Keturah. Jacob's servants were circumcised; but they did not become
heads of tribes in Israel, as they would have been, had circumcision endowed
them with the privileges of the covenant seed.

When the end for which any society was instituted has been accomplished, it is
natural to expect its dissolution. The experiment for which the Congregation of
the Lord had been organized, was completely made, when the Redeemer
appeared, in the end of the world, "to take away sin by the sacrifice of himself."
The first covenant, established upon conditional promises, was proved, upon due
trial, to be faulty, weak, and unprofitable; and the necessity of a better
covenant, whose better promises should be all yea and amen in Christ Jesus,
was clearly demonstrated: "He taketh away the first, that he may establish the
second." When "There was a disannulling of the commandment going before," in
which was contained the charter of the Congregation of the Lord, the society
was dissolved. Deprived of the character of a worshipping congregation, it lost its
existence. The wall that had enclosed it from the rest of mankind, was broken
down, when its ordinances were nailed to the cross of Christ.(25)

We have not insisted on the obvious difference between the church and the
Hebrew congregation, as to the character of the members composing them. The
congregation consisted mainly of Israelites; and these were admitted without
regard to moral character, if circumcised, and free from ceremonial defilement
and bodily defect. Gentiles were admitted, on conforming to the law of
circumcision; but a Moabite, or Ammonite, could not be admitted until the tenth
generation; and the most pious Israelite was prohibited, if he was ceremonially

defiled, or the subject of a particular bodily defect.(26) In Christ Jesus,
circumcision availeth nothing, but a new creature. Moabites and Ammonites are
not excluded; but, in every nation, he that feareth God, and worketh
righteousness, is accepted with him.(27) Ceremonial defilement and bodily defects
constitute no obstacle to the fellowship of the saints. If the institution were the
same, such radical changes in the membership could not well consist with the
continued membership of infants. But the Mosaic institution has been abolished:
"For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before, for the
weakness and unprofitableness thereof."(28) "For if that first covenant had been
faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second."(29) "He taketh
away the first, that he may establish the second."(30)

Some advocates of infant church-membership, admit the temporary nature of
the Mosaic institution; but maintain that there ran through it, and was contained
in it, a spiritual and unchangeable covenant, which had been made with
Abraham, and which is now in force. To this covenant, our attention will next be
directed.

Argument 5.--The Lord promised Abraham, that in him all nations of the earth
should be blessed; and entered into a covenant with him, constituting him the
father of many nations, and engaging to be the God of him and his seed.
Believers in all nations where the gospel is preached, are accounted the children
of Abraham; and admitted into this covenant, and become members of God's
church. In this covenant, children have always been included with their parents;
and their right to its privileges was recognised by Peter, on the day of Pentecost,
in these words: "The promise is to you and your children." That believing
gentiles were received into the same covenant which belonged to national Israel,
is taught by these words of Christ: "The kingdom of God shall be taken from you,
and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof."(31) And still more clearly
by Paul, under the figure of the good olive-tree, of which the people of Israel
were the natural branches; but into which believing gentiles were grafted, so as
to partake of the root and fatness of the olive-tree. In this way, the blessing of
Abraham comes on the gentiles; and the covenant which secures the blessing,
embraces their children with them.
In order to estimate the force of this argument, it will be necessary to review
some events in the life of Abraham.

The first event that claims our attention, is thus recorded:--

"Now the Lord had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy
kindred, and from thy father's house, unto a land that I will show thee: and I will
make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great;
and thou shalt be a blessing; and I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him
that curseth thee; and in thee shall all the families of the earth be blessed."(32) In
this narrative, all is to be taken literally. The command was meant, and
understood, and obeyed, according -to the literal import of the words. The
promise has thus far been fulfilled in its literal sense, and is still in progress of
literal accomplishment. Abraham was personally blessed with eminent piety, and
extraordinary tokens of the Divine favor. Though an humble man, dwelling in a
tent, and not distinguished as a conqueror, statesman, or philosopher, he is one
of the most renowned of all whose names have been transmitted to our times.
The nation of Israel, descended from him, was great in number, and strength,
and great in its influence on the world. To this nation, under God, mankind are
indebted for the Bible, the gospel; and, above all, the Saviour of the world, who
was, according to the flesh, of the seed of Abraham. This nation has given to the
world the knowledge of the true God; which knowledge is ultimately to
overspread the earth, and bless all nations. In this manner the promise made to
Abraham, that in him all the families of the earth should be blessed, will be
fulfilled. This promise was repeated to the patriarch, after the birth of his son
Isaac, in these words: "And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be
blessed."(33) The source of blessing to mankind was originally in the person of
Abraham, but was now transferred to the person of the son that had been born
of him: and hence the language of the promise was changed, "In thy seed," &c.
The same promise was afterwards repeated to Isaac,(34) and to Jacob.(35) This
promise is frequently referred to in the Scriptures, and is called the covenant
which God made with the fathers(36)--the word covenant being used according to
its latitude of meaning, to denote a firm and stable promise, and it is once called,
the gospel preached unto Abraham.(37) No doubt can exist, that this important
and distinguished promise included spiritual blessings; but the language is not
spiritual in the sense in which this epithet is sometimes used, to mark what is not
literal. Every word of this "gospel to Abraham," is as literal as the gospel
declaration of Paul: "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved."

The second event which we shall notice, is stated thus:--

"And he brought him forth abroad, and said, Look now toward heaven, and tell
the stars, if thou be able to number them; and he said unto him, So shall thy
seed be. And he believed in the Lord; and he counted it to him for
.righteousness."(38)

Here, again, all is to be understood in the literal sense. The posterity promised to
the patriarch, were literal descendants, persons born out of his bowels.(39) The
great blessing of justification, bestowed on this eminent believer, is spiritual in its
nature; but the language in which it is described, is as simple and literal as that
which is used in the New Testament, to denote the same blessing: "By him, all
that believe are justified from all things."

The third event which claims our consideration, gave existence to the covenant
of circumcision. The record of this important transaction is found in the 17th
chapter of Genesis:--

"And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the Lord appeared to Abram,
and said unto him: I am the Almighty God; walk before me, and be thou perfect.
And I will make my covenant between me and thee, and will multiply thee
exceedingly. And Abram fell on his face, and God talked with him, saying, As for
me, behold my covenant is with thee."

Thus far all is to be taken as literally as any other historical record.

"And thou shalt be a father of many nations."

This has been supposed by some, to be more than was true of Abraham, in the
literal sense; but they err. From Jacob, the grandson of Abraham, was
descended the nation of Israel--the great nation intended in the promise, "I will
make of thee a great nation." From Esau, another grandson, sprang the
Edomites, a great and powerful nation. From Ishmael, the son of Abraham by
Hagar, twelve nations were descended.(40) These several nations were less great
and powerful than the Israelites, or Edomites; but, nevertheless, each of them
was called a nation, according to the use of the word in those times. Besides
Isaac and Ishmael, Abraham had six sons by Keturah.(41) If these were as prolific
as the other two, the whole number of nations descended from Abraham was
fifty-six. No reason, therefore, exists for abandoning the literal sense of the
clause. We have no right to insist on such a sense for the word "nation," as will
correspond with its use in modern history. What it meant, when the covenant
was made, is what it means in this clause; and in this sense, the promise has
been literally fulfilled.

"Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram, but thy name shall be
Abraham."

This change of name has been thought to imply that there is something mystical
in the covenant. The change was doubtless significant; but the supposition that it
had any signification which militates against the literal construction of the
covenant, is wholly unfounded. The posterity of the patriarch, including the many
inspired prophets whom God raised up among them, the first preachers of the
gospel, and the writers of the New Testament, were accustomed to use this new
name Abraham to signify their literal ancestor.

"For a father of many nations have I made thee. And I will make thee exceeding
fruitful; and I will make nations of thee, and kings shall come out of thee."

The first of these clauses explains the change in the patriarch's name. It was not
in some mystical sense that God made him exceedingly fruitful; and, therefore,
the phrase, "I have made thee a father of nations," does not need a mystical
interpretation. God "made Abraham fruitful," not by some mystical appointment,
but by literally multiplying his seed; and in this literal sense he made him the
father of many nations. The promise, "and kings shall come out of thee," was
literally fulfilled; and this clause, a. mystical interpretation of which no one has
ventured to insist on, binds down the covenant to the literal construction.

"And I will establish my covenant between me and thee, and thy seed after thee
in their generations, for an everlasting covenant."

All this is to be understood according to the meaning which common usage
assigned to the words. A difficulty would attend the interpretation, if the term
"everlasting" always denoted unlimited duration; but this was not its only
signification. The grant of the land of Canaan afterwards made in the covenant,
could not extend beyond the duration of the present world; and, if the covenant
was to continue in force to the end of time, or even till that state of things
should cease, for which the covenant was designed to provide, the epithet
"everlasting" was properly applied to it. In various passages of Scripture the
word is used in this sense.

"To be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee."

These words were not designed to be a promise of spiritual grace, or eternal life,
to all the descendants of Abraham. A new covenant predicted by the prophet
Jeremiah, contained the stipulation: "I will be their God; and they shall be my
people."(42) This promise secured spiritual grace; but it would not have been a
new covenant if the same grant had been made in the covenant with Abraham.
As contained in this covenant, the promise engaged a special divine care over
Abraham and his descendants; and particularly over the nation of Israel, the
seed to whom the grant of Canaan was made in this covenant. In this sense, the
promise was literally fulfilled. He separated them from all other nations, and
acknowledged them to be his people: "You only have I known of all the families
of the earth."(43) His providence over them, and his revelations to them,.were all
peculiar. In all his dealings with them, he acted in the relation of a God. He
rewarded as a God, and punished as a God. He made himself known to them as
a God, while other nations were permitted to remain in ignorance of him; and as
a God, while he granted to this nation means of grace and salvation unknown to
the rest of the world, he used the nation as the channel for conveying spiritual
blessings to all the nations of the earth.

" And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art
a stranger, all the land of Canaan for an everlasting possession."

All this was meant literally, and was literally fulfilled. The import of the word
"everlasting," has been explained in the remarks on the phrase "everlasting
covenant." Whether the word everlasting, either in application to the covenant or
to the possession of Canaan, was limited to the dispensation that preceded the
time of Christ, or extended into the present dispensation, and still stretches
forward into future time, will be a subject of future inquiry. But whatever may be
true on this question, the use of the word militates nothing -against the literal
construction of the covenant.

"And I will be their God."

This promise, as has already been explained, was literally fulfilled.

"And God said unto Abraham, thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou and
thy seed after thee in their generations. This is my covenant, which ye shall
keep, between me and you, and thy seed after thee; every man child among you
shall be circumcised. And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it
shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you. And he that is eight days

old shall be circumcised among you; every man child in your generations, he that
is born in the house or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy
seed. He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must
needs be circumcised; and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting
covenant. And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not
circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my
covenant."

The precept enjoining circumcision was intended to be understood literally, and it
was understood and obeyed literally. An important, very important part of God's
design in making this covenant, was to distinguish and separate the descendants
of Abraham from the rest of mankind; and this design would have been
frustrated if this part of the covenant had not been taken literally. The whole
history of the Hebrew nation, and almost every page of the New Testament,
testify in favor of the literal construction.

"And God said unto Abraham, as for Sarai, thy wife, thou shalt not call her name
Sarai, but Sarah shall her name be. And I will bless her, and give thee a son also
of her: yea, I will bless her, and she shall be a mother of nations; kings of people
shall be of her."

The new name Sarah, like the new name Abraham, was significant; but neither
of them signified anything contrary to the literal construction of the covenant.
Abraham was the father of many nations, because he had sons by other wives;
but his only son by Sarah was Isaac, the father of Jacob and Esau; and the only
nations descended from Sarah, were the Israelites and the Edomites. It was
promised that Sarah should be a mother of "nations," not of "many nations;" and
this adaptation of the language to what became literally true, proves that the
covenant was made in the literal sense of the words. In the literal sense kings
came out of Sarah; the kings of Edom, and the long line of kings in Israel and
Judah.

Our examination of the covenant has proved conclusively, that It was designed
to be understood literally; but a question arises whether it does not admit
another and more spiritual sense.

The precepts which enjoined the ceremonies of worship to be observed by the
Hebrew congregation, were all designed to be understood and obeyed literally.
Literal bulls and goats were to be sacrificed; literal fire was to be used, and all

the directions given were to be observed in their literal import. But the various
ceremonies of this worship were shadows of things to come; and a large part of
the epistle to the Hebrews is employed in explaining their spiritual signification.
Persons and events of the Old Testament which appear in their proper
connection as subjects of literal history, are in the New Testament made to
represent spiritual things, and spiritual instruction is drawn from them. The
history of Hagar, as given in the book of Genesis, is literally true; but Paul calls it
an allegory, and uses it to represent spiritual things. In the same manner the
covenant of circumcision is made a source of spiritual instruction. The chief
particulars in the covenant which are made representatives of spiritual things,
are three:

I. The literal descendants of Abraham are made to represent believers, who are
called his children in a different sense of the word. The metaphorical use of the
terms which denote the paternal and filial relations, is frequent in the Scriptures.
One who appears at the head of a class of persons as a father appears at the
head of his family or tribe, is called the father of that class; and the individuals
composing the class, are called his children. Thus, "Jabal was the father of such
as dwell in tents, and of such as have cattle: and Jubal was the father of all such
as handle the harp and organ."(44) These persons called fathers, were inventors
of arts; and the class of persons who practice these arts are regarded as their
children. So those who practice the piety of which Abraham was an illustrious
example, and walk in the footsteps of his faith, are called his children. In this
tropical sense of the term, Jesus said to the wicked Jews, "If ye were Abraham's
children, ye would do the works of Abraham."(45) Since the men whom Jesus
addressed were children of Abraham in the literal sense, the distinction between
the literal and the metaphorical sense is plainly marked; and the latter sense is
made to depend on imitation of Abraham in the works for which he was eminent.
Paul has distinguished between the literal Jew and the metaphorical Jew;(46)
between the children according to the flesh, and the children of promise.(47) The
latter, he says, "are counted for the seed;" that is, they are accounted the seed
of Abraham when the covenant is viewed as an allegory.

2. Circumcision is made to represent regeneration, the spiritual change by which
men become new creatures. Hence it is said, "In Christ Jesus neither
circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but a new creature."(48) A
tropical use of the word circumcise to denote a moral change, is found in the Old
Testament: "The Lord thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy
seed, to love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, that
thou mayest live."(49) Paul distinguishes between the literal and the spiritual
circumcision; thus, "Neither is that circumcision which is outward in the flesh.
...Circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter."(50) This

circumcision of the heart is in another passage called the "circumcision of Christ."
While the literal circumcision which marked the literal seed of Abraham avails
nothing in Christ Jesus, the spiritual circumcision marks those who belong to
Christ, and who are, in the spiritual sense, the seed of Abraham. "If ye be
Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise."(51)

3. Canaan, the land promised to Abraham and his literal seed, is made to
represent heaven, the future inheritance of those who have like faith with the
patriarch. Abraham at the command of God left his native country, and
sojourned in the land of Canaan; but though the land was his by promise, he
never obtained possession of it. Paul makes a spiritual use of this fact:
"Confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth. But now they
desire a better country, that is, an heavenly."(52) The literal Canaan was present
to the sight of the patriarch, as a desirable possession secured by covenant to
him and his seed; but the eye of his faith was directed to a better country, of
which this was but a type. His spiritual seed are like him in faith, and their faith
directs its eye to the same heavenly inheritance.

The allegorical interpretation of the covenant is beautifully harmonious in all its
parts. Abraham, the most illustrious example of faith found in the Old Testament,
appears at the head of a class of persons who are like him in faith; and he is
hence called the father of the faithful. As he was marked by the circumcision of
the heart, and distinguished thereby from the rest of mankind, so are they. As he
looked beyond the earthly possession granted to him, and sought a heavenly
inheritance, so do they.

The spiritual truths which the covenant represents in its allegorical use, were not
brought into existence by the covenant, and are not dependent on it. They are
above it, as the things which the Mosaic ceremonies typified are superior to the
ceremonies; or as a substance is superior to its shadow, and independent of it.
In the third chapter of Galatians, Paul teaches that believers are the children of
Abraham, and are blessed with him; and he dates back their connection with him
to a time that preceded the covenant of circumcision. He says, that "the law was
four hundred and thirty years after." Now, reckoning back four hundred and
thirty years from the giving of the law, we arrive at the time when Abraham
received the first promise. This preceded the covenant of circumcision by twentyfour years. This promise, first made with reference to Abraham himself, and
afterwards renewed with reference to his seed, is the covenant to which this
passage evidently refers. Hence, believers hold their connection with Abraham
receiving the great gospel promise, and not with Abraham receiving the covenant
of circumcision; with Abraham as first distinguished by the circumcision of the

heart, and not with Abraham as afterwards distinguished by the circumcision of
the flesh. Precisely the same view is presented in the fourth chapter of Romans,
in which it is taught that believers are connected, not with the circumcised, but
with the uncircumcised Abraham, in obtaining the blessing of justification.

The judaizing Christians taught, "Except ye be circumcised and keep the law, ye
cannot be saved." This was the current doctrine of the Jews. They gloried in the
covenant of circumcision, and their connection with the circumcised Abraham;
and for the purpose of securing a title to the earthly Canaan, literal descent from
Abraham, and the circumcision that is outward in the flesh, were sufficient. But
Paul opposed the doctrine of the judaizing teachers, and opened a different view
of the Holy Spirit's teachings in the Old Testament. He taught that to secure the
spiritual blessings which Abraham enjoyed, we must seek them in the way in
which Abraham obtained them. He did not obtain the favor of God by
circumcision and keeping the law; but enjoyed this blessing four hundred and
thirty years before the law, and while he was yet uncircumcised. He received the
blessing by faith; and every one who would be blessed with him, must seek it in
this way. These arguments of Paul, in which he deduced the true doctrine of the
gospel from the Scriptures of the Old Testament, were powerful in opposition to
the judaizing theory.

The covenant of circumcision in its literal sense, included in the covenant seed
none but the literal descendants of Abraham. The patriarch and his sons were
commanded to circumcise all the males of the household, including the servants
born in the house, and those bought with money; but these servants did not
thereby become incorporated with the covenant seed. None of the servants in
the families of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, had this privilege conferred on them;
and it cannot be supposed that the servants of their descendants were more
highly favored than the servants of the patriarchs themselves. On the contrary,
those servants, though circumcised, are expressly said in the covenant itself, to
be "not of thy seed." When the Congregation of the Lord was instituted,
provision was made for gentiles to be admitted to the privileges of its worship on
conforming to the law of circumcision; but they were nevertheless strangers
within the gate, and not a part of the covenant seed, or entitled to a part in the
land of Canaan. Genealogical records were kept distinguishing the seed proper
from the proselytes of the gate; and hence Paul was able to call himself "a
Hebrew of the Hebrews;" that is, a Hebrew by original extraction.

As the covenant of circumcision in its literal sense, admitted none into the
covenant seed but literal descendants of Abraham; so in the allegorical sense,
none are included in the spiritual seed but true believers. This is clear from many

passages of Scripture:-- "So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful
Abraham.(53)...If ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according
to the promise."(54) The following passage is perfectly decisive on this subject,
and shows conclusively that genuine faith is intended, and not the mere
profession of it: "Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the
promise might be sure to all the seed."(55)

One among the promises made to Abraham was, "I will make of thee a great
nation." In the covenant of circumcision, it was promised that he should be the
father of many nations; and the nation of Israel was contemplated as one of
these.. The covenant in its literal sense, instituted no ecclesia or worshipping
congregation. A cahal for the worship of God, was instituted by Moses; and laws
and ceremonies for that worship were instituted with it. The covenant then made
with Israel had ordinances of divine service and a worldly sanctuary; but he who
looks for these in the covenant of circumcision will look in vain. It contains no
sanctuary, no ordinances of divine worship, no priesthood, no assembly. We
have shown that the cahal instituted by Moses has been dissolved; and, if the
covenant of circumcision still survives, it exists as it did before the days of
Moses--a national covenant, made with the literal descendants of Abraham,
admitting no others to be incorporated with the covenant seed, and making no
provision for the public worship of God. Surely, the Christian church is not
founded on this covenant.

Since the covenant of circumcision instituted no ecclesia, and cannot admit
gentile infants among the covenant seed, the doctrine of infant churchmembership cannot be affected by the question, whether the covenant has been
abrogated, or is now in force: and, for any purpose of our present inquiry, we
are under no obligation to decide this question. Since this covenant existed
before that which was made by Moses, the abrogation of the latter may have left
the former just as it had previously been. In it, the land of Canaan was given for
an everlasting possession; and the covenant is styled "an everlasting covenant."
We may hence infer, that the covenant will continue in force as long as the
Israelites shall possess the land of Canaan. If the general expectation be well
founded, that they will return to their land and repossess it, the covenant must
be still in force. The facts that, since the abrogation of the Mosaic covenant, they
have been called the people of God;(56) that they have the promise of being
restored again to his favor;(57) and are declared not to be cast off, because the
gifts and calling of God are without repentance;(58) confirm this view. To all this
we may add the remarkable fact, that, when the apostles declared converts from
among the gentiles to be under no obligation to be circumcised, they did not
release Jews from this obligation. For a gentile to be circumcised, is an admission
that the Congregation of the Lord is still in being, and the Mosaic law still in

force; and for any one, whether Jew or gentile, to be circumcised as a means of
salvation, is to set aside Christ and render him unprofitable. But can any one
prove that it is inconsistent with the gospel for a Jew to retain circumcision, as a
token of his connection with Abraham, and his interest in that remarkable
people, through whom he still expects God to display the riches of his grace in
the most wonderful manner?

Is the covenant of circumcision in force, in its allegorical sense? This question is
about as unmeaning as if it were asked, whether a portrait exists in the person
of him whom it resembles. The portrait and the man exist independently of each
other. The man may die, and leave the portrait; or the portrait may be destroyed
while the man lives. If the covenant of circumcision is in force at all, it is in force
in that only sense in which it is a covenant-- namely, the literal. No one would
say that the ceremonial law is now in force, because the spiritual truths which
the ceremonies prefigured abide for ever. Whether the covenant is abrogated, or
is now in force, the spiritual instruction derived from it is the everlasting gospel.

While the covenant, literally construed, gives no sanction to infant churchmembership, the spiritual use which is made of it in the Scriptures incidentally
decides that all the members of the primitive churches were believers. Paul says
to the Galatians: Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise."
"Ye are all the children of God by faith in Jesus Christ. If ye be Christ's, then are
ye Abraham's seed." These texts prove that the members of the Galatian
churches were all accounted the children of Abraham, in the spiritual sense--that
is, were true believers--and what was true of those churches, must have been
true of all other churches instituted by the apostles.

A portrait is not more distinct from the man whom it resembles nor a shadow
more distinct from the substance which casts it, than is the covenant of
circumcision from the spiritual truth which it represents, in the allegorical
interpretation of it. We ought never to confound things so distinct; but this is
done by the doctrine of infant church-membership. It follows the literal sense,
from Abraham down to the introduction of the gospel, and accounts the literal
seed, during this period, to be the church: it then follows the spiritual sense, and
introduces gentile believers among the covenant seed: it then returns to the law
of literal descent, and follows this for one generation, and then abandons it. By
this unaccountable mixture of interpretations, the immediate literal descendants
of those who are, or ought to be, according to their profession, the spiritual seed
of Abraham, are supposed to be brought within the covenant, and incorporated
with the covenant seed: but, alas! they are a seed which inherit neither the
literal nor the spiritual promises made to the patriarch. They do not inherit the

literal promises, because they are gentiles; nor the spiritual promises, because
these are secured only to believers.

It remains that we examine the other texts of Scripture, which the argument that
we are considering, cites in its support.

" For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off,
even as many as the Lord our God shall call."(59)

The word which is here rendered "children," denotes posterity, immediate or
remote, without respect to age. The same word is used in the sentence,
"Children shall rise up against their parents, and shall cause them to be put to
death;"(60) and in the phrase, "children of the flesh,"(61) when used to denote all
the natural posterity of Abraham. The promise here referred to appears, from
the words which immediately precede, to be the promise of the Holy Spirit; but,
whether it be this, or the promise made to Abraham as the argument supposes,
it must be understood to include spiritual blessings. Three classes of persons are
mentioned, to whom the promise is given; the Israelites of that generation, their
posterity, and the gentiles: "you, your children, and all that are afar off." To
neither of these classes is the promise given without condition or limitation.
When it is said, "Repent, for the promise is to you," the receiving of the promise
is evidently suspended on the condition of repentance. The same condition
applies equally to the other two classes. This is fully established by the limiting
clause, "even as many as the Lord our God shall call." The promise is not
absolute to all who are externally called by the gospel, but to those only who are
effectually called to repentance This limitation applies equally to all the three
classes. Though the word "children" may sometimes be used with exclusive
application to infants, there is no reason to suppose that such use of it is made
here, but the whole posterity are intended; and it cannot be that spiritual
blessings were promised to all those, without condition or limitation. The
mention of the posterity, in this case, was peculiarly appropriate. Peter had
charged them with the crime of crucifying the Lord Jesus. When this crime was
committed, in calling on Pilate to crucify him, they had said: "His blood be on us,
and on our children." This fact rendered the information suitable and welcome,
that the same means of salvation that were granted to them, would be granted
to their posterity.

"The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing
forth the fruits thereof."(62)

The name of a type is sometimes applied to the thing typified. Regeneration is
called circumcision; but, to show that literal circumcision is not intended, it is
called the circumcision of the heart or the circumcision of Christ. Heaven is called
a country, in allusion to the country promised to Abraham, which typified it; but,
for the sake of distinction, the epithets "better" and "heavenly" are applied: "a
better country, that is, a heavenly." The nation of Israel, marked by the literal
circumcision, and heirs of the earthly Canaan, typified those who are circumcised
in heart, and are heirs of the heavenly country. These last are on this account
called a nation; but, to distinguish them from the nation which typified them,
they are called "a nation bringing forth the fruits" of the kingdom; that is, the
fruits of holy obedience to God as their king. Peter calls them "a chosen
generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a peculiar people." They are not a
nation, in the literal sense of the term, as the nation of Israel was. Earthly
nations included infants, but this spiritual nation consists of those who bring
forth the fruits of the kingdom; and who, according to Peter, "show forth the
praises of him who hath called them out of darkness into his marvellous light."
These things cannot be predicated of infants. It follows, therefore, that, in this
transfer of the kingdom, infants are not its recipients.

The precise sense in which the kingdom is said to be taken from the nation of
Israel, it is not necessary, for our present purpose, to determine. The
government of that nation has been called a theocracy. God was their king; and
various benefits resulted to them from being under his reign. To these benefits
the text may refer; and the sense may be, that the peculiar privilege of having
God to reign over them, should no longer distinguish them from other nations of
the earth; but this privilege would henceforth be confined to a spiritual people,
to be selected out of all nations. But, as the phrase, "kingdom of God," was
commonly used by Christ to denote the new kingdom which he was establishing,
the reference may be exclusively to this. He was born "King of the Jews," and
was crucified with this title. He was sent, as he himself declared, not to the
gentiles, but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. The first proclamation of his
reign was made to this people; and the beginning and first benefits of his reign
were confined to them. Their rejection of his reign was made the occasion of its
extension to the gentiles: "It was necessary that the word of God should first
have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves
unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the gentiles."(63) The blessings of the
Messiah's reign were expected by the nation to be theirs, and the first offer and
bestowment of them accorded with this expectation: but the peculiar privilege
was taken from them when they rejected their king; and it is now enjoyed by
those who obey him in every nation. These, and these only, bring forth the fruits
of the kingdom; and, however the transfer to them may be understood, it cannot
prove the church-membership of infants.

The last Scripture cited in the argument has been much relied on, as proof that
the Christian church is a continuation of an organized society which existed in
the Old Testament dispensation. Under the figure of the good olive-tree, Paul is
supposed to teach that the church sprang from Abraham, and that it has
continued to the present time.

In the passage which contains this figurative representation, the following things
may be observed:--

I. The olive-tree underwent an important change when many of the natural
branches were broken off. The reason for their separation is expressly given:
"Because of unbelief, they were broken off." Since the unbelieving branches
were taken away by this act, none were left but believing branches. These are
the remnant before spoken of; "the remnant according to the election of grace:"
the seed intended when it is said, "Except the Lord of Sabaoth had left us a
seed, we had been as Sodoma, and been made like unto Gomorrha."(64)

2. A second change took place when branches were engrafted from the wild
olive-tree. The character of these branches is made known by the words with
which Paul addresses them: "Thou standest by faith." We are hence assured that
these also were believing branches. This accords with what is elsewhere taught:
"That the blessing of Abraham might come on the gentiles through faith."

3. Another important change is still expected when the natural branches which
were broken off shall be "graffed in again." The condition on which it will be
done is expressly stated: "They also shall be graffed in again, if they abide not in
unbelief." They are recognised as natural branches, and the olive-tree is called
"their own;" but neither of these facts will suffice to effect their restoration. If
they come in again, they must come as believing branches.

These three comprehend all the changes which the olive-tree is said to undergo;
and as a consequence of these, none but believing branches have a present, or
can have a future connection with the tree. The design for which this figurative
illustration was introduced, and the explanations which accompany it, clearly
show that the natural branches were designed to represent the natural seed of
Abraham; and the changes which the tree undergoes, are precisely such as
substituted the spiritual seed for the natural, the children by faith for the children
according to the flesh. The whole scope of the apostle's teaching in connection
with the passage, if attentively considered, leaves no reasonable doubt that this

was the design of the figure.

Types, parables, and allegories, are founded on similitude; but when spiritual
things are likened to natural, the likeness is necessarily imperfect. He who seeks
to extend the likeness beyond its proper limit, is in danger of mistake. In the
present case it would be unprofitable, and perhaps worse than unprofitable, to
inquire what may be signified by the trunk of the tree, its leaves, and the various
other parts of which botanists could tell us. In the sketch which the apostle's
pencil has drawn, imperfect indeed, but sufficient for all his purpose, we see
nothing of the tree but its branches, its root, and its fatness, unless its fruit may
be referred to in v. 16. The chief question before the apostle's mind, related to
the branches; and what these signify he has sufficiently informed us. What the
root and fatness of the olive-tree signify, we are left to learn from the connection
of the passage; and from this we may infer that Abraham, and the promises
made to him, are intended.

Some have supposed that Christ is the root of the olive-tree; and that the figure
corresponds with that of the vine in the 15th chapter of John. The strongest
argument in favor of this opinion, is furnished by the words, "Thou bearest not
the root, but the root thee." Since Christ is the only name by which we must be
saved, the believing soul is borne or supported by him, and not by Abraham. But
such support as this, is not intended by the word "bearest" in this passage. The
word is used with evident allusion to the figure, and signifies only what the figure
signifies by the dependance of the branches on the root. The natural
descendants of Abraham, who are the natural branches of the olive-tree, do not
depend on their illustrious progenitor as the believing soul depends on Christ;
and, therefore, such dependence is not implied in this passage. Paul, though he
was the minister of the uncircumcision, was careful to teach the gentiles their
indebtedness to the Jews. He urged the obligation of contributing to relieve the
poor saints at Jerusalem by this consideration: "Their debtors they are. For if the
gentiles have been made partakers of their spiritual things, their duty is also to
minister unto them in carnal."(65) So in the present case, he urges on the
gentiles, "Boast not against the natural branches; for if thou boast, thou bearest
not the root, but the root thee." The religion which blesses the gentiles was
obtained from the Jews. Jesus Christ was a Jew. The Old Testament was a
Jewish book; and the New Testament is the gospel written by Jews. In the
comprehensive words of Christ, "Salvation is of the Jews." The promise to
Abraham, "In thee shall all the families of the earth be blessed," contemplated
the Hebrew nation to whom the oracles of God were committed, and from
whom, according to the flesh, Christ came, as yet in the loins of the patriarch. In
this view, Abraham is presented in the figure as the root of the olive-tree; and

the spiritual blessings are its fatness of which gentile believers partake.

An objection presents itself, that in the substitution of the spiritual for the natural
seed, such a change is supposed as destroys the identity of the olive-tree, and
the more so, because the fatness of which the two kinds of branches partake,
cannot be the same. To this objection it is a sufficient reply, that figures cannot
be expected to hold good in everything. But another reply may be given. The
nourishment which proceeds from the root of a tree to its various parts, is
assimilated to each according to its nature, and becomes woody fibre, bark, leaf,
or fruit. Even the fruit may vary, though deriving nourishment from the same
root; for that which is produced by a grafted branch will differ from that
produced by a natural branch. All this is found in a natural tree; and yet the
change of its branches by grafting, and the variety of nourishment which the
root yields, do not affect the identity of the tree in a general view of it. It can,
therefore, be no objection to Paul's figure, that it represents natural and spiritual
branches as connected with the same root and deriving benefits of different
kinds from it. This mode of meeting the objection is proposed merely to show
that it has not a solid foundation to sustain it; but we cannot suppose that Paul,
in sketching out this figure, had reference to abstruse principles of vegetable
physiology. He informs us that the distinction represented by the two classes of
branches existed in the days of Elijah, when God informed the prophet that he
had reserved to himself seven thousand men who had not bowed the knee to
the image of Baal. "Even so," he adds, "there is at this time a remnant according
to the election of grace." Besides the natural branches who were bowing to Baal,
there then existed a remnant who were faithful and enjoyed spiritual blessings.
All these together, the advocates of infant church-membership tell us, composed
the visible church of that day, and were branches of the same olive-tree; and the
same constitution of things, uniting natural and spiritual branches on the same
trunk, they suppose continues to the present time. According to the view which
we have taken, the great Husbandman has broken off the natural branches, and
but one species of branches now remains. It follows, therefore, that the
objection, whatever may be its force, is applicable rather to the opinion which we
oppose, than to that which we defend.

The question whether the passage teaches the church-membership of infants,
may be approached aside from the objection which we have been considering,
and from all perplexing inquiry as to what the root and fatness of the olive-tree
signify. It relates wholly to the branches of the tree; and with respect to these,
we have the unerring Spirit to guide our interpretation. His express teaching
determines, that the branches now connected with the olive-tree, are all
believing. Here a landmark is fixed, which must not be removed. If we leave the
plain teaching of the Spirit, and follow the guidance of our own fancy, until we

become involved in error, it must be our own fault.

Infant membership is argued from the identity of the olive-tree; but,
unfortunately for the argument, the changes which the apostle has described,
infringe on the identity of the tree, exactly in the wrong place. All these changes
respect the branches, and are made on one principle--the substitution of faith for
natural descent; as the bond of connection between the branches and the root.
Infant membership depends on natural descent; and the one principle on which
all the changes are made, by taking away natural descent, leaves infant
membership to hang on nothing.

SECTION II.--ARGUMENTS FOR INFANT BAPTISM

The arguments which were considered in the last section, aim directly to
establish the right of infants to church-membership. Other arguments, tending
indirectly to establish the same point, have immediate respect to the doctrine of
infant baptism.

The Holy Scriptures contain no precept or example for infant baptism; and the
qualifications which they uniformly describe, as necessary to baptism, infants do
not possess. With these facts before us, we are compelled to reject infants from
the ordinance, unless a special claim in their behalf can be well established. We
shall now proceed to consider the chief arguments which have been used, in
support of their claim.

Argument 1.--Repentance and faith are as much required by the Scriptures, in
order to salvation, as in order to baptism, but as infants may be saved without
them, so they may be baptized without them. From the nature of the case, these
qualifications are required of adults only. The commission does indeed place
believing before baptizing, but it equally places it before being saved; and it even
declares, in express terms, "He that believeth not shall be damned." If,
therefore, we may infer from it, that infants ought not to be baptized, we may,
with as much certainty, infer that they cannot be saved.
This argument has no force, to establish infant baptism. Because infants may be
saved without repentance and faith, it does not follow that they are entitled to

every privilege which may be claimed for them. The utmost extent to which the
argument can go, is to weaken the force of the opposing argument; and this it
does in appearance only. How are we to reconcile the declaration, "He that
believeth not shall be damned," with the doctrine of infant salvation? The answer
is obvious. When Christ commissioned his disciples to preach the gospel to every
creature, he meant every creature capable of hearing and understanding it. "He
that believeth not," means--he that, having heard the gospel, rejects it. In this
obvious meaning of the phrase, it affirms nothing contrary to infant salvation.
Adopting the same mode of exposition, in the preceding clause, it signifies--he
that hears the gospel, believes it, and is baptized, shall be saved. The
commission does not say, whether infants will be saved, or whether they ought
to be baptized; for the simple reason, that it has no reference to them. The
argument before us, drives us to this exposition of the commission; but what
does infant baptism gain by it? We learn from it, that, in the great commission
which Christ gave to his apostles, by which baptism was established as a
permanent institution to be observed among all nations to the end of time, he
had no reference to infants.

Argument 2.--Though the Scriptures contain no positive precept for infant
baptism, the same is true with respect to female communion, and the Christian
Sabbath. The Lord's Supper is a positive institute; and yet we admit females to
partake of it, without a positive precept. The change from the seventh day of the
week to the first, in the observance of the Sabbath, has no express command for
it in the Scriptures, and is, in part, a repeal of the fourth commandment; yet we
admit it on satisfactory inference, supported by the practice of the early
churches. In like manner the observance of infant baptism may be vindicated,
though not prescribed by positive precept.

We do not exclude all reasoning with respect to positive institutes. No one on
earth can point to a positive precept in the Scriptures, requiring him in particular
to be baptized. Paul was directly commanded to be baptized; and so were those
whom Peter addressed, on the day of Pentecost, and in the house of Cornelius.
From these facts, we think it lawful to infer, that persons of like character, and in
like circumstances, ought now to be baptized. The commission did not directly
command any one to be baptized: but it commanded the apostles to baptize;
and from the obligation to baptize laid on one party, we infer the obligation of
another party to be baptized; and we infer the perpetuity of the obligation, from
the fact that the commission was manifestly designed to be perpetual. Such
inferences we hold to be legitimate and necessary; but we maintain, that positive
institutes originating in the will of the lawgiver, cannot be determined by mere
reasoning from general principles. The obligation to baptize believers, can be
referred to express divine command; and if an obligation to baptize infants

exists, it cannot be made out by any process of reasoning from the parental and
filial relations or general principles of morals; but must be referred, in like
manner, to some divine command. We ask for this command. Whatever
reasoning may be necessary, to unfold the command, and show that infant
baptism is contained in it, we consent to undertake; but we must know that it is
the will of Christ, before we can observe it as an institution of his religion.

The necessity for divine command is rendered the more urgent, because infant
baptism interferes with the divine institution of believers' baptism, and would, if
universally practiced, banish it from the earth. God commands a believer to be
baptized;--is he released from the obligation by the fact that his parents had him
baptized in infancy? Is he now chargeable with the sin of anabaptism, if he
obeys the divine command? For proof of all this, some divine authority for infant
baptism is needed, as clear and certain as that by which believers' baptism is
established.

For female communion, we have divine authority in the command of Christ, "this
do," "drink ye all of it." The Scriptures interpret this command. Women were
among the disciples mentioned in the first chapter of Acts, verse 8,--and all
these, with the three thousand who were added, continued in the breaking of
bread.(66) In the same number were included the widows, who were neglected in
the daily ministration. Women were in the church at Corinth, when the whole
church assembled to celebrate the Lord's supper.(67) In the command, "Let a
man examine himself, and so let him eat,"(68) the word rendered man, signifies a
human being, of either sex. It is evident, from these facts, that female
communion is practiced on divine authority; and it, moreover, sets aside no other
divine command. If such authority for infant baptism can be produced, we ought
to practice it: but even then we might question the propriety of its superseding
believers' baptism.

But it is alleged, that the Christian sabbath does supersede the observance of the
seventh day prescribed in the decalogue; and therefore, presents a case
analogous to the one before us. Is it then true, that our inferences can in any
case set aside the express commands of God? We think not. The decalogue
requires the observance of the seventh day, regularly returning after six days of
labor; and not the seventh day of the week. As thus interpreted the Christian
practice literally conforms to it. If the seventh day in the commandment means
the seventh day of the week, it is our duty to obey strictly; and if we can learn,
by legitimate inference, that the first day of the week ought to be observed, our
course of duty is plain--we ought to observe both days: so, if infant baptism can
be made out by legitimate inference, instead of permitting it to supersede

believers' baptism, we ought to observe both. We open our minds, therefore, to
the inferential reasoning by which infant baptism is to be sustained.

Argument 3.--Christ's commission is, "Teach or make disciples of all nations,
baptizing them." Children form a part of all nations; and the commission,
therefore, contains authority for baptizing them.
The word "nations "in the original, is of the neuter gender, and the word "them"
is masculine. It has been concluded, hence, that the pronoun stands properly,
for the masculine noun "disciples" understood. But, without the aid of this
criticism, the connection of the clauses shows that this is the true meaning. The
sense is the same as in the passage, "Jesus made and baptized disciples." If the
commission authorizes to baptize every one in the nation, adult unbelievers must
be included, contrary to what all admit.

Argument 4.--The commission requires to baptize disciples. A disciple is one
engaged to receive instruction from a teacher. In secular matters, parents select
teachers for their children, and make engagements for their instruction. In
religion, they are under the highest obligation to place them in the school of
Christ, that they may be brought up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.
The commission requires, that these young disciples should receive the mark of
discipleship. The propriety of considering them disciples, may be proved by the
passage, "Why tempt ye God, to put a yoke on the neck of the disciples, which
neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?"(69) The yoke of circumcision is
here referred to. And every one knows that this fell chiefly on infants. The import
of the word used in the commission, and its applicability to infants may be
proved by a passage in Justin Martyr, who wrote near the middle of the second
century. Among those who were members of the church, he says, "there were
many of both sexes, some sixty, and some seventy years old, who were made
disciples to Christ from their infancy." The word he uses is ematheteuthesan, the
same word that is used in the commission. It is evident, therefore, that Justin
understood the command of Christ to make disciples and baptize, as applicable
to little children. And he wrote only about one hundred years after Matthew, who
records that command. This testimony is important, as showing the early
prevalence of infant baptism, since these persons must have received the mark
of discipleship within a few years after Matthew wrote. But it is cited here, to
show the sense of the Greek word which Christ employed in the commission.

In secular concerns, it is possible, though not usual, for parents to engage their
children, from early infancy, to some teacher, by whom they may be afterwards

instructed; but the usus loquendi will scarcely allow us to call them his disciples,
until they begin to learn from him.

In the Scriptures, we read of John's disciples, the disciples of the Pharisees, the
disciples of Jesus; and such is the current use of the term, that, in these several
applications of it, the idea of infancy is never suggested. We read, "The number
of the disciples was multiplied in Jerusalem." . . . "And the apostles called the
multitude of the disciples to them, and said, 'Wherefore, brethren, look ye out." .
. . "And the saying pleased the whole multitude: and they chose," &c.(70) If the
infants of all the believers in Jerusalem were disciples, they must have been
included in the multitude here mentioned; but the things stated in the narrative
forbid the supposition. Another passage in the same chapter shows that to be a
disciple, and to have faith, are descriptive of the same person: "The number of
the disciples multiplied in Jerusalem greatly; and a great company of the priests
were obedient to the faith."(71) The same is proved by another passage in a
subsequent chapter: "Finding certain disciples, he said unto them, Have ye
received the Holy Ghost since ye believed?"(72) But we have still clearer proof on
this subject;--Christ himself expressly declared the qualifications necessary to
constitute a disciple: "If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and
mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life
also, he cannot be my disciple. And whosoever doth not bear his cross, and
come after me, cannot be my disciple."(73) Against such declarations of the divine
Master, the inference from a merely possible use of the term in secular concerns,
can be of no avail.

But the argument alleges that we have Scripture example for the application of
the term to infants. In the case referred to, Judaizing teachers had taught,
"Except ye be circumcised, and keep the law, ye cannot be saved." The yoke
which they imposed on the gentile converts was not circumcision merely, but the
whole burden of the legal ceremonies. Circumcision was not, in itself, the
intolerable yoke referred to, "which neither our fathers nor we were able to
bear." These were circumcised in infancy, and did not afterwards account
circumcision a grievous burden. But the burdensome law received from Moses is
manifestly the thing intended; and the burden did not fall on infants. The
passage therefore contains no proof that infants were intended by the word
disciples.

The words of Justin Martyr, apo paidon are incorrectly translated from infancy.
The name Pedobaptist, which is given to those who practice infant baptism, and
which is derived in part from the Greek word pais seems to countenance this
rendering: but, in truth, pais does not signify an infant. It is used, in either the

masculine or feminine gender, for one who has not reached maturity; and is
applied to the young man who fell from the loft while Paul was preaching;(74) and
is used by Justin, in another place, for the boys or young men who were the
objects of unnatural lust.(75) A diminutive, paidion, formed from this word, is
frequently used for infants; but even the diminutive is applied to a person twelve
years of age.(76) In classic usage, the primitive word is rendered applicable to
infants by a word added--nepios pais--an infant boy.(77) If the word itself denoted
infancy, this addition would not be necessary. Once in the second chapter of
Matthew it is applied to infants; but it is remarkable that the diminutive, paidion,
is used nine times, in the same chapter, for infants. Why did the inspired writer
adopt another word in this one case? We have the explanation in the note of Dr.
Campbell on the passage: "The historian seems purposely to have changed the
term paidion, which is used for child, no less than nine times in this chapter; as
that word being neuter, and admitting only the neuter article, was not fit for
marking the distinction of sexes; and to have adopted a term, which he nowhere
else employs for infants, though frequently for men servants, and once for
youths or boys." This application of pais to infants may be illustrated by a
familiar usage in our own language. The words boy and girl do not signify an
infant; and yet we ask whether an infant is a boy or a girl, if we wish to know its
sex. Justin had no need to distinguish the sex of the persons whom he referred
to, for he says, "There are among us persons of both sexes." Had Justin
designed to say that these persons had been made disciples in infancy, the
Greek language had words to express the idea; but what he did say amounts to
nothing more than that these persons, now sixty or seventy years of age, had
become disciples of Christ before they had arrived at maturity. This was the
pedobaptism which existed in the days of Justin; and to such pedobaptism there
can be no objection.

Argument 5.--The commission may be rendered, "Go proselyte all nations,
baptizing them." Christ was a Jew, and addressed these words to Jews. The
Jews had been accustomed to make proselytes to their religion from among the
gentiles. When these proselytes were received, they were circumcised and
baptized, together with their children. Had Christ commissioned his apostles to
proselyte the nations to Judaism, circumcising and baptizing them, they must
have understood that children were to be circumcised and baptized with their
parents. Being accustomed to this mode of receiving proselytes, they would
naturally conclude that their Master intended them to adopt it in executing his
command.

The proposed translation, "Go proselyte all nations," is not correct; for a
proselyte and a disciple are not the same thing. If for the sentence, "Thou art his
disciple, but we are Moses' disciples," we substitute, "Thou art his proselyte, but

we are Moses' proselytes," every one will perceive that an important change is
made in the meaning. A proselyte to Judaism abandoned his former religion; but
when John and Jesus made disciples, these disciples did not cease to be Jews.
Paul claimed to be a Jew,(78) and even a Pharisee,(79) after his conversion. The
fishermen of Galilee were indeed Jews, but they knew little, in all probability, of
those efforts in which some of their nation compassed sea and land to make one
proselyte; and they could not have understood their Lord to refer to those efforts
in the commission under which they were to act. Some of them had been
disciples of John; and all of them had been associated with Christ in making and
baptizing disciples from among the Jews. Had they witnessed the admission of a
proselyte from heathenism to Judaism, they knew well that the ceremonies
which he underwent did not make him a disciple of Christ. They could not,
therefore, understand the Saviour to refer to this process. The making and
baptizing of disciples was a process to which they were accustomed, and by it
they would naturally interpret the commission. Even if their Jewish prejudices
had led to the supposed interpretation, it would have been unauthorized. These
prejudices caused them to misinterpret the commission in another particular;
and, in consequence, they did not, for some time, preach the gospel to the
uncircumcised gentiles. It was their duty, in interpreting the commission, to look
more to the Saviour's words, and less to their Jewish prejudices: and the same
obligation rests on us, and deserves the attention of those who urge the
argument which we are considering.

The question whether the custom of baptizing proselytes to Judaism existed as
early as the time of Christ, has engaged the attention of learned men, who have
been divided respecting it. Prof. Stuart has given the subject an extended
investigation, and finds no evidence that the custom existed before the
destruction of Jerusalem.

Argument 6.--Infants were admitted to church-membership by circumcision, the
initiatory rite under the former dispensation; and baptism now takes its place,
being the same seal in a new form; and therefore ought to be administered to
infants.

The arguments for the church-membership of infants were considered at large in
the preceding section of this chapter. In this discussion, it was shown, that the
church is not identical with the great nation descended from Abraham, and
distinguished by the mark of circumcision. Since baptism was designed for those
only who are spiritually qualified for membership in the church, no valid
argument for the application of it to infants can be drawn from the fact, that the
infant descendants of Abraham were marked by circumcision, as entitled to

membership in the commonwealth of Israel.

If baptism is merely a new form of the same seal, the subjects to whom it is to
be applied remaining the same, it ought still to be applied to infants on the
eighth day. This day was fixed by express divine command. No authority inferior
to that which made the covenant, can abrogate or change this precept.
Moreover, the seal, as anciently administered, was not confined to descendants
of the first generation; and baptism, if it is the same seal under another form,
ought to be extended in its application to all the descendants of those who are
admitted within the covenant.

It is an argument against the identity of baptism and circumcision, that baptism
was administered to those who had previously received the seal in the other
form, according to the command of God. They who were baptized under the
ministry of John and of Jesus, were children of the covenant, and had been
previously marked with the proper seal according to divine command in the
covenant. Why was the seal necessary in another form? For some time after the
ascension of Christ, the gospel was preached to the circumcised only; and no
others were baptized. These persons were addressed as children of the
covenant; and had the seal of the covenant in their flesh, affixed when that form
of the seal was not only valid, but obligatory. Why was the repetition of the seal
in another form necessary?

The command to circumcise, was positive; and every one who did not receive
this token of the covenant in his flesh, was to be cut off from among God's
people. If the church is founded on the covenant of circumcision, it becomes a
deeply interesting inquiry, whether any but circumcised persons can be
members. The theory is, that baptism takes the place of circumcision; but how
can this theory annul the express command of God? We need authority for
changing the form of the seal, as great, and as express, as that by which the
original form was instituted; but we look for it in vain in the Holy Scriptures.
Instead of finding an express precept for changing the form, or an express
declaration that it has been changed, we find decisive proof, that the inspired
apostles did not understand baptism to be a new form of the old seal. They
discussed the question, whether gentile converts ought to be circumcised, and
they decided in the negative; but they did not so decide, on the ground that
baptism had taken the place of circumcision, and rendered the continued use of
the old form unnecessary. This, according to the pedobaptist theory, was the
true ground of their decision, being the true and only sufficient reason for laying
aside the old form of the seal. That the apostles did not assign this reason, is
decisive proof that they were strangers to the theory. With this evidence before

us, how can we hold ourselves bound by the Abrahamic covenant, and expect
the blessings which it is understood to promise, if we refuse its only divinely
authorized seal?

In describing the completeness of Christians, Paul states, in one verse, that they
are "circumcised with the circumcision that is made without hands;" and in the
next, that they are "buried with Christ in baptism."(80) From the connexion in
which these things are mentioned, some have argued that baptism takes the
place of circumcision: but the passage does not justify the inference. Literal
circumcision is not the duty of gentile believers; and is therefore no part of
Christian completeness. Literal baptism is a duty of all Christians; and is
therefore necessary to their completeness. The adjuncts with which circumcision
is mentioned in the passage, shows regeneration to be intended. This, in the
order of Christ's appointment, precedes baptism; and in this order Paul mentions
both as distinct parts of Christian completeness. Nothing in the passage justifies
the confounding of baptism with circumcision. Whatever analogy there may be
between the two rites, their identity is not taught in these verses.

Argument 7.--Without insisting on a strict substitution of baptism for
circumcision, it may be assumed as unquestionable, that a striking analogy exists
between the two rites. Both are initiatory, both are religious, both are outward
signs of inward grace, and seals of the righteousness of faith. The parental
relation is one of exceeding importance. God has distinguished it greatly in his
Word, and uses it, in his providence, as a chief means of perpetuating his church
in the world. This relation is the same in all ages, and the essential principles of
religion are the same. As, therefore, the relation was marked by a religious rite in
the former dispensation, the immutable principles of the divine government
make it proper that it should be marked by a religious rite now. Whatever may
be said of the Abrahamic covenant as a whole, the stipulation which it contains,
that the Lord would be a God to him and his seed, includes spiritual blessings,
and is substantially the covenant which God now makes with every believer. As
the parent and the child were admitted into the covenant by the same religious
rite formerly, so they ought to be admitted by the same religious rite now. In this
sense, baptism takes the place of circumcision; and ought, therefore, to be
administered to infants.
This argument is objectionable, on the ground that it rests the proof of a positive
institute, on reasonings from general principles. If immutable principles require
the parental relation to be marked with a religious rite, why was it not so marked
from the beginning of the world? And why, when it became marked, was the
relation to male descendants only, affected by the immutable principle? In the

family of Abraham, the relation of the patriarch to all his descendants, remote as
well as immediate, was marked by the rite then instituted: and if immutable
principles require the relation to be marked by a religions rite now, it ought to be
applied to remote descendants.

The promise to Abraham, to be a God to him and his seed, is contained in the
covenant of circumcision, and is to be understood according to the tenor of that
covenant. It extended to remote descendants, contemplated them as a nation,
and brought the nation into a peculiar relation to God. It did not absolutely
engage the spiritual blessing of justification which had been previously bestowed
on the believing patriarch personally. The covenant now made with believers is
personal, and secures personal spiritual blessings. "This is the covenant that I
will make with the house of Israel: after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my
laws into their minds, and write them in their hearts; and I will be to them a
God, and they shall be to me a people."(81) The promise of this covenant is
absolute, and secures the putting of the law in the heart. This, the promise in
the Abrahamic covenant did not secure; and, on this account, the covenant
established on better promises, is called a new covenant. So different is its
nature, from the national covenant made with Abraham, that, if it were right to
infer positive institutes from general principles, we could not, with propriety,
draw the inference which infant baptism requires.

The agreement between baptism and circumcision, as initiatory rites, is urged to
no avail, if the bodies into which they initiate are differently constituted. They
may both be called religious rites, because religion has to do with whatever God
commands; but we need God's command, to instruct us in the proper use of
these rites. They have also been called sealing rites: but in what sense they seal,
is involved in obscurity. Abraham received the sign of circumcision,--a seal of the
righteousness of the faith which he had, yet being uncircumcised. His receiving
of circumcision seems to imply more than merely his being circumcised. It
signifies that circumcision began with him. This fact was viewed by Paul as a
proof that he was already in the favor of God; and the apostle regards it as a
confirmation or seal of what had been previously said. "Abraham believed in the
Lord, and he counted it to him for righteousness."(82) Paul does not say that
circumcision was a seal to all to whom it was administered. The case of
Abraham, and the faith of Abraham, are all that his argument had in view, in the
use of the word seal.

Baptism is nowhere in the Scriptures called a seal. Believers are said to be sealed
by the Holy Spirit; and the validity of this seal God will ever acknowledge; but
many receive baptism who are not sealed by the Holy Spirit unto the day of

redemption.(83) We need to understand in what sense, and by what authority,
the two rites are called sealing, and what engagements they, as seals, confirm,
before we can argue, that because one of them was applied to infants, the other
must, in like manner, be applied to infants. When we view the nature and design
of the two rites in the light of the Holy Scriptures, we discover that circumcision
was intended for the literal descendants of Abraham, but that literal descent
from Abraham, without faith, gave no title to baptism. Whatever agreement may
be traced between the two ceremonies in other respects, their difference in this
particular destroys the analogy, at the very point where alone it can be of use to
the cause of infant baptism.

The argument proves too much. We have seen that it extends the application of
the religious rite to remote descendants. Besides this, it applies it, not to infant
children only, but to children of whatever age, provided they belong to the
household. Moreover, it requires that the relation of master and servant be
marked in the same way. This also is an important relation, which God has used
in extending his church; for servants have often been converted by being
brought into pious families. The precept given to Abraham, extended to the
whole household; and was given in very explicit language. The argument
requires that every believer should put himself in the place of the patriarch, and
consider himself bound by this command. At this point, the subject may be
viewed advantageously in connection with the following argument.

Argument 8.--The three households of Lydia, the jailer, and Stephanas, are said
in Scripture to have been baptized. It is improbable that there were three entire
households without any infants in them. The manner in which the facts are
recorded, especially in the case of Lydia's household, indicates that it was the
prevailing custom to baptize the household, when the head of it became a
believer. No intimation is given, that the members of the household were all
believers, and admitted to baptism on their personal faiths; but their baptism
followed, of course, on the admission of Lydia herself into the church. Were such
a statement published, in the journal of any modern missionary, every one would
understand the missionary to be a pedobaptist. No one expects to read an
account of household baptisms, in a history of Baptist missions.
Mention is made in the New Testament, of several households which appear to
have consisted entirely of Christian believers.(84) Such instances are not
uncommon in modern times, even among Baptists: and, in times of religious
revivals, whole households are not unfrequently baptized on profession of faith.
The probability of such occurrences in the slow progress of modern missions in a
heathen nation, is far less; and it would be unfair to estimate from a history of

missions, the probability that whole households were converted at once, under
the ministry of the apostles. A modern missionary sometimes labors for years,
and scarcely reports a single convert; but, in primitive times, three thousand
were converted in one day, and the Holy Spirit fell on the whole congregation
assembled in the house of Cornelius. In this state of things, it is not surprising
that three households should have been converted and baptized. We are told
that the nobleman of Capernaum "believed, and his whole house;"(85) that
Crispus "believed with all his house;"(86) and that Cornelius "feared God with all
his house." Here are three households, which consisted entirely of pious persons;
and the probability that these three had infants in them, must be as great as in
the case of the three households that were baptized. Besides, in the accounts
given of these last households, circumstances are mentioned which strongly
indicate the absence of children. 1. In the case of the jailer's household, "they
spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house;"(87) "he
rejoiced, believing in God with all his house."(88) Who would expect to read such
statements as these in the journal of a pedobaptist missionary, who, on receiving
a convert from heathenism, baptized him with his infant children? 2. In the case
of the household of Stephanas we are informed, "that they addicted themselves
to the ministry of the saints."(89) It has been said that this was some years after
their baptism, when the infants might have grown up. But, in most families,
while some infants grow, other infants are added; and in replying to an
argument dependant on probability, we are at liberty to assume, that the
probability of finding infants in the house of Stephanas was as great at one time
as at the other. We may also notice, that the baptism of this household is not
mentioned in connection with the baptism of the head. Paul baptized the
household of Stephanas;(90) but who baptized Stephanas himself, we are not
informed. So far as appears, the two baptisms were performed at different
times, and were independent of each other. 3. In the case of Lydia's household
we have the following facts: Lydia was "a seller of purple of the city of
Thyatira."(91) No mention is made of husband or children. She had a house at
Philippi, which she called "my house;" and the business in which she was
engaged, appears to have been under her own management. When Paul and
Silas were released from prison, it is said, "they entered into the house of Lydia;
and when they had seen the brethren, they comforted them, and departed."(92)
The connection of the clauses in this verse, renders it probable, that the brethren
here mentioned, belonged to the house of Lydia, and were the persons baptized
with her. This probability ought to be admitted, in an argument founded on
probability; and it is at least as great, as that Lydia, the apparently single
proprietor and manager of her own house and business, should have had infant
children. So far as to the argument about probability.

The second part of the argument is, that the narrative states the baptism of the
household as following, of course, on the faith and baptism of the head. But this,

as we have seen, is not the case, with respect to the household of Stephanas
and the jailer. All the weight of the argument rests on the single case of Lydia;
and it is merely an argument from the silence of Scripture. We are not expressly
informed that Lydia's household were believers; but the silence on this point
does not prove that they were not. It is stated, in another place, that "Crispus,
the chief ruler of the synagogue, believed, with all his house." No mention is
made of their baptism: but the silence of Scripture on this point, does not prove
that they were not baptized. Faith and baptism are everywhere throughout the
narrative so connected with each other, that the mention of both, in every
instance, was unnecessary. The faith of the household is not mentioned in the
case of Lydia; neither is it mentioned in Paul's address to the jailer:--"Believe on
the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house."(93) Here the
promise of salvation is made to the household, without an express requirement
of faith from them,--the command, "believe," being in the singular number. We
know, from the whole tenor of Scripture, that the jailer's household were not
saved on his faith; and we have the same reason for knowing that Lydia's
household were not baptized on her faith.

If any one should maintain that, when households are said to believe and to fear
God, infants may have been overlooked in the statement, because known to be
incapable of religious affections, we admit the possibility of what is supposed,
and we maintain, in turn, that the same may have been true with respect to
baptism. In all the sacred volume, and in all the usage of primitive times, faith
was a qualification for baptism; and it may be that, in the mention of household
baptism, no account was taken of infants, because it was universally known that
they were never baptized. Our cause admits this hypothesis; but is not
dependent on it.

A distinction ought to be made, between household baptism and infant baptism.
The preceding argument, if it proves either, proves household baptism; and the
same is true of the argument now before us. Children of various ages, even to
adult years, and servants, are included in the proper import of the word
household. It was so, when the covenant of circumcision was made with
Abraham; for his son Ishmael, and his servants, were circumcised. It is so in the
Acts of the Apostles: for in the household of Cornelius, "two household servants"
are mentioned.

It deserves to be carefully noticed, that almost every argument for infant churchmembership and infant baptism, tends to prove, so far as it proves either, not
the church-membership and baptism of infants, but of whole households. The
covenant of circumcision required the rite to be administered to the whole

household. Under the Mosaic covenant, when a stranger was admitted, he was
required to be circumcised with all his household; and the same law was applied
to him, in the keeping of the passover, as to those born in the land. When
proselyte baptism was practiced, it was applied to all the household. No example
of infant baptism can be found in the Bible; but the three examples which have
been relied on to prove it, are all examples of household baptism. Now,
according to a hypothesis stated in the last paragraph, it may be that the infants
of a household may be overlooked, when something is affirmed of the
household, which is incompatible with infancy; but it can never be supposed,
that the term household signifies infants only, to the exclusion of older members.
If household baptism has been proved, who will practice it? The admission of
ungodly youths and servants to baptism and church privileges, when the father
and master becomes converted, is so contrary to the spirit and tenor of the
gospel, that no one ventures to advocate it. Yet this is the point to which almost
every argument tends, which has been advanced in support of infant baptism.
These arguments are numerous: and if each one could bring a ray of light,
however feeble, we might expect the combined illumination to render the subject
visible; but we have traced the direction of the rays, and find that their
concentrated force, whatever may be its illuminating power, falls elsewhere, and
leaves infant baptism still in the dark.

Argument 9.--Learned men have searched the writings of the Christian fathers,
and have found evidence as abundant, and specific, and certain, as history
affords of almost any fact, that infant baptism universally prevailed from the
days of the apostles, through four centuries. This ought to satisfy us, that the
practice originated in the apostolic churches.

Other learned men have examined the same writings, and have arrived at the
conclusion, that infant baptism was wholly unknown, until about the close of the
second century;--that it originated in Africa, and in the third century became
prevalent there, but did not supplant the primitive baptism in the Oriental
churches, until the fifth century.

Amidst this conflict of opinions, derived from the same source, it is a happy
privilege which we enjoy, to leave the muddy streams of tradition, and drink at
the pure fountain of revelation. The aim of the present work is, to ascertain what
the Scriptures teach on the subject of church order; and it does not accord with
the design, to enter into an investigation of questions appertaining to
ecclesiastical history; but I will state, very briefly, what appear to me, so far as I
have been able to investigate the subject; the chief facts to be gleaned from the

early fathers, relative to the origin of infant baptism.

No trace of infant baptism can be found, previous to the time of Justin Martyr.
The passage of his writings, which is quoted on page 174, has been regarded as
the first clear testimony on the subject; but we have shown that this, when
properly interpreted, means nothing more than that some persons, then sixty or
seventy years of age, had been made disciples of Christ before they were fully
grown. In another part of Justin's writings, he purposely gives an account of the
usages which existed among Christians, respecting baptism; and, in doing this,
he describes the baptism of believers, without any intimation that infants were
concerned in the rite. Had infant baptism been the universal practice, his
purpose would have required a description of it.

The primitive practice required each candidate for baptism to profess his faith
personally. But a custom arose, of permitting the profession to be made by
proxy: the candidate being present, and signifying his assent. This custom made
it easy for very young persons to be admitted to the rite, and the opinion, which
had now become prevalent, that baptism possessed a saving efficacy, produced
a tendency to extend the application of it to children. Tertullian, who wrote
about A. D. 200, opposed this tendency; and insisted that, instead of granting
baptism on the candidate's asking for it, and making profession through-his
sponsors, the baptism should be deferred until he had become instructed
respecting its nature and design. Thus far, it does not appear that the rite was
ever administered to children incapable of asking for it; but Cyprian, A. D. 250,
interpreted the cries of new-born babes to be an asking for the grace which
baptism was supposed to confer. The propriety of giving it to infants was now
extensively admitted, but the practice was not universal.

The late Neander, who is esteemed the greatest of ecclesiastical historians, says:
"Baptism was administered at first only to adults, as men were accustomed to
conceive baptism and faith as strictly connected." "Immediately after Irenaeus, in
the last years of the second century, Tertullian appears as a zealous opponent of
infant baptism: a proof that the practice had not as yet come to be regarded as
an apostolical institution; for, otherwise, he would hardly have ventured to
express himself so strongly against it."(94) "For these reasons, Tertullian declared
against infant baptism; which at that time was certainly not a generally
prevailing practice; was not yet regarded as an apostolical institution. On the
contrary, as the assertions of Tertullian render in the highest degree probable, it
had just begun to spread; and was therefore regarded by many as an
innovation."(95)

Jacobi, a learned friend of Neander, says: "Infant baptism was established
neither by Christ nor the apostles." "Many circumstances conspired early to
introduce the practice of infant baptism."(96)

Mosheim, in his account of the Second Century, says: "The sacrament of baptism
was administered publicly twice every year, at the festivals of Easter and
Pentecost, or Whitsuntide, either by the bishop, or the presbyters, in
consequence of his authorization and appointment. The persons that were to be
baptized, after that they had repeated the creed, confessed and renounced their
sins, and particularly the devil and his pompous allurements, were immersed
under water, and received into Christ's kingdom by a solemn invocation of
Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, according to the express command of our Blessed
Lord. After baptism, they received the sign of the cross, were anointed, and, by
prayers and imposition of hands, were solemnly commended to the mercy of
God, and dedicated to his service; in consequence of which they received milk
and honey, which concluded the ceremony. The reasons of this particular ritual
coincide with what we have said in general concerning the origin and causes of
the multiplied ceremonies that crept from time to time into the church.

"Adult persons were prepared for baptism by abstinence, prayer, and other pious
exercises. It was to answer for them that sponsors or godfathers were first
instituted, though they were afterwards admitted also in the baptism of infants."

The use of sponsors is retained in the Episcopal Church. The officiating minister
addresses the child as if he were an intelligent candidate; and the sponsors give
what is regarded as the answer of the child. In these forms, we may see the
remains of primitive usage, the lifeless corpse of the ancient baptism, which was
once animated with piety, and profession strictly personal.
1. Eph. vi. 1.
2. Col. iii. 20.
3. Mark ix. 37.
4. Mark x. 15; Luke xviii. 17.
5. Matt. xviii. 6.
6. John xiii. 33. In the original text a different word is here employed, which
seems to have been more appropriate for the expression of endearment. Its

literal meaning agrees with that of the other term, and is properly given by our
translators in the words "little children."
7. Luke xiii. 2.
8. Mark iv. 33.
9. Rom. i. 32.
10. Acts xxvi. 29.
11. Matt. xix. 13.
12. Mark x. 13; Luke xviii. 15.
13. 1 Cor. vii. 14.
14. For a more extended examination of 1 Cor. vii. 14, see a tract entitled "A
Decisive Argument against Infant Baptism," published by the Southern Baptist
Publication Society.
15. Ex. xxiv. 13; Zech. iii. 1.
16. Matt. i. 21; Col. iv. 11.
17. Acts vii. 38.
18. Heb. ii. 12.
19. Deut. xii. 5.
20. John iv. 21.
21. Acts xvii. 27.
22. Heb viii. 9.
23. 1 Chr. xxviii. 8; Mic. ii. 5.
24. Deut. xxiii. 1-8; Exod. xii. 43-47.
25. Eph. ii. 14, 15.
26. Deut. xxiii. 1-3.

27. Acts x. 35.
28. Heb. vii. 18.
29. Heb. viii. 7.
30. Heb. x. 9.
31. Matt. xxi. 43.
32. Gen. xii. 3.
33. Gen. xxii. 18.
34. Gen. xxvi. 4.
35. Gen. xxviii. 14.
36. Acts iii. 25.
37. Gal. iii. 8.
38. Gen. xv. 5, 6.
39. V. 4.
40. Gen. xxv. 16.
41. V. 1-3.
42. Jer. xxxi. 33.
43. Amos iii. 2.
44. Gen. iv. 20, 21.
45. John viii. 39.
46. Rom. ii. 29.
47. Rom. ix. 8.
48. Gal. vi. 15.
49. Deut. xxx. 6.

50. Rom. ii. 28, 29.
51. Gal. iii. 29.
52. Heb. xi. 13, 16.
53. Gal. iii. 9.
54. V. 29.
55. Rom. iv. 16.
56. Rom. xi. 1, 2.
57. V. 23-30.
58. V. 29.
59. Acts ii. 39.
60. Matt. x. 21.
61. Rom. ix. 8.
62. Matt. xxi. 43.
63. Acts xiii. 46.
64. Rom. ix. 29.
65. Rom. xv. 27.
66. Acts ii. 42.
67. 1 Cor. xi. 5-20.
68. V. 28.
69. Acts xv. 10.
70. Acts vi. 1-5.
71. V. 7.
72. Acts xix. 1, 2.

73. Luke xiv. 26, 27.
74. Acts xx. 12.
75. Gynaikas emoicheusan, kai paidas diephtheiran. Justin's Works, London
Edition, A. D. 1722, p. 10.
76. Mark v. 39, 40, 42.
77. Parkhurst's Lexicon, under the word nepios.
78. Acts xxi. 39.
79. Acts xxiii. 6.
80. Col. ii. 12.
81. Heb. viii. 10.
82. Gen. xv. 6.
83. Eph. iv. 30.
84. 2 Tim. iv. 19; Acts x. 2; Acts xvi. 34; 1 Cor. xvi. 15, 19; John iv. 53.
85. Joh iv. 53.
86. Acts xviii. 8.
87. Acts xvi. 32.
88. V. 34.
89. 1 Cor. xvi. 15.
90. 1 Cor. i. 16.
91. Acts xvi. 14.
92. V. 40.
93. V. 31.
94. History of Christian Religion and Church, pp. 311, 312 (Torrey's Translation).

95. Spirit of Tertullian, p. 207. Quoted from Christian Review, Vol. xvi. pp. 517,
520.
96. Kitto's Cyclopedia; Art. Baptism.
CHAPTER V

COMMUNION

SECTION I.--PERPETUITY OF THE LORD'S SUPPER

The rite usually called the Lord's Supper was instituted by Christ, to be observed
in his churches till the end of the world.

On the night which preceded the Saviour's crucifixion, he ate the passover with
his disciples. At the close of the meal, the ceremony called the Lord's Supper was
instituted. The account of the institution is thus given by Matthew: "As they were
eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the
disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. And he took the cup, and gave
thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it: for this is my blood of the
new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. But I say unto
you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I
drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom."(1) Mark's account is in nearly the
same words.(2) Luke's narrative differs in several particulars. He mentions a
previous cup, which seems to have concluded the proper paschal supper. At the
distribution of the bread, he adds these words, omitted by the other evangelists:
"This do in remembrance of me." In the giving of the second cup, he -states
explicitly that it was "after supper;" and, by this expression, distinguishes it from
the preceding cup, which was a part of the supper.(3) In the eleventh chapter of
the first epistle to the Corinthians, Paul gives an account of the institution,
agreeing substantially with the accounts given by the evangelists. At the
distribution of the bread, he adds the words: "This is my body which is broken
for you: this do in remembrance of me." And, at the giving of the cup, he adds:
"This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in
remembrance of me." To all this he subjoins, "As often as ye eat this bread and
drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till he come. Wherefore whosoever
shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of
the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him

eat of this bread and drink of this cup. For he that eateth and drinketh
unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's
body."

From these several accounts taken in connection, we learn that after Jesus had
concluded the last passover with his disciples, he used the bread and cup for a
purpose unknown in that supper; and commanded the disciples to use them in
the same manner, in remembrance of him. The time during which this memorial
of Christ was designed to be kept, we might infer from the words of the
evangelist. Jesus directed the minds of the disciples from the feast which he then
kept with them to a future feast, to be enjoyed together in the Father's kingdom.
During the interval this new institution was to be observed as a memorial of the
past, and a pledge of the future. But Paul has drawn the inference for us, "As
often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till he
come." The time for the observance is here definitely marked out as extending to
Christ's second coming. Baptism was instituted to be observed "till the end of the
world," and the supper has the same limit prescribed for its duration.

The institution of the supper described by Paul, he states that he had received
from the Lord Jesus, and had delivered to the Corinthian church. These facts
show that Christ designed his apostle to inculcate the observance; and that the
apostle was not negligent in this particular. He praised the church for keeping
the ordinances as he had delivered them; but censured an abuse which had
arisen among them in celebrating the supper. He does not, because of this
abuse, dissuade from the further observance of it, but he labors to correct the
abuse; and he renews the command, "Let a man examine himself, and so let him
eat." The proof thus furnished is abundant and decisive, that the observance was
designed to be established and perpetuated in the churches.

We have further proof in the Acts of the Apostles. The church at Jerusalem
continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of
bread, and in prayers;(4) and the disciples at Troas assembled on the first day of
the week to break bread.(5)

The Scriptural designation of the rite in the passages just cited, is the breaking of
bread. The name Eucharist is often given to it, derived from the Greek word
eucharisteo and referring to the thanksgiving which preceded the distribution of
the elements. This name is not used in the Scriptures. Some remarks have been
made in another place (pp. 57, 58) respecting the name Lord's Supper. It is not
clear that we have Scripture authority for using this name to designate the rite.

But, considering the rite as a memorial of our Lord's last supper with his
disciples, the name is significant--like the name passover applied to the rite
which kept in memory the fact, that the destroying angel passed over the
habitations of the Israelites. The name may also refer to the spiritual feast which
believers enjoy with their Lord, who graciously sups with them. The name
Trinity, and the name person, applied to the three-fold distinction in the Trinity,
are used without Scripture authority, merely as convenient terms; and the names
Eucharist and Lord's Supper, may be used in the same way, but we must always
be careful to found no article of faith on any use of terms for which we cannot
produce divine authority.

The Quakers object to the perpetuity of the supper, as they do to that of
baptism. Their chief objections, we shall proceed to consider.

Objection 1.--The bread and the cup belonged to the passover; and the
evangelists state, that it was while eating this feast that the bread and cup were
used, which constitute the supposed new institution. The breaking of bread is
frequently mentioned as customary in ordinary meals. We ought, therefore, to
consider it as a common occurrence at table, and to interpret the words of Christ
as a command that in all our eating and drinking we should remember him,
according to what is said elsewhere, "Whether ye eat or drink, or whatsoever ye
do, do all to the glory of God."(6)

The simplicity of the rite, is no valid objection against it; but rather a
recommendation. Bread and the cup were in common use; but they were not, on
this account, less adapted to the purpose for which Christ employed them. Water
is a common element, and immersion in it was common among the Jews; but
these facts did not render immersion in water less fit for a Christian ordinance.
The rites are new, not because new elements are used, but because they are
used for a new purpose. The whole of the paschal services commemorated the
deliverance from Egypt. The new institution was designed to commemorate a
different deliverance, by the broken body and shed blood of Christ. No one will
maintain, that the breaking of bread in ordinary meals, was designed for this
purpose. So distinctly marked was this new purpose, that Paul says, "He that
eateth and drinketh unworthily, is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord." If he
did it, "not discerning the Lord's body," he overlooked the great design of the
institution, and was guilty. This fault the objection commits, in confounding the
bread and wine of the eucharist with ordinary food.

Objection 2.--The Acts of the Apostles mention only two instances in which the
breaking of bread was observed by the disciples; and both of these manifestly
refer to ordinary meals. The church at Jerusalem continued in the breaking of
bread; and this is explained in the words, "Breaking bread from house to house,
did eat their meat with gladness, and singleness of heart."(7) The disciples at
Troas met to break bread; and what is hereby meant, may be learned from what
is afterwards said: "When he therefore was come up again, and had broken
bread, and eaten, and talked a long while, even till break of day, so he
departed."(8) This is clearly an ordinary meal, preparatory to Paul's departure. We
see, therefore, that the Acts of the Apostles record no instance of the eucharistic
observance; and-the silence cannot be accounted for, if the observance had
been customary.

No doubt exists that the phrase, breaking of bread, sometimes describes what
occurred at ordinary meals. Jesus manifested himself to the two disciples at
Emmaus, in the breaking of bread, when they had sat down to an ordinary meal;
and Paul broke bread to those who were with him in the ship, to terminate their
long fast. In the second chapter of Acts, the phrase occurs twice. In the first
instance, the connection shows that the eucharistic observance is intended.
"They continued in the apostles' doctrine, and fellowship, and breaking bread,
and prayers." In the second instance, the connection shows that ordinary meals
are intended. The repetition, instead of proving the same thing to be intended in
both instances, proves rather the contrary. Distinct facts are described.

Did the disciples at Troas meet for an ordinary meal? Was this the meeting which
the sacred historian so particularly mentions? The character of primitive
Christianity forbids the supposition. These disciples were accustomed to meet for
the worship of God; and the important design of their assembling together could
not have been forgotten or overlooked on this occasion, when they had the
presence of Paul. It was appropriate to mention the eucharist, as a part of public
worship, in speaking of the purpose for which they assembled; but to describe
them as having assembled for an ordinary meal, is inconsistent with their
character, and inconsistent with the occasion. If, as is most probable, the
breaking of bread next morning, at the break of day, was an ordinary meal
preparatory to Paul's departure, it was a different breaking of bread from that
which had brought the disciples together on the preceding day.

These are the only two cases in which the observance of the Lord's supper is
mentioned in the Acts; but they are sufficient to prove the existence of the
observance. The church at Jerusalem continued steadfastly in the breaking of
bread. It could have been no commendation of them, that they continued

steadfastly in eating ordinary meals; but their steadfast continuance in the divine
institution, is historical proof that it was observed by the first church as a part of
their public worship. This fact explains what is said about the disciples at Troas,
and the two statements make the historical evidence, in this book, as satisfactory
as is necessary. The observance of the rite by the church at Corinth, makes the
historical proof complete.

Objection 3.--The Jewish worship consisted of meats, and drinks, and divers
baptisms, and carnal ordinances; but these are not adapted to the spiritual
worship of the Christian dispensation. Paul teaches that "the kingdom of God is
not meat and drink; but righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost."(9) The
Lord's supper comes under the denomination of meats and drinks, and is
therefore not appropriate to the new economy. Paul expressly commands, "Let
no man judge you in meat or in drink;"(10) and urges believers to leave those
things which perish in the using, and set their affections above.

This objection substantially agrees with Objection 5 to the perpetuity of baptism;
and what is there said in reply, is applicable here. The meats and drinks of the
former dispensation were shadows of good things to come; but the body is of
Christ. So Paul teaches, in connection with the text last quoted in the objection;
and, in this way, he explains what meat and drink he refers to. The Jewish
ceremonies were typical of Christ to come; but the Lord's supper is a memorial of
Christ already come. It is, therefore, not included in the meat and drink intended
by the apostle. The passover was included in these abrogated meats and drinks;
which ceased to be obligatory after Christ, our passover, was sacrificed for us. At
the very time when he was about to put an end to this old ceremony, he
instituted the Lord's supper; and it is, therefore, incredible that he meant this to
expire with the other. Paul says, "Let no man judge you in meat or in drink." The
abrogated ceremonies are now without divine authority; and, therefore, he calls
these meats and drinks the commandments of men. But the bread and wine of
the supper, are commandments of the Lord; and therefore Paul says, with
reference to these: "Let a man examine himself, and so let him eat."

The numerous and burdensome rites of the Old Testament would not be adapted
to the more spiritual dispensation which we are under; but it does not follow that
the two simple ceremonies, baptism and the Lord's supper, are incompatible with
it. We are yet in the flesh, and need the use of such memorials. In the proper
use of them, believers have found them greatly profitable, and well adapted to
promote spirituality. Besides the benefit which they yield to the individual
believer, these two ceremonies stand, like two monuments, reared up in the time
of Christ, and testifying to the world concerning Christ and his doctrine. Their

use, as evidences of Christianity and its cardinal doctrines, the Trinity and the
atonement, is incalculably great, and displays the wisdom which instituted them.

In addition to the direct arguments which have been adduced, some allusions
are found in the New Testament, showing, in an interesting manner, that
baptism and the Lord's supper were contemplated as parts of Christianity. In the
next chapter to that in which Paul corrects the Corinthian abuse of the supper,
he says, "By one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, and have all been
made to drink into one Spirit."(11) The allusion to both the ordinances, is
manifest. In another part of the same epistle, he speaks of baptism unto Moses,
and of their eating and drinking in the wilderness, in a manner which shows an
allusion to the two Christian rites.(12)

Objection 4.--At the same supper in which Christ is supposed to have instituted
the eucharist, he washed his disciples' feet, and commanded them to wash one
another's feet. The command is equally as positive, as that which enjoined the
use of bread and wine; yet Christians are generally agreed, that the command
does not require to be obeyed literally. The thing signified by the outward form is
what demands regard; and the same rule of interpretation ought to be applied to
the eucharist.
The command ought, in both cases, to be obeyed strictly, according to the
design of Christ. If Christians generally fail to render strict obedience to Christ's
command respecting the washing of feet, we ought to begin a reform, and not
make one neglect a precedent and argument for another. In the next chapter we
shall inquire into the obligation to wash one another's feet. In this, we have
ascertained, that Christ designed a literal use of bread and wine, and, this point
being ascertained, our duty is determined; whatever doubt and obscurity may
remain respecting any other subject.

SECTION II.--DESIGN

The Lord's Supper was designed to be a memorial of Christ, a representation
that the communicant receives spiritual nourishment prom him, and a token of
fellowship among the communicants.

The rite is commemorative. The passover served for a memorial of deliverance
from Egypt; and, year after year, as the pious Israelites partook of it, they were
reminded of that marvellous deliverance, and were required to tell of it to their
children. The passover was instituted on the night of that deliverance. The Lord's
supper was instituted on the night when Jesus was betrayed to be crucified; and
serves for a memorial of his sufferings and death. When we remember him, we
are to remember his agonies, his body broken, and his blood shed. In preaching
the gospel, Paul determined to know nothing but Jesus Christ, and him crucified.
So, in the eucharist, Christ is presented to view; not as transfigured on Mount
Tabor, or as glorified at his Father's right hand, but as suffering and dying. We
delight to keep in memory the honors which they whom we love have received;
but Jesus calls us to remember the humiliation which he endured. To the lowest
point of his humiliation, the supper directs our thoughts.

The simple ceremony is admirably contrived to serve more than a single purpose.
While it shows forth the Lord's death, it represents at the same time the spiritual
benefit which the believer derives from it. He eats the bread, and drinks the
wine, in token of receiving his spiritual sustenance from Christ crucified. The rite
preaches the doctrine that Christ died for our sins, and that we live by his death.
He said, "Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his blood, ye have
no life in you."(13) These remarkable words teach the necessity of his atoning
sacrifice, and of faith in that sacrifice. Without these, salvation and eternal life
are impossible. When Christ said, "My flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink
indeed,"(14) he did not refer to his flesh and blood, literally understood. He calls
himself the living-bread which came down from heaven.(15) This cannot be
affirmed of his literal flesh. To have eaten this literally, would not have secured
everlasting life; and equally inefficacious is the Romanist ceremony, in which
they absurdly imagine that they eat the real body of Christ. His body is present in
the eucharist in no other sense than that in which we can "discern" it. When he
said, "This is my body," the plain meaning is, "This represents my body." So we
point to a picture, and say, "This is Christ on the cross." The eucharist is a
picture, so to speak, in which the bread represents the body of Christ suffering
for our sins. Faith discerns what the picture represents. It discerns the Lord's
body in the commemorative representation of it, and derives spiritual
nourishment from the atoning sacrifice made by his broken body and shed blood.

A third purpose which this ceremony serves, and to which it is wisely adapted, is,
to signify the fellowship of the communicants with one another. This is taught in
the words of Paul: "The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the
body of Christ? For we, being many, are one bread, and one body: for we are all
partakers of that one bread."(16) A communion or joint participation in the
benefits of Christ's death, is signified by the joint partaking of the outward

elements. "What communion," says he, "hath light with darkness; and what
concord hath Christ with Belial?" "Ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and
of the table of devils."(17) In these words of Paul, to sit at the same table, and
drink of the same cup, are regarded as indications of communion and concord.
Believers meet around the table of the Lord, in one faith on the same
atonement, in one hope of the same inheritance, and with one heart filled with
love to the same Lord.

A notion has prevailed extensively, that a spiritual efficacy attends the outward
performance of the rite, if duly administered. Some mysterious influence is
supposed to accompany the bread and wine, and render them means of grace to
the recipient. But, as the gospel, though it is the power of God unto salvation,
does not profit unless mixed with faith in those who hear it; much less can mere
ceremonies profit without faith. In baptism, we rise with Christ through the faith
of the operation of God; and in the supper, we cannot partake of Christ, and
receive him as our spiritual nourishment, but by faith: "That Christ may dwell in
your hearts by faith."(18) The contrary opinion makes these sacraments as they
have been called, saving ordinances, and substitutes outward ceremony for vital
piety.

SECTION III.--COMMUNICANTS

The Lord's Supper was designed to be celebrated by each church in public
assembly.

Intelligence is necessary in order to the proper receiving of the supper. When
infant baptism arose, infant communion arose with it. The superstitious notion
that the sacraments possessed a sort of magical efficacy, prevailed extensively;
and parental affection desired for the children the grace of the supper, as well as
that of baptism. The argument was as good for the one as for the other; and
infant communion had as much authority from the apostles as infant baptism.
But the practice of infant communion is now generally laid aside. It is generally
conceded, that infants are incapable of receiving the rite according to its design.
They cannot remember Christ, or discern the Lord's body; and they cannot
perform the self-examination which is required previous to the communion. If
the rite conveyed a magical influence, infants might receive it; but correct views
have so far prevailed, as to restrict this ordinance to persons of intelligence.

Faith is also a requisite to the receiving of the supper. If mere intelligence were a
sufficient qualification, men who partake of the table of devils, might partake
also of the Lord's table. Paul decides that this cannot be, and therefore that none
can properly partake of the Lord s table but those who have renounced the devil,
and devoted themselves to the Lord. The outward ceremony cannot, of itself,
yield profit to those who receive it. They cannot please God in it, without faith;
and without faith they cannot derive spiritual nourishment from the body and
blood of Christ.

The rite was designed to be social. Of the three purposes which it serves, as
enumerated in the last section, the third requires that it be celebrated by a
company. It could not serve as a token of fellowship between the disciples of
Christ, if it were performed in solitude. To perpetuate a social rite, society is
necessary; and the disciples of Christ, by his authority, organize the societies,
called churches. As these are the only divinely instituted Christian societies, we
might judge beforehand, that the supper would be committed to these, for its
observance and perpetuation. This we find to be true. Paul says to the church at
Corinth, "I praise you that ye keep the ordinances as I delivered them to you." "I
have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you."(19) He then
proceeds to mention the institution of the supper, and speaks of it as observed
by the whole church assembled. Of some other matters, he says, in this
connection, "We have no such custom, neither the churches of God;"(20) but
everything in his account of the Lord's supper, accords with its being a church
rite; and with this, all that is recorded of its observance at Jerusalem and Troas,
perfectly harmonizes. The administration of the rite to a dying individual, as is
practiced by some, has no sanction in the Word of God.

The rite should be celebrated by the church, in public assembly. It is said, "As
often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till he
come."(21) To show his death, requires that it be done in public. It should be held
forth to the view of the irreligious, who may be willing to attend in the public
assembly. In another part of the same epistle, Paul speaks of the effect
produced on unbelievers who came into the public assembly of the church.(22) As
it is right to hold forth the word of life to them, so it is right to show the Lord's
death before them, in the divinely appointed manner.

By the Jews it was held unlawful to eat with the uncircumcised. Paul has taught
us, that familiar intercourse with unconverted persons, is not unlawful to
Christians; but he says, "If any man, that is called a brother, be a fornicator, or
covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner, with such a
one, no not to eat."(23) In this prohibition, eating at the Lord's table with such a

wicked person, if not specially intended, is certainly included. Though such an
one may have been called a brother, it was wrong for the church to retain him in
fellowship, and continue to eat with him, in the peculiar manner by which
fellowship was indicated. In the words of Christ, every such wicked person was
to be accounted as an heathen man and a publican.

In primitive times, the members of different local churches associated with each
other, as members of the great fraternity. Paul was doubtless welcomed at the
Lord's table, by the disciples at Troas. This transient communion is now
practiced. The Lord's supper is properly a church ordinance; but an individual,
duly qualified to be admitted to membership in a church, may be admitted for
the time as a member, and received to transient communion, without any
departure from the design of the institution.

SECTION IV--OPEN COMMUNION

We have seen that the Lord's supper has been committed to the local churches
for observance and perpetuation; and that local churches, if organized according
to the Scriptures, contain none but baptized persons. It follows hence, that
baptism is a pre-requisite to communion at the Lord's table. The position which
baptism holds in the commission, determines its priority to the other commanded
observances therein referred to, among which church communion must be
included. This is the doctrine which has been held on the subject by Christians
generally, in all ages; and it is now held by the great mass of Pedobaptists. With
them we have no controversy as to the principle by which approach to the Lord's
table should be regulated. We differ from them in practice, because we account
nothing Christian baptism, but immersion on profession of faith, and we,
therefore, exclude very many whom they admit. But there are Baptists, who
reject the principle that baptism is a prerequisite to communion, and maintain
that nothing ought to be a condition of communion, which is not a condition of
salvation. They hold that all pious persons, baptized or unbaptized, have a right
to the Lord's supper. Their practice is called open or mixed communion, and the
arguments in defence of it will now claim our attention.

Argument 1.--The Lord's supper, when instituted by Christ, was given to persons
who had never received Christian baptism, and therefore baptism cannot be a
prerequisite.

The first supper was administered to the apostles. Some of these had been
baptized by John; and, since the disciples made by Jesus in his personal ministry,
were also baptized, we are warranted to conclude, that all the apostles had been
baptized. If it be denied that John's baptism, and the baptism administered
under the immediate direction of Christ during his personal ministry were
Christian baptism, we call for proof. Until the distinction is established, the
argument has no foundation.

But there is another way in which the argument may be met. We have every
certainty, which the nature of the case admits, that the apostles were not
baptized after the institution of the Lord's supper. From this time to the ensuing
Pentecost, when they entered fully on the work assigned them, their history is so
given as to exclude all probability that they were baptized in this interval; and, if
they were qualified to enter fully on their work, without another baptism, another
baptism was unnecessary; and was therefore never afterwards received. Mr.
Hall, the ablest advocate of open communion, says: "My deliberate opinion is,
that, in the Christian sense of the term, they were not baptized at all."(24) When
Paul was made an apostle, before he entered on his work he was commanded to
be baptized. From some cause, the other apostles were not under this obligation.
We account for the difference, by the supposition, that they had already received
what was substantially the same as the baptism administered to Paul. But, if we
are mistaken on this point, it is still true that the eleven apostles were not under
obligation to receive any other baptism; and their case, therefore, differed
radically from that of persons who are under obligation to be baptized, and are
living in neglect of this duty. The latter may be required, and ought to be
required, to profess Christ according to his commandment, before they are
admitted to church-membership and communion; but the eleven apostles, from
some cause, whatever it may have been, were under no such obligation. The
cases are not parallel; and, therefore, the argument fails.

Argument 2.--The argument for strict communion, from the position of baptism
in the commission, proves too much. If it proves that we ought not to teach the
unbaptized to commune at the Lord's table, it proves also that we ought not to
teach them the moral precepts of Christ included in the words, "all things
whatsoever I have commanded you."

The apostles were commanded to preach the gospel to every creature. In
executing their commission, it became their duty to instruct the ignorant and
them that were out of the way. They adapted their instructions to every man's
character and circumstances To the impenitent, they said: "Repent, and be
baptized." To the unbaptized disciple, they said: "Why tarriest thou? Arise, and

be baptized." The baptized disciple they taught, according to the requirement in
the commission, to observe all things whatsoever Christ had commanded. Theimpenitent were not to be taught to observe all things which Christ had
commanded. The advocates of open communion deny that they have a right
either to baptism, or the Lord's supper; but why? The same moral precepts
which are to be taught to the baptized disciple, may be taught to the impenitent.
We may, therefore, retort, that if they exclude the impenitent from baptism and
the Lord's supper, their mode of reasoning will prove too much, and will equally
exclude them from instruction in the moral precepts of Christ. If it be just to
argue from the order prescribed in the commission, that baptism belongs to
those only who have been made disciples; that order equally proves, that the
baptized only ought to be taught to observe all things that Christ had
commanded. Some things that Christ commanded might be taught to the
unbaptized, and to the impenitent; but the full observance of all Christ's
commands, was to be enjoined on the baptized disciples. Had the commission
read, "Make disciples of all nations, and teach them to observe all things
whatsoever I have commanded you," baptism and the supper would have been
included together among the things commanded, and no inference could have
been drawn from the commission as to the proper order in which they should be
observed. But the separation of baptism from all the other things which Christ
had commanded, gives it a peculiar relation to the other things enjoined in the
commission; and the order in which it is introduced cannot but signify the proper
order for our obedience.

Argument 3.--The fact that, in the primitive times, none but baptized persons
were admitted to the Lord's table, is not a rule to us, whose circumstances are
widely different. Then, no converted person mistook his obligation to be
baptized. Had he refused baptism, the refusal would have proved him not to be a
disciple; and now nothing ought to exclude from communion, but that which
disproves discipleship.
The argument admits that, if all understood their duty, baptism would always
precede the communion, as it did in apostolic times. How far it is our duty to
tolerate disobedience to Christ's commands, and produce a church order
unknown in the days of the apostles, in accommodation to error or weakness of
faith, is an inquiry which will come up hereafter.

Argument 4.--The supper commemorates the death of Christ: baptism represents
his burial and resurrection. The order of the things signified is the reverse of that
in which they are observed. Hence, the order of observance ought not to be

considered necessary.

Baptism represents the burial of Christ, but not to the exclusion of his death:
"Know ye not, that as many of us as were baptized into Christ, were baptized
into his death? Therefore, we are buried with him by baptism into death." The
supper represents the death of Christ; but not to the exclusion of his burial and
resurrection. Without the resurrection, the sacrifice would have been
unaccepted, and the memorial of it useless. Moreover, the supper directs the
thoughts to the second coming of Christ, and therefore supposes his
resurrection. The same great facts of Christianity are represented by both rites,
though in aspects somewhat different; and, therefore, no valid argument can be
drawn, from their objective signification, to determine the proper order of their
observance.

But while both rites direct our faith to the accepted sacrifice of Christ, they do
not signify our relation to it in the same manner. Baptism represents a believer's
dying to sin, and rising to walk in newness of life. It signifies the change by
which he becomes a new creature. The supper represents the believer's
continued feeding on Christ; and therefore presupposes the change which is
denoted by baptism. It follows, that the subjective signification of the rites, so
far as any valid argument can be drawn from it, determines the priority of
baptism.

If there were anything in the objective signification of the rite furnishing ground
for an argument in favor of its preceding baptism, it would tend to establish that
precedence as universally necessary, rather than occasionally justifiable.

Argument 5.--Communion at the Lord's table is a token of brotherly love. To
refuse it to any true disciple of Christ, is contrary to the spirit of brotherly love,
and to the command of Christ which enjoined it.

Christ has commanded us to love every true disciple; but not to give to every
one this particular token of love. Neither the law nor the spirit of brotherly love,
can require us to treat our brethren otherwise than he has enjoined. We give
them the love, and withhold from them the token, in obedience to the same
authority, and in the exercise of the same fraternal spirit. If a right participation
of the communion were the appointed means of salvation, and if baptism were
necessary in order to this right participation, it would be the highest
manifestation of brotherly love, to maintain firmly the practice of strict

communion. Our firmness might correct an error in our brethren, which, in the
case supposed, would, if persisted in, be ruinous to their eternal interests. A
false tenderness might incline us not to disturb their misplaced confidence; but
true Christian love would direct to a contrary course. Now, we are bound to
perform every duty with the same careful regard to the divine will, as if salvation
depended on it; and the true spirit of Christian love will incline us to guard our
brethren against what is sinful, as well as against what is ruinous. Hence, the
argument from brotherly love utterly fails to justify the practice of mixed
communion, if that practice can be shown to be contrary to the mind of Christ.

Further, the argument from this topic must be inconclusive, until it be proved
that brotherly love cannot subsist without a joint participation of the Lord's
supper. But there are surely many modes of testifying and cherishing the
warmest affection toward erring brethren, without participating in their errors.
We may be ready, in obedience to Christ, to lay down our lives for our brethren-though we may choose to die, rather than, in false tenderness to them, violate
the least of his commandments.

Argument 6.--A particular church differs from the church universal, only as a part
differs from the whole; and, since Pedobaptist Christians are parts of the true
church, they ought to be admitted to membership and communion in the
particular churches.
That particular churches differ from the church universal, only as a part differs
from the whole, is assumed by Mr. Hall, in his defence of mixed communion.
This assumption, made without proof, is the fundamental error of his scheme. It
begs the question. We call the atmosphere of a place, that part-of the whole
atmosphere which chances to be at the place; and if a local church is, in like
manner, that part of the universal church which chances to be at the place, the
question about communion is virtually decided. We cannot argue that the
communion of a church shall be denied to any who have the full right of
membership.

We have seen elsewhere, that the universal church is not the aggregate of the
local churches, and is not strictly homogeneous with them. Hence the
assumption which is fundamental to mixed communion, is erroneous.

Argument 7.--To exclude a Pedobaptist brother from communion, is substantially
to inflict on him the punishment of excommunication, the punishment inflicted on

atrocious offenders. Such is not the proper treatment of a fellow disciple, whose
error of judgment the Lord graciously pardons.

When an advocate of open communion excludes from the Lord's table an
amiable neighbor, who does not give evidence of conversion, the exclusion is not
regarded as a punishment. Neither ought our exclusion of the unbaptized; much
less is it right to speak of it as the punishment inflicted on atrocious offenders.
The churches have no scale of penalties adjusted to different grades of crime.
When they excommunicate, they withdraw their fellowship, and this may be
done for wrongs of very different magnitude. There is no necessity to class the
error of pedobaptism with the most atrocious of these wrongs. The church which
excludes a Pedobaptist from the Lord's table, does not design to inflict a
punishment on him, but merely to do its own duty, as a body to which the Lord
has intrusted one of his ordinances. The simple aim is, to regulate the
observance according to the will of the Lord.

Argument 7.--To reject from communion a Pedobaptist brother whom God
receives, is to violate the law of toleration laid down in Romans xiv. 1-3.

The application of this rule to the question of receiving unbaptized persons to
church-membership, has been considered, p. 96. The result of the examination
was unfavorable to the admission of such persons; and the reasons which
exclude them from church-membership, exclude them from church communion.
Regarding the Lord's supper as an ordinance committed to the local churches, to
be observed by them as such, the question, who are entitled to the privilege of
communion, is decided by a simple principle. None are to be admitted but those
who can be admitted to the membership of the church.

The argument does not claim that persons do right in communing while
unbaptized, but it pleads for a toleration of their error. Since this is the plea
which open communion Baptists chiefly rely on, it deserves a full examination.

It is a difficult attainment in religion, to preserve one's purity untarnished, while
mingling with the men of the world, and exercising towards them all that
benevolence and forbearance which the gospel enjoins. Our duty to mankind
requires that we should not retire from the world, nor cherish a morose and
misanthropic temper. In avoiding the error on this hand, there is danger of
falling into the opposite one, and becoming too much conformed to the world.
Vice is apt to appear less hateful in those whom we greatly love; and even the

frequent sight of it, if we are not on our guard will make its deformity less in our
view. Hence arises a great need of much watchfulness and prayer, in those who
practice that pure and undefiled religion, which requires them, on the one hand,
to visit the fatherless and the widows in their affliction, and to go about doing
good to all men; and, on the other hand, to keep themselves unspotted from the
world.

There is a still severer trial of Christian principle. We meet it in our intercourse
with Christian brethren, who love our Lord Jesus Christ, and in general obey his
commandments; but walk disorderly in some matters which are deemed of minor
importance. If these brethren are supposed by us, to have more spiritual
knowledge than ourselves, there is much danger, lest, through the confiding
nature of Christian love, and the readiness to esteem others better than
ourselves, we be betrayed into their errors. Had their violations of duty been
greater, a suspicion of their piety might have been awakened, and we might
have been put on our guard. The man of God, who prophesied against the altar
at Bethel, could not be induced, by the wicked king of Israel, to eat bread, or
drink water, in the place; yet the old prophet, who came to him in the name of
the Lord, found it easy to prevail. Had even he proposed some deed in itself
highly criminal, the truth of his pretended message from God would have been
suspected. But to eat bread and to drink water were things in themselves lawful;
and the man of God too readily yielded to the old prophet, as his superior in the
knowledge of the divine will, and ate and drank in violation of God's prohibition.

If we ought to guard against being led into error by our intercourse with good
men, when no wrong is suspected, much more ought we, when the existence of
wrong is known. But toleration implies wrong; and, if mixed communion be
defended on the plea of toleration, the very defence admits that there is wrong
somewhere. It becomes us, therefore, to take good heed, lest we be implicated
in the wrong. The very names, toleration, forbearance, are commended to us by
our sense of God's forbearance and longsuffering toward us; and the motives for
their exercise are irresistible when their object is a brother in Christ. Towards
such an one, how can we be otherwise than tolerant and forbearing? Shall we
persecute him? God forbid. We would rather lay down our lives for him. Shall we
indulge in any bitterness, or uncharitableness towards him? We will love him with
pure heart fervently. Shall we, in any manner, prevent him from worshipping and
serving God according to the dictates of his conscience? The very thought be far
from us. Even if he err, to his own Master he standeth or falleth. We, too, are
fallible and erring; and we will fervently pray that the grace which pardons our
faults may pardon his also. What more do toleration and forbearance require?

When a church receives an unbaptized person, something more is done than
merely to tolerate his error. There are two parties concerned. The acts of
entering the church and partaking of its communion are his, and for them he is
responsible. The church also acts when it admits him to membership, and
authorizes his participation of the communion. The church, as an organized
body, with power to receive and exclude members according to rules which
Christ has laid down, is responsible for the exercise of this power.

Each individual disciple of Christ is bound, for himself, to obey perfectly the will
of his Master. Whatever tolerance he may exercise towards the errors of others,
he should tolerate none in himself. Though he may see but a single fault in his
brother, he ought, while imitating all that brother's excellencies, carefully to
avoid this fault. He may not neglect the tithing of mint, though he should find an
example of such neglect accompanied with a perfect obedience of every moral
precept.

In like manner each church is bound, for itself, to conform, in all its order, to the
divine will. How much soever it may respect neighboring churches, which may
have made high attainments in every spiritual excellence, it must not imitate
them, if they neglect or corrupt any of Christ's ordinances. No argument is
needed to render this clear.

The members of a church, who understand the law of Christ, are bound to
observe it strictly, whatever may be the ignorance and errors of others. For them
to admit unbaptized persons to membership, is to subvert a known law of Christ.
Though there be unbaptized persons surpassing in every spiritual excellence, and
though the candidate for admission excel them all, yet the single question for the
church is, shall its order be established according to the will of God, or shall it
not.

It may be asked, whether the persons whom we admit to membership and
communion are not, in many cases, guilty of omitting duties more important than
baptism. It may be so: and if a church sanctions these criminal neglects, it
partakes in the guilt of them. Shall it, to escape the charge of the greater guilt,
voluntarily assume that which is less? If Christ has given a law for the
organization of churches, we have no right to substitute another, because it
would be, in our judgment, more accordant with the proper estimate of moral
actions. If the members of the universal church had been left to congregate into
small societies, according to their spiritual instincts, if I may use the expression,
and not according to a revealed law, these societies might be left to determine,

by moral excellence merely, who ought to be admitted. But since it has seemed
good to the Christian lawgiver, to prescribe rules for church organization, these
rules should be observed. Each church should aim, in its church order, to exhibit
a model of perfection to the world, though its several members may be
conscious of imperfections in themselves. They should aim, as individuals, to
come up to the full measure of their individual responsibility, and strive, each
one, to exhibit a model of perfect obedience. If the organization and discipline of
the church are not perfect, yet each member should aim to be perfect. If each
member is not perfect, this lessens not the obligation to render the organization
and discipline of the church perfect.

But may not each individual be left to his own conscience, and his own
responsibility? He may be, and ought to be, so far as it can be done without
implicating the consciences and responsibilities of others. If each were left wholly
to himself, the discipline of the church would be nothing, and the power to
exercise it would be attended with no responsibility. But the church is under an
obligation, which cannot be transferred, to regulate its organization and
discipline according to the word of God, which enjoins, on the one hand, to be
tolerant and forbearing towards weak and erring brethren; and on the other
hand, to keep the ordinances of God as they were delivered.

The argument for toleration is founded on the words, "Him that is weak in the
faith, receive ye...For God hath received him." It is a full reply to this argument,
that God's receiving of the weak in faith furnishes the rule, as well as the reason,
for our receiving of them. That God receives a man in one sense, can be no
reason that we should receive him in a sense widely different. God receives an
unbaptized weak believer as a member of his spiritual church, and we ought to
receive him in like manner. We ought to regard him as a brother in Christ, and a
fellow heir of the same inheritance. His interests should be near to our hearts,
and we should welcome him to all that spiritual communion which belongs to the
members of Christ's body. So, when God has received a baptized weak believer
to local church-membership, we are bound to receive him in like manner, and
allow him to sit with us at the table of the Lord; a privilege which, through the
imperfection of church discipline, the vilest hypocrite may obtain. Unless we keep
in view this important distinction, in applying this rule for toleration, it will indeed
admit the unbaptized weak believer to ceremonial communion, but it will, with
equal certainty, admit the hypocrite to that communion which is spiritual.

Argument 9.--The advocates of close communion are accustomed to invite
Pedobaptist ministers to preach in their pulpits. To hold this pulpit communion
with them, and at the same time to deny them a place at the Lord's table, is a

manifest inconsistency.

If we admit the conclusion of this argument, it does not prove close communion
to be wrong. Some Baptists admit the validity of the argument; and avoid the
charge of inconsistency by refusing to invite Pedobaptist ministers into their
pulpits. Their views will be examined hereafter, Chapter X., section 5, and we
shall then attempt to show that what has been called pulpit communion, may be
vindicated in perfect consistency with the principles on which strict communion
at the Lord's table is maintained.

Argument 10.--The communion table is the Lord's; and to exclude from it any of
the Lord's people, the children of his family, is an offence against the whole
Christian community.
There is a table which the Lord has spread, and to which every child of his family
has an unquestionable right. It is a table richly furnished with spiritual food, a
feast of fat things, full of marrow, of wine on the lees well refined. This table the
Lord has spread for all his children, and he invites them all to come: "Eat, O
friends; drink, yea drink abundantly, O beloved." Any one who should forbid their
approach would offend against the community of God's children. The guests at
this table have spiritual communion with one another; a species of communion
which belongs of right to every member of the church universal.

There is another table which the Lord has commanded his people to spread in
each local church. It is not, like the other, covered with spiritual good things, but
with simple bread and wine. It is not, like the other, designed for the whole
family of the Lord, but for the particular body, the local church, by whom, in
obedience to divine command, it has been spread. Though human hands have
set out the food, yet the table is the Lord's, because it is designed for his service,
and prepared at his command; and the will of the Lord must determine who
ought to partake. He knows best the purpose for which he commanded it; and,
whatever may be the feelings of the guests, they have no right to invite to his
table any whom the Lord has not invited.

We are aware that the practice of strict communion is considered offensive by a
large part of the Christian community. We lament this fact; and if the arguments
which have been adduced in defence of our practice, have failed to produce a
conviction of its propriety, we would still crave from our brethren the forbearance
and toleration for which they plead in behalf of the weak in faith. We

conscientiously believe that we are doing the Lord's will; and we would gladly
invite every child of God to unite in our simple ceremonial observance, if we had
the divine approbation. But we believe that the purpose for which the
observance was instituted, and the divine will by which it ought to be regulated,
require the restrictions under which we act.

Does not the offence taken at our course indicate that the offended party
estimate ceremonial communion too highly? To the rich feast of spiritual good
which the Lord has spread, we rejoice to welcome every child of God; and we
gladly accept an humble seat with them at the bountiful board. When with open
hearts and hands we give this welcome, why will they be offended, if we do not
also give them a crumb of our ceremonial bread, and a drop of our ceremonial
wine? If the elements possessed some sacramental efficacy, there would be an
apparent reason for their complaint; but regarding them as a token of union in a
church organization to which our brethren object, and into which they are
unwilling to enter, the ground and consistency of their complaint do not appear.

When Pedobaptists complain of our strict communion, we would remind them
that they hold the principle in common with us, and practice on it in their own
way. If they have aught to object, let it be at that in which we differ from them,
and not at that in which we agree. The contrary course is not likely to produce
unity of opinion, or to promote that harmony of Christian feeling which ought to
subsist among the followers of our Lord.

When Baptists object to strict communion, we would propose the inquiry,
Whether they do not attach undue importance to the eucharist, in comparison
with baptism. Mr. Hall calls the eucharist a principal spiritual function.(25) In this
view of it, he complains that the privilege of partaking in it should be denied to
any. Is it more spiritual than baptism? If not, why should baptism be trodden
under foot, to open the way of access to the eucharist? When both ceremonies
were supposed to possess a saving efficacy, the proper order of their observance
was still maintained; much more should it be maintained, if both are mere
ceremonies. If baptism were a mere ceremony, and the eucharist a principal
spiritual function, the arguments for open communion would have a force which
they do not now possess: but our brethren will not defend this position.
1. Matt. xxvi. 26-29.
2. Mark xiv. 22-24.
3. Luke xxii. 17-20.

4. Acts ii. 42.
5. Acts xx. 7.
6. 1 Cor. x. 31.
7. Acts ii. 46.
8. Acts xx. 11.
9. Rom. xiv. 17.
10. Col. ii. 16.
11. 1 Cor. xii. 13.
12. 1 Cor. x. 2, 3, 4.
13. John vi. 53.
14. John vi. 55.
15. John vi. 51.
16. 1 Cor. x. 16, 17.
17. 1 Cor. x. 21.
18. Eph. iii. 17.
19. 1 Cor. xi. 2, 23.
20. V. 16.
21. 1 Cor. xi. 26.
22. 1 Cor. xiv. 24, 25.
23. 1 Cor. v. 11.
24. Hall's Works, Vol. i., p. 303.
25. Vol. i. p. 322.

CHAPTER VI

WASHING OF FEET

When Jesus required his disciples to wash one another's feet, he designed, not
to institute a religious ceremony, but to enforce a whole class of moral duties.

The requirement on the subject is contained in the following words: "If I then,
your Lord and Master, have washed your feet, ye also ought to wash one
another's feet."(1)

Every word of Jesus Christ is important, and every command which he has left as
a rule of our conduct ought to be punctiliously obeyed. The words quoted above
may be regarded as a part of his dying instructions to his apostles. Every
circumstance connected with the time and manner of their being uttered, tends
to invest them with interest. No one deserves the name of his disciple, who could
knowingly neglect a duty recommended by such unparalleled love and
condescension.
What, then, was the Saviour's meaning? "If ye know these things," says he,(2)
"happy are ye if ye do them." We must know, in order to do; and if we mistake
his design, how honest soever our intention may be, we shall not have fulfilled
his command. If, on this memorable night, when he partook of the last passover
with his disciples, and when he instituted the breaking of bread as the memorial
of "Christ, our Passover, sacrificed for us," he designed to institute the washing
of feet as another religious rite, till his second coming, together with baptism and
the breaking of bread; then, this institution should be observed with punctilious
carefulness; and no plea should be admitted from the neglect of it, to justify the
neglect of any other divine command. But, if it was the Saviour's design, not to
institute a religious ceremony for the observance of his disciples, but to enjoin on
them a whole class of moral duties of the very highest importance, it would be a
lamentable mistake, if we should substitute for these duties a mere external rite
which he never meant to institute.

To ascertain the Saviour's design, let the following things be attentively
considered:--

1. The particular duty enjoined is moral, as distinguished from those which are

positive.
Baptism and the Lord's supper are positive institutes, because the obligation to
observe them could not be inferred from any utility or apparent fitness in the
things themselves. On the contrary, the washing of feet was not a mere
ceremony, but a necessary act of hospitality which had been in use since the
days of Abraham;(3) and it is accordingly reckoned by the Apostle Paul, in
connexion with other moral duties of like kind, as the proper foundation of a
reputation for good works. "Well reported of for good works, if she have lodged
strangers, if she have washed the saints' feet, if she have relieved the afflicted, if
she have diligently followed every good work."(4) It is the utility of the act which
gives it a place among the "good" works here enumerated. In those days, when
travelling was so generally performed on foot, and when the feet were shod with
mere sandals; to wash the feet of the wayworn stranger was not a mere
ceremony, but one of those "good works which are profitable unto men," and to
be maintained "for necessary uses."(5)

2. The example of the Saviour recommends the act on the ground of its utility.

When Peter wished his hands and his head to be washed, "Jesus saith unto him,
He that is washed needeth not, save to wash his feet." The two words here
rendered wash, are different in the original: the former, denoting a washing of
the whole body; and the latter, which is the word used elsewhere throughout the
narrative, a partial washing, as of the hands or feet. The sense is--he that has
been bathed,. needs only to wash his feet, which may have been defiled in
walking from the bath.(6) The apostles had bathed themselves before sitting
down to the paschal supper, and therefore did not need any washing except of
the feet. On this need, small as it may appear, the Saviour placed the fitness and
propriety of the act which he performed. He was willing to set an example of
performing the least possible act of real kindness; but he would not extend that
act a whit beyond the line of necessity and utility. Beyond this line, it was no
longer an act of kindness. But Jesus performed it as a good work for a necessary
use; and since he therein gave to his apostles an example that they should do to
each other as he had done to them,(7) it is manifest that he designed to enforce
on them mutual service of practical utility.

3. It was not a single duty which the Saviour intended to enjoin:

This is apparent from verse 17: "If ye know these things, happy are ye if ye do
them." Duties were manifestly intended beyond the single act of washing of feet.
Of these duties this act was a mere specimen by which they might know the
rest; and knowing, practice them.

A proof that the washing performed by our Saviour was a part and specimen of a
whole class of duties, may also be derived from verse 8: "Peter saith unto him,
Thou shalt never wash my feet. Jesus answered him, If I wash thee not, thou
hast no part with me." The true import of this answer seems to be this: "If I may
not wash thy feet, (so the word here used implies), I may not, on the same

ground, render to thee any of the great benefits resulting from my humiliation, in
which I came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give my life a
ransom for many. If I may not perform to thee acts of condescending kindness,
thou hast no part with me. As in this declaration, the washing of Peter's feet was
made by the Saviour a specimen and representative of all his acts of
condescending kindness; so the washing of feet, enjoined upon Peter and his
fellow-apostles, was intended to include all the acts of condescending kindness
which they could perform towards their brethren. "A new commandment I give
unto you, That ye love one another: as I have loved you, that ye also love one
another: by this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one
to another."(8)

4. It is an argument of weight against regarding the washing of feet as a
religious ceremony instituted in the church, that it does not, like baptism and the
Lord's supper, typify Christ.

The Lord's supper, in a lively figure, shows forth the death of Christ; and baptism
his burial and resurrection. These standing ordinances of the Christian church
lead the mind directly to the great Author of our salvation, and to the atoning
sacrifice by which that salvation had been effected. These ordinances teach us
the grand doctrine of redemption, in a language which infinite wisdom has
invented for the purpose. To this great doctrine these witnesses bear their
testimony, in a voice, long and loud, through all the revolutions of centuries, and
above all the tumults of heresy. What does the washing of feet teach us of
Christ, or of redemption by Him? Does it lead the believer away from himself,
and all his own works of righteousness, to the atoning sacrifice or the justifying
righteousness on which he must rely for salvation? It might serve, as a religious
rite, to remind those of a duty to be performed, whose faith rests upon such
duty for righteousness; but of him who is the end of the law for righteousness to
every one that believeth, of his suffering and death as the means of our

salvation, it tells nothing.

5. The washing of feet was not practiced as a religious rite by the primitive
Christians.

That baptism and the Lord's supper were so practiced we have the clearest
evidence, both from the Scriptures and the writings of the Christian fathers; but
not so with regard to the washing of feet. It is not necessary to pursue this
subject beyond the clear light of Scripture, into the comparatively dark field of
investigation which ecclesiastical history presents, as the testimony which this
less satisfactory source of evidence affords, though entirely consistent with the
testimony of Scripture, is not needed, either for elucidation or confirmation. On
opening the inspired history of the church, we read, at the very beginning, "They
that gladly received his word were baptized: and they continued steadfastly in
the apostles' doctrine, and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers."
Baptism is frequently mentioned in the subsequent history, and in the 20th chap.
7th verse express mention is made that "the disciples came together to break
bread." But not a chapter, not a verse, in all the Acts of the Apostles, contains an
intimation that any church, or any company of disciples, ever assembled to
celebrate the washing of feet. In the Epistle to the Romans,(9) a reference is
made to baptism, and an explanation given of its import. The first chapter of the
next epistle (the first to the Corinthians), contains an account of several
baptisms; and the 11th chapter a very particular account of the institution of the
supper, and of abuses in its observance, which had already crept into the church
of Corinth. But in these epistles, and in all those which follow, no allusion
whatever is found to the washing of feet, as a rite observed by the churches.

There is, indeed, one passage, and only one, in which the washing of feet is
mentioned; and this passage, 1 Tim. v. 10, furnishes decisive proof that it was
not practiced as a church ordinance, as were baptism and the Lord's supper. To
demonstrate this, we have but to substitute, in the passage, the mention of
these acknowledged ordinances, and the incongruity of such a connexion will
immediately appear: "Well reported of for good works; if she have brought up
children, if she have lodged strangers, if she have been baptized, or received the
Lord's supper, if she have relieved the afflicted, if she have diligently followed
every good work." As it must be supposed of every widow in the church that she
had been baptized, and had received the Lord's supper; no "if," with respect to
these ordinances, could be admitted, and no one widow could, on account of her
having observed them, be more entitled to honor than any other. The same
would have been true concerning the washing of feet, if this also had been a
religious rite in common use in the churches; and it would have been a manifest

absurdity to state the fact of any church member having performed the rite, as a
reason for regarding him or her as specially entitled to reputation for good
works, or to honor from the church.

There is, therefore, not only a total want of proof that such a religious rite was
anciently observed, but there is (what few cases in controversy furnish) a proof
of the negative, which is as clear and satisfactory as any such proof can be
expected to be.

These considerations show clearly that it was the Saviour's design to enforce a
whole class of moral duties, and not to institute a religious ceremony; and that
he was so understood by his apostles. He who washes the feet of a saint, when
those feet do not need washing, is as if he gave a cup of cold water to a disciple
who is not thirsty. He may indeed make a show of voluntary humility, but he
does not fulfil the command of Christ, nor imitate his example. He ought to
remember that Christ declined to wash the hands and head of Peter; not
because there would have been less show of humility in so doing, but because
those parts did not need washing. He, therefore, who washes the feet of a saint
when these feet do not need washing, instead of obeying or imitating Christ,
does that which Christ refused to do. And he who washes the feet of a saint
merely as a religious rite, without considering or caring whether the act which he
performs is necessary and useful, is just as far as the other from obeying or
imitating the Redeemer.

If, after a careful consideration of the subject, we have satisfactorily ascertained
that our Saviour designed his disciples should perform towards each other every
needful act of condescending kindness, even the smallest and the most servile,
let us be ready with promptness and pleasure to fulfil his will. If we know these
things, happy are we if we do them. If we have the spirit of Christ, we shall be
ready, when need requires, to lay down our lives for our brethren, or give them
a cup of cold water, or wash their feet, or render them any other comfort. In so
far as by any of these means we seek to promote the happiness of a disciple of
Christ, our good deeds will be remembered; and the great Judge, in the last day,
omitting all mention of our most labored religious ceremonies, will bring that act
of kindness to mind, and will say, "Inasmuch as ye did it to one of the least of
these my brethren, ye did it unto me."
1. John xiii. 14.
2. V. 17.

3. Gen. xviii. 4; xix. 2.
4. 1 Tim. v. 10.
5. Titus iii. 8, 14.
6. Some interpreters take the first word to mean, not a bathing of the whole
body, but a washing of the hands and face, which the disciples are supposed to
have performed before taking their places at supper. "He who washeth his face
and hands is considered sufficiently clean, and needs no other washing unless
this mark of civility, that his feet be washed by a servant. This civility I exhibit to
you, thus acting the part of a servant." This interpretation, though less
satisfactory, because less conformed to the ordinary signification of the terms
employed, will, nevertheless, serve equally well for sustaining the argument
above presented.
7. John xiii. 15.
8. V. 34, 35.
9. Chap. vi.
CHAPTER VII

PUBLIC WORSHIP

SECTION I.--TIME

The first day of the week is the Christian sabbath, and is specially appropriate for
the public worship of God.

The computation of time by weeks, appears to have prevailed at a very early
period. It may be traced back to the time of Laban, who said to Jacob: "Fulfil her
week."(1) A less visible trace of it may be seen in the account given of Noah, who
waited "seven days:" and afterwards "another seven days,"(2) in his attempts to
discover whether the deluge had subsided. The hebdomadal division of time
existed very early in the gentile world; and no account of its origin is so
probable, as that it was received from Noah, the father of the new world. No
evidence appears, that Noah received it as a new institution from God; or that it

originated with him. The statement of Scripture is, "God rested on the seventh
day: wherefore God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it."(3) This is the
origin of the institution. When the decalogue was promulgated from Sinai, it did
not speak of the sabbath as an institution before unknown. The command,
"Remember the sabbath day,"(4) implies a knowledge of its existence; and this is
confirmed by the previous historical fact, that the fall of manna had ceased on
the sabbath day.

Since the sabbath originated at the creation, and was known before the giving of
the law to the Israelites, it cannot be one of the abrogated Jewish ceremonies.
The sabbath was made for man; and not exclusively for the Hebrews. The
reason for it is taken from God's rest on the seventh day, after six days' work in
creating the world; and not from anything that pertained specially to the nation
of Israel. The institution is adapted to the nature of man, as a religious being,
and the relation which he sustains to his Creator.

The decalogue was given as a law to the Israelites. Its preface shows this: "I am
the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt." It is further
proved by the promise annexed to the fifth commandment: "That thy days may
be long in the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee." But, though given to the
Israelites, it was given to them as men. The ceremonial law was given to them,
as the Congregation of the Lord; and the judicial law was given to them as the
Nation of Israel. But the decalogue was adapted to the relations which they bore
to God and one another, as men. The same relations are in human society
everywhere; and therefore the same obligations bind everywhere. This part of
the Mosaic code possesses universal and perpetual obligation; and this part, God
specially distinguished from all the rest. He pronounced it audibly from Sinai, and
twice engraved it in stone, in token of its perpetuity. In writing to gentiles at
Rome, and at Ephesus, Paul refers to the decalogue, as a law which they were
bound to obey; and has thus decided that it was not peculiar to the Jews, or
confined to the abrogated covenant. The ministration of the law in the letter, he
distinguishes from the ministration of the Spirit, and declares it to be done away
when the veil is taken away from the heart;(5) but the change then wrought does
not consist in making a new law, but in transferring the writing from the tables
of stone, to the fleshly tables of the heart.

Among the precepts of the decalogue, we find the command: "Remember the
sabbath day." As the whole decalogue binds us, so does this commandment. No
man has a right to separate it from the rest, and claim exemption from its
obligation. Christians, therefore, must observe the sabbath; and, as a day which

God has hallowed, it is specially appropriate for the public worship of God.

Some Baptists, in a conscientious regard to the divine commands, observe the
same day for their sabbath that the Jews observe, and are thence called Seventh
Day Baptists. But they mistake, as we conceive, the true import of the precept.
They interpret it, as if it had been expressed "The seventh day of the week is the
sabbath," and as if the Jewish division of the week were recognised and fixed;
whereas the language is, "Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work; but the
seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God." The seventh day, is that which
follows six days of labor; and the words of the precept express no more. From
the nature of the case, the regular return of the sabbath, at equally distant
intervals of time, must be expected to follow. We may have light thrown on the
true meaning of the language employed, by comparing it with that which
enjoined the observance of the sabbatical year. The comparison may be
advantageously made for this purpose, by examining a passage in which the
sabbatical day and the sabbatical year are both enjoined.(6) "Six years thou shalt
sow thy land, and shalt gather in the fruits thereof; but the seventh year thou
shalt let it rest, and lie still." "Six days thou shalt do thy work, and on the
seventh day thou shalt rest." As the seventh year is not determined by a natural
division of time into weeks of years; so the seventh day is not determined by a
natural division of time into weeks of days. No one thinks of the seventh year
otherwise than as the year which follows six years of regular toil in the
cultivation of the earth, and as regularly returning at equal intervals. The precise
similarity of the command enjoining the observance of the seventh day sabbath,
proves that the same method of interpretation must be applied to it. If an
obligation exists to observe Saturday, or Sunday, rather than any other day of
the week, it cannot be found in this precept of the decalogue, and must be made
out in some other way.

The decalogue, in its admirable adaptedness to the relations in human society,
displays the wisdom of its Author. We may see this wisdom in the adaptedness
of the fourth commandment to universal observance. Since the rotundity of the
earth has been demonstrated, it has become apparent, that a precept requiring
the observance of the seventh day of the week, could not be obeyed universally,
unless some meridian were established by divine authority for the universal
computation of time. A few years ago it was stated in some of our missionary
intelligence, that a practical question of duty in the observance of the sabbath
had arisen between some missionaries, who had met at their field of labor on the
other side of the globe, having sailed to it by different routes, some by the
eastern and others by the western. On comparing their computation, their
sabbaths differed; and what was Saturday to one party was Sunday to the other.
If the seventh day of the week had been commanded, these missionaries could

not have obeyed without becoming sabbath-breakers to each other; and if no
higher wisdom than that of Moses, who was ignorant of the earth's true form,
had dictated the decalogue, its admirable adaptedness to the condition and
circumstances of men, in every age and country, and under every meridian,
would not have been secured.

Another objection to the interpretation which supposes the seventh day of the
week to be prescribed, may be seen in the fact that it makes Scripture
dependent on tradition. Had the observance of the new moon, or of the full
moon, been commanded, the means of ascertaining the time intended would
have been within the reach of every one; but had the Scripture commanded to
observe the seventh day of the week, who could know the day required? No
banner is hung out in the sky, to distinguish it from the other days of the week.
The revolution and boundaries of the week are not determined, like the
revolution of the seasons, by any natural phenomena. The precept, once
engraven in stone, and now indelibly recorded in God's book, would stand before
us, binding each individual conscience to obedience; and yet the precept itself
would give no clue by which to ascertain its true meaning. How could each
individual know that he did not mistake the time, and profane the very day that
God had hallowed? He has no other means of knowledge than tradition. The
right sabbath may have been handed down without mistake, from the time of
the creation, or from the time of Moses; but what proof have we? None but
tradition. God has wisely decided to make known his will to men by Scripture,
rather than by tradition; but what is the advantage, if the meaning of Scripture
must be determined by tradition?

Another argument for our interpretation of the precept, may be drawn, from the
word employed in the New Testament, to denote a week. It is the same word
that is rendered sabbath, appearing sometimes in the singular form, sometimes
in the plural. Take, for an example, the phrase "the first day of the week,"(7)
which, literally rendered, is, "the first day of the sabbath or sabbaths." This may
be explained, the first day according to the computation of the sabbath or
sabbaths. But, however explained, it indicates that the sabbath determined the
week, and not the week the sabbath.

According to the view which we have taken of the fourth commandment,
Christians obey it, as literally as the Jews. The latter derive their series of weeks
by tradition from the time of Moses; we derive ours by tradition from the time of
Christ. We see with pleasure, the beginning of our series, in the brief accounts of
Scripture, where the day on which Christians met for worship, is specified. On
the first day of the week our Lord rose from the dead. This day was filled with

the tidings and proofs of his resurrection, and with the admiration and joy of the
disciples, and was closed with a meeting of the disciples, in which Jesus
appeared in person. In his account of this meeting, the evangelist is careful to
repeat that it was on the first day of the week.(8)

Another week rolled around, and a meeting of the disciples was held, in which
Jesus was again present. A Jewish sabbath had intervened; and if it had been
the Lord's design to perpetuate this sabbath, as the day of public worship for his
disciples, why did he allow it to pass, and reserve the second joyful interview
with his assembled people, to the ensuing day? The evangelist's statement is,
"After eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them; then
came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst."(9) When the chief
priests applied to Pilate to have the sepulchre guarded, they said, "that deceiver
said, while he was yet alive, after three days will I rise again. Command,
therefore, that the sepulchre be made sure until the third day."(10) Here the
phrase "after three days," is equivalent to "until the third day." If the phrase,
"after eight days," in the above quotation from John, be|interpreted in the same
manner, it will bring Christ's second interview with his disciples just one week
after the first, and therefore on the first day of the week. The feast of Pentecost
occurred according to the law,(11) on the day following the Jewish sabbath. It
was therefore on the first day of the week, that the Holy Spirit was poured out,
and three thousand converted under the preaching of Peter.
The disciples at Troas met together to break bread;(12) and the inspired historian
is careful to tell us, that it was on "the first day of the week." In writing to the
Corinthians, Paul directed them, in making their religious contribution for the
poor saints at Jerusalem, "On the first day of the week, let every one of you lay
by him in store, as God hath prospered him."(13) In describing the wonderful
revelation which he received on the isle of Patmos, John says, "I was in the Spirit
on the Lord's day."(14) By this phrase, he seems to designate the day on which
our Lord arose, and which had been consecrated to his worship.

As the Mosaic revelation displays divine wisdom, in its mode of exhibiting the
fourth commandment; so does the Christian revelation, in its mode of
recommending the first day of the week to our observance. The old covenant,
with its priesthood, and forms of worship, had passed away, and there was a
fitness in instituting a new form of worship to be introduced, and it was fit that
the resurrection of our Lord should begin the new computation, and be
commemorated by it. But while the first day of the week is expressly mentioned,
had the observance of it been expressly commanded, the same difficulties would
have originated, that would have attended the observance of the seventh day of

the week. It would have rendered the Christian Scriptures dependent on tradition
for their interpretation, and the Christian sabbath impossible to be observed
throughout the world, in strict obedience to the requirement. As the matter has
been left, the decalogue is transmitted to us, requiring the consecration of one
day in seven; and the New Testament teaches us, that no times are holy in
themselves; and that the regard which the Jews demanded, for the day on which
they kept their weekly sabbath, and for their other holy days, so far from being
obligatory on Christians, is inconsistent with the nature of the Christian
economy.(15) The proportion and the succession of time, as prescribed in the
fourth commandment, are obligatory; but no particular periods of duration have
in themselves special sanctity. We are bound by the example of the apostles, to
observe the first day of the week as the Christian sabbath; but not in such a
sense as to fetter the conscience with insuperable difficulty, in such a case as
that of the missionaries before mentioned.

The worship, adapted to the day, requires to be social; and each individual
Christian may unite with his brethren, in the worship of God, on the day set
apart for it, with the full conviction that, in so doing, he is honoring the Author of
Christianity, and strictly obeying the decalogue.

SECTION II.--MODE

Public worship should include prayers, songs of praise, and the reading and
expounding of God's word.

Prayer is a natural duty of man, confined to no particular condition of life, or
dispensation of religion. It may be performed in private, in the family, in
companies accidentally brought together, or designedly convened for the
purpose; and in public assemblies for divine worship, it ought always to make a
part of the service.

In public prayer, one of the worshippers leads the service, speaking audibly, as
Solomon did at the dedication of the temple, and the rest unite in heart in the
devotions and supplications. The leading part in the service may be performed
by the ministers of the word. The first Christians continued steadfastly in the
apostles' doctrine, fellowship, breaking of bread, and prayers. All these, including
the prayers, were directed by the apostles; and, when the apostles were relieved

from ministering to tables, it was that they might give themselves to the word of
God and to prayer. Private prayer cannot be exclusively intended here; for the
obligation to this belonged equally to the deacons elected, and to all the
members of the church. But, though the ministers of the word may, in general,
most advantageously lead in public prayer, other male members of the church
may do it with propriety and benefit. "I will that men pray everywhere."(16) The
word rendered "men," properly denotes persons of the male sex, and is
distinguished from "the women" mentioned in the next verse. The intimation
plainly made, is, that females are not expected to lead in public prayer. This
accords with the words of Paul: "It is shame for women to speak in the church,"
or public assembly. But there is great propriety in the separate meeting of
females for prayer, and much benefit results to themselves and the cause of
God.

The Saviour gave a form of prayer to his disciples, for a help and general
directory; but it is manifest that the disciples never understood that they were
restricted to this form, either in private or in public. Prescribed forms of prayer
are objectionable, because they restrain the emotions of the heart, discourage
dependence on the Holy Spirit, tend to produce formality, and are not adapted to
all circumstances and occasions.

Praise may be mingled with the petitions and thanksgivings offered in prayer;
and is then, like these, expressed in prose, and with the ordinary voice. But
poetry and music are specially appropriate in the expression of praise. They were
used in early times, and formed an important part of the temple worship. In the
New Testament, we find frequent use of singing; and it is expressly commanded
in several passages.(17) The phrase "admonishing one another in psalms," &c.,
being addressed to a church, sufficiently indicates that singing was designed to
be a part of the church's public worship.

The book of Psalms was composed for the temple worship. It serves as a help
and general directory in this part of the public service; but there is no proof that
our praises ought to be expressed in no words but those found in this book. We
have no book of prayers in the Bible; and we learn from this that a book of
prayers is not needed in our public worship; but we have a book of Psalms,
because, in a service in which many are to speak together, they cannot speak
the same things without previous preparation. We learn hence the lawfulness of
using hymn-books; and experience has proved their great utility.

Instrumental music formed a part of the temple worship; but it is nowhere
commanded in the New Testament; and it is less adapted to the more spiritual
service of the present dispensation.

In public worship, we not only address God in prayer and praise, but we honor
him by reverent attention to his word, in which he speaks to us. The reading of
the Scriptures formed an important part of the synagogue service, and was
sanctioned by the Saviour, when, in the synagogue at Nazareth, he read from
the prophet Isaiah. In Paul's direction to Timothy, "Give attendance to reading,
to exhortation, and to doctrine,"(18) as the exhortation and doctrine or teaching
were to be parts of the public service to be performed for the benefit of others,
there is no reason to suppose that the reading which is commanded was to be
exclusively private. The public reading of God's word appears to be at least
included. In the days of Ezra, when the Scriptures were read, the sense was
shown to the people.(19) When Christ read in the synagogue at Nazareth, on
closing the book, he expounded and applied the passage which had been read.
The direction to Timothy required that exhorting and teaching should be added
to reading. God is honored when his word is so expounded to the people, that
they not only hear the sound with the ear, but receive the meaning of it in their
understandings, and feel its power in their hearts. God has graciously provided
men who are able so to expound and exhort; and every church ought to seek the
help of such gifts.
1. Gen. xxi. 27.
2. Gen. viii. 10, 12.
3. Gen. ii. 2, 3.
4. Ex. xx. 8.
5. Rom. xiii. 8-10; Eph. vi. 2.
6. Exodus xxiii. 10, 12.
7. John xx. 1.
8. John xx. 19.
9. John xx. 26.
10. Matt. xxvii. 63, 64.
11. Lev. xxiii. 16.

12. Acts xx. 7.
13. 1 Cor. xvi. 2.
14. Rev. i. 10.
15. Col. ii. 16; Gal iv. 10, 11; Rom. xiv. 5, 6.
16. 1 Tim. ii. 8.
17. Col. iii. 16; Eph. v. 19; James v. 13.
18. 1 Tim. iv. 13.
19. Neh. viii. 8.
CHAPTER VIII

THE MINISTRY

SECTION I.--MINISTRY OF THE WORD

The ministers of Christ are a separate class of persons, distinguished by a special
divine call to preach the word.

A DISTINCT CLASS

The ministers of Christ are, like ordinary Christians, separate from the world.
They are partakers of the heavenly calling, by which men are brought out of the
world, and made the servants of Christ. In all his epistles to the churches, Paul
claims to be a fellow-saint with them, a member of the same spiritual family, and
an heir of the same heavenly inheritance. Throughout the Scriptures, the
ministers of Christ are spoken of as persons who love Christ, and are from the
heart devoting themselves to his service. They must therefore be of the number
who are "called to be saints."

The ministers of Christ are also separate from ordinary Christians. They are one
with ordinary Christians, as being called in one hope of their calling; but, besides
the call to repentance and faith, which they have received in common with their
brethren, they have been called to special service in the Lord's cause. It is clear,
from the Holy Scriptures, that there were, among the first Christians, persons to
whom the work of the ministry was specially intrusted. Paul says, concerning
these, God "hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation."(1) "Giving no offence,
that the ministry be not blamed."(2) "Who hath made us able ministers of the
new testament."(3) He speaks of himself, as counted faithful; and put "into the
ministry;"(4) and of the special grace given to him, that he should preach among
the gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ.(5) The bestowment by the Holy
Spirit of special qualifications for special service in the Lord's cause, is plainly
taught in 1 Cor. xii., and Eph. iv. The inquiry, "Are all apostles? are all
prophets?"(6) &c., shows that the offices designated did not belong to the whole
body of the saints.

The separation of the ministry from the mass of ordinary Christians, is not like
the separation of Christians from the world. In the latter case, they cease to be
of the world, and become strangers and pilgrims in the earth. But men who
enter the ministry, do not cease to be saints. Saul and Barnabas were separated
unto the work to which the Holy Ghost had called them; but this separation did
not take from them a place among the saints and faithful in Christ Jesus. John
speaks, concerning the whole company of the saints: "We are of God; and the
whole world lieth in wickedness."(7) Here is a strong line of division, like that
which separates land and water. But the ministry appears, among the people of
God, like the mountains on a continent, forming a part of it, and closely united
with surrounding lands. Eminent spiritual gifts distinguish the ministers; but the
same spirit that actuates them, pervades the whole body of Christ. All the
disciples of Christ are bound, according to their ability, to advance the cause oftheir Master, and labor for the illumination and salvation of men: and the
diversity of talent among the ordinary disciples, may be compared to the
diversity of hill and valley in the ordinary face of the country. But ministers are
distinguished, by their superior qualifications for service, from the ordinary mass
of Christians, like mountains rising above the common undulations of the
surrounding landscape.

The special qualifications which the Holy Spirit bestows, bind him on whom they
are bestowed to use them in the service of Christ. They are given to fit him for
this service, and they constitute a divine call for him to engage in it. They are not
given to confer a privilege merely, but they are a solemn call to duty--a call
demanding the service of the whole life.

The apostles, when called by Christ, immediately left their secular employments,
and gave themselves ever afterwards to the service of their Lord. Paul, when
called, conferred not with flesh and blood. The work of the ministry did not
cease, when these holy men left the earth; but other persons have been fitted to
carry it on, by the same Spirit that qualified them for the peculiar service. He
bestows his gifts "for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry,
for the edifying of the body of Christ, till we all come in the unity of the faith,
and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure
of the stature of the fullness of Christ."(8)

The ministers of Christ are not a separate class of men in such a sense as to
constitute them an organized society. They are fellow-laborers in the Lord's
service, but have no power over one another; and have no authority from Christ
to combine themselves into an ecclesiastical judicatory to exercise power in any
manner. They are all on a level as brethren; are the servants of Christ, and the
servants of the churches.

THEIR WORK

The special service for which the ministry is designed is the preaching of the
word. The obligation to spread the knowledge of Christ is shared, to some
extent, by all Christians. The effectual call of the Holy Spirit, by which any man is
brought to repentance and faith, imposes on him an obligation to show forth the
praises of him who hath called him out of darkness into his marvelous light; to
let his light shine before men, that they, seeing his good works, may glorify his
Father in heaven; and to hold forth the word of life. Every Christian is bound to
do what he can for he conversion of others, and for spreading the knowledge of
the truth. But special gifts are conferred on some, accompanied with special
obligations. These constitute a special call to the ministry of the word.

During the Saviour's personal ministry he made many disciples: but he did not
intrust to them equally and indiscriminately the work of spreading the knowledge
of his religion. He sent forth seventy with a special commission to preach the
kingdom of God. He chose the apostles to be his immediate attendants and
special witnesses, and gave them a commission--"Go preach the gospel to every
creature....Go make disciples, teaching them," &c. Preaching and teaching were
prominent and important parts of the service required of them. When Paul was
made an apostle, the commission to him, as explained by himself, was to preach
the gospel: "Christ sent me, not to baptize, but to preach the gospel." The
obligation which he felt to perform this service was beyond that imposed on

ordinary Christians, and was exceedingly pressing: "Necessity is laid upon me;
yea, woe is unto me if I preach not the gospel."(9) With him, to preach the gospel
was not to utter a proclamation in a brief sentence; but at Troas he preached to
a late hour of the night. In his ministry teaching was conjoined with preaching,
and included in it: "Whereunto I am ordained a preacher and an apostle, a
teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity. "(10)

The obligation of particular men to give themselves to the ministry of the word
was intended to be a perpetual arrangement, and not confined to the ministers
appointed by Christ in person. Timothy was specially appointed to this service,
and was commanded, "Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season;
reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with all long suffering and doctrine."(11) "Make full
proof of thy ministry."(12) "Neglect not the gift that is in thee."(13) A special gift
and a special obligation are here clearly recognised, and the duty to be
performed is clearly preaching, in the comprehensive sense in which teaching is
included. Paul had committed the gospel to Timothy; nor was the succession to
cease in him. "The things which thou hast heard of me, the same commit thou to
faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also."(14) Special ability and
special obligation to preach and teach were to be perpetuated in men, separated
to the service from the body of Christ's disciples.

THEIR CALL

The ministers of the word receive a special call from God, directing them to the
service. The Jewish priests were a separate class of people, distinguished from
the rest of the nation by natural descent from Aaron. The Congregation of the
Lord was perpetuated by natural descent; and if the Christian church had been a
continuation of it, we might expect its ministry to be perpetuated in the same
way. But the members of the church are separated from the rest of the world by
a divine call; and it is suitable that the ministers of the church should be
distinguished in the same manner; accordingly, their designation to office is
ascribed to God. "God hath set some in the church, first apostles," &c., and the
qualifications for the work are the special gift of the Spirit.(15)
The Holy Spirit calls to the ministry of the word none but true Christians,
members of Christ's spiritual body. The apostles were chosen to be the personal
attendants of the Saviour, and special witnesses of his daily life and ministry.
Though he knew, from the beginning, the hypocrisy and treachery of Judas
Iscariot, he chose to have a traitor among his witnesses. The blameless
character of the Redeemer extorted, even from this man, the testimony, "I have
sinned, in that I have betrayed the innocent blood." This testimony is of great

value to Christianity. Had Christ been an impostor, had there been a scheme to
deceive the people, Judas must have known it. His testimony, confirmed by his
return of the money with which he had been bribed, and by his suicide, banishes
every suspicion dishonorable to the Saviour. It was therefore wisely ordered that
Judas should be among the apostles. But he was not among them when the last
commission was given, under which we now act. When the Holy Spirit calls men
to the ministry, he bestows on them qualifications for the work, qualifications
both of head and heart. The qualifications of the heart include a sincere desire to
glorify God, and save souls; a desire never felt by the unregenerate. Hence, the
Holy Spirit never makes unregenerate ministers. When such men enter the
sacred office, they, in the language of Paul, are "ministers of Satan."

As true ministers are members of Christ's spiritual body, so their ministry is
intended for its benefit:--"for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the
ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ." Their office pertains to the
spiritual, universal church, of which they are all members. The ministry of some
of them may have a relation also to local churches, placed under their special
charge; but they serve in these for the good of the whole body of Christ.

In Ephesians iv. 11, Paul enumerates the officers whom God set in the church:
"Some apostles, some prophets, some evangelists," &c. Of these the first three
are not confined to local churches, but are ministers of the church universal. This
is apparent, from the words of Paul: "Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you,
and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ, in my flesh, for his
body's sake, which is the church, whereof I am made a minister."(16)

The apostles were, according to the import of the name, persons sent forth. The
term is applied specially to those whom Christ sent forth in person, and who are
called the apostles of Christ. Paul claimed to be an apostle in this sense: "Am I
not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord?"(17) And again: "Paul, an
apostle, not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ."(18) Paul numbered
himself among the witnesses of Christ's resurrection, and the apostles were
chosen to be witnesses of this fact. Peter, when he proposed the election of one
to take the place of Judas, stated the qualifications necessary for an apostle in
this manner: "Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the
time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism
of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be
ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection."(19) These qualifications
cannot now be found in any man living, and therefore the apostolic office has
necessarily ceased.

The name apostle is applied, in another sense, to Barnabas,(20) the companion of
Paul. These two ministers had been sent forth by the Holy Ghost, from Antioch,
to a special work. Barnabas is probably called an apostle, with reference to this
fact; and, in this sense, the term corresponds in signification to our modern
name, missionary. Paul and Barnabas had been sent forth as missionaries, on a
tour of missionary service.

Prophets were persons divinely inspired to make revelation from God, consisting
sometimes in the foretelling of future events. This office was needed, before the
volume of divine revelation was completed. The absence of the prophetic gift in
modern times, demonstrates that the Holy Spirit, who imparts every needful gift,
accounts further revelation unnecessary. The absence of the gift proves the
sufficiency of the Scriptures, and the cessation of the prophetic office.

Evangelists were persons employed in the spread of the gospel. They appear to
have labored in connection with the apostles, to extend the religion of Christ and
plant new churches. They did not need miraculous endowments for their work;
and therefore their office continues to the present time. Every minister of the
word, when he labors, not for the special benefit of a local church, but for the
spread of the gospel, is doing the work of an evangelist.(21) Timothy was
required to do this, though remaining at Ephesus, and laboring for the interest of
that particular church.

A knowledge of gospel truth, an aptness to teach, and a heart moved by the
desire to glorify God in the salvation of souls, are the evidences of a divine call to
the work of the ministry. All these qualifications may exist, in a measure, in
ordinary Christians; and a proportionate obligation accompanies them, to use
them in the Redeemer's service. No church, no minister of the gospel, can, under
a proper influence, forbid the exercise of these gifts, where they exist. Moses
repelled the suggestion to forbid some who prophesied; and said, "Would God
that all the Lord's people were prophets."(22) An active, prudent employment of
the gifts possessed by ordinary Christians, would promote incalculably the
interests of religion; and the restriction of all labor for the spread of the gospel,
and the promotion of piety, to a select few, is greatly detrimental to the cause of
Christ.

But it is still true, that there are some whose gifts for public usefulness rise high
above the rest; and, in bestowing superior qualifications, the Holy Spirit, who
divides to every man severally as he will, has indicated his will that the possessor
of the qualifications should use them for the work of the ministry, for the

edifying of the body of Christ.

The Holy Spirit works harmoniously in all the parts of his operation. He diffuses
one sympathy through all the body of Christ, so that the eye cannot say to the
hand, I have no need of thee. When qualifications for service are imparted by
the Spirit to one member, other members, under the influence of the same
Spirit, welcome its service. Hence, every man who believes alone, that he is
called of God to the ministry, has reason to apprehend that he is under delusion.
If he finds that those who give proof that they honor God and love the souls of
men, do not discover his ministerial qualifications, he has reason to suspect that
they do not exist. The Head of the church has graciously provided, that in the
ordinary course of things, men are able to obtain counsel in this matter, and are
not compelled to act on their individual responsibility. If, in some extraordinary
case, he calls some men to stand alone, as Elijah did, in defence of the truth,
this gives no just plea to others to isolate themselves, and act on their own
responsibility, when circumstances do not demand it. Elijah's proof of a divine
call to the prophetical office consisted wholly in his possession of the prophetical
spirit; but Elisha had the additional proof, that he had been anointed to the office
by Elijah. Such proof, in -ordinary cases, the Holy Spirit has provided for the
ministers of the word; and the use of it is necessary to the success of the
ministry and the order of the churches.

When any one is introduced into the ministry, the highest responsibility, next to
that which he himself sustains, devolves on the ministers with whom he is to
associate as a fellow-laborer. On the ministers a peculiar responsibility rests, to
pray that laborers may be sent into the harvest; and also to seek out and
encourage gifts for the work, and thus continue the succession of laborers. It
was made the special duty of Timothy, to look out faithful men, able to teach
others, that he might commit the ministry of the word to them. It was to the
ministers of the church at Antioch, that the Holy Ghost said, "Separate me Saul
and Barnabas for the work whereunto I have called them;"(23) and the public
designation of them to the work, appears to have been made by these ministers,
doubtless with the concurrence of the church. In this method of procedure, there
is an obvious fitness. It was fit that Elisha should be anointed to the prophetical
office by a prophet. Men whom the Spirit has filled with a burning desire to
preach the gospel, and has qualified for the service, are the most suitable
persons to look out aids in the service, and judge of their fitness. Hence the
obligation was laid on Timothy, already a minister. Hence the duty imposed on
Titus: "For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldst ordain elders in
every city." Hence the instructions respecting the qualifications necessary for
office, are given in the epistles to these ministers, rather than in those to the

churches.

The propriety of ministerial concurrence, in public designation to the ministerial
office, appears from the nature of the case apart from apostolic example. But we
have apostolic example to assist our reasoning. Saul and Barnabas were
solemnly set apart by their brethren in the ministry, with fasting, prayer, and
imposition of hands. In this case, he who was not a whit behind the chief of the
apostles, bent before those who had no pretensions to apostolic authority, that
he might receive the imposition of hands. What a sanction did his act give to the
solemn ceremony, and to the established church order, of which it was a part! If
such solemn services are appropriate in public designation to a particular service
in the ministry, much more are they appropriate when any one enters the
ministry itself. We learn from other Scriptures that such services were
performed. Paul mentions the appointment of Timothy to the ministerial office in
these words: "Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by
prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery."(24)

It has been a question whether the concurrence of a single minister is sufficient
in ordination. We have no explicit instruction on this point. From the instruction
to Titus, it appears that he alone was authorized to ordain elders in every city.
Yet Paul, though a minister of superior authority, did not ordain Timothy alone.
He was the chief agent in the work; and says, "By the putting on of my
hands;"(25) but yet he chose not to act alone, and therefore he says in another
place, "By the laying on of the hands of the presbytery." The concurrence of a
presbytery might not be possible in every city of Crete, where the churches had
been recently planted; but where it was possible, even Paul with his apostolic
authority chose not to act without it. We have, therefore, apostolic example
confirming our reasoning on the subject, that where a presbytery can be
obtained, its concurrence ought to be procured. The minister, who, from the
direction given to Titus, takes it upon himself alone to ordain to the sacred
office, assumes a power which Paul himself did not assume.

The institution of local churches has divine authority, and ought to be respected
by every disciple of Christ. It is the duty of every one to become a member of
some local church, and walk with the other members in love and Christian
obedience. Brethren so connected are bound to exhort one another to diligence
in the duties for which they are severally qualified. The obligation of a member
to labor in the ministry may be recognised by his church, and the church does
not go out of its proper sphere when it exhorts to this duty. Paul directed the
church at Colosse, "Say to Archippus, take heed to the ministry which thou hast
received in the Lord, that thou fulfil it."(26) He did not send the message to

Archippus as from himself, but instructed the church to perform this duty. Such
exhortation to a minister is therefore proper to be given by a church; and it
follows, that a church is not without responsibility as to the question whether its
gifted members are using their gifts as they ought. This responsibility makes the
church a party in ministerial ordination. We have no express declaration that the
church at Antioch concurred in the setting apart of Saul and Barnabas; but it
may be inferred, not only from the tenor of the narrative, but especially from the
fact that these missionaries, on their return, reported their doings to the whole
church.

All the parties concerned in ordination ought to seek the guidance of the Holy
Spirit, and act under his influence. The highest responsibility rests on him who is
entering the sacred office. He should act under a deep sense of his responsibility,
and with a persuasion, the result of prayerful, heart-searching examination, that
he is moved by the Holy Ghost. The presbytery have the next degree of
responsibility. They should be persuaded that the Holy Spirit has called the
candidate to the ministry; and be prepared, under this conviction, the result of
due examination, to receive him as a fellow-laborer with them in the Lord's
service. The lowest degree of responsibility rests on the church; but even this is
solemn and important. The same Spirit dwells in the ministry and in the
churches; and every member is concerned in whatever concerns the spiritual
body of Christ. A hearty concurrence of the church is necessary in the ordination;
and, without it, a presbytery should never act. When a candidate has the
threefold testimony, of his own conscience, of the presbytery, and of the church,
he may proceed to labor in the ministry, with an assurance that he is "sent forth
by the Holy Ghost."

Every step in the process of ordination recognises the principle that a divine call
is necessary to a proper entrance on the ministerial office. The candidate, the
presbytery, the church, all admit it, and act on it. This principle is of great
importance to the preservation of a spiritual and efficient ministry; and it cannot
be neglected, without immense evil to the cause of pure religion. When a father
chooses the ministry as a profession for his son, or when the son chooses it for
himself, as he would choose any other profession, the authority of God is
contemned, and the holy office profaned. If a church should think that they need
a minister, and should conclude to appoint one without regard to a divine call;
and if a presbytery should aid them in accomplishing their purpose; the church
and presbytery together may make a minister; but he will be, if not a minister of
Satan, at the best only a minister of men, and not a minister of Christ.

The divine call is not only indispensable, but it is also complete in itself. The
presbytery do not assemble to complete it, but to signify their concurrence in the
persuasion that it exists. The earliest and the least hurtful form which the
pernicious doctrine of baptismal regeneration assumed, regarded baptism as the
completion of regeneration. It did not make regeneration consist wholly in the
outward ceremony; but it regarded no one, whatever the Holy Spirit may have
effected within him, as fully regenerated, until he had gone through the outward
ceremony. A similar mistake has been made respecting the Holy Spirit's call to
the ministry. The call is supposed to be incomplete, until the outward ceremony
of ordination has been performed. In both cases a distinction should be made,
between what the Spirit does, and what it is the duty of him to do on whom the
Spirit operates. The Spirit regenerates; and it is the duty of the regenerated man
to be baptized. The Spirit calls to the ministry; and it is the duty of the man so
called, to enter on the work of the ministry through all the forms which are
prescribed in the word of God. Why the Holy Spirit permits one whom he has
regenerated to err so far as to neglect baptism; and why he permits one whom
he has called to the ministry to err so far as to neglect both baptism and regular
ordination; I as little understand, as I understand why God permitted sin to enter
the world. The proof of all these facts is irrefragable; and I am compelled to
admit their existence, and believe that God will overrule them for his glory.

OBJECTIONS

0bjection 1.--The doctrine of a special divine call to the ministry, savors of
fanaticism. Such a call was suitable to the day of miracles, but now the grace of
God, like his providence, operates by ordinary means. The Spirit resides in the
church and ministry; and what they do, the Spirit does. To expect any other call
of the Holy Spirit is fanatical.

Had the objection simply maintained that the Holy Spirit uses means, in calling
men to the ministry, the proposition would have been admitted. He uses the
word as a means, in his call of men to repentance and faith; and he uses the
same word in calling men to the work of the ministry. But the objection marks
out another channel in which the spiritual influence is supposed to flow, namely,
the church and the ministry; but how can the necessary qualifications for the
ministry be derived through this channel? If the grace of God now operates by
the use of ordinary means, we know that the word is the ordinary means which
the Holy Spirit employs in illumination and sanctification; and the conclusion is
rational and not fanatical, that the superior illumination and sanctification
necessary for the work of the ministry, are the effect of the same means more
successfully employed, or more abundantly blessed. The laying on of apostolic

hands could confer spiritual gifts in the day of miracles; but ordaining hands
have now no gifts to confer. It is the objection which carries us back to the day
of miracles, and expects effects from causes inadequate to produce them. A
ministry made by outward ordination, without a divine call, is a curse to the
world.

Objection 2.--If a divine call is indispensable to constitute a minister of Christ,
since the call is invisible, we can never know who are true ministers.

The supposed invisibility of religion is presented in various forms of objection. It
makes the church invisible, and the ministry invisible. But in what sense is
religion invisible? The power of gravity is invisible, but we see its effects
everywhere; and we feel it binding us to the earth. The influence of the Spirit is
invisible, but its effects are seen and felt as certainly as the effects of gravity.
The Spirit's call to the ministry is unseen; but the effects of it have been
displayed in the successful conflict which the ministry has waged with the powers
of darkness, and in the victories which it has achieved. The history of the world
testifies that a divine power has wrought in the ministry of the word; and,
wherever the gospel has been faithfully preached, every one has had an
opportunity to observe such effects as demonstrate that the ministry of the word
is the ministry of the Spirit. Why, then, need we, to render the ministry visible,
suppose it to consist in outward form? There is a proper form for the ministry to
assume, but the form may be without the power; and the mere form does not
constitute a minister of Christ. May we not be deceived in this matter? We may.
Ministers of Satan have appeared as ministers of righteousness; and compliance
with external forms is a method by which they recommend themselves. We are
commanded to try the spirits; and this cannot be done by a mere examination of
ordination credentials. An obligation to discriminate otherwise than by ordination
certificate, devolves on every church in the choice of its pastor; and on every
pastor in inviting a minister to preach to the people of his charge.

Objection 3.--If ordination does not make a minister of Christ, and does not
prove a man to be a minister of Christ, it may be dispensed with as useless.

This does not follow. Though it may not accomplish either of these purposes, it
may, nevertheless, be of great utility; and if we were wholly unable to see any
utility in it, yet, as the will of God, we ought to observe it. Men may be Christians
without baptism; and may profess Christ without baptism; but it does not follow,
that baptism is useless. The Head of the church has, in his wisdom, made it the
appointed ceremony for the Christian profession, and so he has made ordination

the appointed ceremony for a regular entrance into the ministerial office. As
every converted man ought to profess Christ by baptism, so every one who has
been called of God to the ministry, ought to enter on the work by ordination. The
proof of the obligation in the latter case, is not so clear from the Holy Scriptures,
as in the former, but it is sufficiently clear to guide our practice.

SECTION II.--ADMINISTRATION OF BAPTISM

The apostles were commissioned to preach, to baptize, and to teach. If the office
held by ordinary ministers were identical with that held by the apostles, there
would be no difficulty in deciding, that it includes the administration of baptism.
But the apostolic office has ceased, and the work assigned to the apostles has
devolved on inferior officers. The apostles could not, in person, preach, baptize,
and teach, in every country of the world, and in every age till the end of time;
but the commission made it their duty to provide for the full performance of this
work; and their apostolic authority, guided by the infallible direction of the Holy
Spirit, enabled them to make all necessary arrangements for carrying it into
effect. Now, we cannot determine, from the commission itself, whether to
preach, to baptize, and to teach, would be assigned, as distinct duties, to three
distinct classes of officers; or whether they would be committed, without
separation, to one class. For information on this point, we are left to inquire into
the instructions given by the apostles by precept and example.

Some have argued, that, because preaching is a more important work than
baptizing, the authority to preach necessarily includes authority to baptize. The
greater, say they, must include the less. But this mode of argument is fallacious.
The whole includes its parts, but the greater does not always include the less. A
high dignitary of the realm may be guilty of usurpation, if he assumes the
functions of an humble official. So, though preaching is a higher office than
baptizing, it does not necessarily include it.

We learn that the Holy Spirit has called men to preach the gospel, by the
qualifications which he has conferred; but we can have no proof of this sort, that
the Holy Spirit has called any one to the work of baptizing. Spiritual qualifications
are not required; and, if we have no other means of knowing, it may remain
doubtful, whether the work may not be done by any one whom the candidate
may select.

Among those who have held that baptism possesses a saving efficacy, it has
often been a matter of pressing importance, to obtain the administration of it, in
case of sickness, when a priest was not at hand. It has been held, that, in case
of necessity, the rite may be administered by laymen, and even by women.
Some persons who are free from such superstitious reliance on the outward
ceremony, have held that any one who makes a disciple, may baptize him.
According to this interpretation of the commission, it would be proper for a
mother, whose instructions have been blessed to the conversion of her son, to
be the administrator of his baptism. But this interpretation is inadmissible. If
some of the work to which the apostles were specially appointed, may, to some
extent, be performed by other persons, it does not follow, that these persons are
invested in full with the apostolic commission.

The commission specifies duties, for the performance of which the apostles were
to provide. One of these was the administration of baptism. They were
commanded, not to make disciples and teach them the duty of being baptized;
but to make disciples and baptize them. The administration of the rite was to be
their care; and, where they could not perform it in their own person, it was made
their duty to provide for its performance. This reasoning proves satisfactorily,
that the administration was not designed to be left to any one whom the
candidate might select; and it is confirmed by the words of Paul: "Christ sent me
not to baptize, but to preach the gospel." These words imply, that Christ had
sent some persons to baptize. The duty was to be performed; and these words,
taken in connection with the fact that John the Baptist and the other apostles
were commanded to baptize, confirm the deduction that the work was to be
done by agents provided.
On the question, whether the administration of baptism is necessarily included in
the commission to preach, or necessarily connected with it, the words of Paul
just quoted, throw some light. The word translated "sent," is the verb from
which the word apostle is derived; and, as used by Paul in this passage, it
imports that Christ had not given to Paul an apostolic commission to baptize, but
to preach the gospel. On comparing the commission given to him, with that
given to the other apostles, the difference in this particular is apparent. This
proves that the offices of preaching and baptizing were not inseparable. Had the
greater included the less, the authority and obligation to baptize were included in
Paul's commission, and he could not have said with literal truth, "Christ sent me
not to baptize." To understand the passage to signify nothing more than that
baptism was a less important part of the work which Paul was authorized to
perform, does not satisfy the literal import of the words, and it is a departure,
without necessity, from the literal interpretation, which is fully sustained by a
comparison of Paul's commission with that of the other apostles. Moreover, the
literal import best agrees with the context, since, according to it, the fact alleged

by Paul cut off, from those whom he had baptized, all plea to claim him on that
account as an apostle for their party leader. If in baptizingthem, he had not
acted as an apostle, the fact gave them no pretext to claim him as a party leader
in that high character. Had Paul's state of mind permitted him to preach on the
next day after Jesus appeared to him, and gave him his commission, he was
authorized to preach; but not to administer baptism. Yet he did afterwards
baptize Crispus, Gaius, and the household of Stephanas; and he must have
obtained authority to do this in some way. In what way? If not by extraordinary
commission, it must have been in the ordinary way, in which others received
authority to baptize. He received the command to be baptized himself, in the
ordinary way, and he honored and obeyed the command. In the same way, he
must have received the authority under which he acted, in the administration of
baptism.

Although baptizing is not necessarily connected with preaching and teaching; yet
the manner in which it is conjoined with them in the commission, appears to
indicate that the connection is suitable. No separate class of officers is anywhere
provided in the New Testament, for administering the rite, and yet, if we have
reasoned correctly, the apostles were under obligation to provide for it. We are
led to the conclusion, that this provision was made, in the ordinary method
instituted for transmitting the ministerial office. Paul had committed the office to
Timothy, in the presence of many witnesses, by the laying on of his hands, and
the hands of the presbytery. Timothy was, in like manner, to commit the office
to others, and enjoin on them the same duties which Paul had enjoined on him.
There was a fitness in the arrangement that this ceremonial induction into office,
should add the ceremonial authority to baptize. It cannot be proved to be given,
in the internal call of the Spirit. It was not given in the extraordinary commission
of Paul. If Paul received it in the ordinary way, whether in his being set apart at
Antioch, or in some similar service at some previous time, we have this point
established:--the authority to administer baptism is conferred in the ordinary
course of the ministerial succession, when an individual, called by the Holy Spirit
to the ministry of the word, is publicly set apart to this service. The process of
reasoning by which we reach this conclusion, is less clear and direct than that
which many other subjects admit; but it is sufficiently clear to determine our
practice, in the absence of explicit instruction from the holy oracles. We have,
moreover, the satisfaction of knowing that this course of procedure has been
generally adopted in the churches which have conformed in their order most
nearly to the Scriptures.

SECTION III.--APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION

We have seen that baptism ought to be administered by an ordained minister of
the word. A question, then, arises before every believer who desires to receive
baptism, "how shall he know who is authorized to administer it?" Some have
thought, that the candidate may lawfully leave the whole responsibility of
deciding this question with the administrator. But, if he knew the administrator
not to be authorized, it would be wrong to receive baptism at his hands; and it
cannot, therefore, be right, to be indifferent to the question whether he is
authorized. Moreover, the conscientious administrator is deeply interested in the
question. He ought not to act without divine authority, and deceive the confiding
disciples, by giving to them for true Christian baptism, that which is but a human
counterfeit. How does he know that he has been duly ordained to perform this
work; that they who ordained him were duly ordained; and that the line of
connection with those who originally received the commission from Christ, has
been unbroken? Is there an obligation, binding on the conscience of every
individual who seeks baptism, and still more binding on the conscience of him
who administers it, to know that his right to administer has been derived by
unbroken succession from the apostles?

There is an intrinsic improbability in the supposition, that the Scripture binds all
who receive the gospel, in every country and every age of the world, to perform
a specified duty; and yet leaves that duty in the dark, so that no one can know
what it is, except by the light of tradition? In a former chapter we applied this
consideration to the question, whether the consciences of men are bound by
Scripture authority to receive the traditionary succession of the Sabbath, as of
like authority with Scripture precepts. The examination then made, discovered
that the divine precept is most wisely given, in a manner which secures all the
ends of the observance, without binding the individual conscience with a
responsibility to which it is unequal, and for which it has not the requisite
knowledge. The precept does not bind men to observe the seventh day of an
unknowable week; and it does not so bind them to the regular succession, that,
if they have lost it by circumnavigating the globe, they can never regain it. If we
find nothing in the Scriptures, when properly interpreted, binding our
consciences to the tradition of the sabbatical observance, we may, from the
analogy, expect to find nothing binding our consciences to the apostolic
succession.

An humble disciple of Christ desirous to obey all his Lord's commands, learns his
duty from the Holy Scriptures, and sees in them the order established in the
primitive churches. He looks around him to discover whether there are churches

like the primitive churches, and ministers preaching and baptizing, like the
primitive ministers. He finds them. The beginning and the end of the succession
appear. The middle of it he sees not; but he knows that the Head of the church
has lived during all the intermediate time, and that he is the God of providence,
and the giver of the Holy Spirit, by whose influence the chain of succession could
be preserved. He feels assured, that, if an unbroken succession is necessary for
any purpose which the Head of the church has in view, he has preserved it. With
this assurance, he proceeds in what appears to him to be the plain path of duty,
the same path in which the ancient saints walked; and he confidently expects
that his obedience will receive his Lord's approbation. Is there anything in the
Scriptures which can prove such reasoning fallacious?

Suppose that at some point in the line the apostolic succession was lost, was it
impossible to re-establish the ancient order; or, in other words, was it impossible
ever afterwards to obey Christ's commands? The Holy Spirit qualifies and calls
persons to preach the gospel, and teach men to observe whatsoever Christ
commanded, and we have seen that this call of the Spirit is complete in itself. In
the case supposed, how could persons called by the Holy Spirit teach men to
observe Christ's commands, if the observance had become impossible? Surely,
the reasoning which infers the impossibility must be fallacious, or the failure of
the succession has never taken place, to disturb the counsels of him who said,
"Lo, I am with you alway, even to the end of the world." Now, whether it be that
the chain has been throughout unbroken, or that the Head of the church has a
method of restoring it, the effect is the same to us. It is ours to do our duty,
according to the light which we possess. This mode of settling the question is
sufficient for all practical purposes.

As a question of mere theory it may be asked, whether a breach in the
succession would render a new revelation necessary. To set aside any command
of Scripture would require a new revelation. But to depart from the order which
Christ has instituted is one thing, and to return to it after having wandered from
it is quite another thing. For the latter we need no new revelation. The wisdom
from above, given by the ordinary influence of the Spirit, is sufficient for such an
emergency, without a miraculous inspiration. If holy men of God have had the
responsibility thrown upon them of returning to the good old path after it had
been deserted, they doubtless sought wisdom from above to direct them, and
the success of their efforts to regain the lost way, is a sufficient assurance to us
that the Lord gave them the necessary wisdom.

But is there any wall built along the wayside to prevent the return of wanderers?
So far as I can see, the whole difficulty is resolvable into the question whether

ministers of the word, called to the work by the Holy Spirit, may, in any case,
perform the full duties of the office without the regular ceremonial induction into
it. According to the view which we have taken, the call of the Spirit is complete
in itself; but the same Spirit teaches the called to respect the order instituted for
ceremonial induction into office. An obligation to respect this order, when it
exists, imposes on them the duty of deferring the exercise of the ceremonial
functions until they have been ceremonially inducted; but in the case supposed
the church order does not exist, and therefore the obligation to defer does not
exist. Their duty is to respect the order when it exists, and to restore it when it
does not. The Head of the church designed that the ministers of the word should
make disciples, baptize them, and teach them to organize churches, to celebrate
the Lord's supper, exercise discipline, and walk in all the commandments and
ordinances of the Lord. The ministers of the word are officers of Christ's spiritual
church, and derive their qualifications and call from the Holy Spirit. Like other
men, they are bound to observe what Christ commanded, and therefore to
regard established church order. But if church order has become prostrate, their
call by the Holy Spirit requires them to restore it, and not to teach that it must
now for ever be neglected.

In the regular course of things, ordination stands at the beginning of the
ministry, as baptism stands at the beginning of the Christian life; but there are
several important particulars in which the two observances differ.

Baptism is enjoined by express precept, ordination is not. Much of the order
instituted by the apostles originated in expediency. The appointment of deacons,
recorded in Acts, chapter vi., is manifestly a case of this kind. Expediency has its
obligation, as well as positive precept; and a question of expediency, decided by
apostolic wisdom, binds us in like circumstances. The community of goods in the
first church does not bind us, because our circumstances are different.
Ordination is expedient, and the observance of it obligatory in the regular order
of things, instituted by the apostles; but it cannot be inferred that it is obligatory
in all circumstances. Nothing in Scripture determines the number of the
presbytery; and if this may be determined by considerations of expediency, the
same expediency may determine that ordination by a presbytery may, in some
extraordinary circumstances, be dispensed with.

All the disciples of Christ, in the primitive times, were required to be baptized;
but all the ministers of Christ were not ceremonially ordained. We have no proof
that the apostles, or the seventy whom Christ sent forth, were thus ordained. No
presbytery was convened in their case, but they were ordained or appointed by
Christ in person. When he baptized disciples, he put the work into the hands of

those who were afterwards to perform it. But his direct call conferred the
ministerial office without human ordination. We have in the New Testament a
much larger number of unordained than of ordained ministers, if imposition of
human hands is necessary to ordination. Saul and Barnabas were so ordained to
a missionary service, and Timothy was so ordained to the work of the ministry,
but who else?

Jesus honored the institution of baptism by receiving it from a human
administrator, but he did not so honor ordination. Among the benefits resulting
to ministers from ordination, an important one is, that they go forth into the
work with the concurrent testimony of the presbytery and the church,
recommending them to all as the ministers of Christ. Jesus was willing to receive
the testimony of John, but of John as his baptizer, not as his ordainer. "That he
should be made manifest," said John, "therefore am I come baptizing."(27) At the
beginning of his ministry, Jesus received baptism from John in the Jordan; and
when he had gone up from the water, and was standing on the bank, his august
ordination took place. The Holy Spirit, by whom his human nature was qualified
for the ministry on which he was entering, descended on him in visible form, and
the voice of the Father audibly pronounced, "This is my beloved Son, in whom I
am well pleased."(28)

From this comparison, it clearly appears that ordination does not come to us
enforced by like obligations to those of baptism. If our doctrine of strict
communion be correct, baptism is a prerequisite to membership in the local
churches; and, since the administration of baptism properly belongs to the
ministers of the word, the local churches are, in this particular, dependent for
their existence on the ministry. Local churches cannot originate the ministry on
which their own existence is dependent. The ministry originated before the local
churches, and might have been perpetuated without them, if the Lord had so
willed. The power from which the ministry originates is not that of the churches,
but of the Head of the Church; and his call to office is the highest authority. John
was sent to preach and baptize, without being baptized or ordained; yet the
evidence of his mission was clear, and the people believed it. Paul was
commissioned to preach the gospel while he was unbaptized and unordained;
and the call was not conditioned on his being afterwards baptized and ordained.
The call was complete and unconditional. He was under obligation to be
baptized, as all other converted persons are; and he discharged this obligation,
as every called minister ought to do; but his call was complete while he was yet
unbaptized and unordained.

In the view which we have taken, the Christian ministry is an institution of
surpassing importance. It does not grow up from the churches, but comes down
from heaven. It is a gift sent down to mankind from the ascended Saviour. After
stating that the exalted Redeemer "gave gifts unto men," Paul proceeds to
enumerate these gifts in the following words: "He gave some, apostles; and
some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers."(29) To
these heaven-bestowed ministers, the Spirit, which qualifies them for their work,
gives testimony. The churches receive the testimony of the Spirit, and, in their
turn, add their testimony; and the ministry and the churches become joint
witnesses for God to the world. Whether these two witnesses have lived during
all the dark period of papal persecution, I leave for others to inquire; but if they
were ever slain, I doubt not that the Spirit of God has reanimated them, and will
enable them to continue their testimony to the end of the world.

SECTION IV.--CHURCH OFFICERS

BISHOPS

The churches should choose, from among the ministers of the word, bishops or
pastors to teach and rule them.

Numerous passages of Scripture speak of persons who bore rule in the churches.
"Obey them that have the rule over you."(30) "The elders that rule well."(31) The
term bishop signifies overseer, and implies authority to rule. Among the
qualifications necessary for a bishop, one was, that he ruleth well his own house;
and the reason assigned is, "If a man know not how to rule his own house, how
shall he take care of the church of God?"(32) It is clear, from this passage, that
the bishops were invested with an authority bearing some analogy to the
authority which the head of a family exercises over his household.

The question has been much discussed, whether the authority of a bishop is
restricted to a single local church. Episcopalians maintain that it extends to the
churches of a large district called a diocese; and that the Scriptural title for the
ruler of a single church, is presbyter or elder. Against this opinion, the following
arguments appear conclusive. The single church at Philippi contained more
bishops than one.(33) The elders of the church at Ephesus are styled overseers or
bishops.(34) Peter addresses elders as persons having the oversight(35) of the

flock, that is, the authority of overseers or bishops. In Paul's epistle to Titus,
after the ordination of elders is mentioned, the qualifications of a bishop(36) are
enumerated; and the connection plainly indicates that elder and bishop were
titles of the same office.

The bishops were the pastors or shepherds of the flock committed to their
charge. The bishops or elders of the church at Ephesus were required to "feed
the flock." The elders whom Peter addressed were commanded to "feed the
flock;" and their office as shepherds is presented to view as subordinate to that
of Christ, "the chief shepherd." Since the churches are to be fed, not with literal
food, but with knowledge and understanding, the office of teaching is included in
that of pastor. Hence a bishop was required to be "apt to teach." In enumerating
church officers, Paul mentions both pastors and teachers. It appears from this
that there were teachers in the primitive churches, who were not invested with
pastoral authority. These were ministers of the word, authorized by the
commission to teach the observance of all Christ's commands, but not authorized
to rule. The ministers of the word are officers of the universal church, but, as
such, they have no authority to rule in the local churches. This authority belongs
to the pastors or bishops.

The ruling authority of a pastor is peculiar in its kind. Though bearing some
analogy to that of a father in his family, or of a governor in civil society, it differs
from these. Christ distinguished His rule from that of earthly kings by the
absence of coercion: "If my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants
fight."(37) So the spiritual rulers under Christ have no coercive power over the
persons or property of those under their authority. A well marked distinction
between their authority and that which is exercised by civil rulers, is drawn in
these words of Christ: "Ye know that the princes of the gentiles exercise
dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them. But it
shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be
your minister; and whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your
servant."(38) Another peculiarity of their rule is that they cannot govern at their
own will. This would be to act as lords over God's heritage. Such power, if
exercised by them, is a usurpation, and does not legitimately belong to their
office. The only rule which they have a right to apply is that of God's word; and
the only obedience which they have a right to exact, is voluntary. The civil ruler
is armed with the sword, and coerces obedience. Zion's King has put no carnal
weapons into the hands of church rulers, and all coercion is inconsistent with the
nature of the authority intrusted to them. No submission to the Lord is
acceptable but that which is voluntary; and the same kind of submission which
the ancient Christians rendered to the Lord, they rendered to their spiritual
rulers:--"They first gave their own selves unto the Lord and unto us by the will of

God."(39)

The surrender of their property was voluntary. Peter's address to Ananias and
Sapphira proves, that this was true, even in the general surrender which was
made by the first church; and it is clear that the contributions afterwards made
by the churches, were made not of constraint but willingly. They who claim or
indirectly exercise a coercive power over the property of church-members, are
taking the oversight for filthy lucre's sake, and have no sanction from the
authority of Christ, or the example of his apostles.

Since the obedience of churches cannot be coerced, no one can begin or
continue the exercise of spiritual rule over them, but at their will. Hence their
bishops must be persons of their own choice. The apostles, though all collected
at Jerusalem, and invested with full power from on high to do all that
appertained to their office, did not appoint even the inferior officers of the
church until after they had been chosen by the whole multitude of the disciples.
In this procedure they recognised and established the right of the churches to
elect their own officers. Even the appointment of an apostle to take the place of
Judas appears to have been made by popular vote: and much more ought that
of bishops over the several churches. The Greek word rendered ordain in Acts
xiii. 48, signifies to stretch out the hand, and is supposed to refer to the mode of
popular election by the lifting up of the hand; but, whether this criticism be just
or not, the proof that church officers were so elected is sufficient without the aid
of this passage.

Because the bishops must labor in word and doctrine, as well as rule, the
churches should elect them from the ministers of the word. As they have no right
to coerce the churches, so the churches have no right to coerce their acceptance
of office. The relation must be voluntarily entered into by both parties. This
voluntariness on the part of ministers is necessary to the proper exercise of their
office: "Not of constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready
mind."(40) The minister cannot coerce a support from the church, but God has
ordained that they who preach the gospel should live of the gospel.(41) The duty
of a church to support its pastor is clearly taught in the word of God; and
without the performance of this duty on their part, they have no right to expect
his services; and they, in a manner, put it out of his power to render them.

DEACONS

Deacons should be chosen by the churches, from among their members, to
minister in secular affairs.

By apostolic direction, the church at Jerusalem chose from among themselves
seven men, honest, and of good report, who were appointed to serve tables.
This measure originated in the expediency, that the apostles might give
themselves to the word of God and prayer. The same expediency requires that
pastors should be relieved from secular burdens, and be left to the spiritual
service of the church. We know that deacons existed in the church at Philippi;(42)
and directions were given to Timothy respecting the qualifications necessary for
the deacon's office. These facts authorize the conclusion, that the deacon's office
was designed to be perpetual in the churches. The mode of appointment should
conform to the example of the first church. The persons should be chosen by
popular vote, and invested with office by ministerial ordination.

Some have thought that deacons, as well as bishops, are called elders in the
Scripture. We read of bishops and deacons in connection, but never of elders
and deacons;--of the ordination of elders,(43) without the mention of deacons,
when deacons were needed as well as bishops; and of contributions sent to the
elders at Jerusalem,(44) after the deacons had been appointed, who were the
proper officers to receive and disburse them. It is argued, moreover, that the
distinction which appears to be made, in 1 Tim. v. 17, between preaching and
ruling elders, naturally suggests that the ruling elders were the deacons of the
primitive churches.

In the Presbyterian church, a distinct class of officers exists, called ruling elders.
The only Scripture authority claimed for this office, is the text last referred to.
This text, however, does not distinguish between different classes of officers, but
between different modes of exercising the same office. The word rendered
"labor," signifies to labor to exhaustion. Not the elder who merely rules, is
accounted worthy of double honor, but the elder who rules well; and the special
honor is not due to the elder, as merely invested with the office of ministering in
word and doctrine, but as laboring therein--laboring to exhaustion. Thus
interpreted, the text furnishes no authority for Presbyterian lay elders; and no
argument for supposing that deacons are called elders.

The other arguments to prove that the deacons were included in the eldership of
the primitive churches, are not without plausibility, but they are not conclusive;
and they are opposed by the facts, that all the elders of the church at Ephesus
are called bishops; that all the elders addressed by Peter are said to have the

oversight or episcopal office; and that the elders whom Titus was to appoint
appear to have been all bishops, inasmuch as the qualifications for the deacon's
office are not subjoined to those which are described as necessary for the other
office.

Among the qualifications of the deacons' office, it is not required that they
should be apt to teach; and they are therefore not appointed to act as public
teachers of the word: but other qualifications are mentioned, which indicate, that
they are expected to be forward in promoting the spiritual interests of the
church. An obligation to do this rests on every member; and deacons are not
released from it by their appointment to minister in secular affairs. Instead of
becoming immersed in secularity, they are expected, by the proper exercise of
their office, to purchase to themselves a good degree, and great boldness in the
faith.(45) If deacons were everywhere active in holding up the hands of the
pastors, as Aaron and Hur held up the hands of Moses, the prosperity of the
churches would be greatly advanced, and the success of the gospel far more
abundant.
1. 2 Cor. v. 18.
2. 2 Cor. vi. 3.
3. 2 Cor. iii. 6.
4. 1 Tim. i. 12.
5. Eph. iii. 8.
6. 1 Cor. xii. 29.
7. 1 John v. 19.
8. Eph. iv. 12, 13.
9. 1 Cor. ix. 16.
10. 1 Tim. ii. 7.
11. 2 Tim. iv. 2.
12. 2 Tim. iv. 5.
13. 1 Tim. iv. 14.

14. 2 Tim. ii. 2.
15. 1 Cor. xii. 11.
16. Col. i. 24, 25.
17. 1 Cor. ix. 1.
18. Gal. i. 1
19. Acts i. 21, 22.
20. Acts xiv. 14.
21. 2 Tim. iv. 5.
22. Num. xi. 29
23. Acts xiii. 2.
24. 1 Tim. iv. 14.
25. 2 Tim. i. 6.
26. Col. iv. 17.
27. John i. 31.
28. Matt. iii. 17.
29. Eph. iv. 8, 11.
30. Heb. xiii. 17.
31. 1 Tim. v. 17.
32. 1 Tim. iii. 4, 5.
33. Phil. i. 1.
34. Acts xx. 28.
35. 1 Peter v. 2.
36. Titus i. 5, 7.

37. John xviii. 36.
38. Matt. xx. 25-27.
39. 2 Cor. viii. 5.
40. 1 Peter v. 2.
41. 1 Cor. ix. 14.
42. Phil. i. 1.
43. Acts xiv. 23.
44. Acts xi. 30.
45. 1 Tim. iii. 13.
CHAPTER IX

DISCIPLINE

SECTION I.--ADMISSION OF MEMBERS

The churches should admit baptized believers to membership.

A properly organized church consists of disciples who have professed their faith
in Christ by baptism. Hence, such persons only should be admitted to
membership. Unity and brotherly love require that all should be lovers of Christ;
and love ought to be manifested by obedience: but Christ is not obeyed, if his
command, directing the mode of Christian profession, is not obeyed.

Each church for itself has the responsibility of admitting to its own membership.
A single church may exclude from its own fellowship, as in the case of the
incestuous member excommunicated by the church at Corinth; and the power to
exclude implies the power to admit. The pastor has not the power; nor is it
possessed by any ecclesiastical judicatory except the church itself. The church is
bound to exercise the power of admitting to membership, in subjection to the

revealed will of Christ; and is, therefore, prohibited from receiving any who do
not possess the requisite qualifications.

In order that the church may judge whether a candidate is duly qualified for
membership, they should hear his profession of faith. He is bound to let his light
shine before all men, to the glory of God; and it is specially needful that they
should see it, with whom he is to be associated in fellowship as a child of light.
He is bound to be ready always to give an answer to every one that asketh the
reason of the hope that is in him;(1) and especially should he be ready to answer,
on this point, those who are to receive him into their number, as called in one
hope of their calling. He is bound to show forth the praise of him who has called
him out of darkness into his marvellous light; and he should rejoice to say,
"Come and hear, all ye that fear God, and I will declare what he hath done for
my soul."(2)

The churches are not infallible judges, being unable to search the heart; but they
owe it to the cause of Christ, and to the candidate himself, to exercise the best
judgment of which they are capable. To receive any one on a mere profession of
words, without any effort to ascertain whether he understands and feels what he
professes, is unfaithfulness to his interests, and the interests of religion. In
primitive times, when persecution deterred from profession, and when the Spirit
operated in a more visible manner, the danger of mistake was less; but even
then, all who professed were not received. John the Baptist rejected some from
baptism, who did not bring forth fruits meet for repentance. They who are unfit
for baptism, are unfit for church-membership.

To preserve unity in the church, the admission of a member should be by
unanimous vote. Harmony and mutual confidence are necessary to the peace
and prosperity of a church; and, if these are to be disturbed by the admission of
a new member, it is far better, both for him and the church, that his admission
should be deferred, until it can be effected without mischief.

Admission to membership belongs to churches; but admission to baptism
belongs properly to the ministry. A single minister has the right to receive to
baptism, on his own individual responsibility; as is clear from the baptism of the
eunuch by Philip, when alone. But when a minister is officiating as pastor of a
church, it is expedient that they should unite their counsels in judging of a
candidate's qualifications; but the pastor ought to remember, that the
responsibility of receiving to baptism is properly his. The superior knowledge
which he is supposed to possess, and his office as the shepherd of the flock, and

the priority of baptism to church-membership, all combine to render it necessary
that he first and chiefly should meet this responsibility, and act upon it in the
fear of the Lord.

SECTION II.--SPIRITUAL IMPROVEMENT

The churches should labor incessantly, to promote brotherly love in their
members, and increased devotion to the service of God.

The spirit of unity pervades Christianity, and tends to bring the disciples of Christ
into association with one another. Under the influence of this tendency, churches
are formed; and in them an opportunity is given for the display of brotherly love.
By the display, Christ is honored, and the world become convinced that his
religion is divine. For the sake of Christ, therefore, and for the sake of the world,
every church should labor to promote brotherly love.

The churches are the glory of Christ, not only in the brotherly love which they
exhibit, but in their purity and devotion to the service of God. They are but small
and temporary associations; yet they may reflect the glory of Christ to the view
of an admiring world, as pure dew-drops reflect the brightness of the sun. So to
honor Christ, should be the constant effort of the churches; and to effect this,
care should be exercised over the spirituality of every member. The pastor
should devote himself, with incessant toil and prayer, to the spiritual good of his
flock; the deacons should unite their efforts with his for the attainment of the
great end; and the members should watch over one another, exhort one
another, and provoke one another to love and good works.

God has given the Christian ministry for the edification of his people; and every
church ought to avail itself of this divine gift, and use it to the best advantage.
For this purpose, the minister should be supported by cheerful contributions from
the members of the church, that he may devote himself to the promotion of their
spiritual interests. He should be encouraged in every possible way to diligence
and fidelity in his duties. His imperfections should be treated with tenderness;
and if, at any time, he should become remiss in his work, or turn aside from it to
secular pursuits, the church ought, in gentleness and love, to address him with
such language as Paul directed to be used to Archippus.(3) But such an address
cannot be made with good effect by a church which does not sustain its minister,

and free him from the necessity of worldly care.

Punctual attendance on the ministrations of the word, is necessary to the
spiritual improvement of the church. It is necessary to encourage the heart of
the minister. He cannot be expected to preach with earnestness and persevering
zeal, if his people manifest no pleasure in listening to the truth which he
proclaims. Let him know that they drink in the word with delight, that their souls
are refreshed by it, and that it greatly increases their fruitfulness in holiness;
with this knowledge, he will be stimulated to go forward in his work with
boldness, and to endure all his toils with the sustaining assurance that his labor
is not in vain in the Lord.

Regular attendance on the ministrations of the word is necessary, that the
hearers may grow in grace and in the knowledge of Christ. Food is not more
necessary to the body, than spiritual nourishment is to the soul; and the word is
the appointed means of spiritual nourishment. It is the sincere milk, which babes
in Christ desire, and by which they are nourished; and it is the strong meat,
which they can use profitably who have attained to mature age in the divine life.
Nor can spiritual health be expected, if the spiritual nourishment which God has
provided, be received at far distant and irregular intervals. A regular return of
one day in seven has been wisely appointed by the great Author of our being,
who knows our frame, and perfectly understands what is best for the promotion
of our highest interests. They who neglect this provision of his benevolence,
reject the counsel of God against themselves, and bring spiritual leanness on
their souls.

It is not enough to receive the spiritual food, but it ought to be inwardly
digested. The truth which is heard on the sabbath, ought to be a subject of
meditation through the week; and its influence should bring the actions, the
words, the thoughts, even the very imaginations into obedience to the gospel of
Christ. Thus the process of spiritual nutrition will be carried on, until the next
sabbath brings another supply of the heavenly food. Thus the soul will grow in
strength, and attain the stature of spiritual manhood.

Besides the public ministrations of the word, other means of promoting religious
knowledge ought to receive the attention and support of the churches. The study
of the Bible ought to be encouraged, whether by individuals, by Bible classes, or
by Sunday schools. It is a great fault if the work of instructing is entirely given up
to the young. Let the heads which have grown gray in the service of the Lord,
bow with pleasure to impart instruction to the opening minds of the rising

generation, and sow in this promising soil the seed which will produce a rich
harvest, when the gray-haired instructor shall have gone to his eternal reward.
Let the circulation of good religious books and periodical publications be
promoted, and a spirit of religious inquiry be fostered in every proper way. Let
men be taught, both by the words and the deeds of those who claim to be
Christ's, that religion is the chief concern.

The health of the body requires exercise as well as food; so spiritual action is
necessary for the health of the soul. Churches should exhort their members to be
diligent in every good work, not only for the benefit of those around them, but
also for their own spiritual improvement. In this course of active service, their
own souls will become strong in the Lord, and their personal experience will
verify the words of Christ, "It is more blessed to give than to receive." The great
work which demands the energy of all God's people, is the spread of religion.
Every church-member should labor for this by his personal efforts within the
sphere of his individual influence, and, by co-operating with others, to extend the
blessings of the gospel to every part of the earth. The precise mode of cooperating, the word of God does not prescribe; as it does not prescribe the
precise mode in which the church-members shall travel to their place of public
worship. But the thing to be done is prescribed; and, if the heart is in the Lord's
work, it will employ its energies in devising the best method of accomplishing it,
and in laboring to effect the object with prayerful reliance on the divine blessing.
The gospel is to be preached to every creature; and he who loves Christ ought to
feel a holy pleasure in helping those to execute the will of Christ who are willing,
at his command, to bear the word of salvation to the perishing. Union in religious
effort, not only promotes the spiritual growth of individual Christians, but it also
conduces greatly to the harmony of churches. When coldness in religion prevails,
the members of a church are like pieces of metal, which are not only separate
from each other, but may be employed to inflict blows on each other; but when
spiritual warmth has melted them, they flow together and become one. Feuds
and unprofitable controversies cease when men are actively engaged in the
service of God, and when they strive to provoke one another to nothing but love
and good works.

Prayer meetings are an important means of spiritual improvement. It has been
said that the prayer meeting of a church is the thermometer by which its spiritual
temperature may be known. When Christians love to meet, that they may pour
forth their united supplications to the throne of grace, the Saviour, in fulfilment
of his promise, meets with them, and bestows blessings which infinitely
transcend all earthly good, and are a beginning of heavenly bliss.

SECTION III.--EXCOMMUNICATION

The right to excommunicate belongs to the church, without any appeal.

This is clear from the words of Christ: "If he will not hear the church, let him be
to thee as an heathen man and a publican." That it is not the province of a
minister to excommunicate is clear from the instructions of Paul to the church at
Corinth.(4) If ministers had a right to excommunicate, Paul, with his high
apostolic authority, would have exercised the right himself, or would have
directed to the clerical tribunal by which the right was to be exercised. But he
instructed the church to do the work, and, therefore, to the church it properly
belonged. The punishment was to be inflicted, not by the officers of the church,
but by the whole church assembled together with the power and presence of
Christ, and the act performed is called the punishment inflicted by many.(5)
Some, because the word rendered "many" in the passage is in the comparative
degree, have interpreted it by the majority, but whether this be its import or not,
it seems to imply that the sentence was passed by popular vote.

The obligation to exclude unworthy persons from church-fellowship, is taught in
various passages of Scripture. "Therefore put away from among yourselves that
wicked person."(6) "A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition,
reject."(7) "Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus
Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly,
and not after the tradition which he received of us."(8) "If any man obey not our
word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may
be ashamed."(9) "Now, I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions
and offences, contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid
them."(10)

In excommunication, regard should be had, not only to the glory of God, but to
the good of the offender. This appears from the words of Paul: "For the
destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved."(11) The happy result of this
excommunication, the only one which is particularly recorded in the history of
the New Testament churches, is a strong encouragement to the exercise of
faithful discipline. It has been remarked, that when discipline leaves a church,
Christ goes with it.

1. 1 Pet. iii. 15.
2. Ps. lxvi. 16.
3. Col. iv. 17.
4. 1 Cor. v. 4, 5.
5. 2 Cor. ii. 6.
6. 1 Cor. v. 13.
7. Titus iii. 10.
8. 2 Thes. iii. 6.
9. 2 Thes. iii. 14.
10. Rom. xvi. 17.
11. 1 Cor. v. 5.
CHAPTER X

MISCELLANEOUS TOPICS

SECTION I.--EXPEDIENCE OF THE SCRIPTURAL CHURCH ORDER

Our obligation to observe the positive precepts of religion is dependent entirely
on the revealed will of the Lawgiver. It does not follow, however, that they are
without reason, but only that the reason for them is beyond the discovery of
human wisdom. After the divine wisdom has instituted them, we may be able to
discover their fitness to accomplish the purpose for which they were designed,
and may become sensible that they are necessary to the order and harmony of
God's arrangements. In this manner the expedience of obeying positive precepts
may sometimes be clearly seen by the intelligent student of God's will; but where
we are unable to walk by sight, we ought to walk by faith in the way of God's
commandments, and to feel assured, in every instance, that to obey God in all
things is always most expedient.

Throughout the preceding discussions, we have endeavored to fix our eyes
steadily on the divine precepts, and to strengthen ourselves in the purpose of
obeying implicitly, even when no reason for the requirement is discoverable; but
now, at the close of our investigations, it will be profitable to take another view
of the church order which we have deduced from the Holy Scriptures in respect
of its expedience.

A fundamental doctrine, in the system of church order which we have deduced
from the Scriptures, is, that genuine piety is necessary to church membership. If
this doctrine had been steadfastly maintained from the times of the apostles, the
corruption which overspread the churches would have been prevented, and the
papal apostasy would never have occurred. The admission of unconverted
members opened the door to every evil, and ultimately subjected the churches to
the spirit that worketh in the children of disobedience. The reformation by Luther
corrected many abuses, but this chief inlet of mischief it did not close. Hence the
reformed churches do not exhibit the purity, devotion, and zeal which
characterized the churches of primitive times. We need a more thorough
reformation. We need to have the axe laid at the root of the trees, and this is
done when none are admitted to church-membership but persons truly
converted. The doctrine which excludes all others establishes the value and
necessity of vital religion, and it is therefore of the utmost importance to the
interests of the church, and of the world.

Immense mischief has resulted from the ambition of the clergy. This raised the
Roman pontiff to his high seat of power, and his adherents are actuated by the
same spirit. To counteract its influence, Christ commanded his disciples, "Be ye
not called Rabbi, for one is your Master, even Christ, and all ye are brethren."(1)
The doctrine of equality among the ministers of Christ is at war with clerical
ambition, and a steadfast maintenance of it would have effectually barred out
the Man of Sin, and it would now demolish the Roman hierarchy, and teach
haughty prelates the need of Christian humility.

The ambition of the clergy needs a combination of the churches to sustain it. The
doctrine that every church is an independent body, and that no combination of
the churches is authorized by Christ, opposes their schemes for ecclesiastical
preferment. It makes the pastors or bishops equal, and allows no other
preference than that which is due to superior piety and usefulness.

The independence of the churches, and the democratic form of church
government, appeal strongly to individual responsibility, and have, therefore, a

powerful tendency to promote holiness among the lay members. Every man feels
that the cause of Christ is in some measure committed to him. The church is not
a body intermediate between him and Christ, and charged with the exclusive
responsibility of glorifying Christ; but he himself is in part the church, and to him
belongs the obligation of honoring his divine Master. This doctrine of individual
responsibility unites with the doctrine of a converted church-membership, to
render the churches the glory of Christ.

Enough has been said to direct the view of the thoughtful reader to the
excellence of the Scriptural church order. In what remains of this section we
shall consider some objections against the doctrine of church independence.

Objection 1.--The independent form of church government does not allow
sufficient influence to the ministerial office. Learned divines may be outvoted by
ignorant laymen; and pastors, who ought to rule their flocks, may have their
peace and reputation destroyed by their churches, without any right of appeal.

The objection supposes some other than moral power to be needful for
ministers. A man whose piety and call of God to the ministry are unquestionable;
who gives full proof to those among whom he ministers that he seeks their
highest good, and who serves a people that esteem him highly for his work sake;
has an influence over them which is almost unbounded. He comes to them in the
name of God, and they perceive that his instruction and precepts are drawn from
the word of God. He addresses them with reference to the eternal world; and
they realize that he and they are soon to stand together before God. The
authority of God, and the momentous interests of the eternal world, give weight
to every word which he utters; the powers of their minds bend under its
influence. Such a minister as this has so swayed the hearts of Christian men,
that martyrdom has had no terrors for them. They have defied the cruel rage of
tyrants; and have faced popular fury undaunted. Is not this influence great
enough for any minister to wield? Would the objection substitute for it a part of
the tyrant's power which it has overcome? The apostles, on the day of Pentecost,
were endued with power from on high; but it was not the power of coercion.
God's truth, and a holy life, have rendered the ministry invincible; and the
minister who asks for other power, mistakes the nature of his office.

It is alleged, that a learned divine may be outvoted by ignorant laymen; and
what then? Do truth and holiness lose their power, by being outvoted? The
learned divine may be in the wrong; or he may arrogantly claim a deference to
which he is not entitled. In this case, to give him governing power would be a

sad remedy for the supposed evil. Perhaps he is in the right, and possesses the
meekness and gentleness of Christ. In this case, he will teach us how to answer
the objection now before us. He will choose in meekness to instruct those that
oppose themselves, rather than prevail over them by authority. It may be that
they mean well, but need information. The remedy is, to give them the
information needed. This is far better, than to deny them the power of thinking
and acting. Possibly they may be evil and designing men. If so, they ought not to
be in the church. It is certainly not wise to retain them in the church, and seek to
render them harmless by depriving them of influence in the church; especially if
we are obliged, at the same time, to make all the good lay members of the
church equally powerless.

Among the relations in human society, that of a godly pastor to the flock of his
charge, is one of the most prolific in blessings. While he points to heaven in his
instructions, and leads them in the way by his example, they listen with
reverence, and imitate with the affection of children. It is not enough to say, that
his happiness and reputation are safe in their hands. They are a wall of defence
around him; and a source of purest and sweetest enjoyment. But the benefits of
this relation result from the moral tie that binds the parties. They spring out of
brotherly love, which flows spontaneously from renewed hearts, and unites them
in the service of their common Lord. Substitute for this the mere tie of official
relation, and the garden of the Lord becomes a parched desert. When a pastor
seeks defence from his people, by entrenching himself in official authority, or
appealing to a higher tribunal, there is a radical evil which needs some other
remedy.

We concede that the independent form of church government is not adapted to
ungodly pastors, and unconverted church-members. It is suited to those only,
who are bound together in brotherly love, and are striving together to glorify
God, and advance the cause of truth and righteousness. For such persons Christ
instituted it; and all the objections to which it is liable, find their occasion in the
depravity of men. Church government was never designed to be a remedy for
human depravity. It was designed for men whom the Holy Spirit has sanctified;
and the wisdom which would adapt it to men of a different character, is not from
above.

Objection 2.--Designing men have it in their power to mislead the people; and
the evil which results cannot be prevented, if there is no high tribunal to which
demagogues are amenable.

The prevention and cure of this evil are not to be sought in the establishment of
a high ecclesiastical court; but in the illumination and sanctification of the
people. Wisdom and benevolence unite in recommending, that men's minds be
fortified against seducers, by being well instructed in the truth; and the
expedient of restraining the seducer by high ecclesiastical authority, does not
secure the highest possible good. Besides, we have no assurance that the
tribunal will be uncorrupt. The same power that claims to restrain a seducer,
may restrain a reformer whom God has raised up to bring men back to the right
way. It is far better to oppose error with the truth and the demonstration of the
Spirit, than with ecclesiastical authority.

Objection 3.--The independent churches have no bond of union and strength;
and no means of preventing division.

Love is the bond of perfectness, which unites true members of Christ. When this
golden bond is wanting, a band of iron, forged by ecclesiastical authority, may
fasten men to each other; but it will not be in the fellowship of the gospel. A
want of fellowship in a church, is a disease preying on the spiritual strength of
the body; and it is better that it should be seen and felt, until the proper remedy
is applied, than that it should be concealed by an outward covering of
ecclesiastical forms. When mere organization supplies the union and strength on
which we rely, we shall cease to cultivate the unity of the Spirit, and to trust the
power of truth. The objection, therefore, is unfounded. What it accounts a fault,
is in reality a high excellence of the church order taught in the Scripture, and
demonstrates that it originated in the wisdom of God.

SECTION II.--FELLOWSHIP BETWEEN CHURCHES

A happy intercourse might subsist between the churches, if they were all walking
in the Spirit, sound in faith, correct in order, and careful in discipline. Such a
state of things existed, to a great extent, in apostolic times. Christian men
passed from one country to another, and found, in every place, that those who
professed the name of Christ were of one heart and one soul. The members of
one local church were, in general, welcomed to the fellowship of every other
church.

But the relation between different local churches, is not such as to bind each
church to receive the ministers and members of every other church. This
obligation was not felt even in the days of the apostles. John commanded, "If
there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your
house; neither bid him God speed."(2) These teachers of false doctrine were
probably members of some local church, which, like the church at Pergamos,
tolerated error;(3) but their membership did not entitle them to universal respect
and confidence. Some have regarded each local church, as acting for the whole
body of the faithful; and have inferred that its acts are binding on every other
church. But this opinion is inconsistent with the true doctrine of church
independence, and with the separate responsibility of individuals and churches.
When churches do their duty, the recommendation of a minister or member from
one church will, like the recommendation given to Apollos,(4) introduce him to the
affections and confidence of other churches; but no recommendation of an
unworthy person can bind the consciences of those who know his true character.
Free intercourse and mutual confidence between the churches is very desirable,
and every one should labor to promote it; but purity of doctrine and practice
should never be sacrificed to effect it.

For the promotion of Christian fellowship, every one should require more of
himself than of his brother. We may lawfully tolerate in others what we cannot
tolerate in ourselves, or cannot approve. Some degree of toleration must be
exercised, if imperfect Christians dwell together harmoniously in the fellowship of
a local church. Such toleration the local churches are bound to exercise towards
each other. Some things in the discipline of one church may not be approved by
a neighboring church; but it does not follow, that their kind intercourse with each
other must be disturbed. Each must act for itself, and not claim to bind the
other. But when a church becomes corrupt in faith or practice, neighboring
churches are bound to withdraw their fellowship.

SECTION III.--IMPOSITION OF HANDS

The laying on of hands is sometimes mentioned in Scripture, when something is
intended different from mere form or ceremony. Hands were laid on Queen
Athaliah, that she might be put to death.(5) Nehemiah threatened to lay hands on
those who violated the sabbath;(6) and in the same sense, it is said when they
sought to lay hands on Jesus, they feared the multitude.(7) But imposition of
hands is also mentioned as a significant form or ceremony. It was used: 1. To
represent the transfer of guilt to the victims which were offered in sacrifice.(8) 2.

To represent the transfer of authority, as from Moses to Joshua.(9) 3. As a form
of benediction, sometimes accompanied with prayer.(10) 4. To confer the Holy
Spirit;(11) and 5. To ordain to the ministerial office.(12)

The practice has prevailed in many churches, for the pastor to lay his hands on
those who have been recently baptized, accompanying the act with prayer to
God on their behalf. No command of Scripture enjoins this ceremony. Hands
were laid on those who had been baptized in the times of the apostles, to impart
the Holy Spirit; but this was done by the apostles only; and when Cornelius, and
they who were with him, had received the Holy Spirit previous to their baptism,
the apostle Peter omitted to lay hands on them afterwards.

In solemn consecration to ministerial service, other hands than those of apostles
were sometimes laid on the persons ordained. In the case which occurred at
Antioch,(13) the only apostle present was one of the persons on whom hands
were laid. It follows that this was not done to impart the gift of the Holy Spirit,
which appears to have been conferred by the apostles only. In the ordination of
Timothy, other persons besides Paul, who are called "the presbytery," were
concerned in the imposition of hands. These facts justify the conclusion, that the
imposition of hands by ordinary ministers is, according to primitive usage, a
proper ceremony in ordination to the ministerial office.
The meaning of the injunction to Timothy, "Lay hands suddenly on no man,"(14)
is not perfectly clear. It is not probable that it refers to literal force. As directing
the use of a significant form, its most probable reference is to ministerial
ordination. So understood, the injunction furnishes strongly corroborative proof,
that imposition of hands was the proper ceremony for setting apart to the sacred
office.

SECTION IV.--REBAPTISM

MAY BE NECESSARY

A believer who has, at some time, received sprinkling for baptism, is not freed
from the obligation to be immersed, in obedience to Christ's command. In this
case the immersion cannot, with propriety, be called rebaptism. But if an

individual should be immersed in infancy, according to the usage of the Greek
Church, this fact would not release him from the obligation to be re-immersed,
on his becoming a believer in Christ. On the cases which have been mentioned,
no doubt or diversity of practice exists among those who adhere strictly to the
precepts of Christ.

But other cases occasionally present themselves, the decision of which is
attended with difficulty. The most common are the following: 1. Men who were
once baptized on profession of faith, and afterwards turned away from Christ,
sometimes return with proofs of recent conversion. 2. Men who have been
immersed by Pedobaptist ministers, or by unworthy Baptist ministers, sometimes
present themselves for rebaptism, or for admission into a church. On these two
cases, the question arises, is rebaptism necessary according to the Holy
Scriptures?

WHO MUST DECIDE

In deciding the question, the first responsibility devolves on the candidate. He is
bound to make a baptismal profession of faith, according to the revealed will of
Christ; and if he has not properly complied with his duty, the obligation to obey
rests on him

A responsibility is brought on the administrator, to whom the candidate may
apply for rebaptism. It is clear from the Scriptures, that, in ordinary cases,
baptism was designed to be administered but once; and the administrator, as a
servant of Christ, is bound to decide, in the fear of God, whether the case before
him justifies a repetition of the rite.

Besides the two parties that have been named, and that have the immediate
responsibility in the case, the church to which an individual of doubtful baptism
may apply for membership, has the responsibility of judging whether his baptism
has fulfilled the divine command. If baptism is a prerequisite to membership, the
church is not at liberty to throw the entire responsibility of the question on the
candidate or the administrator.
It has sometimes happened, that ministers have differed in their views; and a
candidate, whom one minister has refused to rebaptize, has been rebaptized by
another. In such cases, no breach of fellowship between the ministers occurs;
nor ought it to be allowed. In like manner, a difference of opinion may exist

between churches; and one church may admit without rebaptism, when another
church would require it. This difference should not disturb the kind intercourse
between the churches. But if the individual who has been received without
rebaptism, should seek to remove his membership to the church that deems
rebaptism necessary, the latter church has authority, as an independent body, to
reject him.

Though some difference of opinion on these questions does exist, and ought to
be tolerated, yet every one should strive to learn his duty respecting them, by a
diligent study of the Holy Scriptures. The directions of the inspired word are
clear, so long as men keep in the prescribed way; but when they have wandered
from it, no surprise should be felt if the method of return is not so clearly pointed
out. Hence it arises that men who interpret the express precepts of Christ alike,
may, in applying them to perplexing cases, differ in their judgment. In what
follows I shall give my views, with deference to those whose investigations have
led them to a different conclusion.

FIRST CASE

The first case supposes that there was in the previous baptism a mistake
respecting the qualifications of the candidate.

Baptism was designed to be the ceremony of Christian profession. If, in the first
baptism, the candidate believed himself to be a Christian, and received baptism
on a credible profession of faith in Christ, no higher qualification can be obtained
for a second baptism. They to whom the administration of the rite has been
committed, do not possess the power to search the heart. A credible profession
of faith, sincerely made, is all that fallible men can expect; and, since the
ordinance has been committed to fallible men, it is duly administered on sincere
and credible profession.

Some confirmation of this view may be derived from the case of Simon the
sorcerer. Though baptized on profession of faith, it was afterwards discovered
that his heart was not right in the sight of God. On making the discovery, Peter
did not command him to repent and be baptized, as he commanded the
unbaptized on the day of Pentecost: but his address was, "Repent, and pray
God, if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee."

This address, by containing no command respecting baptism, favors the opinion
that rebaptism in this case would not have been required.

SECOND CASE

The second case supposes that there was in the first baptism a want of due
qualification in the administrator.

In the discussion of this question we should guard against improper notions
respecting the validity of baptism. The rite has no sacramental efficacy,
dependent on its validity, as the possession of an estate depends on the validity
of the title. Were it so, it might be a matter of great importance to be able to
trace the flow of the mysterious virtue through a continuous line of authorized
administrators from the days of the apostles. But the validity of baptism means
nothing more than that the duty has been performed. If performed, there is no
necessity of repeating it.

The question, then, is whether the candidate has done his duty. The
responsibility of deciding this question begins with him; but it does not end with
him. The church of which he wishes to become a member, must exercise
judgment on the case. If the candidate's satisfaction with his baptism would
suffice, persons baptized in infancy might obtain admission into our churches
without other baptism. The church is bound to judge, and to regulate its
judgment by the will of God.

From the investigations in the preceding part of this work, we have learned that
a candidate has no right to baptize himself, or select his own administrator,
without regard to his being duly qualified according to the divine will. The proper
administrators are persons called of God to the ministerial office, and introduced
into it according to the order established by the apostles. To such persons the
candidate was bound to apply; and, if he received the ordinance from any other,
it was as if he had selected the administrator at his own will, or had immersed
himself.

The possibility that a state of things may have at some time existed, in which a
regular administrator could not be obtained, does not militate against the
conclusion just drawn. This subject has been considered in Chap. VIII. 3.
Because when church order has been destroyed, something unusual may be

done to restore it, we are not, on this account, justified in neglecting the regular
order when it does exist. Every church is bound to respect this order, and a
candidate who has failed to respect it in a former baptism, may, with a good
conscience, proceed anew to obey the Lord's command, in exact conformity to
the divine requirement.

In order to the proper performance of baptism, a willing candidate and a willing
administrator are necessary, both of whom should render the service in
obedience to Christ. By a wise provision the social tendency of Christianity is
shown at the very beginning of the Christian profession. The candidate cannot
obey alone, but he must seek an administrator to unite with him in the act of
obedience, and by this arrangement Christian fellowship begins with Christian
profession. But that two may walk together in this act of obedience, it is
necessary that they should be agreed. If the administrator and candidate differ
widely in their views respecting the nature and design of the ordinance, they
cannot have fellowship with each other in the service. Some Pedobaptist
ministers will administer immersion reluctantly, believing it to be an ineligible
mode of baptism, scarcely consistent with refinement and decency. How can a
candidate, who conscientiously believes that there is no other baptism, have
fellowship in the service with such an administrator? But this is not all.
Pedobaptist ministers do not, in general, administer the rite as an emblem of
Christ's burial and resurrection. This important part of its design they entirely
overlook. If an administrator of the Lord's supper, mistaking the design of the
ceremony, should break bread and distribute wine in commemoration, not of
Christ, but of the deliverance from Egyptian bondage under Moses, what
Christian could receive the elements at his hands? So, when an administrator
mistakes the design of baptism, and overlooks its chief symbolical signification,
every enlightened and conscientious candidate, who understands the nature and
design of the ceremony, may well doubt the propriety of uniting with such a
minister in a service about which they are so little agreed.

The odium which has been attached to anabaptism deters many from a
repetition of the ceremony; but the Scriptures nowhere brand it with reproach.
He who would find an anathema against it, need not search for it in the Bible.
The holy book furnishes satisfactory proof that when the rite has been once duly
performed, there is no necessity to repeat it; but it furnishes no proof that God
will be displeased, if one who has failed to come up to the full measure of his
duty, should seek another opportunity to obey the divine command with
scrupulous exactness.

SECTION V.--TREATMENT OF UNBAPTIZED MINISTERS

In a tract, "An Old Landmark Reset. By Elder J. M. Pendleton, A. M., Union
University, Murfreesboro, Tennessee," the author maintains that Baptists ought
not to recognise Pedobaptist preachers as gospel ministers. This tract has been
circulated extensively, and its doctrine is embraced by many. The discussions on
the subject may sometimes have produced temporary evil, but where the parties
have a sincere desire to know the truth, and a willingness to follow wherever it
may lead, the final result must be good. Parties who agree with each other in
their views of Christian doctrine and ordinances, and whose only difference
respects the mode of treating those who are in error, ought not to fall out with
each other on this question. Each one must act in the matter on his own
responsibility; and discussions to ascertain the right mode of acting ought to be
conducted in the spirit of kindness, meekness, and gentleness. Discussions so
conducted will tend to develop truth; and if they do not bring us to the
conclusions of the Landmark, may enable us to correct the premises from which
those conclusions are drawn.

The question is not one of mere taste, about which persons may innocently
differ; but it involves moral obligation. This is implied in the word ought.
"Baptists ought not," &c. Whatever is morally wrong ought to be avoided as
offensive to God. If we have sinned in this matter, through ignorance and
unbelief, though God may have graciously pardoned our sin, we should not
persevere in the wrong. Our attention is now called to the subject as a question
of duty, and we are bound to examine it in the fear of God, and so act hereafter
as God will approve.

Baptists are not the only persons concerned to know what duty is. If Baptists
ought not to recognise Pedobaptist preachers as gospel ministers, can other
persons recognise them blamelessly? If the thing is right for others, why not for
Baptists? If the act is wrong in itself, no one can perform it without some degree
of guilt. For Baptists to practice it may involve peculiar inconsistency, and a
higher degree of guilt. But if the act is in itself one which God disapproves, all
men should be warned not to commit it.

On searching the Landmark to find why Baptists ought not to recognise
Pedobaptist preachers as gospel ministers, we soon discover that the reason has
no exclusive relation to Baptists. The doctrine is, that Pedobaptist preachers are
not gospel ministers; and, if this doctrine is true, other persons are bound to
receive it, and act on it, as well as Baptists. Nor does the doctrine refer to a few

Pedobaptist ministers only, who may be less worthy of esteem and confidence
than the rest; but it refers to all. Not one of them is a gospel minister; and not
one of them ought to be recognised as such.

The honor of Christ is deeply concerned in his ministry. If some messengers sent
by the churches were called by Paul "the glory of Christ,"(15) the same may be
affirmed emphatically of the messengers sent by Christ himself into the world, to
preach his gospel to mankind. He has promised to be with them, they speak by
his authority, and in his stead. They bear in earthen vessels an inestimable
treasure which he has committed to them; and with which he designs to enrich
the world. For men whom Christ has never sent to claim that they bear this
treasure, and are authorized to dispense it; that they have a commission from
him to address mankind in his name, and have his presence with them, and his
approbation of their labors;--for men whom Christ has not sent to claim all this,
is an evil of no small magnitude. Their presumption must be high]y offensive to
him; and all who recognise them as his ministers must oppose his will in a matter
which he has greatly at heart. The question, therefore, is one of tremendous
magnitude. Have all those offended Christ who have recognised as his ministers,
Whitfield, Edwards, Davies, Payson, and other such men from whom they have
supposed that they received the word of Christ, and by whose ministry they have
thought that they were brought to know Christ? If Baptists ought not to
recognise such men as gospel ministers, no one ought; and the respect which
they have received from men as ministers of the gospel, must be offensive to
Christ.

We do not affirm that all these consequences are stated in the Landmark. But if
the doctrine of the tract has not led the author thus far, will it not legitimately
conduct us to these conclusions, if we adopt and consistently maintain it? But we
seem to have the author's approbation in making this application of his
principles. He says, "If it is not too absurd to suppose such a thing, let it be
supposed that there were persons in apostolic times corresponding to modern
Pedobaptists. Can any Baptist believe that Paul, beholding the practices of such
persons--seeing the sprinkling of infants substituted for the immersion of
believers--would have recognised the ministers of such sects as ministers of
Christ, acting according to the gospel? Surely not. Paul would have protested
against such a caricature of the Christian system. He would have said to such
ministers, 'Will ye not cease to pervert the right ways of the Lord?'"(16)

Conclusions so unfavorable to the entire Pedobaptist ministry are revolting to the
minds of multitudes. They see in many of these ministers proofs of humble piety,
sincere devotion to the cause of Christ, and deep concern for the salvation of

souls. To these manifestations of the proper spirit for the gospel ministry, are
added a high degree of Scripture knowledge, and a talent for imparting
instruction. When such men are seen devoting their lives to arduous toil for the
conversion of souls, and when God appears to crown their labors with abundant
success, it is difficult to resist the conviction that they are truly ministers of the
gospel, acting with Divine authority and approbation. But the Landmark teaches
that these men are not gospel ministers; and its arguments in support of this
opinion need a careful examination.

From what premises does the Landmark draw its conclusion? The author informs
us in his letter to Dr. Hill. He says, "By a reference to what I have written you
will see that Dr. Griffin, a celebrated Pedobaptist, has furnished the premises
from which my conclusion is drawn."(17)

He does not profess to have derived them directly from the Scriptures. The tract
does not contain a single quotation from the Scriptures, designed to sustain
them. Whatever may be the weight of Pedobaptist authority in an argument with
Pedobaptists, when Baptists are laboring in the fear of God to ascertain their
duty, they ought to seek information from a higher source.

In the quotations made from Dr. Griffin we find the following statements:
"Baptism is the initiatory ordinance which introduces us into the visible church; of
course, where there is no baptism, there are no visible churches....We ought not
to commune with those who are not baptized, and, of course, are not churchmembers, even if we regard them as Christians....I have no right to send the
sacred elements out of the church."(18)

These are the premises from which the Landmark draws its conclusion. Is the
principle here laid down a doctrine of the Holy Scriptures? If so, we are bound to
receive it with every consequence which can be legitimately drawn from it.

In Chapter III. we have investigated the Scripture doctrine concerning the
church universal. If we have not mistaken the divine teaching on the subject,
every man who is born of the Spirit is a member of this church. Regeneration,
not baptism, introduces him into it. The dogma that baptism initiates into the
church, and that those who are not baptized are not church-members, even if
they are Christians, denies the existence of this spiritual church, and substitutes
for it the visible church catholic of theologians. The evils resulting from this
unscriptural substitution, have been shown on pp. 132, 133. They are sufficient

to deter us from an inconsiderate admission of the dogma from which they
proceed.

Dr. Gill called infant baptism "a part and pillar of popery," and we may justly call
the dogma of Dr. Griffin a part and pillar of infant baptism. If the true universal
church is spiritual, comprising all the regenerate and no others; and if local
churches are temporary associations of persons belonging to the universal
church, no place is found in either for unregenerate infants. But when baptism is
made the door of entrance, instead of regeneration, a way of entrance is opened
for infants. Pedobaptism began in the doctrine of baptismal regeneration, and
this doctrine, in some form, is necessary to its support. The regenerating power
first attributed to baptism; appears to have been understood to be the conferring
of the new relation constituting membership in the church. A spiritual church,
with a spiritual door of entrance, did not suit the carnal tendency which was
rapidly leading men to Romanism. The substitution of the visible church catholic
for the spiritual church of Christ, and of baptism for regeneration, led to infant
baptism, a corrupt church-membership, and all the evils of popery.

This dogma now efficiently sustains the cause of Pedobaptism. That Dr. Mason
considered it a chief pillar of infant baptism, fully appears in his Essays on the
Church. Its practical effect is clearly exemplified in the case of the late Dr.
Alexander. That excellent man, with two other distinguished Presbyterian
ministers of Virginia, became dissatisfied with the proofs of infant baptism on
which they had relied. One of them for a time became a Baptist, and the others
were strongly inclined to follow him. But all these men settled down at last in the
belief of Pedobaptism: and the process of reasoning which satisfied Dr.
Alexander's mind, and probably the minds of the rest, is given in his biography.
Two considerations kept him back from joining the Baptists. The first was, that
the prevalence of infant baptism as early as the fourth and fifth centuries,
appeared to him unaccountable on the supposition that no such practice existed
in the time of the apostles. The other was his inference that if the Baptists are
right, they are the only Christian church on earth, and all other denominations
are out of the visible church. He had perceived the corrupting tendency of infant
baptism: but the dogma of a visible church catholic with a baptismal boundary,
assisted to hold his noble mind fast fettered in error. Shall Baptists receive this
dogma with all its consequences?

How thoroughly this Pedobaptist doctrine enters into the reasonings of the
Landmark, appears in such passages as the following: "Who can be a minister of
Christ according to the gospel, without belonging to the church?"(19) "Now, if
Pedobaptist preachers do not belong to the church of Christ, they ought not to

be recognised as ministers of Christ."(20) "Our refusal to commune with the
Pedobaptists grows out of the fact that they are unbaptized, and out of the
church."(21) In these passages, the Landmark uses the phrase, "the church," in
apparent conformity to the common doctrine of the visible church catholic; since
none are members of it, but baptized persons. But another passage in the
pamphlet sets forth a different doctrine: "There is no universal visible church;
and if the universal invisible church, composed of all the saved, has what Dr. E.
calls 'form,' it is impossible to know what it is. We have no idea of 'form' apart
from visibility."(22) According to this, the true and only universal church is
"composed of all the saved." How can this be reconciled with the preceding
quotations, which represent all unbaptized persons as out of "the church?" How
can it be reconciled with the premises adopted from Dr. Griffin, that "those who
are not baptized are not church-members, even if we regard them as
Christians?" A church composed of "all the saved," must contain some
unbaptized persons, unless all the unbaptized are unsaved; and if we may
account any unbaptized persons members of "the church," we abandon the
premises of the Landmark. I do not find evidence, that the pamphlet adopts Mr.
Courtney's theory of the church generic; but whether it uses the phrase "the
church" generically or collectively, the result is the same. In some way, its
signification extends beyond the bounds of a single local church; and yet it is not
the true universal church, "composed of all the saved." But "the church" which
appears in the premises and reasonings of the Landmark is, at best, only a
Baptist modification of the visible church catholic, the church that has given
Pedobaptism and Popery to the world. Many able Baptist writers have fallen into
this Pedobaptist error respecting the church; but the discussions to which the
Landmark has given occasion, will tend, we may hope, to establish a sounder
theology.

The Landmark inquires for the authority on which Pedobaptist preachers act. "If
Pedobaptist societies are not churches of Christ, whence do their ministers derive
their authority to preach? Is there any scriptural authority to preach which does
not come through a church of Christ? And if Pedobaptist ministers are not in
Christian churches, have they any right to preach? that is to say, have they any
authority according to the gospel? They are doubtless authorized by the forms
and regulations of their respective societies. But do they act under evangelical
authority? It is perfectly evident to the writer, that they do not."(23) We answer,
that, if the Holy Spirit has qualified men to preach the gospel, they preach it with
divine authority. The Holy Spirit, who divides to every man severally as he will,
does not give the necessary qualifications for the gospel ministry, without
designing that they shall be used; and since he only can give these qualifications,
we are sure that every man who possesses them, is bound, by the authority of
God, to use them to the end for which they are bestowed. We arrive at this
conclusion, aside from all reasoning about ceremonies and churches; and the

proof brings irresistible conviction. Here is a landmark of truth, which must not
be deserted, however much we may be perplexed with reasonings about
outward forms.

We have maintained, in Chapter VIII., that ministers of the word, as such, are
officers of the universal church; and that their call to the ministry by the Holy
Spirit, is complete in itself, without the addition of outward ceremony. The
person called fails to do his duty, if he neglects the divinely appointed method by
which he should enter on the work to which he is called; and this failure tends to
obscure the evidence of his divine call. But when, through the obscurity,
evidence of his call presents itself with convincing force, we act against reason
and against Scripture if we reject it. The seal of divine authority is affixed to that
minister who brings into his work qualifications which God only can bestow.

While we maintain that Pedobaptist preachers, who give proof that they have
been called to their work by the Holy Spirit, ought to be regarded as gospel
ministers, we do not insist that Baptists ought to invite all such to occupy their
pulpits. This is a different matter. When the Holy Spirit calls, he makes it the
duty of the called to study the Holy Scriptures, and to preach what is there
taught. His call does not render ministers infallible, or pledge the divine
approbation to whatever they may teach; and it therefore does not bind any one
to surrender the right of private judgment, and receive with implicit faith
whatever may be preached. Much error is sometimes inculcated by preachers,
whose divine call to the ministry we cannot question. Even baptism and
ordination, however regular, do not make a minister sound in doctrine, and
worthy to occupy any and every pulpit. The responsibility of inviting ministers
into the pulpit, ought to be exercised with a conscientious regard to the glory of
God, and the interests of souls.

An argument for excluding Pedobaptist preachers from our pulpits is drawn by
the Landmark from our close communion:--" It is often said by Pedobaptists that
Baptists act inconsistently in inviting their ministers to preach with them, while
they fail to bid them welcome at the Lord's table. I acknowledge the
inconsistency. It is a flagrant inconsistency. No one ought to deny it."(24)

This Pedobaptist objection is endorsed not only by the Landmark, but also by
Baptists who practice open communion. All these maintain that we are
inconsistent in admitting ministers into the pulpit, when we deny them a seat at
the communion table. But a charge of inconsistency made against us by persons
who are in error on the very point, ought not to surprise or disquiet us. Let our

procedure, in each case, be regulated by the word of God, and we may be sure
that, in the end, we shall be found consistent, even if we cannot at once make
our consistency apparent to all. The insidious tendency to substitute ceremony
for spirituality meets us everywhere, and lies, I apprehend, at the foundation of
this charge. If communion at the Lord's table is "a principal spiritual function," as
affirmed by Mr. Hall, and if, as is done in this objection of the Landmark, it may
be classed with the preaching of the word, as a thing of like character, the
charge of inconsistency in requiring a ceremonial qualification for one, and not
for the other, will have a show of justness. But if the Lord's supper is a
ceremony, a ceremonial qualification for it may be necessary, which may not be
indispensable to the ministry of the word. And it may be the duty of Baptists,
both by theory and practice, to teach their erring brethren the important
distinction too often overlooked, between spiritual service to God and that which
is ceremonial.

The lawfulness of inviting Pedobaptist preachers into the pulpit, has been
defended on the ground that any Christian has the right to talk of Christ and his
great salvation. Our Landmark brethren admit that all have a right to make
known the gospel privately, but deny that any have the right to proclaim it
publicly, except those who have been regularly inducted into the ministerial
office. The distinction between talking of Christ privately and proclaiming his
gospel publicly, appears to me to respect obligation rather than right. If a
Christian has a right to tell of Christ to a fellow man who sits by his side, or
walks in the highway with him, he has the same right to address two in like
manner, and, so far as I can see, he has an equal right to address ten, a
hundred, or a thousand. The obligation to exercise this right is limited only by his
ability to do good, and the opportunity which Providence presents of using such
talents as he possesses to the glory of God and the benefit of immortal souls. A
divine call to the work of the ministry being always accompanied with
qualifications for public usefulness, creates obligation rather than confers right,
as wealth creates obligation rather than confers right, to relieve the poor. Now,
to defend the lawfulness of inviting a Pedobaptist preacher into the pulpit, it has
been deemed sufficient to maintain that the person so invited has a right to talk
of Christ to perishing men, and recommend his salvation to their acceptance.
The argument appears to me to be valid; but I have chosen to take higher
ground, and to maintain that many Pedobaptist ministers give convincing proof
that the Holy Spirit has called and qualified them to preach the gospel, and that
it is therefore not only their right, but their duty, to fulfil the ministry which God
has committed to them.

We have supposed that an undoubted divine call of any one to the gospel
ministry, would command the respect of all who revere the authority of the Most

High; but on this point the Landmark holds the following remarkable language:-"I go farther and say, that if God were, with an audible voice, as loud as
heaven's mightiest thunder, to call a Pedobaptist to preach, we would not be
justified in departing from the Scriptures, unless we were divinely told the
utterances of that voice were intended to supersede the teachings of the New
Testament. Such information would intimate the beginning of a new economy,
and I am writing of the present dispensation."(25)

To this we know not what to say. We have no argument to offer. If God's voice
from heaven cannot prevail, all our arguments must be ineffectual, for we have
nothing more forcible to urge than the word of the King Supreme. For ourselves,
were the undoubted voice of God from heaven to fall on our ears, we have
nothing to oppose to his authority. We reverence the Scriptures, but all our
reasonings from the Scriptures are as nothing when God speaks. We claim no
right to demand explanations respecting his dispensations as a condition of
receiving his word. What if God's voice from heaven ushers in a new economy,
we want no higher authority than his mere announcement, even if
unaccompanied with any explanation; and we may be well assured that all our
reasonings about economies, church order, and similar topics, are erroneous, if
they lead us to reject the voice of God speaking from heaven.

But how does a divine call of the unbaptized to preach the gospel, constitute a
new economy? John the Baptist, who preached by divine authority, at the
beginning of the present dispensation, was unbaptized; and, after the
dispensation had been established by the exaltation of Christ, and the gift of the
Holy Spirit, Saul of Tarsus was called to preach the gospel while unbaptized.
Cases now occur in which persons who undergo examination in order to
ordination, refer their convictions of duty with reference to the ministry, to a
period anterior to their baptism; and no ordaining presbytery would be justified
in denying the possibility of a call by the Holy Spirit, while the subject of it was
unbaptized. He who calls the unbaptized to repentance and faith, has the power
and right to call them to the ministry also, if it is his pleasure. God has never
bound himself in any manner to require none but baptized persons to preach his
word; and we have no right to limit the Holy One of Israel. In our view, the
bestowment of ministerial grace and qualifications by the Holy Spirit, indicates
the divine will: if not as certainly as it would be indicated by a voice from
heaven, yet we cannot resist the conviction which it brings to our minds. When
God speaks from heaven, or otherwise clearly indicates his will, we know nothing
but reverence and submission.

It has been argued that Baptists ought not to invite Pedobaptist ministers into
their pulpits, while they would exclude, both from their communion and their
pulpits, a Baptist minister who should inculcate Pedobaptist doctrine. This
argument also is a mere appeal to consistency. Such argument ought never to
be used when better can be had. If there is any established usage among
Baptists with which the invitation of Pedobaptist ministers is inconsistent, the
usage may need to be changed. Then the present argument will fall to the
ground. But, so far as I know, men who have left the Baptist ministry for the
ministry in a Pedobaptist denomination, are, other things being equal, regarded
and treated like other Pedobaptist ministers, each case being judged according
to its merit. If a false-hearted Baptist minister should retain his connection with a
Baptist church, and avail himself of it to disseminate Pedobaptist error, he would
deserve to be excluded both from the communion and the pulpit. But if a Baptist
minister should become a Pedobaptist, and leave behind him, in the minds of his
Baptist brethren, a full conviction that in so doing he acted honestly and
conscientiously, I am not aware that he would be viewed less favorably than
other Pedobaptist ministers. I remember a case which will illustrate this point. A
young Baptist brother, of fervent piety and distinguished talent, was licensed by
his church and entered on a course of study to prepare himself for usefulness in
the ministry. In prosecuting his studies, his mind came under Pedobaptist
influence, and he announced to his church a change of his views, and a desire to
connect himself with Pedobaptists. The church separated him from their
communion; but the very men who voted this separation, invited him afterwards
into their pulpit. They had licensed him because they believed him called of God
to the work of the ministry. Their full belief of this remained; and they invited
him to preach, not as a Pedobaptist, but as a minister of Christ, whom, as such,
they loved. In their view, it was improper for him to remain in a Baptist church
and partake of its communion; but they believed it to be right for him to fulfil the
ministry to which he had been divinely called. In their view, the exclusion from
the communion, and the admission to the pulpit, were perfectly consistent. If
others think differently, they will still admit that there was no principle violated in
this case, merely because of his having been once a Baptist. This admission will
nullify the present argument, and leave the question to be settled on other
grounds.

If we admit a Pedobaptist minister into our pulpits, do we not countenance his
errors? We do, if we expect him to inculcate these errors, or if we permit him to
inculcate them without correction. But this is equally true with respect to Baptist
ministers. The responsibility of inviting generally devolves on the pastor of a
church, who is bound to instruct the people of his charge in truth and
righteousness, and to guard them, as much as possible, from all error. He is,
therefore, under obligation, when he invites others to occupy his pulpit, to
exercise prudent caution; and this caution is needed with respect to Baptists as

well as Pedobaptists. On various occasions I have invited Pedobaptist ministers
to preach, where I have been accustomed to officiate; and, in every case, I have
been able to approve the doctrine which they preached. In a single case, it
happened, that a minister invited to occupy the pulpit, preached doctrine so
erroneous, that I deemed it my duty to correct it in a discourse subsequently
delivered; but the preacher of this error was a Baptist. If this experience is of
any practical value, I would infer from it, not that the Baptist ministry is less
orthodox than the Pedobaptist, but that caution is needed where we least
suspect danger; and that the inviting of Pedobaptist ministers does not
necessarily introduce unsound preaching. If a pastor invites into his pulpit a
Pedobaptist minister, whom he sincerely believes to be called of God to the
ministry, and who, he believes, will, in his preaching, know nothing but Christ,
and him crucified; that pastor may enjoy a pure conscience towards God,
undisturbed by any errors of his Pedobaptist brother which he has never
approved.

But it will be said, that, although the pastor does not design his invitation of the
Pedobaptist minister to be an approval of his errors, it will be so understood by
the minister himself, and by others. This, I think, is a mistake. If the pastor has
taken due pains to make the truth known, and has clearly defined his own
position, and maintained it with firmness and consistency, there will be little
danger that his act, in this case, will be misconstrued. What we have maintained
is, that the invitation of a Pedobaptist minister to preach in a Baptist pulpit, is not
in itself unlawful; but whether it is expedient in any particular case, must depend
on the circumstances of the case. If a Baptist pastor is conscious that he has
failed to set forth the truth clearly and fully, the objection which we are
considering may justly embarrass him; but the proper mode of escape from it, is,
to declare the whole counsel of God habitually and unreservedly.

If we were under no obligation with respect to Pedobaptist ministers, we might,
as a safe course, decline to have any connection with them. But our Divine
Master has commanded us to love ail who are born of God. Many of these men
manifest strong love to Christ; and we are bound to love them for Christ's sake.
They are laboring zealously and faithfully, to honor Christ, and save the souls of
men; and the proof that they are called of God to this work, compels us to
admit, that they are fellow-laborers with us in the glorious cause,
notwithstanding the irregularity of their entrance into it. Can we turn away from
such men; and proclaim to the world, that they are not God's ministers? It is
surely not necessary, in discountenancing their irregularities, to discountenance
their entire ministry. We may approve all that they do right, and rejoice in it,
without approving the wrong. This is the simple mode of solving the whole
difficulty; and, if people do not at once understand the solution, let us act upon

it, conscientiously, and in the fear of God, till men do understand it. In this way
we shall give the most effectual recommendation of the truth.
1. Matt. xxiii. 8.
2. 2 John 10.
3. Rev. ii. 14, 15.
4. Acts xviii. 27.
5. 2 Chron. xxiii. 15.
6. Neh. xiii. 21.
7. Matt. xxi. 46.
8. Lev. iv. 4; xvi. 21.
9. Num. xxvii. 18-20.
10. Gen. xlviii. 14; Mark x. 16.
11. Acts xix. 6.
12. Acts xiii. 3.
13. Acts xiii. 1, 2.
14. 1 Tim. v. 22.
15. 2 Cor. viii. 23.
16. P. 14.
17. P. 53.
18. P. 4
19. P. 12.
20. P. 13.
21. P. 16.

22. P. 42.
23. P. 11.
24. P. 16.
25. P. 48.
CONCLUSION

DUTY OF BAPTISTS

The church order which this treatise claims to have adduced from the Holy
Scriptures, could not rely for support on human authority. The sect that
maintains it, makes no imposing figure on the pages of ecclesiastical history, and
does not hold such rank among the Christian denominations, as to recommend
its peculiarities to the general acceptance of mankind. When the gospel was first
introduced into the world, but few of the wise, the mighty, and the noble,
appeared in its defence. God was pleased, with the weak things of the world, to
confound the mighty, that no flesh should glory in his presence. The gospel is
not a system of human devising; and true faith receives it as the wisdom of God,
however weak and contemptible the instruments of its promulgation may appear
The true disciple of Christ ought not to permit the odium of the anabaptist name
to deter him from strict obedience to all his Lord's commands.

Although the truth of God does not need human authority, or the patronage of
great names, it is nevertheless the Divine pleasure to make it known to the world
by human instrumentality; and this instrumentality needs to be adapted to the
purpose for which it is employed. If God has commissioned a sect everywhere
spoken against, to make known truth which the wise and learned have
overlooked, that sect ought to understand the service to which they have been
appointed, and ought to fulfil the prescribed duty firmly, faithfully, and in the
fear of the Lord. As men designed for a peculiar service, let us, by earnest and
constant endeavor, seek to ascertain the will of him to whose supreme authority
we yield all our powers, and let us diligently and perseveringly obey that will,
whether men revile or praise.

1. It is our duty to maintain the ordinances of Christ, and the church order which
he has instituted, in strict and scrupulous conformity to the Holy Scriptures.

If the investigations of the sacred volume, which have been attempted in this
work, have not been unsuccessful, the great body of Christ's professed followers
have wandered from the right way. They have established ecclesiastical
organizations which are not in accordance with his will; and have corrupted the
ceremonies of worship which he instituted. These errors have the sanction of
age, and of men venerable for their wisdom. To maintain our peculiarities in
opposition to such influences has the appearance of bigotry and narrowmindedness; and, if they are peculiarities which God's word does not require, we
ought to relinquish them. But if we have attained to a knowledge of the Divine
will, on points where the great mass of our fellow Christians have mistaken it, a
duty of solemn responsibility is imposed on us, to hold fast what we have
received, and defend the truth specially committed to our charge.

The plea is often urged that there are good men in all the denominations, and
that the various forms of religion, being alike consistent with piety, are matters
of minor importance, and ought to be left to the preferences of individuals. If we
do not readily admit this plea in its full extent, we are perhaps understood to
deny that piety can be found out of our own party, or to claim undue deference
to our judgment in religious matters. But whether men understand us or not, we
are bound to obey God in everything. No command which he has given can be
so unimportant that we are at liberty to disobey it at our pleasure. When the
finger of God points out the way, no place is left to us for human preferences.
And when we know the will of God, we are not only bound to obey for ourselves,
but also to teach others to obey, so far as they are brought under the influence
of our instruction. We may, without arrogant assumption, declare what we are
firmly persuaded to be the will of God; and we must then leave every one to the
judgment of him to whom all must give account. The man who can disobey God,
because the thing commanded is of minor importance, has not the spirit of
obedience in his heart; and the man who, knowing the will of God, forbears to
declare it, because the weight of human authority is against him, fears men
more than God.

2. It is our duty, while rendering punctilious obedience to all the commands of
God, to regard the forms and ceremonies of religion as of far less importance
than its moral truths and precepts.

One of the earliest corruptions of Christianity consisted in magnifying the
importance of its ceremonies, and ascribing to them a saving efficacy. With this
superstitious reverence of outward forms, a tendency was introduced to corrupt
these forms, and substitute ceremonies of human invention for the ordinances of
God. To restore these ordinances to their original purity, and, at the same time,

to understand and teach that outward rites have no saving efficacy, appears to
be a service to which God has specially called the Baptists. We are often charged
with attaching too much importance to immersion; but the notion that baptism
possesses a sacramental efficacy finds no advocates in our ranks. It introduced
infant baptism, and prevailed with it; and it still lingers among those by whom
infant baptism is practiced. Our principles, by restricting baptism to those who
are already regenerate, subvert the doctrine of baptismal regeneration, and
exhibit the ceremony in its proper relation to experimental religion. To give due
prominence to spirituality above all outward ceremony, is an important service to
which God has called our denomination.

3. It is our duty to hold and exhibit the entire system of Christian doctrine in all
its just proportions.

An important advance is made in the proper exhibition of Christian truth, when
ceremony is rendered duly subordinate to spirituality. This gives an opportunity
to adjust the parts of the system in their proper harmony. An additional security
for the preservation of sound doctrine, is found in the converted churchmembership which our principles require. The church universal is the pillar and
ground of the truth, because it consists of those who love the truth; and in
proportion as local churches are formed of the same materials, they are prepared
to stand as bulwarks against heresy. This service Baptist churches have been
known to render to the cause of truth. The general agreement of Baptist
churches, in doctrine as well as church order, is a fact which gives occasion for
devout gratitude to God. Let it be our continued care never to distort the
beautiful system of divine truth by magnifying any part of it beyond its just
proportion, or suppressing any part of the harmonious whole.

Because we differ from other professors of religion in our faith and practice
respecting the externals of religion, we are under a constant temptation to make
too much account of these external peculiarities. Against this temptation we
should ever struggle. If we magnify ceremony unduly, we abandon our
principles, and cease to fulfil the mission to which the Head of the church has
assigned us.

4. It is our duty to maintain lives of holy obedience in all things.

Many persons have the form of godliness who are strangers to its power. They
render obedience to ceremonial precepts, while they neglect weightier matters of

moral obligation. But a punctilious observance of ceremonies has no necessary
connexion with remissness in more important duties. In an affectionate family
the children who strive to please their parents, and gratify their wishes in the
most trivial concerns, are expected to be most dutiful in things of greatest
moment. Such children of our heavenly Father ought Baptists to be. We claim to
obey his will more fully in the outward forms of religion than any other people.
Consistency requires that we should be more obedient also in matters of highest
importance. It is highly offensive to God, if, while we neglect his most important
commands, we attempt to please him with mere outward service. His omniscient
eye detects the attempted fraud, and his holiness detests it. Even short-sighted
men discover the cheat, and contemn our hypocrisy. The reputation of religion
suffers by our unfaithfulness, and men, who observe our conduct, become
confirmed in unbelief, to their everlasting ruin. Persons who do not profess to
obey God in all things, may, with less pernicious effect, neglect his holy precepts;
but Baptists ought to be holy in all things. Our profession requires us to be the
best people in the world; and it should be our constant effort to walk according
to this profession.

5. It is our duty to labor faithfully and perseveringly to bring all men to the
knowledge of the truth.

We claim that we execute the commission which Christ gave to his apostles more
fully than other Christian denominations. This commission requires us to preach
the gospel to every creature; and we ought to be foremost in obeying it. This
obligation has been felt by some of our faith and order, and all of us ought to
feel it. The English Baptists have the honor of being foremost in the work of
modern missions; and the names of Carey, and his fellow-laborers, who were the
pioneers in this difficult service, deserve to be had, in lasting remembrance. The
names of Judson and Rice appear among the foremost in the history of American
missions; and the conversion of these men to the Baptist faith may be regarded
as a special call of God on American Baptists to labor for the spread of the
gospel throughout the earth. On the Continent of Europe, Oncken and his noble
band of associates, are, by their laborious and successful efforts in the
Redeemer's cause, but fulfilling the obligations which every Baptist should feel.
Voluntary devotion to Christ, and immediate responsibility to him, are
conspicuous in our distinguishing peculiarities; and we ought to be conspicuous
among the followers of Christ, by our labors or sufferings in his cause.

6. It is our duty to promote the spiritual unity of the universal church, by the
exercise of brotherly love to all who bear the image of Christ.

Various schemes have been proposed by the wisdom of men for amalgamating
the different Christian denominations. All these originate in the erroneous
conception that the unity of the universal church must be found in external
organization. To effect the union sought for, compromises are required of the
several parties, and the individual conscience must yield to the judgment of the
many. All these schemes of amalgamation are inconsistent with the Baptist faith.
We seek spiritual unity. We would have every individual to stand on Bible
ground, and to take his position there, in the unbiassed exercise of his own
judgment and conscience. There we strive to take our position; and there, and
there only, we invite our brethren of all denominations to meet us. We yield
everything which is not required by the word of God; but in what this word
requires, we have no compromise to make. We rejoice to see, in many who do
not take our views of divine truth, bright evidence of love to Christ and his
cause. We love them for Christ's sake; and we expect to unite with them in his
praise through eternal ages. We are one with them in spirit, though we cannot
conform to their usages in any particular in which they deviate from the Bible.
The more abundantly we love them, the more carefully we strive to walk before
them in strict obedience to the commands of our common Lord. And if they
sometimes misunderstand our motives, and misjudge our actions, it is our
consolation that our divine Master approves; and that they also will approve,
when we shall hereafter meet them in his presence.
APPENDIX

SITUATION OF ENON

Since to baptize is to immerse, the declaration of Scripture that "John was
baptizing in Enon," is proof that the place afforded water in sufficient quantity for
the purpose of immersion. Additional proof is furnished in the statement of the
inspired writer, that John selected this place of baptizing,, "because there was
much water there." In the remarks made on this subject in p. 60, I did not think
it necessary to enter into any inquiry respecting the geographical situation of
Enon. This subject has been considered by the Rev. G. W. Samson, in the tract
referred to on p. 63, and he arrives at the following conclusion:--"It was at the
point upon the Jordan where the great thoroughfare from Western Galilee and
Samaria crosses it, that John selected his favorable location for baptizing." "The
permanent record of the early Christians, sanctioned by the New Testament
writers, and confirmed by all subsequent observations, leaves no doubt that
Enon was at a passage of the Jordan." In this part of the river, its course is very
winding, its average width forty-five yards, and its average depth four feet.

The tract of Mr. Samson has been published, in connection with several other
valuable tracts, in a duodecimo of 194 pages, entitled "Baptismal Tracts for the
Times." The reader who desires to understand the baptismal controversy, will
find some important topics discussed in this little volume with much ability.

A different situation has been assigned to Enon, in a work which has just issued
from the press--"The City of the Great King; or Jerusalem as it was, as it is, and
as it is to be." The author of this work, Dr. Barclay, a resident missionary in
Jerusalem for three years and a half, thinks he has found the ancient baptizingplace within a few miles of the Holy City. He describes it thus:-- "Returning by a
circuitous route to the place whence we had started, from the brow of Wady
Farah, we descended with some difficulty into that 'valley of delight'--for such is
the literal signification of its name--and truly I have seen nothing so delightful in
the way of natural scenery, nor inviting in point of resources, &c., in all Palestine.
Ascending its bold stream from this point, we passed some half dozen
expansions of the stream, constituting the most beautiful natural natatoria I have
ever seen; the water, rivalling the atmosphere itself in transparency, of depths
varying from a few inches to a fathom and more, shaded on one or both sides by
umbrageous fig trees, and sometimes contained in naturally excavated basins of
red mottled marble--an occasional variegation of the common limestone of the
country. These pools are supplied by some half dozen springs of the purest and
coldest water, bursting from rocky crevices at various intervals. Verily, thought I,
we have stumbled upon Enon." "Although this conjecture--that Ain Farah was
Aenon--must be set down to the account of a mere random suggestion of the
moment, yet a more intimate acquaintance with the geography of the
neighborhood has brought me to an assured conviction that this place is indeed
no other than the 'Enon near to Salim, where John was baptizing, because there
was much water there.'"

PLACE OF THE EUNUCH'S BAPTISM.

The sacred writer who has recorded the Acts of the Apostles, has informed us
that the Eunuch was baptized in "the way that goeth down from Jerusalem unto
Gaza, which is desert."(1) The word "desert" seems to have suggested to some
minds the idea, that the baptism occurred in an arid region, in which water of
sufficient depth for immersion could not be found. Gaza, though once a populous
city with massy gates,(2) was now almost without inhabitants, according to the
prediction of the prophets, "Baldness is come upon Gaza:"(3) "I will send a fire on
the wall of Gaza, which shall devour the palaces thereof."(4) In Scripture
language, the name desert or wilderness, is applied to a thinly inhabited country,
even though including cities or towns distant from each other. It was, therefore,

applicable to the region in which Gaza was situated, and into which the road of
the Eunuch's descent from Jerusalem penetrated.

Dr. Barclay describes a journey which he took from Jerusalem to Gaza. He found
the way passing through a fertile country, well supplied with water. He sought
for the place of the Eunuch's baptism; but the disquieted condition of the country
stopped his prosecution of the search. He says: "We were the more anxious to
visit El-Hassy, on account of information received recently from Sheikh of
Felluge, and abundantly confirmed at Burrier, that in Wady-el-Hassy about two
or three hours distant, at Ras Kussahbeh and at Moyat es-Sid, in the same wady,
the stream of water is as broad as our tent (twelve feet), and varies in depth
from a span to six or seven feet--occasionally sinking and reappearing. This was,
doubtless (Moyat es-Sid), the certain water of which we were in quest; but we
were constrained, however reluctantly, to abandon the idea of seeing it."

Mr. Samson's description of the country through which the Eunuch journeyed,
agrees with that of Dr. Barclay. Several places are noticed on the way, in which
immersion may have been performed. Concerning one of these, he thus writes:
"In front of the fortress by us is a fine gushing fountain of sweet water, and
broad stone troughs in which we water our horses. This spot has been fixed on
by Dr. Robinson as the Bethsur mentioned by Eusebius and Jerome as the place
where the Eunuch was baptized. The ground in front of the fountain, and of the
structure behind it, is so broken up and covered with stones, that it is difficult to
determine what was once here. There is now a slightly depressed hollow, with a
sandy or gravelly bottom. It is hardly conceivable that, in the days of Herod, the
fountain-builder, this most favorable spring should not have been made to supply
a pool in this land of such structures; and even now water sufficient to supply
such a reservoir flows from the troughs, and soaks into the soil; as, according to
Jerome's mention, in his day it seems also to have been absorbed. That an
ancient 'chariot' road passed this way, the observant traveller will often perceive
on his journey. Dr. Robinson twice between Hebron and Jerusalem, notices this;
and we have traced even plainer evidences."

IMMERSION IN COLD CLIMATES

To the objection stated on p. 67, that immersion is not suited to cold climates, I
have not attempted a formal reply. It gives me pleasure to present to the reader
the following remarks on this subject, which have been written at my special
request, by the Rev. Mr. Samson:

The idea that immersion, as an ordinance of Christ's church, is incompatible with
his design that his religion should spread to all nations and climates, is alike
disproved by Scripture, and by the facts of history in the spread of Christianity.

When Jesus said "Go teach," or make disciples of "all nations," he added,
"baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy
Ghost." The word baptize in the language in which Christ spoke, as every Greek
scholar allows, meant nothing else than immerse. It is impossible to reconcile it
with the supreme wisdom of Jesus, that without qualification of language, he
commanded this ordinance in this form to be performed among the nations of
every clime, if there really were anything in immersion inconsistent with health in
any latitude, or with propriety in any age of refinement.

Early. in the apostolic history this was tested. The apostle was accustomed to
baptism at first in the neighborhood of Jerusalem, among the "common people"
that bathed in Jordan, and the pools of the Holy City. He writes a letter to Rome,
the centre of refinement and luxury, where some members of "Caesar's
household" had joined the Christian church, in a region ten degrees north of
Jerusalem, where the cold of winter compelled the self-denying martyr to send
as far as Old Troy for a Roman coat he had left there; yet there had not been,
either on account of the peculiar refinement and delicacy of the people of Rome,
or on account of the rigor of their winter, any change in the mode of baptism, if
we may draw an inference from the apostle's words: "Therefore we are buried
with him by baptism into death."(5) It ought to be remembered that summer is
warm in every climate; that bathing is often practiced, as it was in Rome, and as
it is in our country, more by people in northern than in southern latitudes; and
that the winter of the southern climate, in the latitude of Jerusalem, where the
snow thaws almost immediately on its fall, is more trying than in far northern
regions, the air being chillier, and the water more icy-cold.

Subsequent history is more convincing than even these facts of the apostolic age
in this regard. The Eastern or Greek Church (by the side of which the Western or
Roman Church, occupying three or four little countries of Southern Europe, is a
speck on the map), embraces every variety of climate and class of people.
Beginning with Abyssinia, in the hot regions of Central Africa, extending through
Egypt in Northern Africa, it spreads along all Western Asia, takes in half of
Europe, and embraces especially all Siberia and Northern Russia; thus comprising
the very coldest regions, as well as the hottest, in which man can live. In all
these climates, among all these people, baptism is administered by triple
immersion. If it be an infant that is brought, despite his struggles and cries, he is
three times plunged in the broad baptismal font. In mid April, while the Jordan's

waters are yet chilly with the melting snows that cover the top of Hermon and all
the Lebanon range (from which that stream flows), every year from 5000 to
6000 persons of every age, sex, climate, and condition in life, go down into the
chilling stream, and either bury themselves or are buried by others beneath its
waters. At St. Petersburgh a stranger expression still is given, at midwinter, in
reply to the objection that climate renders immersion impracticable. The chosen
day for immersion is at Christmas, near New Year's; and that through the ice of
the Neva. A temporary chapel is erected on the ice, a large hole is cut, and with
a round of ceremonies the water is consecrated by the priest; when mothers
bring their infants and plunge them, and people of mature age come and dip
themselves there. Moreover, at any time in the winter, when proselytes in the
most northern regions of the Russian possessions are made, they are baptized
through the ice. Any one wishing to verify these statements, may consult such a
work as William Burder's Religious Ceremonies, published at London, 1841; or he
may perhaps be personally an eye-witness.

It is the Western, especially the Roman church, that has departed from the
original mode of baptism; and that not from reasons connected with climate. All
the Northern portion (not the Southern) of Western Europe, which originally was
converted to pure Christianity and denied the authority of the Roman church,
which in the age of subsequent corruption departed least from the faith as it is in
Jesus, and only nominally became allied to the Roman church, and which was
the first to hail and to embrace the call for the reformation,--all the coldest
regions of Western Europe received and maintained the longest the rite of
immersion. It was the warm latitudes that departed from it.

To verify this, one needs but turn to the Latin chronicles of Alcuin and others of
those Judson-like missionaries, who, during the reign of Alfred of England and
Charlemagne of France, carried pure Christianity into the heart of Germany, and
won all the rude tribes of those lands, from which our ancestry sprung, to
Christianity. It impresses the thoughtful mind with gratitude, that the truth as it
was in Jesus was preached and embraced by the rude men from whom our
strong race has come, as we read Alcuin's letters to Charlemagne, rather
commanding than entreating his sovereign to be true to Christ's appointment;
charging him not to force these people by the sword, which he never could do,
to receive Christian baptism; and quoting Jerome's Commentary on Matt. xxviii.
19, 20: "Primum eos doceant, deinde doctas intinquant aqua," to show that the
fathers of the church taught that missionaries "must first teach their people, and
then immerse them in water." And in the cold northern Vistula, thousands on
thousands, the records of the times tell us, were, in the heat of summer, and in
the cold of winter, baptized on sincere personal profession of faith in Christ.

If farther confirmation of this fact be desired, that the people of cold countries
have preferred immersion, it may be found in the work of "Wheatly on the Book
of Common Prayer of England," Bohn's edition, pp. 337--350. Of the fonts now
found in the old English churches, he says, "So called, I suppose, because
baptism in the beginning of Christianity was as performed in springs or
fountains....In the primitive times we meet with them very large and capacious,
not only that they might comport with the general customs of those times, viz.:
of persons being immersed or put under water, but also because the stated
times of baptism returning so seldom, great numbers were usually baptized at
the same time. In the middle of them was always a partition, the one part for
men, the other for women; that so by being baptized asunder they might avoid
giving offence and scandal." The author here cites the orders of Edward, when
the crowd was so great they could not be gathered around the church door; all
of which shows that baptism was often administered to adults, that it was by
immersion, and that a very large number could be baptized on one occasion in
the ordinary font. Again the author says, "Except upon extraordinary occasions,
baptism was seldom, or perhaps never, administered for the first four centuries
but by immersion or dipping. Nor is aspersion or sprinkling ordinarily used, to
this day, in any country that was never subject to the Pope; and among those
that submitted to his authority, England was the last place where it was
received; though it has never obtained so far as to be enjoined, dipping having
been always prescribed by the rubric. The Salisbury Missal, printed in 1530 (the
last that was in force before the Reformation), expressly requires and orders
dipping. And in the first Common Prayer Book of King Edward VI., the priest's
general order is to dip it in water." Here we see that it was not on account of
climate any change grew up; the people in the extreme north were the last to
surrender the original mode; and not even the Pope's authority could compel
them to strike out of their Missal the form received in the simplicity of their early
reception of Christianity. Farther, we read that from love for the primitive
ordinance, "fonts were in times of popery unfitly and surreptitiously placed near
the churches." The author states the alleged, and then the real cause why
effusion took the place of immersion, as follows:--" Many fond ladies at first, and
then by degrees the common people, would persuade the minister that their
children were too tender for dipping. But what principally tended to confirm this
practice, was that several of our English divines flying to Germany, Switzerland,
&c., during the bloody reign of Queen Mary, and returning home when Queen
Elizabeth came to the crown, brought back with them a great love and zeal for
the customs of those churches beyond sea, where they had been sheltered and
received. And consequently having observed that in Geneva and some other
places, baptism was ordered to be performed by effusion, they thought they
could not do the church of England a greater service than to introduce a practice
dictated by so great an oracle as Calvin. So that in the times of Queen Elizabeth,
and during the reigns of King James and King Charles I., there were but very few
children dipped in the font." So it appears it was not on the score of health

(which down to 1500 years after Christianity had existed in England never had
been thought of), but it was fashion which led to the change. Of subsequent
times, and the folly of the Reformers of Elizabeth's and of James' day, the author
adds. "These reformers, it seems could not recollect that fonts to baptize in had
been long used before the times of popery, and that they had nowhere been
discontinued from the beginning of Christianity, but in such places where the
Pope had gained authority. But our divines at the Restoration, understanding a
little better the sense of scripture and antiquity, again restored the order for
immersion." Yet though this is still the order of the Book of Common Prayer, the
author regrets that it is ineffective. Custom, fashion triumphs, even over a
statute of the realm of England.

The struggle of his own mind to be satisfied with the appeal to climate as an
argument for sprinkling, speaks out in these two sentences of the author. The
present Order of the Prayer Book as to baptism is he says "keeping as close to
the primitive rule for baptism as the coldness of our region, and the tenderness
wherewith infants are now used, will sometimes admit. Though Sir John Floyer,
in a discourse on cold baths, hath shown from the nature of our bodies, from the
rules of medicine, from modern experience, and from ancient history, that
nothing could tend more to the preservation of a child's health than dipping it in
baptism."

THE END
1. Acts viii. 26.
2. Judges xvi. 1-3.
3. Jer. xlvii. 5.
4. Amos i. 7.
5. Rom. vi. 4.

How to Become a Follower of Jesus
How does a person become a Christian? Plenty of opinions abound in answer to this
question. Some say that living a moral life makes a person a Christian. Others declare that joining
a church or being baptized makes a person a Christian. Still others call for a person to "make a
decision" or "pray the prayer" or "ask Jesus into your heart." While opinions may be important,
the one vital thing when speaking of becoming a Christian is what does God say about this in

His Word?

God has given His Word - the Bible - to reveal Himself, His purpose for man, and the way to
know Him personally. Everything a person needs to know about becoming a Christian can be
found in God s Word. As God gives a person understanding of the gospel (the good news of
how God, in Christ has provided salvation for man), then that person can come to the point of
genuine faith in Jesus Christ and, consequently, become a Christian.
GOD

The first place to begin in understanding salvation (or becoming a Christian) is with
God.
Who is God anyway?
What is Godlike?
What does God demand of me?
Unless a person has a basic understanding of God, then his understanding of the gospel will be
faulty and unbalanced.
The Bible tells us that God is One, yet He reveals Himself to us in Three Persons. This is called
the Trinity. Hear, 0 Israel! The Lord is our God, the Lord is one! (Deuteronomy 6:4). Go

therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the
Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:18; see also John 5:17-27 where Jesus,
the Son, shows His equality with the Father and John 14:16-17 where Jesus speaks of the Holy
Spirit being another which means "another of the same kind," that is, totally equal with the Son
and Father). God is not three Gods, but one God who has revealed Himself in three Persons who
are equal in character, glory, and power: God the Father, God the Son (Jesus Christ), God the
Holy Spirit.
1. God is Creator
As the Creator, everything that exists has been made by God. God Himself designed, initiated,
and brought about the creation of the entire universe. In the beginning God created the

heavens and the earth....And God created man in His image, in the image of God He
created him: male and female He created them (Genesis 1:1, 27). The Bible further
clarifies that Jesus Christ as God not only made everything, but everything in creation was made
for Him! For by Him all things were created, the heavens, and on earth, visible and

invisible, whether or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been by Him
and for Him (Colossians 1:16).
2. God is Spirit
When Jesus was teaching a woman about God and how to worship Him, He made this
statement: God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth
(John 4:24). God is spirit describes God's essence, that is, Who He is. As spirit, God is far above
man who is limited by hands, feet, and all the other aspects of humanity. As spirit, God cannot
be worshipped by any form of idols (Exodus 20:4-6), nor can He be subject to decay, or loss, or
corruption, or any other thing that afflicts man. God is the purest, simplest, most basic Being in
the universe, that is why He said, You shall have no other gods before Me (Exodus 20:3).
3. God sees and knows all things

The word used to describe this is God's omniscience, that is, there are no surprises with God.
This is what is called an attribute of God. He knows everything about a person, how he will live
his life, what his innermost motives and thoughts are at any given time. This means that God
sees everything in a person's life, the good as well as the evil. Nothing is hidden from Him. And

there is no creature hidden from His sight, but all things are open and laid bare to the
eyes of Him with whom we have to do (Hebrews 4:13; see also Romans 11:33-36)
4. God is Holy
More than any word, the Bible uses the word holy to describe God. As One Who is holy, God is
utterly pure, totally without any kind of blame or error, absolutely free from sin in every respect.
Because He is holy, God is quite different from man who is described as a sinner. Holiness not
only conveys what is missing from God, that is, sin, but also what is in God. Holiness is a positive
characteristic describing the uniqueness of God. Holy, Holy, Holy, is the Lord of hosts. The
whole earth is full of His glory (Isaiah 6:3). Holiness can be described as pure light with no
mixture of darkness. And this is the message we have heard from Him and announce to
you, that God is light, and in Him there is no darkness at all (I John 1:5; see also I
Timothy 6:16 and I Peter 1:16).
5. God is righteous and just
Everything God does is absolutely right and proper. He never makes an assumption or an unjust
accusation toward man. His righteousness and justice has its roots in His holiness. Because God
is holy, He therefore can only do that which is right. His actions toward mankind are just and
righteous. He never carries out any act toward man that is not first rooted in His holy character.
His perfection is seen in His acts of righteousness and justice. The Psalmist writes, God is a

righteous judge.... and the heavens declare His righteousness, for God Himself is
judge (Psalms 7:11; 50:6). God's justice is described in Exodus 34:7, ...yet He will by no
means leave the guilty unpunished.... God's righteousness and justice demand that He deal
with sin and disobedience. For God to overlook such unholy acts would be to negate His
righteousness, which is impossible to do.
6. God is Judge
Because of Who God is and because of His character and attributes, He of necessity is the Judge
of the universe. Everyone must stand before Him to give an account. There is only one
Lawgiver and Judge, the One who is able to save and to destroy... (James 4:12). God's
judgment is sure, accurate, just, and severe. For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven

against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in
unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for
God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world, His eternal power
and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been
made, so that they are without excuse (Romans 1:18-20). Even those who have not
attended church and been under the Bible's teaching have enough natural revelation about God
to know that He is to be honored with obedience. Consequently, all men are under the severity of
divine wrath because of the sinfulness of mankind.
7. God is love
After seeing God's righteousness, justice, and judgment, it might appear to be a contradiction to
say that God is love. Yet the Bible is very clear that He is a God of absolute, pure love. Beloved,

let us love one another, for love is from God; and everyone who loves is born of God

and knows God. The one who does not love does not know God, for God is love. By
this the love of God manifested in us, that God has sent His only begotten Son into
the world so that we might live through Him. In this is love, not that we loved God,
but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins (I John 4:7-10;
see also John 3:16). God loves the individual, though not for what he can do for God (because
man can do nothing for God Who Himself is wholly self-existent). Instead, God loves man
because that is God's nature. It is impossible for Him not to love. Yet, His love never contradicts
His justice. His love is active and selfless, giving to man out of the abundance of His grace even
though man does not deserve anything that God gives.
THINK IT OVER

1. If someone asks you, ‘Who is God?" how will you answer him?
2. Do the names the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit describe three Gods or one God? Can
you think of
some Scripture passages to back up your answer?
3. Name at least three attributes of God and show where these attributes are found in the Bible.
4. Explain what is meant by God being righteous and just. How does this affect mankind?
5. Give some examples of how God has shown His love to you. What is the ultimate expression of
God's love to you?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
MAN AND SIN

Everyone has his own opinion about mankind, but what really matters most is what
God has to say about mankind.
Many modem philosophies consider that man is basically good and wants to do the right thing if
he has a chance. But his environment, society, peers, and family hinder him from acting right.
This kind of view fails to consider what God has said about the nature of man. To understand
why we need salvation, we must see what the Bible says about man and his sin.
1. Man was created in the image of God and expected to obey God completely
We have already noticed that God created everything in the world. The crowning point of
creation came on the sixth day when God created man in His image. And God created man in

His own image, in the image of God He created him: male and female He created
them (Genesis 1:27). While God created many magnificent creatures, only one creature in all of
His creation was made in God's image: man. Being created in God's image does not mean that
physically we are like God. God is a spirit (John 4:24), so He is not limited by a physical body
like humans. Instead, this means that man has been created with a spirit just as God is Spirit.
God made man a moral creature with a conscience that recognizes right and wrong. As a moral
creature, man was to be governed by the law of God. God's perfect righteousness is and always
has been the standard for man's conduct. In the Garden of Eden, God gave our first parents one
law— From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; but from the tree of the

knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you
shall surely die (Genesis 2:16-17). The law was given so that man might completely follow

God's righteousness and perfectly mirror God's holiness. Yet, Adam, the first man, who is

representative of all humanity, chose to eat of the forbidden fruit and consequently, died
spiritually and fell under the sentence of condemnation by violating God's law. Adam's breach of
God's law was a direct assault upon the honor and glory of God. His sin infinitely offended God's
holiness. Though Adam had walked in fellowship and communion with God in the Garden, that
relationship ended --- His communion with God died. The gravity of Adam's sin can be seen in
the fact that a relationship of perfect delight with God dramatically changed into one of eternal
separation from God and the sentence of God's wrath. Adam's fall affected the entire human
race as well, because we all descended from Adam. Therefore, just as through one man sin

entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men,
because all sinned (Romans 5:12). This same sentence of death (both physical and spiritual
death) fell upon all humanity. For the wages of sin is death. . .(Romans 6:23).
Did God's requirements and expectations for man change when Adam fell? Absolutely not! God
still expected man to fully obey Him. But since the first man, every person in the human race
born of man has failed to satisfy God's righteous demands of him which are expressed clearly in
the Old Testament Law. Cursed is everyone who does not abide by all things written in
the book of the Law, to perform them (Galatians 3:10). Now we know that whatever

the Law says, it speaks to those who are under the Law, that every mouth may be
closed, and all the world may become accountable to God; because by the works of
the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes the
knowledge of sin (Romans 3:19-20).
God's moral law can be summed up in the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20:1-17). These divine
commands affect our relationship to God and man. The first four commandments (Exodus 20:111) make it clear that God alone is to be our God and He is to be honored above everything.
Yet man has bowed to gods of his own making: pleasure, sensuality, materialism, recreation,
self-indulgence, etc. Because of man's violation of God's laws regarding man's relationship to
God, the eternal judgment of God falls upon him.
The last six commandments govern man's relationship to his fellow man (Exodus 20:12-17).
Jesus Christ clarified the intention of these commands to show that they refute not simply man's
actions towards others, but even his thoughts and attitudes towards others (see Matthew
5:17-48). While a person may refrain from overt acts of dishonoring his parents, murdering,
adultery, stealing, lying, and coveting, in his mind he violates all of these commands. His overt
and covert breaching of God's law brings him under the sentence of divine wrath. A holy, just
God cannot fail to judge man's sin.
2. Man is dead in his spirit apart from Christ
Not only has man failed to fulfill what God demanded of him, because of his fallen nature, he is
spiritually dead. And you were dead in your trespasses and sins, in which you formerly

walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of
the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience. Among them we
too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of
the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest (Ephesians 2:1-3). In
this, God declares that because of our sin nature, man is totally dead in his spirit, lives his life
naturally along the pattern of a world that is anti-God, finds himself under the dominion of Satan,
and consequently, God's awful wrath looms before him. As a matter of fact, this puts man in a
hopeless, helpless estate apart from God's mercy.
3. Man, by his nature and actions, is a sinner

This fact is plain in Scripture. As it is written, ‘There is none righteous, not even one; there

is none who understands, there is none who seeks for God; all have turned aside,
together they have become useless; there is none who does good, there is not even
one... .for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God' (Romans 3:10-12, 23). Think
of the best person you have ever met. He or she is still a sinner. As sinners, mankind cannot
claim to be righteous, because there is no righteousness in our natures. Man does not
understand spiritual things or even seek after God (see also I Corinthians 2:14) unless God first
seeks him. Man is incapable of doing anything on his own of making himself right with God. The
sad assessment is that all of us have sinned and because of that we fall short of God's glory [a
term which describes the radiance of God s nature].
4. A man dead in his sin cannot do anything to save himself
Because of man s fallen nature, he cannot lift himself up to God. He cannot save himself by being
religious, or practicing the Golden Rule, or joining a church. He may give great effort at trying to
keep the Ten Commandments, but if he offends just one of these in action or thought he is guilty
of breaking the entire law of God (James 2:10). These kinds of things might improve a man's
appearance before other men, but they cannot do anything to improve his standing with
Almighty God. He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in

righteousness, but according to His mercy....For by grace you have been saved
through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works,
that no one should boast....Because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified
in His sight.... (Titus 3:5; Ephesians 2:8-9; Romans 3:20).
5. Apart from God's intervention of mercy and grace, man cannot be saved
This means that every man faces God's judgment for his sin without any ability or hope to save
himself. This puts all humanity in the distressing situation of being destined for God's wrath. But
the good news is that God has intervened in saving grace!

But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even
when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by
grace you have been saved), and raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in
the heavenly places, in Christ Jesus, in order that in the ages to come He might show
the surpassing riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. For by grace
you have been saved through faith... (Ephesians 2:4-8a). Note the two terms that express
God's intervention: mercy and grace. Mercy implies God's disposition of kindness and
compassion toward someone who is undeserving of such kindness. God's mercy has its roots in
His character. This was demonstrated by God giving His Son in order that sinful men might be
forgiven. Grace begins with God, not man. In grace, God actively initiates His saving work in
the sinner, who is himself dead in his trespasses and sins. While mercy is God's disposition of
kindness and compassion toward a sinner, grace is God's action to bring the sinner to life (i.e.,
regenerate him, see Ephesians 2:5; Titus 3:5), save him, declare him to be righteous, and to
secure him for eternity.
Grace is the activity of God based upon the satisfying of God's justice through the death of
Christ, now effectively applied to bring about the salvation of a sinner. But when the kindness

of God our Savior and His love for mankind appeared, He saved us, not on the basis of
deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the
washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out upon
us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, that being justified by His grace we might
be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life (Titus 3:4-7). You see, it is not what a

man does that can save him from his sin or God's judgment; instead, it is what God has done
for him in Jesus Christ according to His mercy and grace.
THINK IT OVER

1. What does it mean when the Bible says we are "created in the image of God?"
2. How does Adam s sin affect you? See if you can support your answer with Scripture.
3. Has man satisfied God s righteous demands of him by obeying the Law? Explain the
consequence of your answer.
4. Some people believe that man can save himself. Tell some of the ways people try to save
themselves and explain why none of these ways can justify a person before God.
5. Why is man dependent upon God s intervention for salvation?
6.Explain what is meant by the terms "mercy" and "grace."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
JESUS CHRIST
The focal point of salvation is Jesus Christ. Apart from Christ no sinner can be saved. And there

is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been
given among men, by which we must be saved (Acts 4:12). There are two primary truths
which are vital for us to understand concerning Christ and His work of salvation: Who Jesus is
and What Jesus has accomplished on our behalf (that is, the Person of Christ and the Work
of Christ).
1. Who Jesus is (or the Person of Christ)
Throughout the centuries, people have had a variety of ideas about just who Jesus really is.
Some consider him to be a prophet, others a great religious leader, still others a mystical being.
But what does God s Word says about Jesus?

(1) Jesus Christ is God
When the Apostle John opened the Gospel which bears his name, he began by identifying Jesus
as the One True God. He used a term --Word-- which was common in his day, to describe who
Jesus is. By the identifying term the Word, John points to the One Who created everything that
exists in the universe (see Genesis 1:1) and the One in Whom all mankind derives its life. In the

beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was
in the beginning with God. All things came into being by Him, and apart from Him
nothing came into being that has come into being. In Him was life, and the life was
the light of men. And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not
comprehend it (John 1:1-5). If Jesus was a created being, and not infinite as is the case with
God, then it would have been impossible for Him to create all things that have come into being,
for He would be included in all things. The Creator cannot create Himself! This would be an
impossibility!

In the book of Exodus, the Lord God revealed Himself to Moses at the burning bush on Mt. Horeb
by a most unusual name. Moses asked God to tell him the Name he was to use when addressing
the children of Israel on behalf of God. What shall I say to them? Moses asked. And God

said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM", and He said, Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel,
"I AM has sent me to you" (Exodus 3:13-14). The name I AM refers to the eternality of God.
He is the One Who has no beginning and no end. He is the eternally Present One. When Jesus
was having a discussion with some of the Jewish religious leaders, He used the very same name
to refer to Himself, which identified Him as being the Lord God of the Old Testament that
revealed Himself to Moses on Mt. Horeb. Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was
born, I am (John 8:58). The Jews understood exactly what Jesus was saying, that He is the
same God that spoke to Moses at Mt. Horeb! Since they did not believe in Him being God, they
tried to stone Him for using this special name for God.
When the Apostle Paul was writing to Titus on the Isle of Crete, he gave a marvelous description
of the deity (Godhood) of Jesus Christ. For the grace of God has appeared, bringing

salvation to all men, instructing us to deny ungodliness and worldly desires and to
live sensibly, righteously and godly in the present age, looking for the blessed hope
and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus; who gave
Himself for us, that He might redeem us from every lawless deed and purify for
Himself a people for His own possession, zealous for good deeds (Titus 2:11-14). The
phrase he uses, our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus, states in clear terms that Jesus
Christ is wholly and absolutely God.
One of the clearest passages relating to Christ's deity is found in Colossians 1:15-20. And He is
the image of the invisible God, the first born of all creation. The word, image, means
that Jesus is in reality Who He represents. That is, He is in reality the invisible God. As first born
of all creation Jesus is preeminent over all creation and He is preexistent and unique as the
Son. For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and

invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things have been
created by Him and for Him. Again, the emphasis is placed upon Jesus creating everything,
even things in the heavens and things we cannot see with our eyes. He not only created all
things but all things were created for Him. This means that the ultimate purpose of everything
in creation is the glory of Jesus Christ! For it was the Father s good pleasure for all the
fulness to dwell in Him. All the totality of divine attributes and powers are found in Jesus
Christ. And through Him to reconcile all things to Himself: having made peace through

the blood of His cross; through Him, I say, whether things on earth or things in
heaven. Jesus, Who is wholly God, by the sacrificial act of His death on the cross has provided
the means to put sinners in a right relationship with Himself as God (i.e., to reconcile).

(2) Jesus Christ became man
Notice that there is a difference in these two points of emphasis on the Person of Christ. Jesus
Christ is God, that is His infinite nature. But this same God became man that He might reveal
God to sinful humanity and ultimately, fulfill all righteousness and pay the debt of sin the sinner
owes God. The passage quoted previously, John 1:1-5, describes the deity of Jesus by the
ancient term Word. John explains God becoming a man in that same chapter, And the Word

became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, glory as of the only
begotten from the Father, fill of grace and truth (John 1:14).
The act of God becoming man is known as the Incarnation. When the angel spoke to Joseph
about the fact that his bride-to-be, Mary, was with child by a supernatural act of the Holy Spirit,
he explained that Jesus would be the One to save His people from their sins. The story goes on

to explain that Jesus was to be called Immanuel, which translated means, God with us (see
Matthew 1:18-25). That s the great news of the Incarnation, God has come to man to bring
about his redemption! As Thomas Watson put it, "The Word was made flesh , that through the
glass of his human nature we might look upon God."
Why did God come to man? Only God could fully satisfy His own righteous, just demands --demands based upon His divine nature and character. Man had proven over and over that he
could never measure up to God's Law. But since man is the one who has sinned, the demand of
justice is that man himself would have to suffer for his sin. This is why Jesus became a man, so
that He might fully obey God's Law as a Man and that He might suffer the judgment of God on
our behalf as a Man. "...It was God who was offended, and it was God who satisfied. Thus
Christ's person is in two natures" (Thomas Watson). Therefore, He had to be made like His

brethren In all things, that He might become a merciful and faithful high priest in
things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people (Hebrews
2:17).

For in Him all the fulness of Deity dwells in bodily form (Colossians 2:9). All that God is,
He is in Jesus Christ. The great God that mankind has offended with sin and rebellion came to
dwell among us that He, out of His mercy and grace, might act redemptively on our behalf.

Since then the children share in flesh and blood, He Himself likewise also partook of
the same, that through death He might render powerless him who had the power of
death, that is, the devil; and might deliver those who through fear of death were
subject to slavery all their lives (Hebrews 2:14-15).
As man, Jesus Christ faced the limitations of humanity, yet He never sinned. He fulfilled every
demand of the Law and all that pertains to righteousness. For we do not have a high priest

who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who has been tempted in all
things as we are, yet without sin (Hebrews 4:15; see also Philippians 2:5-11). As the Sinless
One, He became the perfect Lamb of God to take away the sin of the world (see John 1:29, 36).
2. What Jesus has accomplished on our behalf (or the Work of Christ)
Most people have heard that Jesus died on the cross. Why did Jesus Christ have to die such a
horrible death? What implications does that act of His death have for sinners?
The death of Jesus on the cross relates directly to God's holiness and man's sinfulness.
Because God is holy and just, He cannot ignore sin, nor let the sinner go unpunished. Every act
of sin by man personally affronts God. As a creature affected by Adam's fall, man must face the
consequence of the Fall. God's character demands that He punish to the full degree every sinful
person. To do anything less than this would mean that God was not being God.. .and that is
impossible!
On the other hand, a sinful man does not have any hope of persuading God to not punish him for
his sinfulness. That man cannot make himself right before God because nothing short of
perfection pleases God (see Matthew 5:48). Even if he tries his very best, man cannot save
himself from the wrath of God.
This is where God intervenes in His great love and mercy! God came to man (remember, this is
the Incarnation) in order to give His own life to redeem man from the curse of sin and the certain
wrath of God. Jesus Christ conquered sin and death on our behalf which was verified by His
resurrection from the dead. Now, through the sacrificial act of Jesus Christ, Who is God Himself:
sinful man can be declared righteous before Holy God! The power of His death and resurrection

can actually be applied to the sinner to save him for all eternity.
Just what did Jesus accomplish through His death?

(1) Righteousness of God
Jesus Christ fulfilled all of the righteous requirements which God demands of us. But now apart

from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the
Law and the Prophets, even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for
all those who believe; for there is no distinction; for all have sinned and fall short of
the glory of God (Romans 3:21-23). Because all of us are sinners, we have no way in our own
power to fully obey the Law of God. We cannot do anything to save ourselves. But what Jesus
did on our behalf was absolutely righteous. He perfectly obeyed the Father so that His
righteousness might be put on our account. He went to the cross, undeserving of the death He
faced, and died a righteous death on our behalf. In other words, God did not change the rules in
mid-stream concerning salvation. He did not cheapen His holiness or deny His justice by saving
sinners. Instead, His Son totally fulfilled every demand of God's righteousness, so that our
salvation through Christ meets every requirement of God's holy character and nature.

(2) Justification
The work of Jesus on the cross justifies the sinner who has faith in Him. Being justified as a
gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus (Romans 3:24; see
also Romans 3:25-28; 5:1-2)
The word justifies has both a negative and positive meaning. Negatively, it means that the
sinner who put his faith in Christ has been declared not guilty by God. All of the charges against
the sinner because of his sinfulness are certainly accurate. But Jesus Christ has borne the
judgment of God against the sinner, so that now, because of what Christ has done on behalf of
the sinner, God declares the sinner to be not guilty of his eternal crime.
But this word is also a positive one. God now declares the sinner to be righteous. How
righteous is the new believer in Christ? Just a righteous as Jesus Christ! He made Him who

knew no sin to be sin on our behalf that we might become the righteousness of God
in Him (II Corinthians 5:21). The righteousness of God cannot be imitated or manipulated. It
can only be given through Christ. Jesus bore our sinfulness in His own body on the cross and
imputed (credited) to us His own righteousness. When that believer stands before God, he will
stand justified, declared not guilty and having within him the righteousness of God through faith
in Christ. For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law
(Roman 3:28).

(3) Redemption
Being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus
(Romans 3:24). Redemption pictures an ancient slave market, where the slave stands on the
block to be sold once again into slavery. But something amazing and wonderful happens!
Someone pays the price for the slave's freedom and sets him free! The utterly amazing thing is
that the Redeemer pays for the slave by entering into slavery for him. That's what Jesus did for
us at the cross. While we were enslaved to sin with no hope of ever being set free, Jesus Christ
became our substitute. He paid the debt we owe because of our sin (Romans 6:23). At the cross
He experienced all of the horridness of sin's wicked power and the wrath of God due that sin.
Through His life He paid for our redemption that we might be free. Consequently, we were

brought out of the slave market of sin, never to be held by its power again for we are set free in
Christ. The believer never returns to that same old position of slavery to sin. For all eternity, be is
free! If therefore the Son shall make you free, you shall be free indeed (John 8:36).

(4) Propitiation
Being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus;
whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to
demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over
the sins previously committed; for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at
the present time, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in
Jesus (Romans 3:24-26). Propitiation may seem to be a strange word, but is one of the most
important truths in the Bible. Remember that God's righteousness has to be satisfied simply
because He is God. To pardon a sinner without first satisfying His righteousness, would mean
that God was contradicting His own nature, which is impossible. In order to forgive sinners, God
satisfied His righteousness and justice through the death of His Son at the cross. That's what
propitiation means---a satisfying of God's righteousness and justice, so that God might justly
declare sinners to be righteous and forgiven through faith in His Son. In Jesus Christ's death an
actual sacrifice to atone for man's sins occurred. Our sin was transferred to Christ at the cross
and the full payment due because of our sin was met through His death. This means that God's
holy wrath has been satisfied through the substitutionary death of His Son. Therefore, He had

to be made like His brethren in all things, that He might become a merciful and
faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the
people (Hebrews 2:17; see also Hebrews 2:14-18 and I John 2:1-2). It is only because Jesus
satisfied all of the demands of God's righteousness and justice on our behalf that we can enter
into a relationship with the very God we have offended with our sinfulness.

(5) Adoption
When a sinner comes to Jesus Christ in faith, trusting in what Christ has done on his behalf to
satisfy all of God's demands, then he is adopted into God's family. So also we, while we were

children, were held in bondage under the elemental things of he world But when the
fulness of the time came, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the
Law, in order that He might redeem those who were under the Law that we might
receive the adoption as sons. And because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit
of His Son into our hearts, crying, "Abba! Father!" Therefore you are no longer a
slave, but a son; and if a son, then an heir through God (Galatians 4:3-7). Our adoption
takes place, not because God did not have a son, for He does...the Lord Jesus Christ. Instead,
God adopts us because of our great need for Him. The price of adoption was the blood of His
own beloved Son at the cross. As He adopts us, He gives us both His name (which earthly
parents can do in adoption) and His nature (which an earthly parent cannot do; see 11 Peter
1:4).
Jesus Christ has accomplished for us what we could never accomplish nor ever deserve.
Understanding who Jesus is and what He has done for us makes the truth of the gospel come
alive in our hearts and minds.
THINK IT OVER

1. Is Jesus Christ God Himself? If so, explain this through the use of Scripture.
2. Did God come to man? Explain how He did this and why He did this.

3. What does it mean to be justified? Explain how God justifies the sinner.
4. What does propitiation mean? Explain how this affects our salvation.?
5. Name the two specific things that God gives us in adoption. How does this affect you
personally?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
FAITH

A person can hear the gospel, but if he never exercises saving faith he remains lost
for eternity. While many people try to justify themselves before God on the basis of their
religious activity or their good works, the Bible clearly tells us that the only way to come to God is
through faith in Jesus Christ. Too often, faith is misunderstood.
1. There are four kinds of faith
First, there is a historical faith, which means that a person believes what the Bible says
because they have been culturally conditioned to believe it. In communities where the Christian
faith is strong or there is a strong sense of divine authority, a person who does not believe the
Bible's message about Christ might become an outcast. This happens due to the strong social
and cultural influences which often have roots in Christianity. The only problem is that this kind
of faith cannot save. The demons of hell exercise this kind of faith...and they certainly are not
saved! You believe that God is one. You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder
(James 2:19).
Second, there is temporary faith, which lasts for a while, then fades away because it does not
have any roots. Jesus describes this in the parable of the sower in which the Word of God is
sown upon a heart with shallow soil. Just like a little seed which germinates in shallow soil, there
springs up what appears to be life. But because of the shallow soil the life is only temporary and
quickly withers. And the one on whom seed was sown on the rocky places, this is the

man who hears the word, and immediately receives it with joy; yet he has no firm
root in himself but is only temporary, and when affliction or persecution arises
because of the word, immediately he falls away (Matthew 13:20-2 1). Some people have a
religious experience or even have great excitement about the Christian life, possibly even making
a public profession of Christ. But if the Word of God does not take firm root in his life by its
saving power, this kind of person quickly fades away when the demands of the Christian life
confront him. This kind of faith cannot save.
Third, there is a miraculous faith, which describes those individuals who through some means
or another are able to perform miraculous works and because of this they believe themselves to
be saved. Judas Iscariot followed Jesus Christ for three years and was even involved in doing
miraculous works. Yet he perished in hell! Pharaoh's magicians imitated the miracles of Moses for
a time, yet they were by no means believers! Jesus warned against this kind of false faith in
Matthew 7:21-23: Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of

heaven; but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven. Many will say to Me
on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast
out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?' And then I will declare to
them, 'I never knew you: Depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness. '

Finally, there is a true, justifying faith or saving faith, which is a gift of God given to us that
we might believe the Person and Work of Christ on our behalf. For by grace you have been

saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of
works, that no one should boast (Ephesians 2:8-9). Let's clarify this wonderful gift of saving
faith.
2. What faith is not
Sometimes it helps to see what something is not in order to see what it really is. Saving faith is
not a mere acknowledgment of the historical facts of Jesus Christ. Most people will acknowledge.
this, yet remain lost. Saving faith is not merely believing in God. Remember that the demons
believe in God too! Saving faith is not simply an acknowledgment that Jesus is a Savior or that
Jesus can save. Neither is saving faith simply faith in faith.. .nor faith in a decision. ..nor faith
in a prayer. ..nor faith in a profession...nor faith in your own plan of salvation.
3. What justifying faith is
True faith is based upon the fact of what God has declared in His Word. The object of saving or
justifying faith is Jesus Christ and what He has accomplished on behalf of sinners through the
cross. It is when the sinner humbly approaches Jesus Christ in absolute trust in Him that the
work of the cross is applied in saving power to the sinner's life. Where then is boasting? It is

excluded. By what kind of law? Of works? No, but by a law of faith. For we maintain
that a man is justified by faith apart from the works of the Law (Romans 3:27-28). It is
not the works of the sinner that saves him. His works are powerless to bring about salvation. But
when God gives him grace to believe in Jesus Christ and trust what Christ did on the cross for
him, that person is transformed by the power of God.
How does justifying faith operate? There are three facets to this kind of true, saving faith. First,
there is self-renunciation in which a person comes to the end of himself, recognizes his
absolute sinfulness and hopelessness before God, and turns from his sin, then turns to God, Who
alone can save him. Repent therefore and return, that your sins may be wiped away, in
order that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord (Acts 3:19). This
self-renunciation is evident by repentance, which involves a change of mind about life, so that
the person turns away from his life of rebellion toward God and casts himself wholly upon the
mercy of God to save him (see also Acts 2:38; Luke 13:3; Mark 1:15). The Apostle Paul described
this work in his own life in Philippians 3:8-9. More than that, I count all things to be loss in

view of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have
suffered the loss of all things, and count them but rubbish in order that I may gain
Christ, and may be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own derived from
the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which comes
from God on the basis of faith.
Second, justifying faith involves a total reliance upon Jesus Christ and His work on the
cross to save you. That's what faith or believing means, a total reliance or absolute trust in
someone or something. in this case the Someone is Jesus Christ! When the Philippian jailer
asked Paul and Silas what he must do in order to be saved, they replied, Believe in the Lord
Jesus, and you shall be saved, you and your household (Acts 16:30-31; see also John
3:16; 3:36; 5:24; 6:40; 6:47). This belief in Christ goes beyond a mere head knowledge of Jesus
to a trust in Christ and Christ alone for salvation. Faith means "Forsaking All ,I Trust Him."
The Apostle Paul never boasted about anything he did in order to be saved, because he realized
that it was all of Christ and none of him. But may it never be that I should boast, except

in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world has been crucified to
me, and I to the world (Galatians 6:14).

Third, Justifying faith involves appropriating or receiving Christ Himself as your

Redeemer, Justifier, Savior, and Lord.
But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God,
even to those who believe in His name, who were born not of blood, nor of the will of
the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God (John 1:12-13). When a person comes to Jesus
Christ in absolute trust, he receives Christ into His life, and with Him, all that He has
accomplished for sinners. Now that new believer knows Christ in a different fashion. No longer is
He just an impersonal God in the heavens. But now he enters into a living, dynamic relationship
with Jesus Christ as his Lord. Jesus has redeemed him from the power of sin, so Jesus is now his
Redeemer. Jesus has applied His blood and righteousness to his life and declared him to be
righteous before God, so Jesus is now his Justifier. Jesus has saved him from the wrath of God,
so now Jesus is his Savior. Jesus has laid claim to his life for eternity by His atoning death and
mighty resurrection, so now Jesus is his Lord.
THINK IT OVER

1. What are the four kinds of faith? Try to given an example of each one.
2. Give some examples of a false kind of faith that people substitute for saving faith.
3. What is true, justifying faith?
4.Why is self-renunciation an aspect of saving faith?
5. What are the three facets of faith? Can you give a Scripture reference for each one?
6. What happens to the sinner in terms of his new relationship to Christ when he trusts Christ?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
CONCLUSION
As you have read through this booklet or perhaps studied it with a group, you have been
confronted with the Bible's teaching on salvation. You have seen Who God is and how His
character is evident in everything He says, or does, or demands. You have seen the problem of
man's sinfulness and his hopelessness to save himself.
Because of man's sin, he stands condemned by the law and he faces a destiny with the wrath of
Holy God. But the good news is that you have seen that God has come to man through Jesus
Christ! In His coming to earth, Jesus had one primary mission, to bear our sins on the cross and
face the wrath of God in our place. But it is only when we repent by renouncing our self and sin,
trust in Christ alone, and receive Him as Savior and Lord that we can know His saving life. Trust
Jesus Christ as your Prophet who has spoken His saving word to you. Trust Him as your Priest
who has mediated before God in your behalf by His atoning death on the cross. Trust Him as
your King who now reigns over you.
The Bible declares, He who has the Son has the life; he who does not have the Son of
God does not have the life (I John 5:12). Have you trusted Jesus Christ alone for your
salvation? Do you have THE LIFE which only comes in knowing Christ through faith?

If this is not settled in your life, seek the Lord ,Who alone can save you. As a sinner who cannot
save himself, cast yourself upon His mercy. Discover that He is full of mercy and grace. Admit to
God your sinfulness and desperation for His forgiveness. Repent of your sins and turn to God.
Trust Him to save you for eternity through the blood of Christ. Depend upon what God has
declared in His Word and the witness of the Holy Spirit in your life as your assurance of being
right before God.
If you have put your faith in Christ, now declare your faith publicly before men through baptism.
Unite with a church which preaches and teaches God's Word. Daily seek the Lord through His
Word, beginning with John's Gospel, then reading Romans, I John, and Galatians. Bring your
thanks, praises, and needs before your Heavenly Father in prayer. Seek to tell others about Jesus
Christ and His power to save. By God's grace, seek to walk daily in obedience to the Lord. Trust
Him for strength and power to obey.
If you are already a true believer, then rejoice in the grace of God given to you in Christ! Use this
booklet as a study tool for understanding in greater fashion the work of Christ on your behalf
Seek to declare the good news of Jesus Christ with others. May the Lord give you power to bring
glory to His great Name!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
ADDITIONAL READING
Benton, John. Coming to Faith in Christ. Banner of Truth
Blanchard, John. Right With God. Banner of Truth
Bridges, Jerry. Trusting God. Navpress
Ferguson, Sinclair. Growing in Grace. Banner of Truth
Hulse, Erroll. Baptism and Church Membership. Carey Publications
Lloyd-Jones, Martin. Life in Christ. Crossway Books
Lloyd-Jones, Martin. The Heart of the Gospel. Crossway Books
MacArthur, John, The Gospel According to Jesus. Word of Grace
MacArthur, John, Faith Works. Word Publishing
Martin, Albert N, What Is a Biblical Christian? Trinity Book Service
Nesom, Joe, Be Sure What You Believe. Founder Press
Packer, J.I. Knowing God. Inter Varsity Press
Thomas, Geoffrey, Reading the Bible. Banner of Truth
Watson, Thomas. A Body of Divinity. Banner of Truth

Webster, William. The Christian--Following Christ as Lord. Banner of Truth
Whitney, Donald. Spiritual Disciplines of the Christian Life. Navpress
Whitney, Donald. Spiritual Disciplines Within the Church. Moody Press
Quotations from the Bible are from the New American Standard Bible.



---

Source Exif Data:

File Type                       : PDF
File Type Extension             : pdf
MIME Type                       : application/pdf
PDF Version                     : 1.4
Linearized                      : No
Page Count                      : 296
Producer                        : GPL Ghostscript 8.15
Create Date                     : 2009:09:29 00:08:41
Modify Date                     : 2009:09:29 00:08:41
Title                           : Microsoft Word - JL Dagg Manual Of Theology.mht
Creator                         : PScript5.dll Version 5.2
Author                          : Love Joy and Peace

EXIF Metadata provided by EXIF.tools