JL Dagg Manual Of Theology.mht Theology

User Manual: manual pdf -FilePursuit

Open the PDF directly: View PDF .
Page Count: 296 [warning: Documents this large are best viewed by clicking the View PDF Link!]

MANUAL OF THEOLOGY

SECOND PART

A TREATISE ON

CHURCH ORDER

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.

Gal. ii. 20

2 Cor. v. 14, 15.

Matt. 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

the world." "This

my body." "This cup

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

in water.

(15)

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)

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

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)

]

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

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)

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)

For the purpose of hardening.--

39. The smith

dips

a hatchet into cold

water.

(53)

40 Iron

dipped.

(54)

For other purposes.--

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

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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

Sinking ships.

--1. Shall I not laugh at the man who

immerses

his ship by

overlading it?

(94)

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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

In appearance.

--48. But when the sun

immerses

himself in the water of the

ocean.

(140)

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

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)

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)

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

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

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

smear

is liable to mislead us into the belief that

bapto

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

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,

to make,

like the termination

ize

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:--

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.

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.

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,

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

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

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

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 re-

examining 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

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.

to immerse,

and

to wash

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

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

, 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

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,

to dip in; so,

in Greek,

baptizo

is construed with either

eis

. 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

is commonly used,

eis

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

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,

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,

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

, 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

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

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

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

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

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,

with

another, but are now

separated from it (not

it, for to this

corresponds)." "

[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

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

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

Field

316 200

218

Pool of Hezekiah 240 140

Lower Pool of Gihon

595 245

275

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

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

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, "

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

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

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

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.

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)

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

the word from

ekklesia

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

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 free-

will 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 church-

membership, 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

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 co-

members 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

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 co-

operate 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 church-

membership.

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 church-

members; 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

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

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 church-

membership; 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,

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)

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)

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,

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)

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)

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 twenty-

four 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 church-

membership 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 church-

membership, 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

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 church-

membership 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,

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)

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. The-

impenitent 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 of-

their 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)

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 co-

operating, 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)

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 church-

members, 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 narrow-

mindedness; 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 church-

membership 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

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 baptizing-

place 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

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

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).

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.

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).

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).

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)

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

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).

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.

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.

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.

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 20:1-

11) 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.

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.

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].

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).

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

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

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).

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

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).

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

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.

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

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.

What faith is not

Sometimes it helps to see what something is not in order to see what it really

. 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.

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

Christ and Christ

alone

for salvation. Faith means

"Forsaking All ,I Trust Him."

The Apostle Paul never boasted about anything

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.

JL Dagg Manual Of Theology.mht Theology

Navigation menu

Versions of this User Manual:

Views

Navigation