|
Alexander Campbell (1788-1866) Debate on Christian Baptism (Buffaloe, Virginia: 1825) day1 day2 day3 day4 day5 day6 day7 |
|
|
A DEBATE, ON CHRISTIAN BAPTISM, BETWEEN THE Rev. W. L. MACCALLA, A PRESBYTERIAN TEACHER, AND ALEXANDER CAMPBELL, HELD AT WASHINGTON, KY. COMMENCING ON THE 15TH AND TERMININATING ON THE 21ST OCT. 1823, IN THE PRESENCE OF A VERY NUMEROUS AND RESPECTABLE CONGREGATION. IN WHICH ARE INTERSPERSED A N I M A D V E R S I O N S ON DIFFERENT TREATISES ON THE SAME SUBJECT, WRITTEN BY DR. J. MASON, DR. S. RALSTON, REV. E. POND, REV. J. P. CAMPBELL, RECTOR ARMSTRONG, AND THE REV. J. WALKER. BY ALEXANDER CAMPBELL. "There are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision; teaching things which they ought not for filthy lucre's sake; whose mouths must be stopped." -- Paul. BUFFALOE: PUBLISHED BY CAMPBELL & SALA. - - - - - 1824. |
|
( 72 )
But he should remember that I have opened the debate in due form, and submitted, from the New Testament, the law of baptism. I have also read the practice of the original witnesses in Judea, Samaria, and in the Uttermost parts of the earth; which clearly shows in what manner they understood the law of baptism," which law authorizes the baptism of disciples only. I have called, and called, upon my opponent to read his authorities from the New Testament for infant baptism, and will again sit down, before my time Expires, to hear him read those records in favor of his practice. I sat down. Mr. M. arose: -- I believe the Old Testament to be the word of God as well as the New. And a command of God by Moses, and a command by Paul, are equally the commands of God and entitled to obedience. But as nothing will suit my opponent but what comes from the New Testament, and as he has read the commission to baptize disciples, it might suffice to tell him, that infants as well as adults are disciples, at least, I am able to prove from the fifteenth chapter of the Acts of the Apostles, that infants are called disciples. "Why," says the Apostle, "tempt ye God to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples?" -- Now we know that this yoke was circumcision, and that infants were equally, to say the least, under this law with their parents. Again, the Saviour saith, "suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not, for of such is the kingdom of God." -- And Paul says that some infants are holy, consequently fit subjects of baptism. But as I have opened the debate and proposed the plan on which to proceed, I will go on to establish my first proposition: viz. Abraham and his seed were Divinely constituted a true visible church of God. Mr. C.
( 73 )
I answered forthwith, that a part of the Seed of Abraham was Divinely constituted a true visible church of God, but not all his seed. Will you, said Mr. M. admit that a part of the seed of Abraham, as I have defined that part, was constituted a visible church of God? I answered -- Read your definition of that part of his seed again, and I will give you an explicit answer. Mr. M. then read, that all the seed of Abraham, with the exception of such as were afterwards excommunicated, was constituted a true visible church of God. I objected to the term excommunicated as not being applicable to the Jews in Abraham's time, as being a modern ecclesiastical term too vague in its meaning, and of doubtful disputation, when used in such a connexion of ideas; but I observed that if Mr. M. would alter his proposition so far, as to insert the word part, before the seed of Abraham, that, I would, in order to save time and to avoid unnecessary disputation, without hesitation, say, that a part of the seed of Abraham was Divinely constituted a true church of God. Mr. M. observed, that unless I would answer the question with an unequivocal yes, in the terms he had
( 74 )
I replied, prove it then, but it is altogether unnecessary, inasmuch, as I have admitted every thing that could affect the argument. Mr. M. went on with his proof: -- There are certain peculiarities necessary to a church state. It is not every assembly that may or can exist that is a church of God. No indeed, for then a mob, a riotous assembly, a political convention, a civil court, or any ordinary meeting, might be called a church of God. The first thing necessary to the existence of a visible church of God is, that the oracles of God be possessed by those who unite together in a church state. Without this acquisition, let a society possess what advantage it may, it cannot be called a church. For all knowledge of God, faith in him, and devotion to him grow out of the possession of the oracles, of God. That the seed of Abraham had these oracles committed to them we will prove both from the Old Testament and the New, Psalm lxxviii. 5-8. "He," said David the prophet, "established a testimony in Jacob, and appointed a law in Israel which he commanded our Fathers, that they should make them known to their children. That the generation to come might know them, even the children which should be born, who should arise and declare them to their children; that they might set their hope in God, and not forget the works of God but keep his commandments: and might not be as their Fathers, a stubborn and rebellious generation, that set not their heart aright, and whose spirit was not stedfast with God." -- You will observe, my hearers, that it is expressly said, by David the prophet, that a testimony was established in Jacob, and a law appointed in Israel which was to be perpetuated from generation to generation, and to be taught by parents to their children in every age. To the same purpose speaketh Moses, Deut. xxx. 19. "I call heaven and earth to record this day against
( 75 )
A more explicit testimony to this effect we have in Neh. ix. 13, 14. "Thou camest down also upon mount Sinai and speakest with them from heaven, and gavest them right judgments, and true laws, (or laws of truth) good statutes and commandments; and madest known unto them thy holy sabbath, and commandest them precepts, statutes and laws, by the hand of Moses thy servant." -- This is so plain that no comment is necessary. In the same clear definite style sings David. Ps. cxlvii. 19, 20. "He sheweth his words unto Jacob, his statutes and his judgments unto Israel. He hath not dealt so with any other nation: and as for his judgments they have not known them." This sheweth, not only that God committed his oracles to the seed of Abraham, but to them exclusively; and that no other nation could Worship the true God without his oracles, consequently no other nation but that of Israel could be a church of God. The New Testament is equally, if not more explicit in proof of this proposition. Acts vii. 38. "This is he that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel
( 76 )
Stephen also, the proto-martyr, in the same speech, Acts vii. 53, tells Israel, "that they had received the law by the disposition of angels and had not kept it." But Paul in his epistle to the Romans, chap. iii. settles the point at once. He asks the question, "what advantage then hath the Jew? or, what profit is there in circumcision -- much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God. And in the ninth chapter of the same epistle, he saith "that the giving of the law pertaineth unto Israel." Thus, my friends, we have proved the first point necessary to show that Abraham and his seed were Divinely constituted a true visible church; -- because they had the oracles of a church committed to them. In the second place, I proceed to show that they had the second thing necessary to a church state, namely, the ordinances of a church. To say nothing of the ordinance of circumcision, which, though not a social ordinance of worship, was, nevertheless, an ordinance Divinely appointed to the seed of Abraham; we shall proceed to the social ordinances that belong to, and require a church state. Of these the first is the ordinance of the passover. Ex. xii. 1-14." And the Lord spake unto Moses, and Aaron in the land of Egypt, saying, this month shall be unto you the beginning of months: it shall be the first month of the year to you. Speak ye unto all the congregation of Israel, saying, in the tenth day of this month they shall take to them every man a lamb, according to the house of their fathers, a lamb for an house: and if the household be too little for a lamb, let him and his neighbour next unto his house take it according to the number of souls: every man according to his eating shall make your count for the lamb.
( 77 )
The next ordinance enjoined upon the seed of Abraham was the feast of unleavened bread -- a social ordinance, and an holy convocation. "Seven days shall ye eat unleavened bread; even the first day ye shall put away leaven out of your houses: for whosoever eateth leavened bread from the first day until
( 78 )
We shall notice next the ordinance of the Sabbath, for it is given to Israel not only in the Jaw, with other precepts, but it was given as an ordinance. We shall read to this effect. "Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore; for it is holy unto you: every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death: for whosoever doeth any work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his people. It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed." Ex. xxxi. 12-17. "And remember that thou wast a servant an the land of Egypt, and that the Lord thy God brought thee out thence, through a mighty hand and by a stretched out arm. Therefore the Lord thy God commanded thee to keep the sabbath day." To the same purpose Ezekiel the prophet, xx. and 12th, in addition to the statutes and judgments given them the Lord saith, "Moreover also I gave them my sabbaths, to be a sign between
( 79 )
The next religious festival or ordinance appointed the Jews, of which we shall take notice, is the "Feast of Weeks," or as it is sometimes called, the "Feast of Pentecost." "And ye shall count unto you from the morrow after the sabbath, from the day that ye brought the sheaf of the wave-offering: seven sabbaths shall be complete: even unto the morrow after the seventh sabbath shall ye number fifty days; and ye shall offer anew meat offering unto the Lord. -- Ye shall bring out of your habitations two wave-loaves of two tenth deals: they shall be of fine flour; they shall be baken with leaven; they are the first fruits unto the Lord. And ye shall offer with the bread seven lambs without blemish of the first year, and one young bullock, and two rams: they shall be for a burnt-offering unto the Lord, with their meat-offering, and their drink-offerings, even an offering made by fire, of sweet savour unto the Lord. Then ye shall sacrifice one kid of the goats for a sin-offering, and two lambs of the first year for a sacrifice of peace-offering. And 'the priest shall wave, them with the bread of the first fruits for a wave-offering before the Lord, with the two lambs: they shall be holy to the Lord for the priest. And ye shall proclaim on the self-same day, that it may be an holy convocation unto you; ye shall do no servile work therein; it shall be a statute for ever in all your dwellings throughout your generations." -- Lev. xxiii. 15-21. Next the Feast of Tabernacles. "And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, speak unto the children of Israel, saying, the fifteenth day of this seventh month shall be the feast of tabernacles for seven days unto the Lord. On the first day shall be an holy convocation: ye shall do no servile work therein. Seven days ye shall offer an offering made by "fire unto the Lord: on the eighth day shall be an holy convocation unto you; and ye shall offer an offering made by fire unto the Lord: it is a solemn assembly; and ye shall do no
( 80 )
Of the many solemnities ordained amongst the seed of Abraham we shall only particularly mention another, which belongs to, and takes the highest station of sacrificial ordinances. It is the great least of expiation. "And this shall be a statute for ever unto you: that in the seventh month, on the tenth day of the month, ye shall afflict your souls, and do no work at all, whether it be one of your own country, or a stranger, that sojourneth among you; for on that day shall the priest make an atonement for you, to cleanse you, that ye may be clean from all your sins before the Lord. -- It shall be a sabbath of rest unto you, and ye shall afflict your souls, by a statute for ever," -- Lev. xvi. 29-31. As a summary of religious ordinances of this character, hear Moses recapitulate, "Unto his habitation shall ye seek, and thither thou shall come: and thither ye shall bring your burnt-offerings, and your sacrifices, and your tithes, and heave-offerings of your hand, and your vows, and your free-will-offerings, and the firstlings of your herds and of your flocks." -- Deut. xii. 5, 6. To these solemn ordinances might be added the Feast of Trumpets -- of New Moons -- of Purim -- of the dedication of the Temple -- but these will suffice to shew that the Jews had the
( 81 )
I now proceed to exhibit a third requisite of a church which we find the Jews possessed, and this is a very essential one indeed -- they had the officers of a church -- But my time has expired. I thus spoke: -- Mr. M. was so condescending as to give us his New Testament authority for infant baptism, or to read us those passages that, he thinks, refer to infant baptism, although he made no reply to any evidence urged by me from that source. It must he admitted, however, that his remarks on the baptizing of disciples, importing that infants were called disciples, had some reference to my reading the law of baptism from the commission, recorded Matt, xxviii. 18, 19. But is it possible, that the sagacious, the learned, the wise, the shrewd Mr. M. affirms that a sucking infant can, with any reference to the correct meaning of words, be called a disciple or a scholar of Christ!! -- An infant a disciple! It is a contradiction in terms. But did Mr. M. prove that infants were called disciples? No, he asserted it. He said that they were so called in the xv. chapter of the Acts. Did he state the circumstances of ithe case, did he allude to the occasion, or refer to the context in which those words appear? No. Were infants mentioned in the chapter? No. A singular way of affording New Testament authority for infant baptism, to allude to a chapter, where neither infants nor baptism is mentioned!! His second New Testament reference was to the words of the Saviour, saying, "suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not, for of such, is the kingdom of God." This, though a more usual reference than the former, is just as irrelevant, for two substantial reasons; besides many others. The first is, this was spoken a considerable time before Christian baptism was appointed, consequently could have no reference to it whatever. In the next place, these infants were brought to Christ for one particular purpose, which is specified, consequently, as the Confession of Faith says, "the sense of Scripture is not manifold but One," can have no reference to infant sprinkling.
( 82 )
I complained, in my last address, that Mr. M. read his arguments from his manuscript and neglected to respond to mine, which he is bound to do, according to all established usage; or else, to yield the point at issue. But to excuse his constant attention to this little book, which causes him to neglect me, he has told you that I too, have got a manuscript. Yes my friends, here it is -- a few hundred references to the original scriptures, and a few extracts from ecclesiastical history, from authors which I could not bring hither, owing to the stage of the river, and (turning it round to the people) it is chiefly blank for the purpose of making notes of Mr. M's arguments. But I am glad of the opportunity now afforded me, of proposing to Mr. M. to give up all his papers and I will give up mine, and let our debate be viva voce as it was proposed. Mr. M. still goes on to prove a point that I have not denied. He is determined to take his own course; whether his arguments are denied or affirmed. I told him, in the outset, that I admitted the proposition, that "a part of the seed of Abraham was Divinely constituted a true church of God" -- And this is all he contends for, in fact, though he would represent it in such a form as that there might appear to be a difference, worthy of contention.
( 83 )
Having now paid much more respect to his arguments than he has done to mine, I will, my friends, for the
( 84 )
The calling of us Gentiles to be fellow citizens with the saints, and to be a part of the household of God, was an event, unexpected by all the Apostles, for several years after the day of Pentecost. 'Tis true that the ancient prophets spake of it in the most elevated style. -- Yes, David's and Isaiah's hallowed lips foretold it. They pourtrayed it in such glowing colors, in such enraptured strains, in such extatic perspecuity, that we almost tremble to affirm that it was an event unknown to, and unexpected by all the holy Twelve. But when we reflect that Messiah's death, and resurrection from the dead were events of superlative importanct to the whole family of man; and that these events were not only revealed by the spirit of prophecy, in language of purer, of more perspicuous, of more sublime expression than mortals speak, than mortals, filled with enthusiastic ardor, utter; and that those events, though the subject of Messiah's parables, lectures, and familiar conversation with his pupils of the senior class, with the Apostolic school, were not understood by the wisest in that school, but that he banished them from his thoughts by saying, "that be far from thee Master, it shall not be so done unto thee, and that another of his class-mates said, with respoct to his resurrection from the dead, "Except I see in his hand the print of the nails, and put my finger to the print of the nails, and my hand to his side I will not believe." -- These considerations somewhat diminish our surprise at finding other subjects of luminous prophecy unknown to the Apostles; even after the enjoyment of clearer visions of Messiah's reign -- But, perhaps, all these reflections would not justify us in affirming, that these events Were unknown to the ancient prophets themselves that spake of them, and concealed from the Apostles, until they became the subject of new spiritual illumination; had not Peter, by the Spirit, said of the ancient prophets, that they searched after the meaning of the oracles which they delivered; and that they did not
( 85 )
"The mystery of Christ in other generations, was not made known to the sons of men, as it is now revealed to his holy Apostles and prophets by the Spirit -- that the Gentiles should be joint heirs, and joint body and joint partakers of his promise concerning Christ through the Gospel," Eph. iii. 5, 6. and Col i. 26. "The mystery which was kept hid from the ages and from the generations, but now is made manifest to his saints, to whom God was pleased to make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery, concerning the Gentiles, which is Christ to you (Gentiles) the HOPE OF GLORY." These oracles justify the declaration, that the calling of the Gentiles, to the full fruition of the blessings of the Gospel of Christ, was an event unknown to, and unexpected by, the prophets of antiquity, as well as by the Apostles, until revealed to them by a new revelation of the Spirit. Peter to whom the Messiah committed the keys of kingdom of heaven; those keys for which priests have been so long contending; those keys which Peter took to heaven with him, and left not to a successor; no, not to Rome's haughty pontiff; neither to England's lord archbishops; nor to Scotland's high and dignified Sanhedrim of the elders of the land; lords in the state, and nobles in the church. I say, this same Peter, the ambassador of Heaven's eternal throne, having flung wide open to the Jews, the door of faith, having, to
( 86 )
( 87 )
Their decision respecting these disciples, these infants of my opponent, was, that no yoke, no greater burthen than these necessary things, should be laid upon those infants! That ye (infants!) abstain from meats offered unto idols, -- and from blood, -- and from things strangled, -- and from fornication, -- from which, if ye, (infants!) keep yourselves, ye will do well. Fare ye well, (infants.)!! This view of the calling of the Gentiles, an event so interesting to us -- which we are sure cannot be set aside, at one glance, shows, the absurdity, the perfect absurdity, of Mr. M's hypothesis. -- But I shall give place to him to read farther on his Jewish church. Mr. M. observed: -- As my opponent has proposed we should give up all our papers and debate viva voce. I will refer the matter to the board of moderators, and have their opinion on this proposal. Major Roper, the president of the bench, observed, that it was optional with the disputants themselves,
( 88 )
Mr. M. spoke to this effect: -- I feel satisfied with the decision of the bench. My opponent's proposal reminds me of a debate between Eckius and Carolostadius. The former being a more flippant and better practised disputant than the latter, proposed to Carolostadius to give up his notes, Carolostadius objected, and assigned as a reason the circumstance already mentioned. For the same reason, I feel disposed to avail myself of my notes, my opponent may act as he pleases, or say what he pleases about them. I was about proving when I sat down that the seed of Abraham possessed the third requisite to a church, viz. the officers of a church. By the officers of a church, I mean those who rule, and officiate in the worship of a church. -- Of this sort were the elders of Israel, the Levites, the Priests, and Prophets of the Israelites. The elders of Israel were to be men of experience, of wisdom, and gravity. Their constitution into an ecclesiastical court, though first advised by Jethro, was afterwards sanctioned by the God of Israel. The commission given to these elders is recorded Deut. i. 15-17. "So I took the chief of your tribes, wise men, and known, and made them heads over you, captains over thousands, and captains over hundreds, and captains over fifties, and captains over tens, and officers among your tribes. And I charged your judges at that time, saying, hear the causes between your brethren, and judge righteously between every man and his brother, and the stranger that is with him. Ye shall not respect persons in judgment; but ye shall hear the small as well as the great; ye shall not be afraid of the face of man; for the judgment is God's, and the cause that is too hard for you, bring it unto me, and I will hear it."
( 89 )
The elders of Israel were, divided into two classes, viz. the elders of the whole congregation, and the elders of particular cities. The latter had particular or special duties assigned them, bath of a religious and civil nature. These can be learned to the best advantage by a reference to particular passages, such as the following: "But if any man hate his neighbour, and lie in wait for him, and rise up against him, and smite him mortally that he die, and fleeth into one of these cities: Then the elders of his city shall send and fetch him thence, and deliver him into the hand of the avenger of blood that he may die." -- Deut. xix. 11, 12. "If one be found slain in the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee to possess it, lying in the field, and it be not known who hath slain him: then thy elders and thy judges shall come forth, and they shall measure unto the cities, which are round about him that is slain: and it shall be, that the city which is next unto the slain man, even the elders of that city shall take an heifer, which hath not been wrought with, and which hath not drawn in the yoke; and the elders of that city shall bring down the heifer unto a rough valley,
( 90 )
These elders existed in every city, as may be seen Ezra x. 14. "Let now our rulers of all the congregation stand, and let all them which have taken strange wives in our cities come at appointed times, and with them the elders of every city, aad the judges thereof, until the fierce wrath of our God for this matter be turned from us." But the duties of the elders of the congregation; are so mingled with the duties of the priests and the Levites, that it will be necessary to take a view of them together. They may be seen in the following passages: "If there arise a matter too hard for thee in judgment, between blood and blood, between plea and plea, and between stroke and stroke, being matters of controversy within thy gates: then shall thou
( 91 )
With respect to the ordination services and duties of the Levites we learn the whole compendiously in Num. viii. 5-16. And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, take the Levites from among the children of Israel, and cleanse them. And thus shalt thou do unto them, to cleanse them: sprinkle water of purifying upon them, and let them shave all their flesh, and, let them wash their clothes, and so make themselves clean. Then let them take a young bullock with his meat-offering, even fine flour mingled with oil, and another young bullock shalt thou take for a sin-offering. And thou shalt bring the Levites before the tarbernacle
( 92 )
The priests were consecrated and ordained of God, not only to teach the people, but also to pray for them, and to offer sacrifices for them. The scriptures showing the duties of the priests are so numerous and familiar, that it is unnecessary to make a selection. -- Everyone that reads the Bible knows that the priests' __________ * Not having minuted the precise number of verses read in each reference, we have, in order to give full satisfaction, given the whole of each reference.
( 93 )
With regard to the scribes of Israel, though the term was at first more general, it came at last to describe those who are sometimes called Doctors of the Law, expounders of Scripture, such as Ezra vii. 6, "This Ezra went up from Babylon; and he was a ready scribe in the law of Moses, which the Lord God of Israel had given: and the king granted him all his request, according to the hand of the Lord his God upon him." 10. "For Ezra had prepared his heart to seek the law of the Lord, and to do it, and to teach in Israel statutes and judgments." The scribes in our Saviour's time, were the most reputable expounders of the law. -- "Why then say the scribes, said the disciples, that Elias must first come?" -- Thus we see that the Jewish church had regularly ordained officers -- Levites, Priests, Elders, Scribes, -- whose duties embraced every thing necessary to the prosperity of a church. Teaching, ruling, admonishing, exhorting, praying for, and blessing Israel, -- the church, were comprehended under the general and special duties enjoined upon them. I now proceed to show that the church of Israel not only had the oracles of a church, the ordinances of a church, the officers of a church, but they also had the fourth requisite of a church, the religious worship of a church. The ordinances of a church comprise in a great measure the worship of a church; for the observance of the ordinances of a church is the essential part of the worship of a church. In the ordinances of a church, God meets with the worshippers, and they of course meet with him. Hence we find that God says "Wheresoever I record my name, there will I meet with you, and there will I bless you." But before the peculiar ordinances of worship were commanded Israel, they are said to have worshipped
( 94 )
David distinguishes certain acts of devotion as peculiarly the worship of God. -- In these the worship of Israel emphatically consisted. -- Ps. xc. 1-6. They had a book of Psalms -- they had their courses of singers, -- they had their musical instruments, they had their social prayers and social praises. They had the reverential attitudes of worship, they had the solemnities of the house of God enjoined on them -- They were severely reprimanded for their departure from this worship, for apostatizing to the worship of the nations around them, as Stephen tells them Acts vii. 39-43. The discipline of a church, inseparably connected with its worship, was also established among them. -- Thus we find certain persons stoned to death, and otherwise cut off by Divine authority for either corrupting the worship, transgressing the commandments, or departing from the ordinances of God. In the next place, they had the members of a church. Persons professing the worship of the one only living and true God, and their offspring are the constituent members of a church. -- I need scarcely cite any scripture to prove this point. For who does not know that, in the very worst of times, there was a remnant according to the election of grace; not only of professors, but of possessors of the true religion? Thus saith God, in one of the darkest periods of the Jewish church, "I have reserved unto myself seven thousand men who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal." But as this point requires no farther proof I will proceed to notice the last proof of this proposition -- which will be to show, that the seed of Abraham, was, by the Spirit of inspiration, called a church. But my time forbids me now to adduce the proof. I then arose: -- As my opponent continues to prove points altogether irrelevant to this proposed discussion,
( 95 )
It is the reign of Messiah the Prince, as appearing, as dawning upon the astonished eyes of Jewish prophets, through the long vista of many centuries. -- It is the developement, the gradual developement, of that glorious kingdom which many prophets, and righteous men, members of the church of Moses, desired to see, but did not see -- Its very intimation tothe Jews exposed the penury and meanness of their church state, and raised to the skies the expectations of the glorious felicities of Messiah's realm. It pleased the Governor of the nations to give the king of Babylon a representation, in a vision of the night, of the mighty empires which should in succession rise; each upon the ruins of its predecessor. The image he had of these empires, these great heads of imperial- power; none of the wise men, none of the religious men, none of the scientific men in Nebuchadnezzar's court could unfold. Daniel alone, a prophet of the God of Israel, by the visions of the Almighty, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit could unfold it, could explain the significant emblems. It reads thus: "Thou, O king, sawest, and behold a great image. This great image, whose brightness was excellent, stood before thee; and the form thereof was terrible. This image's head was of fine gold, his breast and his arms of silver, his belly and his thighs Of brass. His legs of iron, his feet part of iron and part of clay. Thou sawest till that a stone
( 96 )
( 97 )
The term Basileia in Greek, and regnum in Latin, signifies either the reign of a prince, or the people over whoom he reigns. The regnum of Great Britain signifies the kingdom of Great Britain. The regnum of king George signifies the reign of king George. The Greeks and Romans used one word, for which we use two. -- Hence the best translators of the New-Testament, amongst whom are Drs. Campbell and Macknight, translate the term Basileia both reign and kingdom, according to the context. When Basileia implies approximation
( 98 )
The kingdom of Messiah transcends the Golden, the Silver, the Brazen, the Iron, and the Sacerdotal or Jewish kingdom, in glory and excellence; as far as the excellence and glory of Messiah the Prince excels all the kings of the earth, as far as Emmanuel excels Moses, as far as the blaze of noon excels the twinkling of a Star. None of the ancient prophets saw this reign commence. They wished to see it but they could not. Its glory charmed their eyes, and ravished their hearts. -- The New Testament opens with the annunciation of its near approach. John, the Dipper, began to proclaim, in the deserts of Judea, that men should reform, for the reign of God was at hand or nigh. The Messiah began to preach its approximation -- He sent the chosen twelve and the select seventy to announce to every village in the holy land that it was approaching. John the Baptist, however, died without seeing it come. Like Moses who came near the borders of Canaan and described it to the ransomed Jews, but entered not into it himself; so John, the second Elias, pointed to the Lamb of God, hailed the approach of his reign, informed his countrymen of it, but he was beheaded before Messiah the king was crowned. Well spake John, "he must increase, but I must decrease.["] John not only preached its near approach, but he baptized into the faith of him that was to come. Jesus not only proclaimed that it was nigh, but taught his disciples to pray "THY REIGN COME." Many through ignorance or unbelief still pray "thy reign come," not knowing that this petition is out of season. It was for
( 99 )
The king, after he rose from the dead, and was perfected to reign over his ransomed subjects, because he had been made like unto them in life, in temptation, in affliction, in corporal weakness, in privation, and sorrow; had tasted death in the bitterest "form ever presented to any of the human race, and had been a tenant of the house appointed for all the living, I say, after he arose from the dead, he frequently appeared unto his disciples, and during his various interviews discoursed with them concerning his kingdom. That kingdom and that glorious reign of which they had heard him so often speak, that kingdom and reign which had been likened to so many things on earth in parables, and comparisons; the inspired Eleven did not yet understand. The scribes and the elders, the clergy of the Jewish Church, had, like their children in modern times, so often extolled the excellence of the Mosaic church, the church of God constituted at Sinai, the church of which my opponent has the most inadequate ideas, -- that the Jews never could admit the idea of any thing else but the continuance of the same church, under a form of additional glory. They interpreted all the prophecies of the Old Testament; and the Eleven understood all the discourses of Christ in the New, as my opponent understands them as referring to a continuation
( 100 )
How fully does this illustrate Messiah's discourse with Nicodemus, "Except a man be born again, he cannot see or understand the reign of God, and except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." The Day of Pentecost is therefore called the regeneration, "Verily I say unto you, ye which have followed me, shall, in the regeneration, when Messiah shall be placed on his glorious throne, and crowned Lord of all, ye also shall be placed on twelve thrones, judging, pronouncing statutes and judgments to, the twelve tribes of Israel." Matthias now filled the place of him who by transgression fell from the apostolic office. Now they are about ascending the apostolic thrones. Now the day of Pentecost is fully come. Now Messiah has ascended up far above all heavens. Now he is exalted a Prince and a Saviour to send the regenerating spirit, and fo give repentance unto Israel. When entering the portals of the highest heaven, his attendant angels say, "Lift up your heads, O ye gates -- be lifted up ye everlasting doors, and the King of Glory shall come in! -- Angels and the spirits of the just around heaven's eternal throne exclaim, "Who is the king of Glory?" -- Messiah's attendant angels respond, "The Lord (Messiah) strong and mighty: The Lord mighty in battle." Messiah who vanquished sin, death, hades, and the devil by his victorious arm. All in heaven with one voice exclaim -- "Lift up your heads O ye gates, even lift them up, ye everlasting doors,
( 101 )
( 102 )
Such was the attendant circumstances of the exaltation of our victorious king. Therefore on the day of the regeneration, when the noise of a mighty rushing wind was heard, blowing where it listed; no one in Jerusalem able to tell whence it came, nor whither it went, Peter declared that this power from on high came from Messiah. -- "Therefore," said he, "being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he hath shed forth this which ye now see and hear. Let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God hath made that same Jesus whom ye have crucified both the anointed King and Governor of all." Having opened the reign of God to the Jews, three thousand were born of water and of the spirit on that self-same day, and thus entered into the new kingdom; as volunteers put themselves under the reign of Messiah the Prince and Saviour. In the days of the Cesars, then, the God of heaven SET UP or constituted this new reign, this new kingdom, of which Daniel spake. Hence, the kingdom that required regeneration of the Spirit and of the water did not commence till this day. The king being crowned, his reign necessarily commenced. These few hints, my friends, will prepare your minds for the demolition of the Paido-baptist views of the kingdom of God when my opponent shall have brought his argument to a close. Mr. M. thus spake: -- Mr. C. has given you scraps of sermons which he has committed to memory; and thus endeavours to entertain you by exhibiting his skill in interpreting scripture. His interpretations, however, appear more ingenious than solid, more flippant and light than substantial. Many of them indeed are altogether novel, and not only novel, but contrary to the generally received sense of scripture by most divines of solid learning and real piety. I am not going to follow him in the warm flights of his imagination, in the fervid meandrings of his fancy from Genesis to Revelation. Solid argument and conclusive reasoning is all that I aim at, I choose rather to
( 103 )
Mr. C. has eulogized Campbell and Macknight as translators, more than once to day. Because, I presume, they favor him, in his fanciful interpretation of scripture, more than the common translation of the scriptures. I cannot agree with him in his encomiums on these men. They were men too similar to himself. They treated the scripture too lightly, and did not treat men of superior standing with becoming respect. I venerate them not. The one, I consider was a hypocrite, and the other an unbeliever. They were men of talents and erudition, but they lacked, what was of much greater value, true piety. But I was, when I last sat down, commencing the last item in proof of my first position, which was to show that not only did the seed of Abraham possess the necessary requisites of a church state, but they had been actually called a church; they had received by the spirit of inspiration the very name church. They are called the church of the Lord, of Jehovaty both in the Old Testament and the New. Let us now attend to the application of this name to the seed of Abraham, 'It first occurs in the book of Deuteronomy. I mean the word ekklesia which is the word used by the writers of the New Testament and which is usually translated church. Deut. ix. 10. "And the Lord delivered unto me two tables of stone, written with the finger of God; and in them was written according to all the words which the Lord spake unto you in the mount in the day of the assembly or in the day of the church. In the Septuagint greek it reads "hemera ekklesias" -- in
( 104 )
Again, Deut. xviii. 16. "The Lord thy God wilfc raise up unto thee a prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me, unto him ye shall hearken: according to all that thou desiredst of the Lord thy God in Horeb in the day of the assembly." Here the words are the same as in the ix. 10. of the same book -- "te hemera tes ekklesias." In the day of the church. -- In both these passages the writer has the same event in view. He refers in both to the day in which all Israel was assembled at the base of mount Sinai in Arabia; the day in which the first written oracles of God were committed unto the Jews. On this occasion, then, they received by the Jewish prophet Moses the inspired name of the church. The term ekklesia occurs in Judges xxt. 5 and is; there rendered congregation, and in the eighth verse of the same chapter it is rendered assembly. Verse fifth. "And the children of Israel said" who is there among all the tribes of Israel that come not up with the congregation unto the Lord? for they had made a great oath concerning him that came not up to the Lord to Mizpeh, saying, he shall surely be put to death," Verse eighth. "And they said, what one is there of the tribes of Israel that came not up to Mizpeh to the Lord? And behold, there came none to the camp from, Jabesh-gilead to the assembly." In the fifth verse it is en te ekklesia, and in the eighth it is eis ten ekklesion. Joshua viii. 35. It occurs again, "there was not
( 105 )
Ekklesia occurs three times in 2 Chron. xxix. 28-32. "And all the congregation (ekklesia) worshipped, and the singers sang, and the trumpeters sounded: and all this continued until the burnt offering was finished. And when they had made an end of offering, the king and all that were present with him bowed themselves, and worshipped. Moreover Hezekiah the king and the princes commanded the Levites to sing praise unto the Lord with the words of David, and of Asaph the seer. And they sang praises with gladness, and they bowed their heads and worshipped. Then Hezekiah answered and said, now ye have consecrated yourselves unto the Lord, come near and bring sacrifices and thank offerings into the house of the Lord. And the congregation brought in sacrifices and thank offerings: and as many as were of a free heart burnt offerings. And the number of the burnt offerings, which the congregation brought, was threescore and ten bullocks, an hundred rams, and two hundred lambs: all these were for a burnt offering to the Lord." Nehemiah xiii. 1, 2. saith, using the same word, "On that day they read the book of Moses in the audience of the people; and therein was found written, that the Ammonite and the Moabite should come into the congregation of God forever; because they met not trie children of Israel with bread and with water, but hired Balaam against them, that he should curse them, howbeit our God turned the curse into a blessing." In the book of Psalms it frequently occurs -- Ps. xxii. 22. 25. xxvi. 5. 12. xxxv. 18. xl. 9. lxviii. 26. lxxxix 5. cvii. 32;
( 106 )
In Hebrews ii. 12. Paul cites Ps. xxii. 22, and our translators render the word ekklesia in the Hebrews, church, and in the Psalms, congregation. -- Thus Paul says, quoting the words of Christ, "I will declare thy name unto my brethren in the midst of the church. will I sing praises to thee." -- And David speaking of the same person, Ps. xxii. 22. saith, "I will declare thy name unto my brethren. in the midst of the congregation will I praise thee." The original Greek is the same in both. Thus I have shown that the seed of Abraham in the Old and New Testament, in their
( 107 )
( 108 )
So then the church of God in the wilderness is called an assembly only, without respect to its character, and Mr. C. will have it, or leave others to make it, a mob or a synagogue of Satan; for if it was not the church of God it must have been a mob, or a synagogue of Satan. But I have proved that this assembly, this church in the wilderness was Divinely constituted a true visible church of God from the fact of its having possessed 1. The oracles of a church, 2. The ordinances of a church, 3. The officers of a church, 4. The members of a church, 5. The worship and discipline of a church, 6. And because it had the inspired name of a church. consequently no mob, no synagogue of Satan. To-morrow, my friends, I will prove that the Jewish society, before Christ, and the Christian society, after Christ, are ONE and the SAME church in different dispensations. Mr. M. ceased, and a motion was made to adjourn. I begged leave to remark that my opponent, in the conclusion of his address, had endeavoured to make a very uncandid, and a very incorrect impression on the mind of the congregation respecting the quotation |
|
( 109 )
So stood the discussion at the close of the first day. It was adjourned till 11 o'clock next day. Met in the same place on the 16th, at 11 o'clock, A. M: I thus began: -- My friends and brethren; -- Mr. Maccalla occupied your attention yesterday, in proving one position, which we did not controvert. This was done, as he said, for securing his future conclusions from assault. These impregnable fortresses in his rear, which he has engaged in erecting will appear, in the detail, as either useless, or worse than useless. The position to be proved to-day we boldly deny. And when he shall have proved it, in his way, we pledge ourselves to present facts and documents subversive of it, and irrefragible by Mr. M. In the mean time we shall make a few remarks on the word ekklesia, the design of which will be to show, that in the New Testament it is appropriated to represent an assembly, essentially distinct from that which it represented in the Old. Many words have an appropriated and an unappropriated meaning. This we shall illustrate by a few plain instances. The word congress in its common or unappropriated meaning signifies any kind of meeting together. -- Such as the congress of streams, of lakes, of seas, of roads, of people. This no scholar will deny. This term, like the lands of the country, was once unappropriated; it denoted any kind of meeting of fluids or solids, of things animate or inanimate, of beings rational or irrational. But A few years since it was appropriated, as some of our lands are, for a certain purpose -- to denote the great national
( 110 )
But, to come nearer to the term in dispute, I will select a few kindred terms from the Old Testament, which have been appropriated in the New, to represent something essentially different from their common, or unappropriated signification. A few of note will suffice. -- We shall begin with the word Episcopos, literally signifying over-seer, sometimes translated bishop. This word in its unappropriated meaning signifies any kind of an over-seer, or bishop. Thus in the Old Testament, it is used, Num. xxxi 14, to denote the captains of the Jewish army, called bishops of the host. Judges ix. 28. Zebul, a military officer, is called a bishop. It is used in the same sense, 2 Kings xi. 15. Three times in the Old Testament military officers are called bishops. Those who superintended the repairs of the temple, 2 Chron. xxxiv. 12. 17. are called bishops of artificers. Those who had the management of the temple, keeping it safe and in order, are called "bishops of the Lord's house. Those whom Nehemiah placed over the city are called, chap. xi. 9, bishops of the city. Eleazar, the son of Aaron, is called bishop, from over-seeing the tabernacle and its furniture. Num. iv. 6. In all these passages, and in some others, the word episkopos occurs in the Septuagint, which is the word rendered bishop in the New Testament. It is plain from the instances given, that the term bishop, in its unappropriated sense applies to any kind of over-seer. Now, in the New Testament it is appropriated to denote the over-seer of a church. One that teaches, and rules, or keeps order in the church of Christ, who is himself the only Archbishop of souls. As well, then might Mr. M. affirm, that because captains of thousands, chief artificers,
( 111 )
Of the same kind of unappropriated terms in the Old Testament are presbuteros, and diakonos. The one translated an elder, the other a deacon, minister, or servant. Each of these terms, in their unappropriated sense, are applied in the Old Testament to officers very different from those designated by them, in their appropriated sense, in the New. This we are assured our opponent will not deny. Now the term ekklesia, in its unappropriated sense, in both Testaments signifies ANY KIND OF AN ASSEMBLY; but in its appropriated sense, it signifies a society of disciples of Christ meeting in one place. But to bring forward an authority which Mr. M. we presume, will not contradict, asserting the same things, in substance, with those we have asserted, we will cite Dr. John Mason. As he is a violent Paido-baptist, his concessions on this topic are the more worthy of regard. -- See his Essay on the Church of God, pp. 8, 9 "The Hebrew words (cahal and gheda) in the Old Testament; and the corresponding one, (ecclesia) in the New, all signify an assembly, especially one convened by invitation or appointment. That this is their generic sense, no scholar will deny; nor that their particular applications are ultimately resolvable into it. Hence it is evident, that from the terms themselves nothing can be concluded as to the nature or extent of the assembly which they denote. Whenever either of the two former occurs in the Old Testament, or the other in the New, you are sure of an assembly, but of nothing more. What that assembly is, and whom it comprehends, you must learn from the connexion of the term, and the subject of the writer. A few instances will exemplfy the remark. In the Old Testament (cahal) is applied to the whole mass of the people. Ex. xii. 6. To a portion of the people, who came upon Hezekiah's invitation to keep the passover. 2 Chron. xxx. 24. To the army of Pharaoh. Ezek. xvii. 17. To an indefinite multitude. Gen. xxviii. 3. To the society of Simeon and Levi. xlix. 6. So also (gheda) is applied to the whole nation of Israel. Ex. xvi. 22. xxxv. 1. To the particular company of
( 112 )
In the mean time, however, we must redeem the pledge we have given to the public, let my opponent pursue what course he may. From this we shall not be diverted. We stand pledged to prove first, that infant sprinkling is a human tradition. This, we have already said, requires us to do two things, first, to prove that believers only are the legitimate subjects of baptism. In the next place, that immersion is the only baptism. These are both affirmative propositions, and require, in a regular debate, to be oppugned by my opponent But this he appears determined not to attempt. He has his own affirmative propositions to prove, which I am not bound to oppugn, according to our agreement. I was pledged to __________ * See Animadversions, No. I.
( 113 )
I have, in the proof of my first proposition, according to my text, in Mr. M's Confession of Faith which saith, "that baptism is an ordinance of the New Testament ordained by Jesus Christ," submitted, from the New Testament, first the law of Christian baptism, and secondly, the execution of this law by the apostles. On these two points I design to be more particular, than in my first reference to them. The law of Christian baptism as expressed in the commission, is, baptize the disciples, or the believers of the gospel. It thus reads, "Go ye, therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name, &c. Now math eteusate, the word here rendered teach, is conceded by all intelligent Paido-baptists to signify, make disciples or disciple. This is, unquestionably, the proper rendering of the term matheteusate. The verb matheteuo, when governing an accusative, Parkhurst, the Paido-baptist lexicographer says, signifies "to make a disciple," p. 412.
( 114 )
Again, the phrase, "teaching them to observe all things which I have commanded you," respects the disciples exclusively. For Christ did never command nations, indiscriminately, to observe his ordinances; but only his disciples. He commanded all nations to repent and believe the gospel, and then, as his disciples, he commanded them to keep his commandments. Hence, the word rendered teach, in the 20th verse of Matt, xxviii. is not the same as the word rendered teach, in the 19th verse. It is didaskontes, a word importing the office of a preceptor to those who had been put under his tuition. It is expressive of that tuition, which teachers owe to their disciples or pupils. Two things, or two classes of duties, were enjoined on the apostles, in this commission. -- The first was the work of discipling or making disciples. -- The second was the education of those disciples, collected into churches or schools. Now, inasmuch, as the apostles were authorized by the law of Christ, to baptize disciples only. This law. in fact, amounts to a prohibition of the baptism of those who are not disciples. This I cannot now illustrate better than by a reference to the Appendix of Debate with Mr. Walker, to which Mr. M. so often refers, p. 209. "A limited commission implies a prohibition of such things as are not contained in it; and positive laws imply their NEGATIVE. The commission under which the apostles acted was limited, as every Christian will confess. The duties of those who act under it are pointed out: and indeed every creature must act under a limited commission, for the very term itself imports something committed from a superior, or from the supreme. The items contained in any commission, are all the things which the commissioned are authorised to perform. If this were not the case, a formal commission is quite an unmeaning thing. Hence, the commission of a magistrate points out, and circumscribes the duties of his office; if this were not the case, he might attend to
( 115 )
That "a believer or a disciple, is the only subject of baptism is proven from the law of baptism, which authorizes the baptism of such only, and virtually prohibits the baptism of such as are not the professiag disciples of Christ. This is our first argument submitted yesterday to be impugned by Mr. M. It is now illustrated and enforced by the above criticisms and remarks, and if not impugned by M. M. we shall consider it unanswerable. My second argument in support of this position, is, that the apostles who received this commission and law of baptism, must have understood it perfectly, and that they, neither in Judea, Samaria, nor to the uttermost parts of the earth ever baptized any but the professed disciples of Christ. I need not again read over those Scriptures, as my opponent did not oppugn this argument when presented. I shall merely illustrate and enforce it by a remark or two. In the first place, we are positively told, in so many words, that all baptized on the Day of Pentecost, first gladly received the word preached, i. e. believed the gospel, before they were baptized. We are positively told that "when the Samaritans believed Philip preaching the gospel, they were baptized both men and women." -- We are also informed, that Philip refused to baptize the eunuch until he professed faith. We are moreover informed, in the most positive language, that the first Gentile congregation all
( 116 )
Now, being so formally, so minutely, so circumstantially, informed of the apostolic practice, in so many places, it was not necessary to tell us, in every instance, that every individual first heard, then believed, and lastly was baptized This would have been altogether unnecessary. For illustration, the laws of our country require that no man be put to death, or deprived of his liberty, unless he has been regularly convicted according to law: that is, there must be a jury, a judge, witnesses, &c. Now, we are not always informed, when we read of a person being hung, or sent to the penitentiary, that he was tried in a court legally established; that there was a judge regularly sworn into office, sitting upon the bench; that there was a jury of twelve men, lawfully empanneled; that witnesses were sworn in open court; that the jury brought in a verdict of guilty; and that the judge pronounced the sentence, &c. &c. Yet we know, as soon as we hear that a man was hung, or sent to the penitentiary, that all these things must have first existed, because the law so requires. -- In like manner, when we read of any person being baptized, after we understand the law and the practice of the apostles, we are sure that be first professed the faith, that there was water, and an administrator present. And why? because the law required it. In the next place, on this topic, when the historian Luke was so very minute in detailing all the circumstances of the baptized, such as their sex, and condition of life, in no one place, does he mention the baptism of infants. He mentions men and women, and when he speaks more summarily of households, such circumstances are stated, as preclude the supposition of any infants being included. From these premises, we deduce our second argument which is, that the apostles baptized believers or professed disciples only. Our third argument is deduced from the design or import of baptism. On this topic of argument we shall be as full as possible, because of its great importance, and because, perhaps, neither Baptists nor Paido-baptists sufficiently appreciate, it. I will first merely refer to the oracles of God which shew, that baptism is an
( 117 )
Mr. M. rejoined: -- I agree that baptism is an important institution, but I am not going to waste my time, nor my strength, in refuting every thing that may be said about it, inconsistent with scripture and sound reason. I will not labor for nought. To refute all Mr. C. may say is not necessary to support the side I have espoused. In saying so much upon the subject, it would
( 118 )
With respect to the passage, read from Dr. Mason, I know that the Doctor has said such things as my opponent has read, but in this instance, I think the Doctor has gone too far. But I do not like this way of quoting authors. If Mr. C. will quote from Dr. Mason, in this instance, why not take his word or his criticism in others? Besides, my opponent would draw other conclusions from these remarks of the Doctor's than are legitimate: for he will draw conclusions from them subversive, intentionally at least, of the subsequent views of the Doctor. But as my opponent is talking of proving certain points, I will tell you what he has to prove -- or else he will fail to do what he has proposed. He must prove, I. That infant baptism is a human tradition. II. That any thing short of immersion, is not baptism. III. That sprinkling an infant is injurious to religious and political society. IV. That anything short of immersion is injurious to the well being of both church and state. All these points he must prove, else he fails to redeem his pledge. I have proposed to prove the contrary of these propositions -- I have laid down my plan, which you recollect was,
( 119 )
II. To afford probable evidence of apostolic practice 0f infant baptism. These points established, and the proper subject of baptism is determined. Our attention, then, will necessarily be called to the mode of baptism -- or, in honor of my oponent, perhaps, we should call it, the action of baptism. In producing a Divine command for infant baptism, five things, I told you, yesterday, were to be done: 1. To prove that Abraham and his seed were Divinely constituted a true visible church of God. 2. That the Jewish society, before Christ, and the Christian society, after Christ, are ONE and the SAME church in different dispensations. Or, that the Christian church is a BRANCH of the Abrahamic church. 3. That Jewish circumcision, before Christ, and Christian baptism, after Christ are ONE and the SAME SEAL, though, in different forms. 4. That the administration of this seal to infants rvas dice enjoined by Divine authority. 5. That it not having been prohibited, by the same authority, that ordained it, it consequently remains in full force. -- These five points established, and a Divine command for infant baptism is adduced. The first of these five points was proven yesterday, viz. that Abraham and his seed were Divinely constituted a true visible church of God. While I was engaged in proving this fundamental position, my opponent was, a part of his time, delivering patches of old sermons which he memorized several years ago, which had nothing to do with this position; at least, their bearing upon the points at issue, was so faint as not to be very perceivable. For what is it to the truth, or falsehood of the position under consideration, to tell us of the calling of the Gentiles, the history of the Chaldean, the Persian, the Grecian, and Roman empires -- the meaning of a petition of the Lord's prayer -- the exaltation of Christ, and many other points, which, how true soever, leave the grand question where it was.
( 120 )
You would think from the number of scriptures my opponent has referred to, that all the scriptures, were in favor of his views, and that there were no passages
( 121 )
Mr. C. will tell you no doubt again, as he has done already, that because baptism is not mentioned in those passages, they ought not to be referred to in this controversy. -- Yes, and from the same principle he has told you that you ought not to use the Lord's prayer, because it was taught in the early part of Christ's ministry. In this way of proceeding, a great proportion of the scriptures is useless, as respects Christians now. Indeed, according to him, but very little of the New Testament belongs to Christians -- I understand
( 122 )
I now proceed, after this formal recapitulation and reference to the arguments of yesterday, to prove the identity of the church under the old and new dispensations. The proposition now before us, is, "that the Jewish society, before Christ, and the Christian society, after Christ, are one and the same church in different dispensations. -- In fact, that the Christian church is a branch of the Abrahamic." As a visible society they are one and the same. As there has never been but one real church so there has never been but one visible church. A visible saint is one who appears to human eye to be a real saint; in the same manner, the visible church is a body visible to the human eye appearing to be an assembly of real saints. Now since the time that there appeared on earth a visible body of worshippers of the true God, there has been but one such at one time. The body of real saints on earth, has always been one and the same body, and was never distinguishable from the body of visible saints. The visible body of saints has always comprehended within it all such as were known as real saints -- and as there has been but one real church in the world in all ages, so there has been but one visible church. This is as evident as that there cannot be two bodies visibly distinct, which yet appear the same. As the real church, then, has always been the same, so the visible church has always been the same. Many Baptists have been obliged to admit the identity and perpetuity of the real church, who, very inconsistently, deny that the visible church has always
( 123 )
Again, the human body is continually changing, yet it is the same human body. New blood, new flesh, and new fluids of every kind, are forming every minute, so that in a little time all the blood, flesh, and even solids in the human body are changed; and not a particle existing of what composed it a few months or years ago; yet, who will not say, that it is still the same body, distinguished by the same general characteristics, the same properties, and that it is the same temple, of the same immortal soul! Also in the body politic, the same constitution and government may continue to exist, and yet changes may be introduced of considerable variety, and to a considerable extent, yet it is the same state, constitution, and government. The British constitution and government which, since the year 1689, although administered
( 124 )
I then addressed the assembly: -- My opponent represents my late address as fragments of old sermons which I memorized some years ago. How, think ye, does he know this? Perhaps my opponent judges of others by himself. We must, however, inform him that we never write our sermons or memorize them. For seven years we have not written seven pages for public addresses. And, never but once did we attempt to memorize a sermon. Written sermons, and premeditated prayers, are the meanest commodities in the world. Mr. M. will have infants, disciples, yes, speechless babes disciples of Christ, inferred from Acts xv. Although we yesterday demonstrated that the disciples mentioned in that chapter, to whom he referred, were Gentile converts, capable of the actions of manhood. But as Mr. M. has not impugned my criticism on the commission, but endeavours to shelter himself under the assertion, that although none but disciples are to bs baptized, yet infants of eight days old are called disciples, in this passage to which he has twice referred; I say, seeing he has not impugned the aforesaid criticism, and rests his escape from its truth on the assertion that "infants are called disciples in the fifteenth chapter of the Acts, I now propose to him, in the presence of you all, that if he will prove that infants are called disciples in that chapter, I will give up the cause which I have espoused. Let him then lay aside every other topic, and open this chapter. I will pledge, my erudition, my critical acumen, my respectability as a scholar, that he cannot, upon the investigation of that reference -- nay, I will rest the whole controversy upon it. If he proves this one point we shall say all is proved, and his cause, triumphant. The conditions are assuredly most easy, and this "brings us to a speedy issue." His references to "suffer little children," and to the "holy children," are condemned by his own confession of faith, according to the rules of interpretation prescribed in that confession. He has not, in his late address, adverted
( 125 )
I am not a little surprised at his remarks on a criticism mentioned yesterday, on a petition of the prayer taught by the Lord to his disciples. Indeed the whole ministry of John appears to be very indistinctly apprehended by Mr. M. The different ages or dispensations, as they are called, are, by Paido-baptists in general, very slightly noticed. The patriarchal age, the Jewish age, the ministry of John, and the Christian age, are marked in the volumes of inspiration with very striking characters. The patriarchal, with propriety, may be assimulated to star-light; the Jewish, to moon-light; the era of John the Baptist to twilight; and the Christian age to Sun-light. Light encreased from the first promise made to Adam until the ministration of the Spirit was completed. Different forms of worship existed under all these ages by Divine authority. What would have been acceptable worship in the days of the priesthood of Melchisideck, would not have been acceptable in the age of the priesthood of Aaron; and what was acceptable in the days of Aaron, would not be acceptable in the days of our Great High Priest. It is a maxim of great significance, and of universal application pronounced by the Prince of commentators. "The priesthood been changed there is of neccesity a change also in the law." The worship of the Patriarchs, Jews and Christians, though addressed to the same God, was notwithstanding very dissimilar. This, we presume, needs no proof. But with regard to the ministry of John we would be more particular. His light was neither Star-light, Moon-light, nor Sunlight; it was twilight, or a mixture of the three. -- The burthen of his preaching was, "Reformation, for the reign of God approached." His doctrine, manner of life, baptism, and exhortations, were all in many respects novel. He even taught his disciples to pray in a way suited to his teaching. Great, however, as this prophet was, the least prophet under the new reign of God was to be a greater prophet than he; better instructed in the nature of the reign of Messiah,
( 126 )
The first commission given to the Twelve and the baptism annexed thereunto, was of the same nature as that of John. The same doctrine of reformation was taught by our Lord, the Twelve, and the Seventy; and the same motive urged -- viz: -- "The reign of heaven approached. The geographical lines that bounded the tribes of Israel, bounded their labors. The prayers taught, and the religious worship enjoined, were adapted to this state of things as exclusively as Solomon's prayer, 1 Kings viii. was exclusively adapted to the dedication of the temple. Mr. M. might as rationally, as scripturally, as consistently, teach his people to pray, in the words of Solomon's dedication, as in the words of the prayer in question. They were both Divinely inspired too, and both perfectly adapted to a precise object. Dull is the apprehension, and prejudiced the mind, that cannot see a distinction so plain, so palpable, so important too, as the distinction now offered. Let my opponent consider how he would reason with one who would now worship God according to the priesthood of Aaron, and he will find arguments forme to put him to silence when advocating that Christians should now pray for the "reign of God to come," when it has come; and for addressing God without the name of Jesus when he is placed a priest upon his throne, an intercessor within the true holy place. The design of John's baptism and the design of the baptism instituted by Christ is very different. John's baptism, like his preaching, was, the "Baptism of reformation." His errand into the world was to prepare a people for the Lord. His preaching, his baptism, and
( 127 )
( 128 )
Mr. M. proceeds: -- When I last addressed you, my friends, I was going on with the demonstration of the identity of the Jews and Christian churches. I had observed that many things may be said to be one and the same, which yet differ in some circumstantial matters. Even the Baptists themselves, who pride themselves so much in the peculiarity of the constitution of their churches and discipline, have existing among them, in their church covenants, a very considerable diversity, yet they contend that the constitution of their churches is one and the same. And although in their discipline they may widely differ in some points, yet they say that their discipline is essentially one and the same, because executed on the same general principles. Some of them, indeed, would represent their church as being the same with those mentioned in the New Testament, and as having been always one and the same, in regular descent from John the Baptist until now, although they are unable to trace their existence for some hundreds of years up to John. The church at Augusta over which I preside, it is known, has undergone considerable change since I was placed over it. -- It has been new modified in some respects, and alterations to a considerable extent
( 129 )
The people also that compose a state may be one and the sanae people, though living under different constitutions. The constitution, of Virginia and that of Kentucky are different constitutions, yet the people who have lived under both are still the same people. Their privileges may be diversified and magnified to a great extent, there may be very material alterations in their circumstances living under different constitutions and laws, yet they are still the same people. In fine, many things may be identically the same in the common conceptions of mankind, and yet different from each other in some respects. And if we were to allow that no two things are the same, which do not coincide in every instance, in all their essential and accidental properties, in all their primary and secondary qualities, we should be constrained to banish from our dictionaries, and from our mouths, the word identity; and to affirm that no two things are, or can be the same. These things premised, I proceed to observe that the Jewish society, before Christ, and the Christian society, after Chirst, are one and the same church, though in different dispensations, insomuch, that the latter is merely a branch of the former. In proving the truth of this proposition I will observe the following method. I will prove, 1. That they had the same religion. 2. That they had the same inspired names. 3. That they had the same covenant. These we conceive to be the grand essential properties which constitute religious societies one and the same, in all primary points. Any two religious societies that possess the same theology and morality, that are called by all the same names and appellations, and that exist under the same grand constitution or covenant, form but one and the same social compact
( 130 )
1. They had the same religion. It must he admitted that the Jews and Christians were both professors of religion. Now the Jews professed the true religion as Divinely revealed and instituted. I presume it will be allowed that the visible church under the present dispensation professes the true religion. As there is but one true religion, and as both the Jewish society and the Christian society have professed, the true religion, it is, we think, evident that they both professed the same religion. If any person should deny that the Jews professed the true religion, we have recorded truths to produce for their conviction. Deut. xxvi. 17. Moses saith, "Thou hast avouched the Lord this day to be thy God, to walk in his ways, to keep his commandments and to hearken to his voice." This is not only a solemn, but a formal avowal or profession of the religion appointed of God. Moses was a witness, and a credible witness of this formal profession of all Israel, to walk in the ways, and to obey the commandmtnts of the Lord. Now as there is but one God, and one heaven, and only one way from this world to the heavenly world, ever since the fall of Adam, there has been but one true religion. And we have already seen that the seed of Abraham professed this one true religion; but Christians profess or avow the Lord to be their God, and promise to walk in all his ways, consequently profess the same religion with the Jews. In the next place they not only professed the bame religion, as respected the object of religious fear, reverence, and respect, but they had substantially the same ordinances of religious worship. Circumcision, the passover, and the sabbath, were primary ordinances amongst the Jews, and these were substantially the same as baptism, the supper, and the Christian sabbath. Circumcision was to them a mark of separation, a sign of regeneration, the token of putting off the sins of the flesh. Infants and adults were both
( 131 )
The passover was a commemorative ordinance substantially the same as the Lord's supper. The former commemorated the redemption of Israel from Egyptian darkness and bondage, by means of the shedding and sprinkling of blood. The latter commemorates our redemption from ignorance and the bondage of guilt, by the shedding of the blood of the Lamb of God, that taketh away sin. -- The former was eaten with every sign of repentance and with all holy preparation of heart, with sojemn convocations, and religious self-denial, the latter is observed by all true Christians in a similar manner. Days of solemn preparation, fasting and thanksgiving accompanied the eating of the paschal lamb, and similar days of preparation, fasting, and thanks-giving, do accompany the celebration, of the holy supper. The sabbath also amongst the Jews and Christians is a day of holy rest, of holy convocation: a day set apart for profound contemplation, worship and edification, in which no manner of servile labor is to be performed, no part of the time appropriated to our own works, except so much as is taken up in the works of necessity and mercy. In the third place, the Jewish society before Christ, and the Christian society after Christ, have adopted
( 132 )
The same injunctions have been laid upon the visible church in all ages, and uniformly she has been subject to the same requirements. God now requires his people to be holy, holy in all manner of deportment, for, "without holiness no man shall see the Lord." Now the same injunctions were laid upon the Jewish society before Christ. See Lev. xix. 2. "Speak unto all the congregation of Israel and say unto them, ye shall be holy for I the Lord your God am holy." Love to God also, with all their souls, might and strength, was required from the Jewish society as well as from the Christian. And, with respect to our neighbors, the good Samaritan does not remind us more fully or forcibly of our duty, than the injunctions laid on Israel by an ancient prophet. -- "Do justly, love mercy, and walk humbly with thy God." I arose: -- The identity of the Jewish society before Christ, and the Presbyterian society or Episcopalian society, after Christ, may be rendered very plain and striking; by Mr. M.; but that the Christian church, and the Jewish, are one and the same, is another question. The very assertion that any two societies can be one and the
( 133 )
The first fact is, that Nicodemus an honorable member of the Jewish society, yea a teacher of Israel, AN OFFICER of the Jewish church could not be admitted unto the Christian church, though a LAWFUL MEMBER of the Jewish, and a REGULAR OFFICER of the church of Israel, unless born again, of water, and of the spirit. If the two churches are one and the same, Mr. M. -- How could this be!! A second fact is, that NOT ONE of all the members of this Jewish society before Christ, how pious, and holy soever; NOT ONE of the members of the church of Israel was admitted into the Christian church, after its exhibition on the day of Pentecost, until born again, of water and of the spirit: until repentance and a new faith was professed. If the two churches are one and the same Mr. M. how could this be!! Unless Mr. M. my friends, can disprove what I have now said, unless he can set aside these facts, it is of no consequence to tell us about the identity of two societies that withal he admits to be different in come respucts!! These facts you will please keep in mind as a sufficient refutation of the misapplication of many things proposed on the subject of "identity," until more formally exposed. But I have something to say on my opponent's plan and design in introducing the identity of the two churches that may, and ought to claim a place in your attention. It is this. Mr. M. theologically considered is digging his own grave. He is, in fact, about to defeat his own cause, and to subvert his own theses; for as soon as he has proved the identity of the two societies so soon will he have destroyed his whole scheme. This we now assert, and we pledge ourselves to make it manifest as soon as, he says, he has proved the point. The case will stand thus, if Mr. M. does not prove the "identity" of the Jewish and Christian societies, being fundamental in his schemes he is, on his own |
|
( 134 )
While I am noticing this position of my opponent, it way not be amiss to express my astonishment not only at the boldness of my antagonist, but at his imprudence in calling the Christian church a "branch" of the Abrahamic church. He should not have laid himself open to be discredited, or to be put to silence by every stripping who could ask the following question: Is not a branch inferior to the stem or trunk from which it grows? Look at these trees around us, shew us a branch that is not inferior to the trunk from which it receivs its nourishment. And is, Mr. M. the Christian church but a branch of the Abrahamic, inferior to the Jewish!!! Tell it not to those who admire the superlative glory, and dignity of the Christian religion, and Christian church, in comparison of the commonwealth of Israel, and the weak and beggarly elements that Mr. M. has proved it to be only A BRANCH of the Abrahamic!!! I now proceed to finish, if possible, my third argument in proof of my first proposition, viz: that a believer is the only subject of baptism. You will recollect that my third argument is drawn from the import and design of Christian baptism. I have in my two last addresses, paid some attention to this consideration, in my first address this morning, I read sundry portions of the New Testament expressive of the important place that baptism occupies in the Christian religion, and of its great significance. In my last address I contradistinguished its design from that of John's baptism. In exalting baptism to its proper place, I did not exaggerate its import, as Mr. M. would have it. Nor did I elevate it so as to displace hope and charity. These are graces, the fruits of true faith, and true baptism. I know it will be said that I have affirmed that baptism "saves us," that it "washes away sins." Well, Peter and Paul have said so before me. If it was not criminal in them to say so, it cannot be criminal in me. When Ananias said unto Paul, "arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord," I suppose Paul believed him, and arose, was baptized,
( 135 )
To every believer therefore, baptism is a formal and personal remission, or purgation of sins. The believer never has his sins formally washed away or remitted until he is baptized. The water has no efficacy but what God's appointment gives it, and he has made it sufficient for this purpose. The value and importance of baptism appears from this view of it. It also accounts for baptism being called the WASHING OF REGENERATION. It shews us a good, and valid reason for the despatch with which this ordinance was administered in the primitive church. The believers did not lose a moment in obtaining the remission of their sins. Paul tarried three days after he believed, which was the longest delay recorded in the New Testament. The reason of this delay was the wonderful accompaniments of his conversion and preparation for the apostolic office. He was blind three days, scales fell from his eyes, he arose then forthwith and was baptized. The three thousand who first believed, on the selfsame day were baptized for the remission, of their sins. Yea, even the Jailer and his house would not wait till day-light, but the "same, hour of the night, in which he believed, he and all his were baptised." I say, ihis view of baptism accounts for all these otherwise unaccountable
( 136 )
Faith in Christ is necessary to forgiveness of sins, therefore baptism, without faith, is an unmeaning ceremony. Even the confession of faith, or at least the Larger Catechism, Quest. 185. says that baptism is a sign of remission of sins. How then can it be administered to those without faith. Is it to them "a sign and seal of engrafting into Christ, of remission of sins by his blood, and regeneration by his spirit," as the answer to this question declares! Our argument from this topic is, that baptism, being ordained to be to a believer a formal and personal remission of all his sins, cannot be administered unto an infant without the greatest perversion and abuse of the nature and import of this ordinance. Indeed why should an infant that never sinned, that, as Calvanists say is guilty only of "original sin," which is an unit, be baptized for the remission of sins!! We have heard some Baptists reduce this significant ordinance to the level of a moral example, or a moral precept. Says one, "I was baptized to follow the example of Christ who was baptized in a river." When you are baptized to follow the example of Christ. You are honest too, and speak the truth. In these respects you follow the example of Christ. You place honesty and baptism on the same footing, as alike moral duties. But, says another, "I was baptized in obedience to a divine command." I presume you "don't steal" for the same reason. You then make baptism and honestly alike moral duties. The intelligent and well instructed Christian, however, is baptized to obtain the formal remission of his sins. He is baptized. "TO WASH AWAY HIS SINS" calling upon the name of the Lord. Here let us pause and admire the Divine philanthropy
( 137 )
Before I sit down I wish to remind the congregation of the challenge given my opponent to investigate the 15th. chapter of the Acts, and that in his last address he did not so much as name it. He has then given up that point. Mr. M. arose: -- Mr. C. reminds you of his challenging me to a disquisition on a part of the xv. of the Acts; and because I will not leave my course to meet him there, he proclaims me vanquished. He resembles
( 138 )
In proving the identity of the Jewish and Christian, church I have first proposed to prove that they had the same religion, or theology and morality. They both professed the true religion -- had substantially the same ordinances -- were under the same requirements -- and had the same forms of religion. Again, the same doctrines were taught in the Old Testament and in the New, and the same promises were given. Luke x. 27. "A certain lawyer stood up and tempted Christ saying. Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? He said unto him what is written in the law? How readest thou? And he, answering, said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind, and thy neighbour as thyself. And he said unto him thou hast answered right. This do and thou shalt live." Thus we see on a point of saving importance, the same doctrine was taught in the New Testament that was taught in the Old. This also shows us that the way of salvation was the same in all ages. This was something very like making baptism a saving ordinance, or ascribing to it the power of washing away all sins, as my opponent has lately done. The promises made to the Jews and Christians are also the same. The Lord promised temporal blessings, to his followers Matt. vi. 33. "Seek ye first the kingdom of God, and all those things shall be added
( 139 )
( 140 )
The church under the former and the present dispensation has been under the same discipline at least under similar discipline. Under the Old the law was, "thou shalt not hate thy brother in thy heart, thou shall in any wise rebuke thy neighbour" and "not suffer sin upon him," Lev. xix. 17. Christ now says "if thy brother trespass against this go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone." Under the Old Testament it was, when the offender shall bring his sin offering, and in token of repentance lay his hand upon its head, the victim shall be slain and he shall be forgiven Lev. iv. Christ now says "if thy brother repent forgive him." Under the law, "The soul that doeth aught presumptuously, and will not hearken to the priest, nor to the judge, the same hath reproached the Lord, and that soul shall be cut off from his people." And under the gospel dispensation, the rule is, "If the offender will not hear the church, let him be cut off from her communion, and become to you as an heathen man or a publican." Assurdly the similarity of discipline in the congregation of the Lord, under Moses, and in the church of Christ, must strike every person with force, and prove the identity of the two churches. The government of both churches is the same. It was by presbyters or elderS, it was in this sense presbyterian. See Acts xiv. 13. "And when they had ordained them elders in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord on whom they believed." "For this cause left I thee in Crete," said Paul to Titus, chap. i. 5." that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting and ordain elders in every city as I had appointed thee." Here we read of the elders of the city, and of the elders of the congregation in the New Testament, and you all remember my friends, in speaking of the officers
( 141 )
Thus we have seen that the Jewish society, before Christ, and the Christian society after Christ, have had the same religion, in profession, in ordinances, in forms of worship, in requirements, in doctrine, in promises, in discipline, in government, and in members. I now proceed to shew, in the second place, that they had the same "inspired names." Names are signs of things, they are the representations of things -- words are the representations of ideas, and ideas are the images of things. When names are different, the things are different; and, when names are the same, things are the same. It may happen that fallible beings may affix the same names to things that differ and thus mislead the judgment of others, but when God has affixed the same names to things we are sure that there is no mistake: the things are really the same. Now the Jewish society and the Christian are called by the same inspired names. I then addressed the assembly: -- My friends, this is the most singular discussion I have either seen or
( 142 )
Gentlemen, I know your powers in moderating this controversy are very limited. This is not my fault. I was willing to lodge all necessary power in your hands. To this Mr. M would not agree. Yet still, I think, you have the power of deciding whether we ought to procede this way. One of those items in your hand, says, that you are "to keep order," in this discussion. The question then is -- Is it order, in controversy, for the respondent to introduce affirmative propositions on any subject he pleases; and, instead of responding in the negative to his opponent, to spend his time in proving his own affirmations on other topics? This question I respectfully submit to your decision. [Bishop Verdeman, after a number of remarks and references, (which we are sorry cannot be correctly stated, as there were no minutes taken of the speeches of the moderators on such occasions) gave it as his conviction, "that it was out of order for Mr. M. to proceed in this way." The rev. Birch replied to the bishop that his opinion was different; that he knew from
( 143 )
Major Roper apologized that he was not skilled in such questions, that in deliberative bodies he knew that etiquette required the respondent to speak to the question submitted, in reference to which he spake. But that he knew of no rules obliging him so to do, and that, therefore, the parties, he presumed, in consequence of the limited nature of the rules authorizing their interference, would have to pursue, each his own course.] I then proceeded: -- We must then, it seems, just proceed in this way. To this course I must submit; yes, I will cheerfully submit, although I differ in opinion with the decision of the bench. On these principles we shall have no debate unless I formally attack Mr. M. This I will do from necessity, when ever he brings his second argument to a close In the meantime I return to the baptism of believers. Mr. M. in his last speech, incidentally remarked, that I had ascribed a saving power to baptism. Why then did he not accuse Paul and Peter of the same, for they spake as ungardedly on this topic as we? Or, rather, why did he not tell us the meaning of those scriptures that were adduced, on this item? So long as we affirm that baptism ACCOMPANIED WITH FAITH IN THE SUBJECT, washes away all sins, and that baptism, WITHOUT faith, is an insignificant ceremony; so long we feel ourselves invulnerable on every side, from every attack, from every arm. Let Mr. M. refute my views now if he can, and not hereafter say, that I said so and so. Here I am to defend them and to illustrate them still farther. On this topic I would rally again. Its grand importance to all disciples will excuse me for being diffuse on this subject; also its aspect to paido-baptism is such as to frown it out of the world. This Mr. M. sees, and therefore he frowns contemptuously at it. Peter promised to three thousand Jews forgiveness on repentance and baptism. "What shall we do." said they, in an agony of despair? Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of the Lord Jesus, for the remission of sins. The preposition "eis" here means, in order to --
( 144 )
My baptist brethren, as well as the Paido-baptist brotherhood, I humbly conceive, require to be admonished on this point. You have been, some of you no doubt, too diffident in asserting this grand import of baptism, in orgin; an immediate submission to this sacred and gracious ordinance, lest your brethren should say that you make every thing of baptism; that you make it essential to salvation. Tell them you make nothing essential to salvation but the blood of Christ, but that God has made baptism essential to their formal forgiveness in this life, to their admissicn into his kingdom on earth. Tell them, that God has made it essential to their happiness, that they should have a pledge on his part, in this life, an assurance in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, of their actual pardon, of the remission of all their sins, and that this assurance is baptism. Tell the disciples to rise, in haste and be baptized and wash away their sins calling on the name of the Lord." * __________ * This paragraph was spoken in the third person, it is here changed into the second person, for the purpose of giving it greater emphasis.
( 145 )
In the last place, under this head, all the actions said to have been performed by such as were baptized, are of such a character as preclude the idea of any other than believers having been baptized. The baptized are said to have gladly received the word -- to hear the word, to rejoice -- to be added to the church on the day of their baptism, to continue in the Apostles' doctrine, in breaking of bread, in prayers, praising God. They are said to have put on Christ, to have put off the old man; to have crucified the flesh, and to have men with, Christ, &c. I have, I humbly conceive, my friends and brethren, fully established my first proposition on scripture premises, viz. "that a believer is the only subject of baptism." You will recollect that out of the many topics of proof, I only selected the five following as evidence: I. That the law of baptism authorises the baptism of believers only, and, in fact, forbids virtually the baptism, of any others. II. That the Apostles, in the execution of their commission in. Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria, and to the uttermost parts of the earth never baptized any other than a professed believer or a disciple.
( 146 )
IV. That the promises connected with baptism are addressed to believers only. V. That the actions of the baptized at the time, and immediately subsequent to their baptism, mentioned in all the New Testament, are such as infants could not perform. These topics of argument we deem sufficient to prove the above proposition. And you will have the goodness to bear in mind that not one of them has been formally impugned by Mr. M. We consider them then, as far as respects him, unanswerable. Mr. M. read as follows: -- I am now to show that the Jewish and Christian societies are called by the same inspired names. The Jewish society are called a bride, or married wife, Jer. iii. 14. "Turn O backsliding children, saith the Lord, for I am married unto you; and I will take you one of a city and two of a family, and I will bring you to Zion; I will give you pastors according to mine heart, which shall feed you with knowledge and understanding." We plainly see who is here recognized as a bride. And in Revelation xxi. 9. The church of Jesus Christ is called by the same spirit of Revelation, "the bride, the Lamb's wife" one espoused to Christ as a chaste virgin. Says Solomon, "my love my undefiled is one," speaking of the church, as all agree. They are both called a house. Heb. iii. 2-6 "The high priest of our profession Christ Jesus was faithful to him that appointed him, as also Moses was faithful in all his house. For this man was counted worthy of more glory than Moses in as much, as he who hath builded the house hath more honor than the house; for every house is builded by some man; but he that built all things is God. And Moses, verily, was faithful in all his house, as a servant for a testimony of those things which were to be spoken after, but Christ as a son over his own house, whose house are we, If we hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the
( 147 )
The visible church under both dispensations is also exhibited as the flock of Christ, Psalm. lxxx. 1. "Give ear O Shepherd of Israel, thou that leadest Joseph as a flock; thou that dwellest between the cherubims shine forth. This same person whom David calls the Lord his Shepherd; the shepherd of the flock of Israel, is called by Paul, Heb. xiii. 20. the Great Shepherd of the sheep: -- and these sheep are Christ's flock. The Jewish and Christian societies are called a barn and the same threshing floor. -- Matt. xiii. 30. "gather the wheat into my barn." John the Baptist saith, he will throughly purge his floor and gather his wheat into his garner. Now this was the Jewish floor that he was to cleanse -- and the wheat was to be put into his barn or garner. They are both called a nation and kingdom. Ex. xix. 5, 6. M If ye obey my voice, and keep my covenant then ye shall be unto me a peculiar treasure above all people. And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests and an holy nation." Thus he spake to the Jews. Now hear him address the Christians 1. Pet. ii. 9. Ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a peculiar people." The Jews and Christians are called the people of God. "I will walk among you, and will be your God, and ye shall be my people." He says of the Christians too, "I will dwell in them and walk in them, and I will be their God and they shall be my people." Lev. xxvi. 12. 2 Cor, vi. 16. here they are both called by the same inspired names. The visible church under both dispensations is also called an "olive tree." Jeremiah addressing the Old Testament church, says, (xi. 16.) "the Lord called
( 148 )
( 149 )
They are both called the kingdom of heaven. "Many," said the Saviour," shall come from the east and from the west and sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven; but the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." By the words "kingdom of heaven" we cannot here understand the kingdom of glory, the mansions of future bliss, for none of the members of that kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness. Those "coming from the east and west," must mean the Gentiles; "Sitting down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob", must mean, entering into the Jewish church, becoming one with it. -- The children of the kingdom must mean, the then members of the Jewish church, to whom belonged first of all the blessings of membership, in that kingdom: their being "cast out" is equivalent to their being "cut off" from the good olive tree; and the Gentiles sitting down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is precisely equivalent to the branches of the wild olive, being grafted in among the natural branches. How remarkably coincident are those portions of the oracle of God in expressing one grand fact, one important truth, of deep interest to all the church to know, else it would not have been [so] often repeated, and inculcated
( 150 )
I then rejoined: -- As this discussion is likely to be long protracted, I will now address you, my respected friends, on the word religion. As Mr. M. has spent much of this day in asserting the identity of the Jewish and Christian religion, I may be allowed to make some remarks on a topic that engrosses so much of his attention. You are not, however, to consider me as formally attacking his argument. Yet my remarks will have some bearing upon it. A complete refutation of it we promise you when it is closed. Religion is a word of very common occurrence, yet Tike many others in common usage, it is not on that account the better understood. Some people are said "to have got religion," and others are exhorted "to get it." This religion is something that is supposed to dwell in the heart, and is sometimes called "heart religion." -- We have never seen any person who had not some kind of religion. Indeed, religion has been supposed to be so common an endowment that some logicians have made it the differential quality, or attribute of man. Hence said they, -- "man is a religious animal." Religion considered in this light, is simply "respect for a Supreme Being;" and, as the poet sings, it makes little matter what he is called. His infidel verse thus read, In every clime ador'd By saint, by savage, and by sage, Jehovah, Jove, or Lord." This illustrates that religion of which we now speak. --
( 151 )
The affixing of one epithet to religion, if there were not another, implies two kinds at least. The epithets true, pure, sound applied to religion, imply that there may be false religion, an impure, and unsound religion. Saul of Tarsus, when a Christian, said "You have heard of my conversation in the Jews' religion," and how I profited in the Jews' religion above many of my equals, Gal. i. 13, 14. Now this fairly implied that he was not at the time of writing this, of the Jews' religion; he was of another religion, a religion now called the Christian. But Mr. M. would have told Paul that his former religion and his present religion were "one and the same religion." For "the Jewish society and the Christian society are
( 152 )
But lest we should encroach too close upon this argument for "identity" with differences attached to it, we would observe that all the human race that have entered life, have been saved by virtue of the sacrifce of Christ; whether patriarchs, Jews, or Christians; whether adults, infants, or idiots. But that they all understood the mature, design, and meaning of the Messiah's death, I presume, not Mr. M. himself will affirm. If this be admitted, as we know it must, on principles already stated, then it will follow that there was a very important difference betwixt the religion of Patriarchs, Jews, and Christians, on a very fundamental point. Our views of the nature and design of Christ's death, affects our whole religion. But I fearlessly affirm, though this controversy does not require it, for it can be maintained on other ground; I say, I affirm that the nature and design of Christ's death, although prophesied of, and typified in the Patriarchal, and Jews' religion, was not understood by the Jews or patriarchs. They all, who died in faith, expected the Messiah and anticipated glorious things in his reign, but they had no distinct apprehension of them. Nor was it necessary they should, in order to [--] their salvation, any more than it is necessary for infants to understand the sacrifice of Christ in order to their salvation. The righteous ancients were saved by implicitly believing what God revealed to them -- Thus Abraham, the father of the faithful, Was justified by believing the promise," So shall thy seed be." Noah's faith is described by Paul as a belief that God would save him, and destroy his cotemporaries by a deluge. -- By faith was the harlot Rahab justified in receiving the spies in peace. By faith Moses when he was come to years of maturity, refused to he called the son of Pharaoh's daughter. For "faith" in general terms, "is the substance of things hoped for, and the conviction of things
( 153 )
Before we affirm or deny any thing concerning religion, we must first determine what the thing is. If religion means the acknowledgment of one God, then all who have acknowledged one God have the same religion. -- Jews, ancient and modern, Mahomedans, and Christians, on this principle, have one and the same religion. -- For these all acknowledge one God. Again, if being saved in one way constitutes religion, then Patriarchs, Jews, Christians, infants whether of Pagans, Mahomedans, or Christians, and idiots, if any such are saved, had all one and the same religion. For all that are saved, are saved by the death of Christ. If offering to heaven prayers and thanksgivings constitute one religion, then Pagans, Mahomedans, Jews, and Christians have one religion. If offering sacrifices to a Supreme Being constitutes religion, then all Pagans as well as Jews have had one and the same religjon. Again, if coincidence in one, or two, or a number of religious opinions and ptactices, notwithstanding many differences, constitutes one and the same religion, then all religious nations and individuals, from Noah to the present day, have had one and the same religion. For all nations and individuals have agreed in one, two, or a number of religious opinions and practices, notwithstanding many differences. But if even a belief of the same leading doctrines, and a coincidence in the same leading religious practices are all that is necessary to constitute one and the same religion, then there never were two forms of religion one and the same. No, on this principle, the Jewish and Christian religions are essentially different. One of the essential constituents of the Christian religion is,
( 154 )
Again, if baptizing a person in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit be necessary to the constitution of a person a disciple of Christ, or, if the celebration of the Lord's death be a practice essential to a professed Christian, none of the Jews having participated in these ordinances, from Moses to the death of Messiah, can be considered as professing one and the same religion with Christians. To affirm that the Jewish and Christian religions are one and the same religion is not only a logical error, for no two things are one and the same, but it is a theological error that shocks all common sense. To say that the Jewish circumcision, altars, priests, sacrifices, oblations, tabernacle, festivals, holy days, new-moons, jubilees, tythes, lents, temples, timbrels, harps, cornels, vestments, views, feelings, prayers, praises, &c. &c. constitute one and the same religion with Christian faith,
( 155 )
And to affirm, as Mr. M. does, that they were different in some respects destroys his whole argument, for if different in some respects, we then say they were different in this, that baptism and circumcision were different in their nature, manner of operation, subjects, and design, and so at last the whole argument is lost, and comes down to a controversy on this one point. For if I should admit they were similar in all other respects, but different in this, then he has lost all his pains and is obliged to dispute this one point. So that his plan is as injudicious as his arguments are inconclusive. In the last place on this topic, to say that they are the same in substance, helps the matter nothing, for a house, a table, a chair, may be all of wood; that is made of the same substance. To say that the Jews and Christian religion because substantially the same, are one and the same, is as absurd as to say, that because a house, a table, and a chair, are subitantially the same, therefore a table, a chair, and a house, are one and the same thing. Mr. M. argues the identity of the two churches from the circumstance of their being both called the olive tree. As he has laid so much stress on this circumstance, we shall just advert to it at present. The scope and meaning of this paragraph so often attended to, and which is so fully examined in my Debate with Mr. Walker, pages 27-30, begining with the 16th verse of Rom xi. is well given by Macknight, in his paraphrase of the first clause of this verse "For if the first Jewish believers have been accepted of God, the whole nation will be sowhen they believe." [On the stage we read and commented on the whole passage in Macknight's translation, which is too tedious
( 156 )
Mr. M. should remember that the Jews and Gentiles now stand by faith, not by natural relationship, and this would correct his views of the whole passage. Mr. M. again resumed his notes: -- "Thou standest by faith." Mr. C. would have to be a refutation of my argument from Rom. xi. But if there he but one faith, as well as one Lord, the Jews, before Christ possessed this one faith and stood by it, as well as the Jews or Gentiles since the Christian epoch. This may be safely said of all the faithful of the seed of Abraham: they stood by faith and were saved by faith. By faith too in the great gospel facts exhibited to them in type. Mr. C. would represent that there have been almost as many different faiths as saints in the Old Testament. Abraham had one faith, Noah another, Enoch another, Moses another. Strange indeed! But Paul said these all died in faith: in what faith? In that faith which is the substance of things hoped and the evidence of things not seen. But to proceed. The term vineyard is a term applied to the Jewish and Christian states of the church. In Isaiah the house of Israel is called a vineyard. "Now will I sing to my well-beloved a song of my beloved touching his vineyard. My well-beloved hath a vineyard in a very fruitful field: and he fenced it, and gathered out the stones thereof, and planted it with the choicest vine, and built a tower in the midst of it, and also made a winepress therein; and he looked that it should bring forth grapes, and it brought forth wild grapes. And now, O inhabitants of Jerusalem, and men of Judah, judge, I pray you, betwixt me and my vineyard. What could have been done more to my vineyard, that I have not done in it? wherefore, when I looked that it should bring forth grapes, brought it forth wild grapes? And now go to; I will tell you what I will do to my vineyard: I will take away the hedge thereof, and it shall be eaten up; and break down the wall thereof, and it shall be trodden down: and I will lay it waste: it shall
( 157 )
( 158 )
The prophecy connected with this parable has been precisely accomplished. The kingdom of God shall be taken from you and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof. So the fact is. The visible church state enjoyed by the Jews has been taken from them and given to the Gentiles. The term commonwealth is virtually applied to both the Jewish and Christian societies. "Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the
( 159 )
Again they are both called brethren, Ps. xxii. 22. "I will declare thy name unto my brethren: in the midst of the congregation will I sing praises unto thee." Now Paul, Heb. ii. 11, 12, quotes the same words and applies them to the Christian church -- thus, "I will declare thy name unto my brethren in the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee." And, indeed, in the next verse the Christians are called children: this same one saith, "Behold I and the children whom God hath given me." And the Lord by Jeremiah, (iii. 4.) says to the Jews, "Wilt thou not from this time cry unto me, my Father, thou art the guide of my youth." This is, in effect the same as calling them children. Thus the members of the visible church under both dispensations, have been called the same brethren, and the same children. They are both called Zion, Is. xlix. 14-23. In this beautiful passage, observe particularly verse 20th, two classes of children are spoken of. The one class are represented as being lost to Zion, and the other class are represented as having been placed in their stead.
( 160 )
Mr. C. read you Macknight's translation of the passage quoted from Rom. xi. and would represent it as differing from my views, but I see nothing gained from him; fanciful as he is, he agrees with me on this topic. On this part of the subject we shall merely state a fact, and a very forcible one. The disciples of Christ, whom he called to be his attendants, his eye and ear witnesses, and whom he afterwards called Apostles, were all Jews and members of the Jewish church. In this church they continued their membership during his whole life time. In it they ate the Lord's Supper after they had eaten the Jewish passover. After his ascension into heaven, we find them in the temple mingling with the Jews; and on the day of Pentecost they appear in the same church, acting as ministers. No man can show when, or by whom, they were cut off from this church. And if not, doubtless the Christian church is a mere continuation of the Jewish. We hope to resume this position in the morning. Thus ended the second day. -- Adjourned to meet next morning at 10 o'clock. |
|
( 161 )
I then proceeded: -- My friends; Having proved my first position, "that a believer is the only subject of baptism," I now proceed to the second, viz. "that immersion is the only baptism." Mr. M. and I both agree that the element to be used in this ordinance is water. But whether the subject is to be brought to the water, or water to the subject; or whether the subject is to be immersed in water, or water sprinkled, or poured upon the subject, is the question to be controverted. The scriptures either afford us the means of determining this point, or they do not. If they do, then there is only one way of administering this ordinance acceptable unto God and profitable unto men. If they do not, it is a matter of perfect indifference, and of equal import, whether water be sprinkled upon the face, or poured into the mouth, or applied to the hands, the feet, or the whole body. If the scriptures do not determine this point, it is either because the Instituton of baptism could not, or would not determine it. If he could not determine it, it could only be in consequence of the impossibility of finding a word in the language in which he spake, of sufficient precision, of fixed meaning, of definite import to express the action he designed to have performed. -- This might have been the case in some languages which are exceedingly barren. But it is admitted on all hands that the Greek language, which was the language chosen by the Founder of Christianity, in which to reveal the way of life to all nations, was the most copious and the most definite language ever spoken. The reason of this is found in the people that spake it. For the language of every people is similar to themselves. Nations uncultivated, like individuals, have but few ideas, and consequently few words. But the Greeks, were the most philosophical,
( 162 )
With respect to the various uses of that most useful element water, they had a variety of terms corresponding to those uses. The following words and their compounds were in common usage amongst the people, and, indeed, most of them in common usage in the Septuagint of the Old Testament, and in the Greek of the New. Raino, Rantizo, Cheo, Echeo, Nipto, Louo, Pluno, Bapto, and Baptizo, Agnize, Kathairo, and some others of less note. Now all these words are used with a reference to the application of water for various purposes. Some of these words express different actions, and others the same action with regard to different objects. Now, in so many words used in reference to water, is there not one of them of such definite import as to determine one particular application or use of water? This would be an unparalleled circumstance. We shall take the English Bible and its translators for evidence in this case. I have here written down three hundred and seventy six references to the original scriptures. After a most minute investigation of every portion from Genesis to Revelation in the original scriptures, and the common version, I think I may safely affirm, that not one place has been overlooked. In the English Old, and New Testament the word sprinkle occurs sixty-two times. The word pour, and its derivatives, one hundred and fifty-two times. To wash and its derivatives, one hundred and thirty-nine times. To dip with its derivatives, twenty-two times. To plunge, once. Now the question that determines the point is, did the translators, in one instance translate the same word, to sprinkle, and to dip. We positively say no. Another question may be asked as conclusive as the former, viz. Did they ever, in one instance, translate the same word as signifying to dip and to pour? We positively answer No. Bapto and Baptizo are never translated either to sprinkle, or to pour. Again, Raino and Rantizo are never once translated to dip, immerse, or
( 163 )
In the judgment, therefore, of the translators of the scriptures, our Saviour could have got a word so definite in its meaning as to express one action to the exclusion of two others at least: that is, he could have got the word baptizo which never was translated and never signified to sprinkle or to pour, and therefore sufficiently definite for this purpose. Again, if he had fixed upon sprinkling or pouring, he could have got words that never were translated, and never signified to dip, or immerse, and thus forever have debarred dipping or immersing. Remember, my friends, that we said, if the Saviour has not determined whether believers are to be sprinkled or immersed, it must have been either because he could not, from the ambiguity of that language in which he spake, or because he would not. We have shown that he could if he had pleased: if then it is not determined it is because he would not. Let us also test this principle. If he would not, then his wisdom and philanthropy would have led him to have found a word that could not be understood as referring to any particular use of water. He would have adopted not cheo, lest pouring should be thought to be the action he intended; not raino, lest sprinkling should have been practised; not baptizo, lest dipping should have been supposed to be his desire; but he would have adopted a word that respected no action in particular, such as agnizo to purify, or kathairo to cleanse, in any method of applying water. The inevitable conclusion from these plain considerations and facts is, that as he did not adopt an indefinite term, he did not command an indefinite action to be performed; and as he did not use a word definitely signified to sprinkle or pour, he did not
( 164 )
The term wash and its derivatives washed and washing, are as frequently in our language, and in Greek, the name of the effect of an action performed, as they are of the action itself. Accordingly we find the word wash an ambiguous term in our language, as far as the manner of washing is regarded. The term wash and its derivatives occur one hundred and thirty nine times in the scriptures. In our translation it is found in connexion with the hands, feet, face, body, clothes, garments, and a variety of other articles which make its occurrence frequent and indefinite. Not so however in Greek. -- Of these one hundred and thirty nine times wash in English, it is nipto thirty-eight times, louo forty-nine times, pluno forty-four times, and bapto five times. So that the Greek is much more definite in the use of this term than the English. Nipto is generally applied to the hands, feet, or face; pluno, to polluted clothes or garments, or other polluted substances; louo to the whole body, and of the five times which bapto is translated wash or washing, it is as the effect of dipping. -- Such as when Paul was commanded to be baptized or immersed, to wash away his sins -- here washing is an effect ascribed to immersion or baptism. That Mr. M. may have the fairest opportunity of detecting me, if imposing on you false criticisms, I would inform him that I have the above mentioned three hundred and seventy-six references in this manuscript, with the words in construction with those mentioned. I will therefore lay myself completely open to detection in the following specifications. I. Sprinkle and its derivatives, occur 62 times in the Old and New Testament: 31 times it is raino, 23 times the compounds of cheo; 8 times other words but not once bapto or baptizo. II. To pour with its derivatives occurs 152 times. 94 times it is cheo and its compounds, 53 times other words and phrases. Of these there are 27 varieties, but not once bapto or baptizo. III. To wash occurs 139 times -- 19 times nipto, face,
( 165 )
IV. To dip, occurs with its derivalives, 22 times. -- Once it is moluno, properly to stain, as when Joseph's coat was stained, our translation, dipped in the blood of a kid. It is 21 times bapto and baptizo. Never once raino, cheo, nipto, louo, pluno, or any of their compounds, or derivatives. V. To plunge, occurs but once, and there it is bapto. VI. Tebel in the Hebrew Old Testament occurs 17 times. In the Septuagint it is 16 times translated by bapto or baptizo, once by moluno, to dye. Junius and Tremmelius translate it 16 times by tingo, immergo, and demergo; and it is translated 16 times in English by dip and plunge, once by dyed. The result of the above investigation is briefly this, that as the Institutor of baptism selected a word the most definite in the language to express his will, and that word signifying literally to dip or immerse, his will is, that a disciple should be immersed in water and not sprinkled with water. If Mr. M. impugns this criticism we have a great variety of documents to present in suppjrt of it; but in the meantime shall only read a criticism or two from Drs. Campbell and Macknight, and Father Simon, a Jesuit. Campbell and Macknight, whom my opponent without any ceremony sent to the infernal regions, were distinguished brethren of his own church. But because they were honest men, in this instance, in acknowledging that bapto and baptiso ought to have been translated immerse, and that baptism, is immersion, Mr. M. would place them amongst hypocrites and unbelievers as you have heard. [Here I read from Campbell's preface a large extract, too long for insertion, indicative of the excellence of his character.] The following extract from Campbell's preliminary dissertations confirms the remarks we have made: "The word baptizein, both in sacred authors and in classical, signifies, to dip, to plunge, to immerse, and was rendered by Tertullian, the oldest of the Latin Fathers,
( 166 )
Dr. Macknight declares, vol. i p. 81. "Castalio has misrepresented the meaning of scripture, in translating baptizo by lavo to wash, and baptisma by lotto, a trashing." In his notes he frequently declares that baptism is immersion, and that it ought so to be administered. -- Rom. vi. 4-6, on which he remarks, "Christ submitted to be baptized -- i. e. to be buried under the water by John, and to be raised out of it again, as an emblem of his future death and resurrection." Other extracts to the same effect were read.
( 167 )
Mr. M. again began: -- Mr. C. has got far a-head of me. He is already done with the subject of baptism and has introduced the mode. We travel slowly; but I hope surely. His last address will be noticed in its proper place. I wish you to keep in mind one assertion he made in his last speech, viz. That Calvin and Beza were the first who taught that baptism was called circumcision. This we shall disprove in its proper place. I came here my friends, to defend the Paido-baptist world from the charges of our opponent. In defending them from his imputations, I proposed first to give you a Divine command for infant baptism. [Here was a long recapitulation of his method and progress.] I have been lately engaged in proving that the two societies were one and the same church. First, because they had the same religion and morality. Secondly, because they had the same inspired names. For instance, they were called the same bride, house, flock, barn, floor, vineyard, kingdom, commonwealth, olive tree, brethren, treasure, Zion, and by other names equally applicable to both societies, and indicative of their identity. I come now, in the last place under this head to
( 168 )
A covenant is essential to a church state. A people cannot be associated into a visible form or society, but upon some grounds, or upon some associating principle, and for some proposed end. This is as true in the state as in the church. In the state there is a certain instrument adopted and recognized as formative of the social compact. This is called the constitution, in which the grand principles are asserted on which the people unite, and in subordination to which, they profess a willingness to be regulated or governed. The end proposed, if not always expressed, is always understood: it is the welfare of the people. Now a covenant bears the same relation to the church, as a constitution does to the state. Indeed we may very consistently, both with the nature of things, and also with the import of the original word translated covenant, call it the constitution of the church. As the body politic, called the state, is inseparably and essentially connected with, nay, built upon, its constitution, so the church is indissolubly and necessarily connected with, or built upon its constitution. A number of persons united under a constitution promising temporal benefits, prescribing certain rules, enforcing certain duties necc ssary to the present welfare of society, is called a state, a nation, cr a kingdom. In like manner a number of persons united under a constitution, promising spiritual benefits, prescribing certain rules, and enforcing certain duties necessary to the spiritual and eternal welfare of the society thus associated, is called the church or kingdom of Jesus Christ. Destroy the constitution and the state is destroyed; the bond of union is severed, the union is dissolved. Change the constitution and the state is changed, it is new modified, and cemented upon new principles. If then we change the covenant or constitution, we change the church. This is, we presume admitted on all sides. These things premised, and it is evident that if the covenant on which
( 169 )
Now let us enquire what was the covenant which the church of Israel had, which constituted them a visible church of God. In ascertaining this I will unhesitatingly say, that it was not the Sinaitic covenant, for God had before that time promised to be a God to the seed of Abraham, and that they should become his people. The Sinaitic covenant we admit at once was done away, but in admitting this, we are prepared to prove that this was not the covenant which united Israel as a church. Mr. C. in his Debate with Mr. Walker, labored to show that the Sinaitic covenant was done away. If Mr. W. viewed the Sinaitic covenant as the covenant on which the Jewish church was founded, he was doubtless mistaken, and the triumph gained over him by my opponent, on that view of the matter, does not affect our argument in the least. For instance, the following passage from the Debate at Mount-Pleasant represents Mr. W. as holding the covenant at Sinai to be the constitution of that church. [Here Mr. M. read extracts, pp. 38, 39, too long for insertion here.] The covenant which is done away, and with which, the new covenant is contrasted is the Sinaitic covenant. Let us hear the Apostle, "But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises. For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. For finding fault with, them, he saith, behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in
( 170 )
The Apostle also, in his Epistle to the Galatians, thus speaks: (iv. 22-31.) "For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a free woman. But he who was of the bond woman was born after the flesh; but he of the free woman was by promise. Which things are an allegory; for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabu and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children. But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all. For it is written, rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband. Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise. But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now. Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman. So then, brethren, we are not
( 171 )
The covenant made with Abraham is, then, the covenant on which the Christian church is founded, and on this the Jews were constituted a peculiar people, "made the people of God. The Abrahamic covenant may therefore, with the greatest propriety, be called an ecclesiastical covenant. That this covenant still exists, and that it is an ecclesiastical covenant is capable of the fullest proof. That it never has been abolished might be sufficient to prove that it still exists, and if any person affirms that it is abolished, let the proof be adduced. This is
( 172 )
Not only the calling of this covenant an everlasting covenant is positive proof of its perpetuity, but the very nature of the covenant demonstrates that it is perpetual. Let me ask what is the nature of a covenant. I answer, promises and requirements. These are essential to a covenant. What then were the promises of the Abrahamic covenant. I answer, in general terms, they were both temporal and spiritual. "I will be a God to thee and thy seed after thee," is a most comprehensive promise, including things temporal and spiritual. Jesus Christ was promised in it. "In thee shall all families of the earth be blessed." Thus, the gospel was preached unto Abraham, the same gospel which is preached unto us. The requirements also of this covenant are invariably the same. When God promised to be a God to Abraham, it was required that he would receive the Lord as his God. -- When a Redeemer was promised, it was required that he would believe in him. When circumcision was enjoined upon him, that of which it was emblematical was required viz. the circumcision of the heart. These requirements continue to exist, consequently the covenant which originated them still continues to exist. That this covenant was ecclesiastical in its very nature appears from the fact that it necessarily separated the seed of Abraham into a church, and also even under another dispensation has necessarily formed a church not of Jews only but of Gentiles. Hence Zacharias saith Luke, i. 72, 73. that the blessings of the New Testament were a performance of the mercy promised to Abraham. His words are, "To perform the mercy promised unto our fathers, and to remember his holy covenant; the oath which he sware unto our father Abraham." I then arose: -- As Mr. M. is now coming to the of the proof of his second position, and as there is some
( 173 )
There is one disadvantage I wish to apprise you of, inseparable from the predicament in which I am placed. My subsequent addresses, for a time, must often be distributed into three parts, One part will always be a reply to the speech of my opponent immediately preceding; another part will be a review of such parts of his argument, yet behind; in consequence of my having till now, as far as possible, gone on with the proof of the positions which he was obliged to impugn. I hope, however, soon to surmount this difficulty. The third part of my addresses will, as far as practicable, be devoted to the full establishment of the points yet remaining to be proven, and for the proof of which I stand pledged, I shall only add, on this occasion, that I am very much mistaken if my opponent's course in this discussion will not manifest that he was conscious in his own breast before it commenced, that he could not act the part of a respondent; that he was not able to refute the arguments to be adduced, and therefore projected this easy course of reading, and commenting on, the gleanings of his leisure hours; and thus, on the cheapest terms, acquire the fame of having so many days defended the Paido-baptist world. Mr. M. has asserted that the covenant, or constitution of both churches is one and the same; that this covenant is the Abrahamic, and that this Abrahamic covenant was an "ecclesiastical covenant." Circuitous and intricate are the paths of error. What a labor, what a toil to establish infant membership! The rev. Samuel Ralston it seems borrowed this ecclesiastical covenant from
( 174 )
The law given at Sinai is called a covenant by Moses and by Paul, the two tables on which that law was written are called by Paul (Heb. ix. 4) the tables of the covenant; and the ark in which these two tables were deposited is called the ark of the covenant. That there
( 175 )
But there was no church constituted on the former or first covenant with Abraham: nor indeed on the second. Israel were never constituted into a church state until the covenant at Sinai, nor were the people ever called a church until that covenant was given. Now if Mr. M. calls the covenant recorded Gen. xii. an ecclesiastical covenant, when Paul called it the covenant of God in reference to Christ, he disparages the wisdom of the Spirit of God; and if he build the Jewish church upon it, he destroys the grand peculiarity of it, which exhibits it as bearing an equal aspect to all families of the earth, Gentiles as well as Jews. If he build his Jewish church upon the covenant recorded Gen. xvii. then he cannot agree that the Christian church and Jewish are the same; for the promises contained in that covenant belong not to the Christian church. But if he should still adhere to that covenant, we shall shew that it shared the same fate with the Sinaitic. In the meantime, that we may come to close and definite terms, let
( 176 )
Of Mr. M's. address this is the sum: -- That the covenant made with Abraham is one and undivided, though consisting of different promises will appear obvious from many testimonies of holy scripture. Deut, v. 31, "The Lord thy God will not forget the covenant of the fathers." Here all the promises made to Abraham are comprised in one covenant. Indeed the same singular form of expression is not peculiar to the Old Testament, we find it in the New, (Luke i. 72.) -- To remember his holy covenant, the oath which he sware to Abraham, (Acts, iii. 25.) "Ye are the children of the covenant which God made with our fathers." In these and many other passages the coveant is represented under the idea of unity. For although God often appeared to Abraham and frequently renewed and enlarged the promises made to him, he ultimately, when he offered up his son Isaac, consolidated them into one covenant and confirmed the whole by an oath. Circumcision was attached to this covenant as a seal and token; and this was a confirmation of it to every one who became a subject of circumcision. For in the affixing of circumcision to this covenant there was a renewal of all the promises to Abraham, and the specifications were so definite and so comprehensive as to preclude mistake. If we should suppose that because God appeared at sundry times to Abraham, and spake to him at every interview of these promises, he always made a distinct covenant with him, the number of covenants would he agumented to seven or eight, for he appeared to him so often. -- The promise of a numerous posterity was made to him seven different times; the land of Canaan four times, the promise that all nations should be blessed in him was three times explicitly declared. But reason and scripture concur in viewing these as parts of one grand covenant, and this was the covenant on which the Jewish church was built.
( 177 )
( 178 )
But to Show that it is not only plain from the nature of the covenant that it was ecclesiastical, but also from concurrent testimonies of scripture we shall refer to a few, Dan. ix. 27. "Messiah shall confirm the covenant with many for one week." This prophetic week or seven years had respect to the introduction of the Christian church, and therefore the confirmation of his covenant with many, must have respect to those multitudes that then, and for sometime after, the day of pentecost believed and were added to the church. Now observe, with these the covenant with Abraham was confirmed, not disannuled, but established; consequently both churches were established upon the same covenant. The same truth is established in Acts iii. 25, where Peter addresses the Jews, affirming, "Ye are the children of the prophets and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, and in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed." Now, if this covenant, like the Sinaitic, had waxed old, and had vanished away, why should the Apostle here refer to it as yet standing, and exhort the Jews on this ground to turn unto the Lord? This quotation of the covenant with Abraham shows, that it continued without decay, and that both Jews and Christians stood upon it as a church. A still more striking proof that the covenant with Abraham was the covenant on which the Jews stood as a church, we have in Ex. xxxii. 12, 13, "Wherefore should the Egyptians speak, and say, for mischief did he bring them out, to slay them in the mountains, and to consume them from the face of the earth? Turn from thy fierce wrath, and repent of this evil against thy people. Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, thy servants, to whom thou swarest by thine own self, and saidst unto them, I will multiply your
( 179 )
To the same effect we read 2 Kings xiii. 22, 23, "But Hazael king of Syria oppressed Israel all the days of Jehoahaz. And the Lord was gracious unto them, and had compassion on them, and had respect unto them, because of his covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and would not destroy them, neither cast he them from his presence as yet." Here we see the same gracious covenant is plead as the reason why the Lord did not cast off Israel from his presence as yet. Not the covenant at Sinai, but the covenant with Abraham, is adduced as the reason of their continuance to exist as a church. The covenant of grace was made between the Father and the Son. The covenant of works between God and Adam. The ecclesiastic covenant which embraces the covenant of grace was made with Abraham in relation to his natural seed, and also in relation to the Gentiles. On it the Jews were formed into a church, and on the same covenant were the Gentiles, when called, associated together with the Jews as a church. Various prophetic declarations intimate the continuance of this covenant for ever, and show its inseparable connection with the church of God in every age: as "Incline your ear, and come unto me: hear, and your soul shall live; and I will make an everlasting covenant with you, even the sure mercies of David. Behold, I have given him for a witness to the people, a leader and commander to the people. Behold, thou shall call a nation that thou knowest not,
( 180 )
( 181 )
( 182 )
I replied: -- Mr. M. has sat down without telling us where this ecclesiastical covenant may be found. He appears studiously to avoid definite and precise terms on this subject; being, I presume, aware how easy it would be to entrammel him if he should distinctly refer to any one passage as containing this ecclesiastic covenant. It has always been the custom of those who have a good cause, and wish to be understood distinctively; to be very definite and minute in their references. If my opponent is determined to gratify me in no instance, by being definite, his respect to your edification, my friends, requires him to mention where this covenant may be found. He has, as far as possible, prevented me from exposing his sophistry, by the indistinct and confused references to scripture which you have now heard I will, however, endeavor to bring order out of the confused mass and heterogeneous association of discordant matter thrown before you. He sometimes speaks as though there was but one covenant made with Abraham. For the sake of argument, then, let us suppose there was but one. How many promises were there in it? First, I will make of thee a great nation. Second, I will bless thee. Third, I will bless all the families of the earth in thy seed. Fourth, Unto thy seed have I given this land from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates. Fifth, I will make thee the father of many nations. Sixth, I will be a God unto thee and thy seed after thee. Seventh, I will make kings come out of thee. Eighth, Thy seed shall possess the gate of its enemies. Ninth, My covenant shall be IN YOUR FLESH, for an everlasting covenant. These are blessings or promises given to Abraham, in Gen. xii. xv. xvii and xxii. chapters. This is the Abrahamic covenant, the ecclesiastic covenant of Mr. M. Yes, this is the covenant of the Christian church! Then the Christian church is warranted to expect all these blessings!! In fact, they must be made to every member of it on this principle. This "covenant" was made with Abraham respecting
( 183 )
But we have shown that there were different covenants made with Abraham, distinct in their nature, time, place, and circumstances. One was made with him, Gen. xii. when 75 years old, in Haran. * this was 450 years before the covenant at Sinai. This is called by the Apostle, Gal. iii. 17. The covenant confirmed concerning Christ, as Macknight renders it. This covenant was afterwards confirmed by an oath, Gen. xxii. when Abraham offered up his son upon the altar. Eight years after this covenant, Gen. xv. God "MADE A COVENANT" with Abraham in the most formal manner, concerning Canaan. Sixteen years after this time (Gen. xviii) he makes another covenant, called by Stephen the "covenant of circumcision." Yet you were gravely told that there was but one covenant made with Abraham; and this an ecclesiastic covenant. Yet there is no church, no ekklesia mentioned in it, nor for hundreds of years afterwards. What a daring spirit does infant sprinkling inspire! Covenants made in different countries, and at the intervals of eight, sixteen, and twenty-four years, it calls one. Yea, though the Apostle Paul, Eph. ii. 12, calls them the "covenants of promise," and Rom. ix. 4. calls them the "covenants" contradistinguished from the Sinaitic covenant; this daring genius of infant baptism boldly says, "Paul THERE IS BUT ONE COVENANT, YOU ARE MISTAKEN." Paul, you and Stephen both erred not knowing the scriptures, you called Gen. xii. 3, the covenant "confirmed of God concerning Christ." Stephen you erred, though full of the Holy Spirit, in calling the covenant, Gen. xvii. "the covenant of circumcision," you ought to have identified every thing, religion, __________ * The 430 years are thus computed. -- "To the birth of Isaac 25 years, Gen. xxi. 5. To the birth of Jacob 60 years, for Isaac was 60 years old when Jacob was born, Gen, xxv. 26. Jacob went down to Egypt when 130, and according to the Septuagint, the Israelites sojourned in Egypt 215 years. For thus they translate Exod. xii. 40. Now the sojourning'of the children of Israel in the land of Egypt, and in the land of Canaan was 430 years. -- Macknight.
( 184 )
But, my friends, let Mr. M. meet me on any one of these covenants, or on any one of these passages, telling me on which passage he rests his theory, and then you will see how those scriptures you have heard him cite have been perverted from their proper scope and design. There is, however, as respects this controversy, nothing gained, should it be clearly proven that there is but one covenant, (which indeed you must see is impossible) so long as it is confessed there were different promises made to Abraham. And this every Paido-baptist does confess. Some of the most profound Paido-baptist commentators say that there were at least six different promises made to Abraham. At all events there were two. One respecting his natural seed, descended from his own body, and one respecting a people that were in another sense to be called his seed. This is admitted on all sides. Now that which concerned his natural seed is found in Genesis xv. and xvii. chapters. And on these covenants respecting his natural seed was the Sinaitic covenant predicated. The covenant of circumcision, and the covenant made with all Israel at Sinai, are so closely related that circumcision is attached to the law or Sinaitic covenant, and shared the same fate with it. If Mr. M. calls the covenant of circumcision an ecclesiastic covenant, and at the same time says, that the Sinaitic covenant was not an ecclesiastic covenant, but was done away; he should remember that he destroys the foundation which he himself has laid, inasmuch as circumcision and the law, or Sinaitic covenant were united by the Jews, and viewed as liable to the same fate. We told him, in our last address, that we would show that the Sinaitic covenant and circumcision were viewed as alike temporary and carnal, and that they ultimately shared the same fate. Perhaps the authority of Christ will be admitted by my opponent on this topic, John vii. 22. 23. "Moses therefore gave you circumcision (not because it is of Moses but of the fathers) and ye on the sabbath day circumcise a man. If a man. on the sabbath day receive circumcision
( 185 )
We have observed that if there be but two promises made to Abraham, one respecting his natural seed, and one concerning his spiritual seed, it is all that is necessary to overthrow the Paido-baptist hypothesis. Now this is admitted without controversy. His spiritual seed are all those who have obtained the same blessing of being justified by faith as Abraham was. He is therefore the father of all them that believe, though they be not of his natural seed. Now he was constituted their father by a gracious appointment on account of his faith; and ONE PERSON called his seed, to be descended from him, is promised to be the One Seed in whom all the families of the earth should be blessed. "If ye be Christ's (brethren or people) then," says the Apostle, "ye are Abraham's seed." -- Believers in Christ are the ONLY SONS of Abraham in this sense. His natural descendants are his sons in the common sense of all mankind. This is plain matter of fact argument; and it is all that is necessary to demolish the visionary fabric of my opponent. None but the sons of Abraham were ever interested in any covenant made with him or promise given to him. He has but two sorts of sons or children, his natural or literal descendants, of whom we are not. -- Now as we are not his natural descendants, we are not concerned personally in any promise belonging unto them, as such: and as we cannot be ranked among his faithful children until we are Christ's brethren, we are not interested in any promise made to his spiritual seed, until we are manifested to be such, by an avowal of that same kind of faith which he had. This settles the point Mr. M. and we know you cannot refute one item of it. This brings the question out of the clouds and thick darkness in which your mysterious fancy hath enveloped it, and presents it in a tangible form, to persons of the weakest faculties.
( 186 )
Mr. M. (for we must now look back a little) yesterday entertained you for a long time, by telling you of the different names applied to the Jewish society, and also to the Christian, as expressive of their identity; as their being equally called the house, bride, people, vineyard, kingdom &c. of God. To all this argument we would in the mass reply. That, suppose I might be so fortunate as to have a house in Washington and one in Lexington, each of them might with the greatest propriety be called my house; the same might be said concerning barn, vineyard, floor, kingdom, &c. but who would argue thence that because they were both called my house, vineyard, barn, &c. they were one and the same house, vineyard, barn, &c.? This would shock common sense. But it may be objected that the Lord metaphorically speaking, had but one bride, that he could not be said to have had two. To such an objection I would reply by saying that he always had but one bride, one house, one vineyard, one kingdom, &c. at one time; but that Israel having broken the marriage covenant was divorced and ceased to be his married wife, in the metaphorical style; and that in their stead another bride was chosen, another house was built, another vineyard was planted, another kingdom was constituted, to which the same figurative names were applied. And after all that Mr. M. has said on this subject it amounts to precisely the game thing, for he will not say with all his fortitude and zeal he cannot say, that the Jewish and Christian societies are identically the very same -- no, he will say, he has said, they are under different dispensations, and this is saying a great deal, if he is aware of the import of it, for, in fact, a different dispensation is tantamount to a different covenant. At all events he makes the two societies different in some respects, and thus establishes my views and saps the very basis of his own system. The nature and design of the Jews' religion rightly understood, would preclude the formation of such a system as that of the presbyterian. When God made Adam, he not only made him rational, but taught him to speak. Speech, we conceive to have been a Divine revelation
( 187 )
The instituted signs of all the ideas requisite to man in a state of innocence, were entirely inadequate, when he became a transgressor, to afford him one idea, or to communicate any satisfactory information to his mind of spiritual and heavenly things. If it was necessary to teach him to affix signs to the objects around him, and to form significant signs of his own ideas in a state of innocence, it became infinitely more necessary to put him in possession of a new vocabulary, relative to his new and awfully reversed circumstances. Assuming these principles, not entering into their proof at present, we proceed to observe that both the patriarchal and Jewish forms of religion were, among other things, designed to furnish the world with a vocabulary adequate to all the sublime and salutary ends, to be accomplished in the clear revelation of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, in reference to life and immortality, the first writings ever given to the world furnished just such a vocabulary. They resembled, in this respect, the elementary books put into the hands of children; full of pictures and representations calculated to engage the attention, and to inform the judgment. Thus the picture of a bleeding animal, of an altar, of a priest, of a sacred edifice, and of a thousand things connected with it, open, in the first pages of the first writing to our view, and thus imperceptibly introduce us into an acquaintance with significant signs, types, or words, adapted to give us correct ideas of the great salvation. So that the supernatural signs, types, or names, exhibited in the Jews' religion, were, owing to their fixed meaning
( 188 )
Mr. M. proceeds: -- What Mr. C. has advanced concerning the same inspired names being applied equally to the Jewish and Christian societies is nothing to the purpose. His remarks do not prove that they are not one and the same. I did not merely say that they were both called a bride, a vineyard, a kingdom, a house; but I proved that they were called the same bride, the same vineyard, the same kingdom, and the same house, the same olive tree, and the same brethren. When I sat down I was about to proceed to obviate a difficulty that appeared to present itself, in calling the Abrahamic covenant, the covenant, on which the Christian church is founded; viz, how it can with propriety be called a new covenant, if as old as Abraham. For as I have shewn that the covenant at Sinai was the old covenant, and as the Abrahamic covenant was prior to that, so it would appear that the new covenant was older than the old one. * I do not view the term new when applied to this covenant as referring to the time of its promulgation, but as referring to the clearness of the light, and the fulness of the light which it exhibits. It is owing to the brighter effulgence of grace and glory that shines in the gospel, as unfolded by the preaching of the Lord and his Apostles, compared with the light that appeared in the annunciations of the holy seers of Israel under the legal __________ * An objection to this effect had been made by me in a former address.
( 189 )
That the covenant made with Abraham is the covenant on which the New Testament church is constituted, will be still farther established, from what the writer of the epistle to Heb. saith (chap. vi. 13, 18.) "When God made promise to Abraham, because he could swear by no greater, he sware by himself; saying, surely, blessing I will bless thee, and multiplying I will multiply thee, and so after he had patiently endured he obtained the promise; wherein God willing more abundantly to show unto the heirs of salvation the immutability of his counsel, confirmed it by an oath, that by two immutable things in which it was impossible for God to lie we might have strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us." In this passage we have plainly cited one of the promises of the Abrahamic covenant. These promses being now confirmed by an oath are the covenant in which Christians stand. Indeed we are informed that it was confirmed for this purpose, that we Christians might have strong consolation who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us in this covenant. We have now, my friends, come to the close of our second position, which you remember was, "that the Jewish society, before Christ, and the Christian society after Christ, are one and the same church under different dispensations." This we have proved by showing, that they had, I. The same theology, II. The same inspired names, III. The same everlasting and immutable covenant. The two societies agreeing in the grand essentials
( 190 )
In the illustration and proof of this position we shall first attend to the nature and use of seals. A seal and a covenant have been associated from the remotest antiquity. The ancient Hebrews wore their seals or signets sometimes in rings upon their fingers, sometimes in bracelets upon their arms. We are informed that Jezebel wrote letters to the elders of Israel to condemn Naboth, and sealed them with king Ahab's seal (1 Kings xxi. 8.) Haman also sealed the decree of king Ahasuerus against the Jews with the king's seal. But seals are yet of much greater antiquity than the times to which we have referred. Judah the son of Jacob left his seal, his bracelets, and his staff, as a pledge with Tamar. In civil contracts seals were used from time immemorial. Amongst the Jews they generally wrote two originals of every important contract, one was kept open by him especially interested in the contract. The other was sealed up and deposited in some public office. This was to prevent fraud. Jeremiah, the prophet, bought a field in his country of Anathoth from Hananeel, he wrote the contract, called witnesses and sealed it up, and then put it into the hands of Baruch and said to him, "Take these evidences, this evidence of the purchase, both which is sealed, and this evidence which is open, and put them in an earthen vessel, that they may continue many days. Jer. xxxii 10-14. There are considerable varieties in the instruments with which a seal is made and the devices, engraven on them. Before the time of William the conqueror, the makers of all deeds only subscribed their names, adding the sign of the cross, and a great number of witnesses; but that monarch
( 192 )
A seal is sometimes the mark of property, sometimes a confirmative mark in evidence of a contract, sometimes an emblem of secrecy, sometimes an emblem of security. It is a mark of property; thus (Rev. vii. 8.) the servants of God are represented as sealed in their foreheads, marked as the property of the Lord. It is a confirmative mark of a covenant, in evidence of its confirmation; thus Abraham received the seal of circumcision. It is an emblem of secrecy; thus the book of God's decrees concerning the church is sealed with seven seals. It is an emblem of security; thus when the Devil was cast into the bottomless pit, he was shut up and a seal set upon him. It is also used figuratively as denoting mere attestation, in whatever way it is given. Thus Jesus Christ is said to be sealed by God the Father, i. e. authorised with sufficient evidence. Again, he that believeth the record that God has given of his Son, sets to his seal that God is true, i. e. avoucheth and attesteth the truth or veracity of God. From this general view of a seal and its use, we select that particular meaning and use which accords with the connexion of ideas in which it is presented unto us, as affixed to the covenant. Paul called circumcision, the seal of the righteousness of faith, which Abraham had whilst in uncircumcision. Indeed the Apostle calls circumcision both a sign and a seal: and we know that it was attached to a covenant which was never to be done away; to a covenant that embraced the covenant of circumcision was once a seal of this gracious
( 193 )
|
|
( 193 )
He still tells you that the same inspired names, are, in scripture, applied to both societies, as one and the same church. That they are not only equally called the Lord's house, kingdom, vineyard, &c. but one and the same house, vineyard, and kingdom, &c. Now he has frequently declared that they are not in every respect the same, for they are under different dispensations, and why so pertinaciously insist upon the name when he has given up the thing? But I deny that they are called the same house, kingdom, &c. in any passage of scripture. This we shall prove immediately. The same names are applied to both in many respects: yet not all the same names For the Jewish society is nowhere called the body of Christ, the church of Christ, a new man, the temple of the Holy Ghost, the pillar and the support of the truth, the kingdom of heaven, &c. &c. Mr. M. sometimes talks of the church militant, and the church triumphant; now many of the same names are applied to the "church triumphant," that are applied to the "church militant;" as, for instance, "kingdom of heaven," "kingdom of God," "Mount Zion," "My Father's house," or "the house of God," "Jerusalem," &c. &c. Now Mr. M. might as convincingly argue that the "church triumphant" and the "church militant" are one and the same church because they are called by the same inspired names, as that, for the same reason, the Jewish and the Christian societies are one and the same! Here let it be observed, once for all, that the Jewish nation stood once in a highly privileged relation to God, that he reigned over them as his people above all other people. This dignified state, this privileged relationship, (typical it is true of another people) was called by many names, expressive of its advantages; such as "olive tree," "kingdom of God," "house of God," "holy nation," "peculiar people," "congregation of the Lord," &c. Now in consequence of their unbelief, rebellion,
( 194 )
Mr. M's new covenant or testament, is not new in consequence of the first being made old, but in consequence of its superior light! Marvellous light! It defies criticism! We shall leave Mr. M. in the quiet enjoyment of this impregnable refuge! Mr. M. has now, at length, after so long a time, informed us that he has proved his second position. We shall have need of patience to hear nineteen more proved in a similar manner. You will no doubt, my friends, be expecting that I should now think about redeeming my pledge. I confess the time has come when it becomes my duty. What was I to do? I think this was my promise: That so soon as Mr. M. had finished the second position, I would show, that in proving it to be true, he was digging a pit for his own interment: that if he proved it to be true, he would thereby confute himself. He says he has proved the Jewish societies to be one and the same society or church. Well, to redeem our pledge, we shall say he has proved it. This being admitted, we have only to remark that the infant seed of Abraham were born members of this Jewish church, and were to be circumcised because THEY WERE MEMBERS, of that church, not for admission into it, for they were circumcised because they were born within in the covenant, as Dr. Mason, and my opponent say. Well then, the infant seed of believers under the same covenant are born members of the church -- consequently they are not to be baptized for admission into it, for as was said, they are members of it as soon as born. If so, then, they are not to be baptized at all, for one reason worth a thousand, viz. -- that baptism was never designed
( 195 )
The identity of churches, covenants, and seals is an absurd identity, and ruinous to infant baptism. I preferred to save Mr. M the labor of these two days by answering one question, but his clemency would not, could not, extend so very far. You will, however, no doubt consider, my friends, that according to my promise something more is due. For I said if Mr. M. proved the identity of the two churches he was confuted, on the plainest principles; and I also said if he did not, he would be confuted on his own principles. Upon the supposition, then, of his having proved his first position, we have seen he is theologically dead and buried. But now I proceed to show, that he has not proved the identity of the two churches -- consequently, on his own principles, confuted. Here I request you to watch me closely, as this is a point of no little moment. Perhaps some of you think that I ought to pay some attention first to his remarks on seals. No, my friends, let him first shew that baptism is called a seal, and then we shall attend to that point also. Till this is done, his remarks on seals and circumcision are as inapplicable as the tales of other times. My first argument, for affirming that the Christian religion and Christian church differ essentially From the Jewish, is drawn from Daniel ii. 44, 45, "And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed, and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, and it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand forever. The great God has made known to the
( 196 )
( 197 )
Our second argument is deduced from a notorious fact, that the Four Gospels, or new covenant, opens with the annunciation of the approximation of this new reign and kingdom. John the Baptist, the Messiah, the twelve Apostles, the Seventy disciples, to all Judea announced its approach, saying, "reform for the reign of heaven or of the heavens approacheth." This is proof positive that, at this time, the new kingdom was not yet set up, and that the old Jewish was yet standing. Deceitful and false were the preachings and prayers of this era for this reign to come, if it had already come; if the Jewish kingdom were all that was intended. All the Jews that expected the new kingdom to be a continuation of the old one, rejected the ccunse) of God against themselves, and perished in, and through, their mistake. Our third reason, for asserting the essential difference betwixt the two kingdoms, is drawn from a plain and decisive declaration of the Saviour, (Luke xvi. 16.) "The law and the prophets preached until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached and every man presseth into it." Observe, the law and the prophets contained all the old religion, and continued to teach the Jews until John preached repentance and reformation. But since John came, the new religion or kingdom of God is preached; something, this, assuredly, different from the law and the prophets; else this saying was deceptions and pernicious. And, take notice, that into this kingdom all that feared God were pressing with ardor. They continued not in their former church state, under the law and the prophets; but were pressing into the new, or received the doctrine of it. A fourth reason, for asserting this, radical difference between the two religious and the two churches, is found, in the terms of admission into this new kingdom. John the Dipper, intimated this difference to some that applied
( 198 )
Mr. M. rejoins: -- I think there is something like reasoning in my opponent's last address, but it is misapplied. I had, I think, very clearly proved that the Jews are represented in Math. (viii. 11, 12.) as being members of the kingdom of heaven or evangelical dispensation. The words are "I say unto you that many shall come from the east and from the west, and
( 199 )
But to return to circumcision, the seal of the ecclesiastic covenant. I suppose if, in answer to the numerous demands of my opponent respecting the place where this covenant may be found, I should tell him that it is found in Genesis, it would suffice to prevent the frequent repetition- of such a question. In his debate with Mr. Walker p. 17, he says that "circumcision was to Abraham what it never was, nor could be to any of his posterity." And in page 18th, he says "that it was only provisionally a seal to any of the seed of Abraham when they received it." Yet in his appendix p. 168, he represents a seal as a confirmative mark, sign, or token, which may be seen and adduced as an evidence in perpetuam rei memortam, by which the validity of the deed, record, or transaction may be ascertained or evinced in all time coming, for the security and satisfaction of all concerned, during the stipulated continuance of said deed or charter." Now you see at one time circumcision is with him, a fixed and confirmative mark or seal of some stipulated blessing, and at another time
( 200 )
But as I was proving when I last addressed you that baptism came in the room of circumcision, and as I was demonstrating the similarity of import and use in these seals of one and the same covenant, I will, as further explanatory and confirmatory of my remarks, read you an extract from Dr. John Mason's work already referred to in this discussion, pp. 85, 86. "But," says the doctor, "as this conclusion may be thought too strong for the general argument preceding it, let us submit it to a more direct proof, by inquiring into the scriptural account of both circumcision and baptism. And, First, let us see how this account stands with regard to them separately. It will be seen in the following contrast. CIRCUMCISION. 1. Was an initiatory rite, by which the circumcised were owned as of the covenanted seed, and of the people of God.2. Was a seal of the righteousness of faith, Rom. iv. 11: i. e. of the Justification of a sinner through the righteousness of the surety embraced by faith. 3. Was an emblem and a means of internal sanctity. 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. Deut. xxx. 6. See also ch. x. id. BAPTISM. 1. Is an initiatory rite, by which, the baptized are numbered among the disciples of Christ, and the members of the church of God2. The person is baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, (Act. ii. 38.) which is through faith in his blood; so that God is just and the justifier of him that believeth in Jesus. 3. Is a sign and means of our sanctification in virtue, of our communion with Christ. -- 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, Rom. vi. 4. See also 1 Pet. iii. 21.
( 201 )
This extract which fully expresses our views on the similarity existing between circumcision and baptism points out three notable coincidents between these two seals. I. They are both initiatory rites, by which the subjects are owned and acknowledged as belonging to the church. II. They are both seals of the righteousness of faith. III. They are both emblematical of sanctification, See Rom. vi. 4. 1 Pet. iii, 21. Now, that an analogy so striking should exist between
( 202 )
( 203 )
In reply to which I spoke: -- Mr. M. appears as reluctant to defend his favorite position of the identity of the two churches as he was to reply to me. When I have become his respondent, and attacked those bulwarks he was fortifying in his rear, reason suggests that he ought to defend them, if defensible from demolition. But all the defence last made of the capital position, is, a reference to the Gentiles coming from the east and west, and sitting down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven; while the sons of the kingdom are cast out. By the "kingdom of heaven" he would understand the Christian churnh, and by "the kingdom," he understands the same. Now let us test the principle, by reading the substitute for the principal. Many shall come from the east and from the west and shall sit down in the Christian church with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, but the sons of the Christian church shall be cast out into outer darkness!! &c. The absurdity, I presume, is apparent to all. The kingdom of heaven and the kingdom do not refer to the same state. They do express the full sense of the explanation I have already given. The favorite hypothesis of Mr. M. then, evidently fails in one important respect, viz. in having no scripture proof. But recollect, my friends, he has not made one struggle to get out of the pit into which he has fallen. He is buried under the ruins of one of his bulwarks. Better try to got out of the present catastrophe than to add to the mass of materials already too heavy to bear. But the seal of the covenant is now his darling topic. He argues the covenant (which we are now politely and minutely informed is somewhere in Genesis!) is unchangeable, but the seal has been changed. This is assuredly a "rara avis in terris." A perpetual covenant with a temporary seal! An unchangeable covenant with a changeable seal! This is a Phoenix covenant without a mate in all the creation. It renews its existence by death! The bloody seal is now changed
( 204 )
Must I review an argument, and by serious argumentation too, unlike to any thing in the universe. -- Let us have one archetype: we ask for only one of a covenant remaining when the seal was taken away! Was not circumcision significant of something; could it not be seen and examined by every body; and what did it say? It said, "I am a Jew of the seed of Abraham, entitled to every thing promised my father, when God told him to make this mark upon me." Deface this mark in the flesh, and sprinkle a few drops of water upon the face, and then say, it is the same seal significant of the same thing -- that is, this watery stal can be seen on the flesh, examined by every body, and says, what? -- just what circumcision said, -- "I am a Jew, of the seed of Abraham, entitled to every thing promised my father, when God told him to make this mark upon me!!" It surely lies, if it tell such a tale. A seal, Mr. M. says, is a confirmative mark. Now who ever thought that water left a confirmative mark on the forehead of a child. But remember, my friends, I called upon my opponent to tell us where baptism is called a seal. No where, I say, in the Bible. To presume that baptism is a seal, and to presume that it is substituted in the place of circumcision, and that the seal is changed, is taking too much liberty in an argument. One presumption might, in some instances, be tolerated, but it is too presumptuous to demand three, nay to adopt them without any ceremony, and place them as the basis of an argument I deny that circumcision was ever changed into anything -- that baptism is a seal of any covenant in the legitimate use of language: -- and, consequently, that baptism came in the room of circumcision. And, I positively say, that Mr. M. cannot produce one text in the Bible in proof of the contrary. -- I say again, it is quite too presumptuous, to presume so far, as to take three suppositions
( 205 )
But there is an analogy betwixt circumcision and baptism. This is plead by the Paido-baptists. Suppose we should grant them this analogy -- what then? There is an analogy between Adam and Christ in many points; between Adam and Noah, between Hagar and the old covenant; between Ishmael and the Jews; between Jonah in the whale's belly and Christ in the grave; and a thousand other things in scripture, and shall we say that the one came in room of the other, and is a substitute in its stead!! And after all that has been said of circumcision as a seal, it is only called a seal once, and in relation to one circumstance, in the life of one individual. It never was a seal to one of Adam's race, in the same sense, and for the same purpose, as it was to Abraham. Mark the Apostle's style -- He received the SIGN of circumcision, this was its common import to all the Jews -- he received the sign, its common name; to him in particular a seal; of what: -- of his interest in the covenant. -- No, this he had guaranteed by the veracity of God. -- A seal of what? -- Of the righteousness of that faith -- what faith? of the faith which he should afterwards have? -- No, no: but of the faith he had. -- When? SIXTEEN years before this time: when his faith was counted unto him for righteousness: and TWENTY-FOUR years before this time he believed the promise of God, and left his own country and his father's house, in the obedience of faith. The whole mystery dissolves at the touch of cunmon sense when it is simply known, that Abraham received the usual sign of circumcision, which to him was a pledge or mark of the Divine acceptance of his faith. We challenge Mr. M. to the fourth of the Romans -- if he can prove any thing else from it, by the most rigid criticism, we will give up to him the whole argument. -- Do, Mr. M. meet me on this topic, if you please. The terms are easy. But he found a contradiction in the Debate at Mount Pleasant. -- Eagle eyed and far-sighted critic. In this instance, however, he has not looked through a proper medium. He has been often alluding to that Debate,
( 206 )
He gave you a quotation from Dr. John Mason. We shall treat you to another. This unfolds the golden reason for advocating infant baptism. O how conclusive his reasons -- hear him plead the cause of a mixed church. To which infant sprinkling mightily conduces, his words are, p. 156-159, "The mixed character of the church contributes directly to her prosperity. It does so, By increasing her numbers: By affording protection. It is evident, that all those means by which the gospel is supported and propagated, are not furnished by real Christians; and equally evident that the whole supply is very scanty. If you should deduct the part which comes from the pockets of unconverted men, the balance would not preserve Christianity from being starved out of the world. Indeed from the wretched provision which is commonly made for her maintenance, one might conclude, with little offence against charity, that the great majority of professed Christians, are not unwilling to try how far this experiment of starving may prove successful. That is their sin, and it shall be their punishment. Let them think of it in those moments
( 207 )
But small as the encouragement is for any, who by following another honest calling, can precure a tolerable livlihood, and lay up even a little for their families, to devote themselves to the religious welfare of society, it would be much smaller were none to be accounted Christians here, who shall not be accounted such hereafter. Go, with the power of detecting hypocrisy; cast out of the church, all whose fellowship is not "with the Father, and with his Son, Jesus Christ." And your next step must be to nail up the doors of our places of worship. We are in the habit of praying that the Lord, who has declared that "the silver is his, and the gold is his," would influence the hearts of the opulent to bring their offerings into his courts: We thank him, when, in a manner somewhat uncommon, he hears our prayers, and sends the bounty; and yet we overlook the daily occurrence of this very thing which is the object of our petitions and of our gratitude; He has incorporated the principle in the frame of his visible church, and it operates with regular, though silent, efficacy. But if all who appear to be Christians, and are not, were excluded, the effect must be to diminish, in a most distressing degree, the actual pecuniary resources of the church. For men who are marked as enemies, will never lend her the same aid as men who are supposed to be friends. And thus the absolute purification of the church upon earth, would overthrow the plan which the wisdom of God has devised, to cause his very foes to assess their own purses in carrying on that dispensation of grace which, at heart, they do not love; and which, if left to themselves, they would resist with all their might." Observe first: The baptism of infants affords much more revenue to the church than the baptism of believers. What comes from "the pockets of those baptized infidels is what keeps Christianity from being starved out of the world!" What hireling priest would not contend
( 208 )
But Mr. Booth conceded that baptism came in room of circumcision: Mr. Pond says so, and Mr. M. agrees with him. Sagacious critics -- Mr. Booth tells Paido-baptists, that, on their principles, unbaptized persons cannot be admitted to the supper; for on their hypothesis, uncircumcised persons did not eat the passover. Thus I understand Mr. Booth; and sorely pressed for argument must that genius be, who, can extract from his words any thing else. But I came not hither to defend Mr. Booth, I came to defend the truth. Having now circumstantially noticed every item, of
( 209 )
Mr. M. then arose: -- I know not whether it will be expected, or necessary for me to reply to Mr. C's remarks upon the quotation from Dr. Mason. You would think from the remarks that have been made that the Dr's sole object in defending infant baptism was the love of money. What a contemptible figure does the Dr. exhibit viewed through the light of the preceding drubbing that my opponent has given him. Who would appear in the defence of such a man. Or who would vindicate his sentiments on any topic; a man; so much under the influence of the love of mammon as to model the church into what form would contribute most, to the enriching, of himself. Yet, notwithstanding this terrible lampooning, has the Doctor, in the smallest degree, overstepped the bounds of truth. Has he said anything, more than what is promised, or foretold in the New Testament? Is it not there said that the earth helped the woman. Now what does this mean but that the children of this world do help the church of God. By the earth is commonly understood the men of this world who are unregenerated. By the woman, the church is meant.
( 210 )
I resume the argument in which I was engaged in my last address -- viz. that circumcision and baptism are seals of the same covenant, and that the latter is substituted instead of the former. Mr. C reviles the idea of a change of seals, but may not the form of any thing undergo a change while the substance continues the same? Upon his principles the formal of dispensation through which the covenant of grace has passed, must have changed the substance of it; for it is evident it has passed through different forms. But as that, same Dr. Mason, whom you have heard so reviled, has very ably removed this objection, we shall read you an extract from the work already referred to, p. 78-81. "The substance of the ordinance, that which properly constituted the seal, was the certification to the person sealed, of his interest in God's covenant. The rite of circumcision was no more than the form in which the seal was applied. These two things must not be confounded. For, on the one hand, the rite may be, and was, and is yet, performed without any sealing whatever. The sons of Ishmael where circumcised, but they belonged not to the covenanted seed, and therefore circumcision sealed nothing to them. The Jews are circumcised still, but being cut off from the olive-tree, being cast out ot the church of God, and suspended from the privileges of the covenanted seeds, their circumcision is nothing. On the other hand, the seal had been the same, although administered by a different rite. The amputation of a toe, the perforation of an ear, the sprinkling of blood, or the anointing with oil, would have answered the purpose as well as circumcision. The essence of the seal lying not in the rite, but in the divine sanction which is given by that rite to claims on God's covenant. Now as it is self-evident, that this sanction may be conveyed
( 211 )
( 212 )
I come now to shew that baptism is actually called the Christian circumcision, Col. ii. 12. -- "Ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ; buried with him in baptism. Now the phrase, the circumcision of Christ, is an hebraism, similar to the Christian circumcision, which is in the next words, defined to be baptism. The scope and import of the whole passage is, Ye Colossians are all circumcised being baptized, for baptism is the Christian circumcision. This important evidence of the similarity of the import and design of circumcision and baptism is weil argued by Dr. Mason, page 89-92. "This is a very extensive proposition, made up of a number of subordinate ones which it is necessary distinctly to weigh. 1st. Both circumcision and baptism are to be viewed as signs of spiritual mercies. It is for this reason alone, that they are or can be employed as terms to convey the idea of such mercies, 2d. Circumcision was a sign of regeneration, and of communion with Christ, as the fountain of spiritual life. The Apostle is treating of a believer's completeness in Christ -- of circumcision in Christ. That his meaning might not be mistaken, he explains himself of the inward grace, calling it, "the circumcision made without hands" and to cut off all misconception he explains his explanation, declaring this "circumcision without hands," to be, the putting off the body
( 213 )
3d. Baptism, too, is a sign of regeneration, and of communion with Christ, as the fountain of spiritual life. In baptism, saith Paul, ye are "buried with Christ" -- ye are risen with him," through a divine faith, "the faith of the operation of God" -- Whereas ye were "dead in sins, and the uncircumcision of your flesh," (uncircumcision put for the state irregeneracy,) God hath quickened you together with Christ. Collect now the result. A believer's sanctification, in virtue of union with Christ, Paul declares to be represented by both circumcision and baptism: for he expresses his doctrine by these terms indifferently; and annexes to them both, the same spiritual signification. He has, therefore, identified the two ordinances: and thus, by demonstrating that they have one and the same use and meaning, he has exhibited to our view the very same seal of God's covenant under the forms of circumcision and baptism respectively. But as the same thing cannot subsist in different forms at the same time: and as the first form, viz. circumcision, is laid aside; it follows, that the seal of God's covenant is perpetuated under the second form, viz. baptism: and that it signifies and seals in a manner suited to the evangelical dispensation, whatever was previously signified and sealed by the rite of circumcision. If we again inspect the Apostle's proposition, we shall find, that he directs us to this conclusion, as well by the structure of his phraseology, as by the force of his argument. For, on the one hand, by the indiscriminate use of the terms circumcision and baptism, he appears to assume, as an indisputable fact, the substitution of the latter in place of the former; nor is it easy to conceive why he should discourse in this allusive manner, if the exchange were not perfectly understood among Christians: and, on the other hand, his language is so framed, as to assert that exchange. "Circumcised -- in putting off the body
( 214 )
There are a number of objections to this doctrine we own, but what doctrine is there to which there are not some objections? It has been objected to this doctrine, that if baptism came in the room of circumcision, that, doubtless it would have been mentioned
( 215 )
There are in the volume of redemption, as well as in the volume of nature, many inexplicable things. I suppose my opponent will admit that there are even many words in the Bible, the precise ideas attached to which, he could not ascertain. At least, we are assured that some as wise as he, have confessed their inability. Can he explain to us satisfactorily what is meant by Selah -- Urim and Thummim -- Leviathian -- the Unicorn. -- I know some conjecture may be given, but can he determine with certainty their import? I think not. I think it would be as difficult for him to do this, as to explain why large pumpkins grow on slender vines, and small acorns on mighty oaks, -- and a thousand other things as inexplicable. I would therefore conclude that there maybe many things connected with any lawful practice which things we may not be able to explain satisfactorily, yet such things should form no real, nor formidable objection to a practice otherwise plain and commendable. Though there are many things in the dark connected
( 216 )
I then arose: -- Mr. M. justifies Dr. Mason's grand reason for advocating a mixed church on the hypothesis that it is a fulfilment of ancient prophecy, which saith, "That the earth helped the woman." This will not justify any attempt to make the earth help the woman. As correctly might Christianity be established by civil law, and every citizen compelled to support the church on this principle, that the earth was to help the woman, as to recommend the baptism of infants for this purpose. But it is all a forced interpretation of a plain prophetic oracle, for a pretext to justify an unwarrantable practice. It is generally understood by the ablest interpreters of prophecy, to refer to the establishment of such forms of civil government as that of the United States, or to such an improvement in monarchical governments as in that of England; as would preclude persecution for conscience sake. In this way, indeed, the men of this world, philosophers and statesmen, civilians and legislators, have shielded the true professors of the Christian religion from the flood of persecution which tyrannical governors, infuriated by blinded, biggotted, blood thirsty priests, have issued forth against the disciples of the primitive faith. To what was it owing, my fellow citizens, that we have a constitution so favorable to the utmost liberty of conscience, so congenial to that spirit of enquiry which is essential to our knowing and enjoying the true substantial bliss; a constitution the wonder and the admiration of the virtuous -- the fear and the dread of the tyrant, and the oppressor in all nations; a constitution, the brightest ornament, the most illustrious feature, of which, is, that benign aspect which it bears -- that humane spirit which it breathes, generous philanthropy which it expres |