THE CHRISTIAN MESSENGER AND REFORMER.
No. 5. JULY, 1837. VOL. 1.
FROM THE CHRISTIAN BAPTIST.
ADDRESS TO THE READER. - NO 2.
BY A. CAMPBELL.
("He does not hold the moral law to be a rule of life to the people of the New Covenant. This is one reason for my declining to adopt the sentiments of A. Campbell." - Jones's Strictures.
THE two following essays are all that we have at present found in the works of A. Campbell, on this subject. There is, however, a letter from a Seventh day Baptist, and a reply thereto, which we purpose giving in a future number; in the mean time, we hope that on every subject our readers will judge for themselves. - ED.)
It is presumable, that some of you, my friends, read this paper with a prejudiced mind. If this were not the case, it would be, to us, matter of astonishment. Good men have their prejudices as well as others. Nathaniel, an Israelite indeed, in whom there was no guile, was so prejudiced, that when Philip told him that "he had found him, of whom Moses in the law and the prophets did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph," he said, "Can any good thing come out of Nazareth?" To our prejudiced readers we would say, as Philip said to Nathaniel, "Come and see." Come and search the scriptures, and see whether these things are so; whether the popular schemes, or what we oppose to them, is founded on the divine word. This is all the favour we ask of you; and neither your candour, your honour, nor your interest will allow you to do otherwise. Philip said, come see this Jesus, this son of Joseph, and judge for yourself. He came, and saw, and heard. From a very short acquaintance, he received this Jesus, not as the son of Joseph, as Philip had designated him; but he received him as the Son of God. He, convinced from his interview, exclaims, "Rabbi, you are the Son of God, you are the King of Israel."
The apostles themselves were long under the dominion of prejudice concerning Messiah's death, resurrection, and kingdom. The teaching of the scribes, and the traditions of the elders; the popular notions of the times bewildered them. When plainly informed of his death, Peter exclaims, "That be far from you, Lord, it shall not be so done to you." When they were told of his resurrection from the dead by those to whom he appeared alive, "they were astonished," and the words of their informants "appeared unto them as idle tales, and they believed them not." Of his reign and kingdom they had no correct ideas until Pentecost. Till that day they looked for temporal rule and dominion to be given to Israel according to the flesh. They expected Messiah's kingdom to be a continuation of the old Jewish, enlarged and improved. The citizens of Berea are represented by the inspired Luke as more noble than the citizens of Thessalonica. And why? Because they heard the word with all readiness of mind, and "searched the scriptures daily whether these things were so." My friends, be thus noble, and go and do likewise. Perhaps the consequence may be similar to the history of the Bereans, marked with an emphatic therefore: "THEREFORE, many of them believed."
Good has been often called evil, and evil good. Truth has been piously called error, and error truth. Pure religion has frequently been called heresy, and heresy pure religion. Paul had to confess that he worshipped God in the way which the populars call heresy. So we frankly confess, that some of our views have been by the populars called heretical and blasphemous. Because we have said, that we Christians are not under Moses, but under Christ; not under the law as a rule of life, but under the gospel, we are said to have spoken "blasphemous words against Moses and the law." Because we have said that the Jewish Sabbath is no more, we are represented as without religion, profane and impious; and, because we have called much of what is called warm preaching, and warm feelings, and great revivals, enthusiasm, we are said to deny " experimental religion," or the influence of the Holy Spirit, by the word, upon the minds of believers. "Yes," say our enemies, "you deny the moral law, the Christian Sabbath, and experimental religion."
To the first of these charges we shall, in the present address, call your attention.
The "moral law," or decalogue, is usually plead as the rule of life to believers in Christ, and it is said that it ought, to be preached "as a means of conviction of sin." The scriptures never divide the law of Moses into MORAL, CEREMONIAL, and JUDICIAL. This is the work of schoolmen, who have also divided the invisible world into heaven, hell, and purgatory; who have divided the obedience of Christ into active, passive, and both; who have divided the members of the church into speechless babes, seekers of religion, and regenerated saints; who have divided the kingdom of heaven, or Christian kingdom, into clergy, ruling elders, and laity; and who have philosophized, allegorized, and mysticized Christianity into an incomprehensible and ineffable jargon of christianized paganism and judaism.
We published, seven years ago, a speech pronounced to an association on this subject,* in which we objected to this division of the law; the substance of which, if we recollect right, was this; we objected to this division of the law, First, because it was unauthorized by either the Old or New Testament, i.e. neither God by Moses, his Son Jesus Christ, nor his apostles, had ever made such a division. They always spoke of the law as one grand whole. "The law was given by Moses, but the grace and the truth by Jesus Christ." "The law and the prophets continued until John the Baptist." "You are not under the law," &c. Here is no moral, no ceremonial, or judicial law, but "the law." Secondly, because this division of the law perplexes the mind of a student of the bible, who, while he meets the words "the law," is puzzled to know which of the three is meant; whereas, if he would always view the phrase "the law," when not otherwise defined, as the one and undivided law of Moses, he would never be perplexed. Because, in the third place, this division is illogical or incorrect, as respects the moral and judicial laws. All writers and speakers we have either heard or seen, blend, in their expositions, moral and judicial precepts, making the latter as moral as the former. They have no palpable or distinguishable criteria of distinction. Because, in the fourth place, they represent the ten commandments as the moral law; whereas they tell us that the law contained two tables: the former teaching religion, or our duty to God; the second teaching morality, or our duty to our neighbour. This moral law, then, is
__________________________________________________________________
*The Editors are in possession of this speech, and should an opportunity offer, they would be glad to introduce it into the pages of the "Messenger."
both moral and religious; for these same divines distinguish religion and morality. In the fifth place, because one precept of this moral law was as ceremonial as any item in their ceremonial law, viz. the fourth commandment. For these reasons and others, we objected then to this division of the law. We have never heard anything said, though much has been said on that subject, of the least weight to change our views delivered at that time.
But, without going further into detail on this part of the subject, we proceed to observe, that Moses, the great lawgiver to the Jews, delivered this law as a rule of life to the Jews only; and it was all equally important to them, and binding upon them. It was all holy, just, and good, as respected its design; and was equally divine and authoritative. He that touched the ark died the death, as well as he who stole the golden wedge. He that offered strange fire upon the altar was consumed, as well as he that cursed his father. He that gathered fuel on the Sabbath, and he that blasphemed the God of Israel, were devoted to the same destruction. But the law of Moses was given for a limited time. The world . was about twenty-five hundred years old before it was given; "for until the law sin was in the world," and this law was designed only to continue till the promised seed should come, the great Lawgiver. Moses pointed Israel to this great Lawgiver. Malachi told the Jews to remember this law until Elias should come. The Messiah said plainly, "that the law and the prophets preached till John." But, "since that time, the kingdom of God was preached." Paul repeatedly affirms that Christians are not under the law, but under the gospel, as a rule of life. In teaching the Jews, he compared the law to a schoolmaster until Christ came; but since faith or Christ came, he assured them they were no longer under the schoolmaster. He declared they "were delivered from the law" - "they were tree from it" - "they were dead to it." He says, "it is done away" - "it is abolished" - "it is disannulled."
Moses had a brother of great dignity, of illustrious fame, whose name was Aaron. This brother of the lawgiver was divinely ordained a high priest, and divine laws ordained concerning him and his successors. In process of time the son of Jesse was crowned king over Israel, under God, who still retained the sovereignty. Concerning this David and his successors divine laws were published. Israel were under Moses as lawgiver, under Aaron as high priest, under David as king. These three were types of Christ as lawgiver, priest, and king. Now the populars and we agree in one grand point on this topic. They say that "Jesus Christ is our only prophet, priest, and king." To this we cordially and fully agree. Therefore, we will not submit to Moses as our prophet or lawgiver, to Aaron as our high priest, to. David as our king. If we would yield to Moses as our lawgiver, we would yield to his brother Aaron as our high priest, and to the son of Jesse as our king. We honour Moses, Aaron, and David. We study their history, their offices, and their deeds. We revere them as Messiah's types. We will treat them with every due respect; but will not put ourselves under them. While we acknowledge Jesus to be the great lawgiver, the great prophet, the great high priest, David's son, and David's king, we are assured that every part of Moses' law worthy of our regard has been republished and re-enacted under more glorious circumstances and with more illustrious sanctions by him - that every item of Aaron's priesthood has been fulfilled by him - that every excellent trait in the character and government of David has been exhibited by him, free from imbecility and imperfection. - Messiah, you are my only prophet, priest, and king, for you are worthy!
"Then," say the populars, "you have no moral law as a rule of life - no preaching of the law as a means of conviction of sin; you may live as you list - your doctrine is licentious - it is antinomian - it is dangerous to morals - to piety - to all good."
Blessed Jesus! are you thus insulted by pretended friends? Are your laws an inadequate rule of life? - Guided by your statutes, will our lives be licentious, our morals loose, ourselves abandoned to all crime? Was Moses a more consummate lawgiver than you? Did his commandments more fully or more clearly exhibit the moral, the godly course of life, than yours? Were the sanctions of his law of more solemn import, of more restraining authority, than your precepts? Is there no means of conviction of sin, of its evil and demerit, in your doctrine, manner of life, or in your death? What argument, what inducement, to cease to do evil and to learn to do well, in all the laws of Moses, in all the statutes of Israel, in all the examples of patriarchs, saints, and martyrs, speaks such language, exhibits such motives, conciliates such regard, denounces such vengeance, attracts so much reverence, inspires with so much awe, wins by so much goodness, and reconciles with so much power, as your death? That heart, O Lord! that feels not the force of this argument, this omnipotent argument, to cease to do evil and to learn to do well, in vain will be assailed by moral suasion or by moral law. The thunders of Sinai - the flashing fluid of unmeasured force - the rending echoes of the celestial trumpet - the nodding summit - the crashing rocks - and the trembling base of the smoking mount, veiled in the blackest darkness, cannot constrain nor allure it to righteousness, humanity, and the love of God. Philosophy, marching forth in all her imaginary strength, clad in all her fancied charms, is perfect impotence compared to your doctrine. The example of patriarchs, of prophets, of saints, and martyrs, from Abel to Noah, - from Abraham to David, - from David to John the Baptist, - is inefficacious compared with yours. Moses and his fiery law, his statutes and his judgments, as the body without the spirit is dead, are lifeless and inoperative compared with your new commandment, your piercing law, animated and quickened by your life, confirmed and sanctioned by your death. No; the statutes and ordinances commanded in Horeb, the meekness of Moses, the patience of Job, the zeal of Elijah, the piety of Daniel, the pathos of David, and the wisdom of Solomon, will not, cannot illuminate that understanding, captivate those affections, purify those desires, purge those motives, subdue those lusts, which your doctrine, your example, your law, your love, your sufferings, your death, your resurrection, your exaltation, fail to accomplish. But did your character, your doctrine, your life, your death, your resurrection, and your exaltation ever fail, when fully apprehended, to purify, to renovate, to reform? No! never! never! Who can know you and not love righteousness, and not hate iniquity? When the dying thief, in his day, saw your character and heard your fame, he entrusted his soul to you, and preached righteousness to his companion. When the persecuting Saul saw you, O Saviour of the world! enthroned in glory - when he heard your winning voice, he fell beneath the rays of your majesty, and from a lion put on the meekness of the lamb.
Yet having your New Testament, ratified by your blood, are we without a rule of life? are we authorized to live as we list? The thought is impious! O Sun of Righteousness! your salutiferous rays were long expected to enlighten, to cheer, and to quicken those sitting in darkness, in the region and shadow of death. Yet you have risen, and more glory shines from the clouded face of Moses than from yours!! Great Lawgiver, the Gentiles long waited for your law, and have you left them without law, to live as they list? Moses and Elias waited on you on the holy mount - they laid their honours and their commission at your feet. When they ascended to the skies, your Father's voice commanded your disciples to hear your law, to yield exclusively to you - and shall we not? Forbid it, Heaven!
Lord Jesus! may your character open to our view as depicted in your doctrine, your miracles, your sufferings, your death, your resurrection, and your glory; and then we shall not fear to put ourselves exclusively under you, as our lawgiver, our prophet, our priest, and our king!
***
BURKE'S OPINION OF REFORMATION.
"Reformation is one of those pieces which must be put at some distance in order to please. Its greatest favourers love it better in the abstract than in the substance. When any old prejudice of their own, or any interest that they value, is touched, they become scrupulous, they become captious, and every man has his separate exception. Some pluck out the black hairs, some the grey; one point must be given up to one; another point must be yielded to another; nothing is suffered to prevail upon its own principles: the whole is so frittered down and disjointed, that scarcely a trace of the original scheme remains! Thus, between the resistance of power, and the unsystematical process of popularity, the undertaker and the undertaking are both exposed, and the poor reformer is hissed off the stage, both by friends and foes."
***
THE SABBATH DAY AND THE LORD'S DAY.
ADDRESS TO THE READER. - NO. 3.
BY A. CAMPBELL.
The subject of our present address is the Sabbath day and the Lord's day. Either Christians are bound to observe the Sabbath day, or they are not. If they are, let us see what the nature of that observance is, which was prescribed for the Sabbath day. The law reads thus: "Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shall you labour and do all your work: the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God: in it you shall not do any work, you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your man servant, nor your maid servant, nor your cattle, nor the stranger that is within your gates. For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day; wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it." You will observe that, in this command, God positively prohibits all manner of work or labour on this day. Son, daughter, servant, cattle, stranger, are commanded to be exempted from all manner of work. In examining the particular precepts originating from this law, recorded in the Old Testament, we find the following specifications:-
1. "You shall kindle no fire throughout your habitations on the Sabbath day." Ex. 35:3.
2. "Abide you every man in his place (house or tent); let no man go out of his place (house or tent) on the Sabbath day. Ex. 16:29.
3. "He gives you on the sixth day the bread of two days. Bake that which you will bake this day, and seethe what you will seethe, and that which remains over, lay up for you to be kept until the morning." Ex. 16:29,23.
4. "Bear no burden on the Sabbath day, nor bring it in by the gates of Jerusalem; neither carry forth a burden out of your houses on the Sabbath day." Jer. 17:21,22.
5. "Not doing your own ways, nor finding your own pleasure, nor speaking your own words." Is. 58:13.
6. "From evening unto evening shall you celebrate your Sabbath." Lev. 23:32.
7. "Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death. Every one that defiles it shall surely be put to death." Ex. 31:14,15
"And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man that gathered sticks upon the Sabbath day. And they that found him gathering sticks brought him to Moses and Aaron, and to all the congregation. And they put him in ward, because it was not declared what should be done to him. And the Lord said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death; all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp. And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died, as the Lord commanded Moses." Num. 15:32-36.
The above items are a few of many that might be selected out of the Old Testament on this subject. We believe them to be a fair specimen of the law given by Moses, as explained and enforced upon the nation of Israel.
Now the question is, are we under this law? If we are, we pay little or no respect to it. For who is there that does not habitually violate the rest enjoined on this day? Those who make the most ado about Sabbath breakers are themselves, according to the above law, worthy of death. They kindle fire in their houses. They go out of their houses, and travel on their cattle miles. Their sons and their daughters do some kind of work. They bring in burdens of water, wood, and prepare food. They celebrate it not from evening to evening, but from morning to evening they violate it. They speak their own words, and do many things worthy of death. Why then is not the penalty enforced? Assuredly their observance of this law is mere mockery. It is an insult on the Lawgiver.
We know that some of the clergy have given, if not sold them indulgences to violate it. They have told them that certain "works of necessity and mercy" are allowable. But who told them so? They tell them they may prepare food, bring in fuel and water. But God forbade those under this law to do so. So far was he from countenancing such "works of necessity," that he wrought three miracles to prevent the necessity of doing a "work of necessity." He sent two days' portion of manna from heaven the sixth day; he sent none on the seventh; he preserved that gathered on the sixth from putrefaction until the close of the seventh: all of which were special miracles for the space of forty years. If he wrought three miracles to prevent an Israelite from crossing his threshold to gather up a little manna for his daily food, how dare any give a dispensation, in his name, to do that which is tenfold more laborious!!!
Because the Saviour of the world put to silence those who accused him of breaking the Sabbath, by appealing to their own conduct in relieving animals in distress, this doctrine of "works of necessity and mercy," has been represented as of divine origin. What a perversion! An argumentum ad hominem converted into a general maxim!! But such a perversion shows consummate inattention to the laws of Israel. While Israel kept the law there never would occur an opportunity for a work of necessity or of mercy, such as these lawgivers tolerate. For while they kept the law, they should be blessed in their basket, stores, fields, houses, children, flocks, herds; no house would take fire; no ox would fall into a pit, &c. And if they transgressed the law, they should be cursed in all these respects, and no tolerance of a violation of the law was granted as a means of mitigating the curse.
Again: Let me ask, Was there ever a law published relaxing that rigid observance of rest enjoined upon the Sabbath? Was there a law published, saying, You must or you may observe the Sabbath with less care, with less respect; you may now speak your own words, kindle fire in your houses, and prepare victuals? &c. &c. I say, Was there ever such a law published? No, indeed - either the law remains in all its force, to the utmost extent of its literal requirements, or it is passed away with the Jewish ceremonies.
If it yet exist, let us observe it according to law. And if it does nut exist, let us abandon a mock observance of another day for it.
"But," say some, "it was changed from the seventh to the first day." Where? when? and by whom? No man can tell. No, it never was changed, nor could it be, unless creation was to he gone through again: for the reason assigned must he changed before the observance, or respect to the reason, can be changed!! It is all old wives' fables to talk of the change of the Sabbath from the seventh to the first day. If it be changed, it was that august personage changed it who changes times and laws ex officio - I think his name is DOCTOR ANTICHRIST.
But was not the Sabbath given to the Jews only? And again, Was it not a shadow or type? This deserves attention.
The preface to the law, of which it was a part, says, "I am the Lord your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage; therefore, remember the Sabbath day," &c. The preface to this law, as the inscription or address upon a letter, ascertains whose property it was. It was the property of the Jews. But Moses tells them this, not leaving it to an inference, Deut. 5:15. "Remember that you were a servant in the land of Egypt, and the Lord your God brought you out thence, through a mighty hand, and by a stretched out arm; therefore, the Lord your God commanded you to keep the Sabbath day." Ezekiel says the same, or rather the Lord by the prophet says, chap. 20:12. "Moreover, also, I gave them my .Sabbath, to be a sign between me and them." Yes, said the. Lord by Moses, "The Sabbath is a sign between me and the children of Israel forever. Ex. 31:17. It is worthy of note in this place, that of all the sins in the long black catalogue of sins specified against the gentiles, in all the New Testament, the sin of Sabbath-breaking is never once preferred against them!! We conclude, then, that the Sabbath day was as exclusively the property of the Jews as circumcision.
But was it not a shadow and a type? Let us hear Paul. "Let no man judge you (condemn you for not observing) in meats and drinks (for eating and drinking), or in respect of a holy day, or of a new moon, or of the Sabbath, which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ," or, according to Macknight, "the body is Christ's body." Paul, then, says it was a shadow. In the Epistle to the Hebrews, 4th chapter, he makes it and Canaan "types of that rest which remained for the people of God." The Sabbath then was a shadow - a type given to the Jews only.
Since beginning this article, we noticed, for the first time, a very correct note of Dr. Macknight's, the celebrated translator of the apostolic epistles, which expresses our view of this matter. With many, we know, his views will be received with more readiness of mind than ours. He was, strange as it may appear, a dignitary in the Presbyterian Church; yet he expresses himself in the following manner, on Col. 2:16. "The whole of the law of Moses being abrogated by Christ (Col. 2:14), Christians are under no obligation to observe any of the Jewish holy days, not even the seventh day Sabbath. Wherefore, if any teacher made the observance of the seventh day a necessary duty, the Colossians were to resist him. But though the brethren, in the first age, paid no regard to the Jewish seventh day Sabbath, they set apart the first day of the week for public worship, and for commemorating the death and resurrection of their master by eating his supper on that day; also, for private exercises of devotion. This they did, either by the precept or by the example of the apostles, and not by virtue of any injunction in the law of Moses. Besides, they did not sanctify the first day of the week in the Jewish manner, by a total abstinence from bodily labour of every kind. That practice was condemned by the council of Laodicea as judaizing. Lec. Suiceri Thes. Eccl. voce Sabbaton."
The Sabbath was, by the Lord of the Sabbath, set aside, as well as every other part of the law of Moses, as stated in our last address. The learned Macknight is with us also in this instance. His words on Col. 2:14, are: "It is evident that the law of Moses, in all its parts, is now abolished and taken away. Consequently, that Christians are under no obligation to obey even the moral precepts of that law, on account of their being delivered by Moses to the Jews. For if the obligations of the moral precepts of his laws are still continued, mankind are still under its curse." I would just observe, on this item, that the Lord Jesus Christ observed the last Sabbath that was obligatory on any of the human race, by laying in the grave from evening to evening. In the silence of death and the grave, he celebrated it literally, "not going out of his place," until the Sabbath was past. Then, very early in the morning, when the Sabbath was past, the Jewish religion being consummated, he rises and becomes the beginning of the new creation.
Christians, by apostolic example, which to them is the same as precept, are, in honour of the commencement of the new creation, constrained by Christ's authority and grace to meet on the first day of the week, to show forth his death and to commemorate his resurrection. When they assemble they are to be instructed and to admonish one another, they are to learn his statutes, and "to continue stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine, in breaking bread, in fellowship, and in prayers, praising God." Such was the practice of the primitive church, as the epistles demonstrate. The first day of the week is not regarded to the Lord when these things are not done. For if professors of Christianity were to keep in their houses from morning to evening and celebrate this day as the Jews did the Sabbath, instead of honouring they are dishonouring Christ. No two days are more unlike in their import and design, than the Sabbath and the first day. The former commemorated the consummation of the old creation, the cessation of creation work; the latter commemorates the beginning of the new creation. The former was to Israel, a memorial that they were once slaves in Egypt - the latter assures us that the year of release has come. The former looked back, with mournful aspect, to the toils and sorrows entailed upon the human body, from an evil incident to the old creation - the latter looks forward, with an eye beaming with hope, to perpetual exemption from toil, and pain, and sorrow. The Sabbath was a day of awful self-denial and profound religious gloom - the resurrection day is a day of triumph, of holy joy, and religious festivity. The Jew, on a Sabbath morn, from his casement surveyed the smokeless chimneys and the bolted doors of the silent tribes of Israel. A solemn stillness holds the streets of the city and the hamlet, and not a vagrant foot disturbs the grassy field. The flowers breathe forth their fragrance to the gentle breeze - no hand plucks the blooming rose - no ear is charmed with the mellifluous notes of the tenants of the groves. The banks of the limpid streams are not frequented by the noisy youths, nor does their clamour mingle with the murmurs of the vocal rills. Striking emblems of the silent rest allotted to the tenants of the grave. The Christian welcomes the dawn of the triumphant morn. The new heavens and the new earth open to his view. The incorruptible, the immortal bodies of the saints, rising from the ashes of the grave, in all the vigour and beauty of immortal youth, fill his soul with unutterable admiration of the wondrous victory of the all-conquering chief. While he surveys his mortal frame and feels the sentence of death in every department of his earthly house, his soul forgets the infirmities of its partner, and soars on the pinions of faith and hope to the resurrection morn; it is lost in the contemplation of millions of every tribe and tongue clothed in the indescribable beauties of immortality. While overwhelmed in the extatic admiration of the glorious bodies around him, his eye ultimately fixes on the FIRST BORN of many brethren. While he adores him at the head of the innumerable host of ransomed immortals, his memory musters up the recollections of Gethsemane, Pilate and his judgment seat, Mount Calvary, and the sepulchre in the garden. To the assembly of the saints with eagerness he hastens, and, anxious to share in the praises of his glorious chief, to join in the recollection of his humiliation unto death, and to participate in the triumph of his resurrection, his soul is feasted with the abundance of his house and with the communion of those whom he hopes to embrace in his immortal arms on the day of the resurrection to eternal life.
Christians, what a difference between the Jewish Sabbath, and this day of triumph! They have much to learn of the glory of Christianity who think that going to a synagogue, and hearing a harangue, and returning to their firesides, is suitable to the design or expressive of the import of this joyful and triumphant day. On this day, Messiah entered Jerusalem as son of David, as King of Judah. On this day he rose from the dead. On this day, after his resurrection, he generally met with his disciples in their assemblies. On this day, he sent the Holy Spirit down from heaven and erected the first Christian church. "On this day the disciples came together to break bread." On this day the Christians joined in the fellowship of the saints, or in making contributions for the saints. And, on this day, the Spirit finished its work of revelation on the Isle of Patmos, in giving to John the beloved, the last secrets of the divine plan ever to be littered in human language while time endures. If no authoritative precedent enforced the assembly of saints on this day, and the observance of the order of the Lord's house, the very circumstance of such a coincidence of glorious wonders would point it out as the Lord's day, and love to him, the most powerful principle that ever impelled to action, would constrain all saints not to forsake the assembling of themselves on this day; but to meet, to animate and to be animated; to remember, to admire, to adore, to hymn in songs divine, the glorious and mighty King. - Christians, could you say, no ?
***
THE CLERGY.
(From the Christian Baptist).
Against whom did the holy prophets of the Jews, the Saviour of the world, and his apostles, inveigh with the utmost severity?
Ans. The popular clergy. Never were any things spoken by the Saviour of the world, or by the holy apostles, with so much keenness, with so much severity, as their reproofs of, as their denunciations against, the popular clergy.
Who were the popular clergy in those days?
Ans. Those who pleased the people, taught for hire, and established themselves into an order distinct from the people.
Who are the popular clergy now?
Ans. Those who are trained for the precise purpose of teaching religion as their calling, please the mass of the people, establish themselves into a distinct order, from which they exclude all who are not so trained, and, for hire, affect to be the only legitimate interpreters of revelation.
What are the most effectual means to diminish the power and dominion of the popular clergy?
Ans. The same means which the Lord and his apostles used in their day against those of that time: chiefly to persuade the people to hold fast the holy commandments of the apostles, and to build themselves up in the Christian faith. Jude 20; 2 Pet. 3:2.
MR. CAMPBELL'S VIEW OF IMMERSION.
(In the year 1823, Mr. Campbell held a public debate on baptism with Mr. W.L. Maccalla, a Presbyterian minister. It took place in the city of Washington, Kentucky, commencing on the 15th, and ending on the 21st of October, before a very numerous and respectable auditory. In the early part of 1824, the Debate was published, comprising a volume of 420 pages, 12mo. Beside this, there are seven Essays in vol. 5, of the Christian Baptist, on the same subject, of which the first was introduced into our last number. We shall now give an extract from the above mentioned work, and No. 2 of the Essays, to shew the incorrectness of the following paragraph. - ED.
"Mr. Campbell was totally silent about baptismal regeneration, while publishing the volumes of the 'Christian Baptist.' The reader will look in vain for that doctrine in all its pages. In several of the volumes of his 'Millennial Harbinger,' also, the thing is kept out of sight, though we have now and then occasional hints of it. But in the volume entitled 'Christianity Restored,' the whole matter is developed." - Jones' Strictures, page 13).
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. Maccalla 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, and washed away his sins. When he was baptized he must have believed that his sins were now washed away, in some sense, that they were not before. For if his sins had been already in every sense, washed away, Ananias' address would have led him into a mistaken view of himself, both before and after baptism. Now we confess that the blood of Jesus Christ alone cleanses us from all sins.
Even this, however, is a metaphorical expression. The efficacy of his blood springs from his own dignity, and from the appointment of his Father. The blood of Christ, then, REALLY cleanses us who believe from all sin. Behold the goodness of God in giving us a formal proof and token of it, by ordaining a baptism expressly "for the remission of sins!" The water of baptism, then, formally washes away our sins. The blood of Christ REALLY washes away our sins. Paul's sins were really pardoned when he believed, yet he had no solemn pledge of the fact, no formal acquittal, no formal purgation of his sins, until he washed them away in the water of baptism.
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 appear 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 baptized." I say, this view of baptism accounts for all these otherwise unaccountable circumstances. It was this view of baptism misapplied that originated infant baptism. The first errorists on this subject argued that if baptism was so necessary for the remission of sins, it should be administered to infants, whom they represented as in great need of it on account of their "original sin." Affectionate parents, believing their children to be guilty of "original sin," were easily persuaded to have their infants baptized for the remission of "original sin," not for washing away sins actually committed. But of this again.
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 Calvinists 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." Then 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 honesty 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 which has appeared to all men. God so loved the world that, unasked, unsolicited, of his own free will and good pleasure, he sent his only begotten Son into the world, not to condemn it, but
_______________________________________________________________________________
*Assembly's.
that WHOSOEVER believeth in him, or in other words, believes the record he has given of him, might be saved - might be pardoned, accepted, raised incorruptible, and enjoy eternal life. He appointed baptism to be, to every one that believed the record he has given of his Son, a formal pledge on his part of that believers personal acquittal or pardon: so significant and so expressive, that when the baptized believer rises out of the water, is born of water, enters the world a second time, he enters it as innocent, as clean, as unspotted as an angel. His conscience is purged from guilt, his body washed with pure water, even the washing of regeneration. He puts himself under the priesthood of Jesus, under his tuition and government. If afterwards he sins through the weakness and corruption of human nature, or the temptations of the adversary, he, in the spirit of repentance, comes to his Advocate, confesses his fault, and obtains pardon. Thus the Christian religion teaches all who are initiated how to enjoy peace with God, to have a conscience void of offence, and at the same time to deny ungodliness and worldly lusts; to live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present evil world, looking for the glorious appearance of the great God our Saviour, Jesus Christ. They who object to this view of the abundance of Divine grace, because of its supposed licentious tendency, have yet to learn that love constrains to holiness, and that the more fully it is manifested, the greater is its influence in purifying the heart, and in reforming the life. - Debate on Baptism, pp. 134-137.
***
ANCIENT GOSPEL - No. 2.
IMMERSION.
"Jesus Christ came by water and by blood." At the water he was proved to be the Only Begotten by the voice of his Father, and the designation of the Holy Spirit. Through the water of Jordan he passed into the vineyard of the Lord of Hosts, and began to do the work the Father gave him to accomplish. On the cross, and from the shedding of his blood to the moment of his interment, divine attestations numerous and diverse, marvellous and grand, were afforded; all declaring that he was sent by, and came forth from God. With much propriety, then, and with great force, too, it is said that "Jesus came by water and by blood." In the same laconic style, we may say, that immersion, I mean Christian immersion, is the gospel in water, and that the Lord's supper is the gospel in bread and wine. These two ordinances of the glorious and mighty Lord fully exhibit the gospel in the most appropriate symbols. The preaching of the Lord and his apostles, we all agree, was the gospel in words. The historic books of the New Testament are the gospel in fact. Immersion is the gospel in water - the Lord's supper is the gospel in bread and wine - and a pure heart and a holy life is the gospel in its effects. But I am now to show that Christian immersion, as instituted by Jesus Christ, (not as corrupted by men,) is the gospel in water. The whole gospel is exhibited in this symbolic action. The subject declares his belief of the testimony which God has given concerning his only begotten Son, all summarily comprehended in this one sentence, Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of the only true God. But why recognize him in this character? Why submit to be immersed into this belief? Aye: that is the question. I say again, Why submit to be immersed into the faith of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, as an act of obedience to Jesus Christ? Tell me, ye mitred heads! ye learned Doctors of Divinity. Many reasons ye may give, perhaps, without giving the only one which gives deep interest to the ordinance. Shall I have to disclose the secret? We are immersed, then, that we may become christened! Very true, indeed : but how christened? Married to Jesus Christ, as some old-fashioned Christians used to say. I will take it in your own terms, you sons of the English hierarchy; or in your terms, you sons of the Scotch hierarchy - "Married to Jesus Christ" - united to him by the New Covenant. Well, now, let us hear the words of this matrimonial compact:- "I take you, O woman, to be my lawful spouse; and I promise to provide for you all the days of your eternal life. I will succour you, defend you, support and comfort you for ever. My name, my honours, and my fortune shall be yours. Your people shall be my people, and your God my God." In reply she says: "I take you to be my Lord and master; my sovereign, husband; and I pledge myself, by putting myself under your control, to love and serve you faithfully all the days of my immortal existence." This is enough to constitute the parties one in law, in name, and in fortune. Shall we have now to prove that the sins of the church are washed away? I say, after reading the marriage covenant, one clause of which is in these identical words, "Your sins and your iniquities I will remember no more." I say, after reading this covenant, shall we hesitate to say, that the sins of the baptized are washed away? But, dismissing the obsolete style of the ancient founders of the modern hierarchies, let us turn over the leaves of the inspired volume.
And now I propose to do three things, 1st. To shew that the apostles addressed Christians as having their sins remitted. 2d. That frequent allusions to baptism in the sacred epistles, represent it as an ablution. And in the third place I must shew that it is as plainly affirmed in the New Testament that God forgives men's sins in the act of immersion, as that he will raise the dead at the voice of the archangel, or as that Jesus Christ will come again to judge the world.
In the first place, then, let it be noticed that Paul affirms that the Gentile disciples of Christ (Col. 2:13) had their sins forgiven: "And you being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, has he quickened, together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses." To the Hebrews he says, (chap. 10:17,18,) "Where remission of sins is, no more offering for sin is needed." Therefore, inasmuch as no sin offerings are appointed for Christians, remission of sins is enjoyed by them. This is necessary to make his argument conclusive. For the drift of that passage is to show that one promise in the New Covenant secured the forgiveness of sins to all who embraced it; and that the fact of their sins having been forgiven, is the reason why there are no sin offerings under the New Testament.
To the same purpose the apostle speaks in all his epistles. Of the Lord Jesus, he says in general terms, "In him we have redemption through his blood; even the forgiveness of sins," &c. I do not wish to make a display of scriptural authorities where it is not necessary. This matter needs not to be proved to, but only to be remembered by, all intelligent Christians. Suffice it, then, to remember that the ancient Christians, both Gentiles and Jews, were taught to consider that their sins were forgiven them. Now here the inquisitive will ask, When, or at what time, were these sins forgiven? This we are not now to answer.
In the second place, we proceed to the allusions to immersion, which represent it as an ablution, or a washing away of sins.
Allusion 1st. 1 Cor. 6:11. "And such were some of you, but you are washed in the name of the Lord Jesus." We all admit that there is no public, outward, or symbolic washing in the name of the Lord Jesus, save Christian immersion. To refer to it as a washing, indicates that it was an ablution.
Allusion 2d. Eph. 5:26. "That he might cleanse the church by a bath of water."
Allusion 3d. Titus 3:5. "God has saved us by the bath of regeneration."
Allusion 4th. Heb. 10:22. "Our bodies are washed with clean water."
Allusion 5th. 2 Pet. 1:9. "He has forgotten that he was purified from his old sins."
On this last quotation let me ask, What are the old sins or former sins except those committed before baptism? We affirm that no solution can be given to this question, except that which represents it as referring to immersion in the ancient sense. Four things are fairly implied in these words: 1. That the ancient disciples were taught to consider themselves as pardoned. 2. That there was a time when, and a certain act by, or in which their sins were forgiven. 3. That they were not unconscious of this act at the time when it was performed, for it was an action which could and should have been remembered; otherwise, how could any person be blamed for having forgotten that he had been purified from his old sins. And 4th, it is implied that these sins were those which had accumulated during a state previous to this purification. Let any person illustrate this matter to himself, by considering what is implied in telling a person. You have forgotten that you have been married.
Allusion 6th. 1 John 2:12. "I write to you, little children, because your sins are forgiven you for his name's sake."
This last allusion few consider correctly; but, in my judgment, it is just equivalent to saying, I have written to you, exhorting you, little children, because you have been immersed into the name of the Lord Jesus. To these might be added other allusions, such as those sayings concerning apostates - "The sow that was washed has returned to its wallowing slough." Such were they who had tasted the good word of God and the powers of the world to come.
Such were they who had made shipwreck of faith and a good conscience. But those less explicit allusions we consider unnecessary, as the above six allusions are more than sufficient for our purpose.
In the third place, I proceed to show that we have the most explicit proof that God forgives sins for the name's sake of his Son, or when the name of Jesus Christ is named upon us in immersion:- that in, and by, the act of immersion, so soon as our bodies are put under water, at that very instant our former, or "old sins" are all washed away, provided only that we are TRUE BELIEVERS. This was the view and the expectation of every one who was immersed in the apostolic age; and it was a consciousness of having received this blessing that caused them to rejoice in the Lord, and, like the eunuch, to "go on their way rejoicing." When Jesus commanded reformation and forgiveness of sins to be announced in his name to all nations, he commanded men to receive immersion to the confirmation of this promise. Thus we find that when the gospel was announced on Pentecost, and when Peter opened the kingdom of heaven to the Jews, he commanded them to be immersed for the remission of sins. This is quite sufficient, if we had not another word on the subject. I say it is quite sufficient to shew that the forgiveness of sins and Christian immersion were, in their first proclamations by the holy apostles inseparably connected together. Peter, to whom was committed the keys, opened the kingdom of heaven in this manner, and made repentance, or reformation, and immersion, equally necessary to forgiveness. In the common version it reads thus: "Repent and be baptized every one of you, for the remission of sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." When any thing is done for any purpose, it is always understood that there is a necessary connexion betwixt that which is done, and the object in view. When a person is immersed for the remission of sins, it is just the same as if expressed, in order to obtain the remission of sins. But my limits are filled up, and I must interrupt my argument for the present, promising, all things concurring, to bring it to a legitimate or logical close in my next. In the mean time I have only to request my devout readers to remember one fact, which speaks volumes to all Christendom. It is this: The first three thousand persons that were immersed after the ascension of Christ into heaven, were immersed for the remission of their sins, with the promise of the Holy Spirit. Acts 2:38-41. I am bold therefore to affirm, that every one of them who, in the belief of what the apostle spoke, was immersed, did, in the very instant in which he was put under water, receive the forgiveness of his sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit. If so, then who will not concur with me in saying, that Christian immersion is the gospel in water.
A.C.
***
SEVEN INTERROGATIONS,
In a Letter from a Baptist Minister to A. Campbell.
(From the Millennial Harbinger, Vol. 1).
BROTHER CAMPBELL,
Dear Sir, - I am often told by your favourers, that much injustice is done you, and that many principles ascribed to you are far from being your real views. In order to obviate the possibility of any misunderstanding as to your views, I will propose to you certain queries, which I hope you will answer in the spirit of candour, and in such style as that there can be no misapprehension.
First: What is your view of the natural state of man? Do you believe him to be, according to your interpretation of the scriptures, in a state of total depravity?
Secondly: Do you consider faith as the simple act of the mind acknowledging the mere facts of the gospel, irrespective of any divine agency exerted upon the faculties previously?
Thirdly: In your new translation, you have substituted the term reformation instead of repentance, as it is in the old. Please to define reformation according to your views.
Fourthly: I understand you to assert that immersion or baptism is the act of regeneration, and the medium of forgiveness of sins; and that the scripture does not authorize us to assert or believe that any are regenerated or forgiven until immersed. In other words, that the blood of Christ is never applied, but through the medium of baptism. Is this a correct statement of your view upon this point?
Fifthly: You speak of the Holy Spirit after baptism. Do you mean by the Holy Spirit what is commonly called the Holy Ghost? or do you mean a holy temper of mind effected by the mere words, by obedience to its requirements?
Sixthly: In some of your last numbers, you speak of the Trinity in a way which has excited some suspicion of a leaning towards Unitarianism. Is there any ground for such suspicion? For truth's sake, for your own sake, be explicit upon this head.
Seventhly: What are your views of the future punishment of wicked men? Is it eternally, and without end?
There are some other points of minor importance on which we are widely at variance. To these we may finally attend. If the above can be investigated in a proper spirit, I shall hope for good results.
Yours respectfully,
R.B. SEMPLE.
***
REPLY.
BROTHER SEMPLE,
Dear Sir, - The questions you ask me furnish another proof how deeply imbued are the best minds with the speculative spirit of the schools of theology. No American coin, gold, silver, or brass, more prominently wears the impress of the mould, or more unequivocally designates the mint in which it has been cast, than do the religious minds of this age prove themselves to be the workmanship of system builders, and the creatures of that philosophy, which however modified by opposing systems, fully proves its descent from Plato, Ammonias Saccas, and the Oriental teachers. Even the best men, who seemingly venerate the scriptures as the only instrument of instruction in Christianity, appear not aware how much they are influenced by these speculations. Having been employed for some years in assorting my own mind, and labelling my own notions - finding so much of Plato, so much of Origen, so much of Ambrose, so much of Calvin, and so much of the modern schools, I can easily detect a notion, and recognise its parentage, no matter how often it may have been crossed. We can detect the African blood even to the tenth generation; and to those conversant with the scriptures, the schools, and the history of the church, it is as easy to detect the notions of Origen, Ambrose, Austin, Pelagius, though mingled with all the inventions and improvements of many generations. You, no doubt, brother Semple, have often seen old errors peeping through a new veil, and though wearing a new garb, a-la-mode, were nevertheless discernible as the lineal descendants of antiquated errorists. So I see, or think I see, the philosophy of the schools in some of your interrogatories to me. Think you, Paul would, were he now on earth, propose such questions to me, either to detect my unsoundness in the faith, or to furnish topics for debate?
Why not, then, propose to me some Christian topic from the Christian scriptures? If my soundness, or unsoundness in the faith, be worth an inquiry, why propose to me the questions of the schools ?
"Egypt, Greece, and Rome,
Drew from the stream below. More favoured, we
Drink when we choose it, at the fountain head.
To them it flowed much mingled and defiled
With hurtful error, prejudice, and dreams
Illusive of philosophy, so call'd,
But falsely. Sages after sages strove
In vain to filter off a crystal draught,
Pure from the lees, which often more enhanced
The thirst than slacked it, and not seldom bred
Intoxication and delirium wild." - Cowper.
Such have I found to be the truth in reference to all such questions. But lest you should think that I wish to evade your questions; or lest any should think that there is in them something more than there is, I will give you a candid answer to each of them.
Query 1. "What is your view of the natural state of man? Do you believe him to be, according to your interpretation of the scriptures, in a state of total depravity?"
Answer. Man naturally, or as he now comes into the world, is ignorant of God, consequently alienated from the life of God; and being without God, he is without hope in the world. With regard to his being in a state of total depravity, I must observe, that the term depravity, any more than the term morality, cannot designate a state: for in states there are no degrees. No man, in any state, can be less or more in it than every other person in the same state. No man is more or less married, or single; more or less a son, or father, than another. As reasonably we might ask, is a Christian in a state of total morality, as is a natural man in a state of total depravity. Some natural men are wholly corrupt; but these could not he designated as wholly corrupt if this be true of the whole race; for that which is true of the whole race cannot designate a part. The scriptures, observation, and experience, do not teach me that all persons are alike depraved. Have you not, brother Semple, seen as great a difference amongst children and adults as Luke says existed between the Bereans and the Thessalonians in their former state? The one before they believed were more noble than the other. I am taught that all men who hear the gospel, and who do not obey it, are in a state of condemnation; and that this is sufficient to procure for them everlasting destruction. I know of no use in going farther on this subject than the scriptures have gone. They who submit not to the government of Jesus Christ must, if God be true, be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power which will be displayed in giving immortality to the saints. So far it is a practical question.
But the question about total depravity is an abstract and speculative question. It is a proper theme of speculative debate. He that affirms that all men are totally depraved, makes all men alike depraved, and as depraved as Satan; for Satan is no more than totally depraved. If, moreover, every child born be totally depraved, there is no possibility of any person becoming worse than another, nor worse at any period of his life than he was when he first saw the sun. Are you prepared for this? If all infants are totally depraved, how can men become worse and worse, as Paul affirms some do?
Query 2. "Do you consider faith as the simple act of the mind, acknowledging the mere facts of the gospel, irrespective of any divine agency exerted upon the faculties previously?" >
Answer. Faith is faith; and neither more nor less than faith, however it may be produced. A house is a house, and a book is a book, whoever the architect or author may be. So faith is neither more nor less than the belief of testimony, whatever that testimony may be. The testimony of God is all that any Christian believes, when he has the faith of a Christian. If he do not believe all the testimony, he has not all the faith of a Christian; and if he believe more than the testimony of God, he has more than the faith of a Christian. For example, I believe all the facts recorded by all the Apostles and Evangelists of Jesus Christ. He that believes more than I, must have more testimony than I have. My faith is just as long, and as broad, as high, and as deep, as the testimony of God. Its dimensions are the dimensions of my faith. Faith is not hope, nor love, nor joy, nor peace, Faith is not knowledge, nor opinion, nor imagination. When we think correctly of any one principle, or of any one thing, we must distinguish that principle, and thing, from every other principle and thing. The power of believing is one thing, and the truth believed is another. The sense of seeing is one thing, and the thing seen is another. As we use the term sight, so we use the term faith. Sight sometimes denotes the eye, and sometimes the thing seen. Moses said, "I will turn and see this great sight." So faith is used sometimes for the power of believing, and sometimes for the thing believed. It requires no supernatural agency upon the eye to see any object, if the object be a visible one. It requires no such agency upon the ear to hear any sound, if it be an audible sound. An angel can be seen as easily as a man, if he make himself visible. God can be heard if he speak audibly, without any supernatural agency upon the ear. So we can believe the testimony of God as easily as the testimony of man, if that testimony he presented in a credible manner. I know of no scripture, of no reason which makes a supernatural agency upon the senses of man, upon the faculties of man, upon the eye, the ear, the memory, imagination, or judgment of man, necessary to enable him to see, hear, or believe anything visible, audible, or credible.
It requires supernatural aid to make a man see what is invisible, to hear what is inaudible, or to believe what is incredible. Infatuation, enthusiasm, or the supernatural agency of Satan is necessary to produce faith in incompetent testimony. No man can be converted to Mohammedism, but by the supernatural agency of Satan; because the testimony is incompetent. Whether a man shall believe anything is always dependent on the testimony, and on his hearing or attending to it. The power of producing faith is in the testimony. The power of producing hearing is in the sound. The power of producing sight is in the object. A man cannot hear an audible sound, nor see a visible object, nor believe a credible testimony, if he do not attend to them. I sometimes hear not the clock strike once in a day, and often do not see the most visible objects, because my mind is absorbed in thought upon other objects. So many do not believe the gospel, although it is perfectly credible, and as much in their power to believe it, as it is in one who has ears, to hear a bell toll, or a trumpet sound at a proper distance, because they have their minds engrossed and preoccupied with other objects. Hence, I conclude from the reason of things, as well as from the testimony of God, that every man is inexcusable who believes not that Jesus is the Messiah; and that every one who believes that Mohammed is a true prophet, believes preternaturally, enthusiastically, or without reason.
Query 3. "In your new translation, you have substituted the term reformation instead of repentance, as it is in the old. Please define reformation according to your views."
Answer. The best translators prefer reformation to repentance; because the Greek language, as you well know, has a different term for each. We only substitute reformation for repentance where the Greek term metanoia, or its correlates are found. It is not optional with us. Repentance is not reformation, nor reformation repentance. I prefer the term reformation to repentance, because it is the proper translation; and, because it does not mislead as does the term repent. He that repents, and, he that reforms are often very different persons. Judas repented; but Paul reformed. If men are commanded to repent, when they have repented they have obeyed the command; but if they are commanded to reform, when they have repented they have not obeyed the command. The three thousand Pentecostian penitents were commanded to reform, and not to repent: for they had repented before they asked Peter what they ought to do. It is not to be sorry for the past, it is not to be grieved for our transgressions; but it is "to cease to do evil, and to learn to do well," it is "to wash you, make yourselves clean, and to put away the evil of your doings;" it is to "turn unto the Lord;" it is "to draw nigh to God," that we are commanded. Reformation, then, is, in our language, the term which fully expresses the original, and the design of the Holy Spirit. It is not a change of mind only, but a change of life; an entire reformation of thoughts, words, and actions which meets the import of the command. Were I to define "legal repentance," "evangelical repentance," and "effectual calling," three phrases of sacred import in modern theology; I would define them thus:- legal repentance is sorrow for the past; evangelical repentance is an entire reformation of life, and effectual calling is unreserved submission to the authority of Jesus Christ. In other words, he legally repents who is sorry for the past; he evangelically repents who reforms his life, and he is effectually called who obeys Jesus Christ in every thing. In one sentence, reformation, in my acceptation of it, is, an unreserved surrendering of the understanding, will, and affections to the absolute government of Jesus Christ, the first public act of which is immersion into his name.
Query 4. "I understand you to assert that immersion, or baptism, is the act of regeneration, and the medium of forgiveness of sins; and that the scriptures do not authorize us to assert or believe that any are regenerated or forgiven until immersed. In other words, that the blood of Christ is never applied but through the medium of baptism. Is this a correct statement of your views?"
Answer. It is very nearly a correct statement of my views. But as I have written an essay of 60 pages on this subject since I received your favour before me, I refer you to that essay for a full answer to this query.
Query 5. "You speak of the Holy Spirit after baptism. Do you mean by the Holy Spirit what is commonly called the Holy Spirit; or do you mean a holy temper of mind effected by the mere word, by obedience to its requirements?"
Answer. It is hard to say what is commonly meant by "the Holy Spirit." But I mean, that not merely a holy temper of mind, but that Holy Spirit which dwelt in Jesus, that Spirit of God which animates the body of Christ, that promised Spirit which dwells in the church of the living God. This is that Spirit of holiness which is received in consequence of our union with Christ, after we have put on Christ in immersion. As children, after their natural birth, inhale the spirit or air of this world; so the new born babes, or the regenerated, as soon as born of the water, receive the Spirit which pervades the kingdom into which they are born; and this Spirit is as necessary to their life and comfort as breath is to the children of this world. "Because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts." Thus, Peter said, you have purified your souls by obeying the truth, through the Spirit, to unfeigned brotherly love. God's Spirit cannot dwell in a guilty heart.
Query 6. "In some of your last numbers you speak of the Trinity in a way which has excited some suspicion of a leaning towards Unitarianism. Is there any ground for such suspicion? For truth's sake - for your own sake, be explicit on this head."
Answer. I lean not to Unitarianism more than to Trinitarianism. I believe in God, and in his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, and in the Holy Spirit; and therefore I immerse into the name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit; and pray for the love of God, the favour of Jesus Christ, and the communion of the Holy Spirit. I am not wont to conceal my sentiments through the fear of man. On this subject I have been so explicit already that he who cannot understand me wishes me to be heterodox.
Query 7. "What are your views of the future punishment of wicked men? Is it eternal and without end?"
Answer. Their destruction is an everlasting destruction, and their punishment an endless punishment. If men are not now saved by the gospel, it is impossible that they can escape the condemnation of hell; for after death no means more efficacious can be used to save them from sin than those employed here: - and if uncured by these, they are incurable for ever. Sic stat sententia. Thus stands the decree.
Thus I have candidly answered your questions preliminary to the discussion of some particular topic. And now might I not request brother Semple to furnish his scriptural objections and arguments, if any he have, against the Essay on Forgiveness of Sins through immersion? I must say that I feel confident of my ability to maintain every proposition in that essay, against all opposition; and will always think so until the contrary is proved. This will not be called boasting by any man who says he believes in Jesus Christ for reasons which none can set aside. To sustain each and every one of the twelve propositions assumed in that essay, I stand pledged.
Hoping soon to hear from you on that all-engrossing question concerning the remission of sins, I have the pleasure of again subscribing myself, in all Christian charity and benevolence, yours, under the Great King.
A.C.
A FAMILIAR DIALOGUE
Between the Editor of the Christian Baptist & a Clergyman.
PART 1.
(From the Christian Baptist).
Clergyman. Why do you preach, seeing you decry all preaching.
Editor. I do not decry all preaching. I have said that it is the duty of every disciple to preach.
C. But how can they preach except they be sent?
E. I presume there are no preachers upon earth who are sent in the sense of those words quoted from the apostle.
C. Yes; I believe I am as much sent as any preacher ever was; and if I did not believe that I was sent I would not preach a word.
E. Well, sir, I find myself happy in meeting with a preacher sent from God. I will sit down at your feet and believe every word you say, only remove some few doubts I have respecting your mission.
C. I do not want you to receive all that I say. Judge for yourself.
E. You do not, then, believe you are sent by God; for, assuredly, if you were sent by God, I should be a great sinner not to believe every word you say. For God would not send you to declare falsehoods, nor to deceive mankind. If you will then prove that you are sent, I will examine no more for myself. I will believe what you say. Who ever was sent by God with a message to men, that it was not lawful and necessary implicitly to receive upon his word? or, in other words, was it not highly criminal in every instance, and at the peril of the hearer, to refuse implicit faith in the word of every heavenly messenger?
C. I do not pretend to plenary inspiration; but I contend that I am sent, or called by God, to preach.
E. To preach what?
C. The gospel.
E. What do you mean by preaching the gospel?
C. I mean to make it known.
E. You are not, sent to us in this region, for the gospel has been made known to us already by such preachers as leave us without excuse; whom, if we believe not, we would not be persuaded though one rose from the dead. I mean Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and Paul and Peter, if you please. Have you any thing new to add?
C. I do not mean to make it known as if it had never been read or heard before; but to make known what they have said about it.
E. You mean to explain it, I suppose.
C. Yes, and to enforce it upon the attention of mankind.
E. To make a fact known is to preach, and to explain the meaning of that fact is to teach. But on your own views I would humbly ask, Did ever the Father of our spirits send one class of preachers to make known his will, and afterwards send another class to explain their message and to enforce it?
C. Yes, he sent the apostles to explain the prophets.
E. And he sent you to explain the apostles; and, by and by, he will send other preachers to explain you; and so explanations will never cease, and new missions will succeed each other till time be no more. Your saying that he sent the apostles to explain the prophets, is not more ingenious than Tobiah's saying, "He sends the event to explain the accomplishment of prophecy."
C. And are there not many things in Paul's writings "hard to be understood, which the unlearned and ignorant wrest to their destruction?"
E. I hope you do not suppose the explanation of these things is preaching. But as you and many of your brethren often cite these words, will you hear a remark or two upon them. It is not the epistles that is the antecedent to "hois," but "the things" mentioned by Peter. I need not tell you that epistolais is feminine and hois neuter; consequently, it is not the language or style of Paul that is referred to in this passage, but the things themselves of which he spoke. However, I lay no stress on this distinction, as we admit the scriptures are often wrested - but by whom? Peter says the unteachable (amatheis), not the unlearned, but, as Macknight says, "the unteachable" and the double-minded; and these are always the learned or those who think themselves wise. You know that the Romanists infer from these words the necessity of an infallible interpreter. Their words are "the scriptures are not sufficient for deciding controversies concerning the articles of faith; and the decision of these matters is to be sought from the Catholic church."
But the misfortune is, that the Catholics do not tell us "whether it is the Pope alone, or the Pope in conjunction with his own clergy, or a general council of his bishops, or any particular council, or any other body of men in their church distinguished by a particular denomination." This is good policy; for all those to whom they have attributed infallibility have erred, as they are constrained to admit. And I think you will admit that none now differ more about the meaning of scripture than the learned.
C. But do not you say it is the duty of all disciples to preach, and what are they to preach, and to whom?
E. The disciples can preach only in the same way that Moses was preached, being read in the synagogues. This they may and can do, either by declaring the same things viva voce or by reading the gospel and exhibiting its evidences to them who either cannot or will not read the Evangelists and Apostles.
C. But have they not all heard already? and can you, on your own principles, make known to them what they have already heard?
E. They have not all heard; for there are all the children born to the disciples, whom it becomes their duty to disciple to Christ, and therefore Christian parents stand in the relation of preachers to their own children. There are also some parents that are not disciples, and consequently their children are brought up in darkness. Now, as every disciple has access to these, it becomes his duty to instil into their minds, as far as human agency can extend, the words of eternal life.
C. Yes, and miserable preachers the mass of disciples will make - can't put three sentences together - not one in ten of them can explain one verse intelligibly. And you will set the women's tongues loose too, and they have always been too troublesome even when under every possible restraint; but you have removed all barriers and turned them loose upon us. Believe me, sir, your principles are of a disorganizing character.
E. And to what is the incapacity of the disciples to preach and speak intelligibly owing? Doubtless to their religious education - to their teachers. Every person who has ideas upon any subject can communicate them. If his ideas are indistinct, his communications will be so too; but if his perceptions are accurate and clear, his addresses will be plain and intelligible. But you who occupy the pulpit, are the very persons who are to blame for this incapacity. This useless or senseless way of talking, which you call preaching, into which the old pagans led you, is the very way to make the people ignorant, to confound, perplex, and stupify them. This everlasting sermonizing! what good is it? It resembles nothing that is rational in all the compass of thought. A.B. professes to teach arithmetic; he gets a class of forty boys from twelve to fifteen years old, we shall say. He tells them to meet once a week and he will give them a lecture or sermon on some important point in this useful science. The first day he lectures on the cube root for an hour. They sit bookless and thoughtless, heedless, and perhaps, often drowsy, while he harangues them. He blesses them and sends them home, to return a week hence. They meet. His text is arithmetical progression. He preaches an hour, and dismisses as usual. The third day of the meeting up comes vulgar fractions; the fourth, rule of three; the fifth, addition; the sixth, notation; the seventh, cube root again, &c &c. Now in this way, I hesitate not to say, he might proceed seven years and not finish one accountant. Who ever thought that a science or an art could be taught in this way? And yet this is the only way, I may say, universally adopted of teaching the Christian religion. And so it is that many men have sat under the sound of the gospel (as they call it) for forty years, that cannot expound one chapter in the whole New Testament. And yet these same Christians would think it just to prosecute by civil law that teacher who would keep their sons four or five years at English grammar or arithmetic, and receive their money, and yet not one of their sons able to expound one rule in syntax or arithmetic. They pay the parson - they are of maturer minds than their children, and they have been longer under his tuition, and yet they will excuse both the parson and themselves for knowing just as little, if not less, of the New Testament, than their striplings know of grammar or arithmetic.
C. Then you will reduce the Christian doctrine to a level with common arithmetic, and you suppose that Christianity can be taught just as easy as arithmetic.
E. You profess to be a Calvinist, if I mistake not; and do you not suppose that a disciple is as able to be taught Christianity as arithmetic, provided he is "a subject of divine grace," and you know that otherwise he would not be a disciple on the Calvinistic hypothesis. But upon either the Calvinistic or Arminian hypothesis, a disciple of Christ can be taught the Christian religion in a proper course of education as soon as he can be taught any human science.
C. And so you suppose there is nothing more grand, sublime, deep, or unsearchable in the Christian religion, than in a human science, such as arithmetic!
E. That does not follow from my assertion. There are many things incomprehensible and sublime in various sciences; but a person is said to understand and to be able to teach them, who is not able to comprehend and to explain every topic connected therewith. Many persons can teach arithmetic very well who do not understand one proposition of Euclid's ratios.
C. But it is only when the Spirit of God accompanies the preacher's words that the people learn; and that Spirit is not at the command of the preachers.
E. I know of no passage in the New or Old Testament that says that the Spirit of God accompanies any of OUR PREACHERS’ WORDS. Besides, the disciples are the sons of God, and have the Spirit of Christ, and are therefore every way qualified to learn, under a proper teacher, according to your own hypothesis. But, sir, they can never be taught the Christian religion in the way of sermonizing. Public speeches may be very useful on many occasions; but to teach a church the doctrine of Christ, and to cause them to understand the Holy Scriptures, and to enjoy them, requires a course essentially different from either hearing sermons or learning the catechism.
C. I wish to resume sundry topics, but will have to postpone them for the present.
What are we afraid of? Of overturning our first principles? If they are false, the sooner they are overturned the better. If they are true, they will bear the strictest examination. - C.Parker, Esq.
Retyped by R. M Payne, 1 Kenilworth Avenue Reading, England RG30 3DL
To whom our grateful thanks is extended for her offering this material through our web site.
We would encourage you to write to Rose and thank her for making this material available.
Prepared for the internet by Arches church of Christ, Belfast, Northern Ireland, BT4 1AQ
http://www.christianhomesite.com/belfast