Page images
PDF
EPUB

they have either knowledge of, or faith in him—or of becoming his sheep by having a few drops of water sprinkled in the face-or of being the favored few, created purposely that they might be saved, while all others are created that they might be condemned, whether willing or not-is not to be found in the bible. God our Saviour willeth that all men should be saved, and come to a knowledge of the truth, 1 Tim. ii. 4. Hence his gospel, which contains his power to save, has been sent to every creature under heaven. In some parts of the world, however, where the gospel once flourished, they have ceased to bear fruit, and, like the Jews, have for ages been cut off from God for their disobedience and unbelief. "If God spared not the natural branches, perhaps neither will he spare thee," Rom. xi. 21.]—J.W.

INFANT

BAPTISM.

IDENTITY OF THE COVENANTS.

Ir is thought by some, that the two covenants must be identical, because they are both called by the same names—we read of the church in the days of Moses, as well as the church in the days of the apostles, &c. But does it follow because two things are called by the same name, that they are therefore identical? Let us see, Joshua was called a saviour-so was Christ; therefore, according to this logic, they are identical, and Christ is none other than Joshua-a

mere

man!-But even worse: Baalam was called a Prophet-so was Christ-hence Christ was none other than that wicked character who loved the wages of unrighteousness, and for the sake of money would have cursed the children of God!!

This rule, we see, will not answer the purpose. It is true, the Jewish organization was called a church, but not the church of Christ. It was the church of Abraham, if you please, as he was the head of that covenantbut Christ is the head of the christian

|

church, and if they are both one and the same church, then we have two heads to one body! This is another of those mysterious problems, growing out of this strained effort at proving what is not taught nor intimated in the bible.

To avoid this absurdity, and still to make the two covenants as near identical as possible, it is modified somewhat, by the position, that the new is a branch of the old! But here another difficulty presents itself: -Who on earth ever saw the branch

of a tree twice as large as the trunk? for it is evident the branch includes Jews and Gentiles, whilst the trunk embraced but the Jews! But if, to avoid this difficulty, the position is reversed-and it be contended that the old is a branch of the new, it presents a still more strange and anomalous idea, of the branch of a tree springing up first, and the trunk then growing upon it!!*

But the Jewish church is no more identified with the Christian, than is the religion, which the apostle makes out an entirely different matter. [See Acts xxvi. 5, Gal. i. 13, 14.]

The Jewish church had been in existence upwards of fifteen hundred years, when the Saviour says relative to Peter's confession, that he was the Christ-"Upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." [Math. xvi. 18.] Observe that the church of Christ was not yet built, for he says "I will build" it, still in the future. This not only proves the church of Christ to be separate and distinct

was called an 66

of circumcision must still be in existence, Some persons contend that the covenant because it is called the "everlasting covenant!" Strange to tell! Then by the same logic the priesthood of Christ is but a continuation of the Aaronic priesthood, for it everlasting priesthood." [Ex. xl. 15.] I would ask if God did not say to Abraham, at the very time he made the covenant of circumcision, that he would give to him and his seed the land of Canaan for an 66 xvii. 8.] And do they now possess it? everlasting possession ?" [See Gen.

from that of Jews, but it also proves concious babe, must be barred out of

the church, and for ought I know, out of heaven, because its father was an unbeliever!! Shame to such theology! Well, and how merciful are they to those infants, who are so unspeakably fortunate as to gain ad

they are so very kind to the dear little church-members, that they will take them to the house of God, and when there, will debar them from the communion table, as well as all other immunities and priviliges of the church :-and if they should happen to unite in conducting the music, according to the best of their abilities, they would be compelled to leave the house till service was ended! Such is the mercy of pedo-baptists—a mere form without substance-an empty puff-a sounding brass and tinkling cymbal!

incontrovertably that infants cannot be members of it! The church was to be built upon the confession which Peter made-that Jesus was the Christ, and hence those who did not nor could not make that confession, could not be built into that church!mittance into the church? Why, Paul, in his first letter to the Corinthians, cautions them against putting into this building wrong materials and would not the admonition given in that case, come home to pedobaptists with full force-"Let every man take heed how he buildeth thereon." [1 Cor. iii. 10.] He gives them to understand they are not to put into this magnificent edifice either wood, hay, or stubble; by which he undoubtedly means all persons, whether young or old, who would be of no actual service to the building. But those, and those only, who possess the proper moral stamina, represented by the gold, silver, and precious stones, are suitable materials for this spiritual temple, in order that it may be always able to stand amidst the fiery persecutions to which it is liable to be exposed.

We are sometimes accused of being cruel and unmerciful to infants, by not admitting them into the church. According to this objection, it appears that all infants who are not admitted into the church, must meet with some dreadful calamity - perhaps be for ever lost! Well, then, pedo-baptists are compelled to admit, from their own objection, that they are a most cruel and unmerciful set of folks, for they exclude all infants from the church, except such as happen fortunately to be born of believing parents! Thus, notwithstanding Ezekiel has plainly informed us that the child shall not bear the iniquity of his father, and that the proverb concerning sour grapes should no longer be used, yet this people, according to their own doctrine, are using the same old condemned proverb, and teaching that the innocent and un

But the true mercy of a Christian towards infants, is not to make them out vile and depraved little sinners exposed to the wrath of God; but it is that inculcated in the doctrine of our Saviour, "of such is the Kingdom of Heaven," without baptism, churchmembership, the communion, or any other means of grace! The Saviour taught that a man, when converted, and consequently fit for heaven, was then only on equal footing with the unconscious and offenceless infant. Thus we see, positively, that baptism can do them no good, as they are fit for heaven without it. Why then baptise them? Because, says that pious father, I am commanded to bring up my children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. Well, what instruction-what admonition is there in putting a few drops of water on a child's face, when it knows as little about the design of it, as the preacher who sprinkles it? Cannot parents teach their children as much about God-about religion, piety, and morality, without that gratuitous and unmeaning performance, as with it? Surely they can! But this unscrip

tural, unauthorised practice, is not only useless, but is absolutely injurious to children who are trained up in that belief. They are taught to believe themselves baptized when they are not, and are thus debarred from the blissful privilege of voluntarily submitting to the Saviour in obedience to this personal command. The language of hundreds has been, would that I now had the privilige of following my Saviour into the water, and of obeying his most significant command for myself; but I cannotmy father had it obeyed for me, before I was able to understand or appreciate the privilege.*

But the evil does not stop here. Suppose this doctrine and practice to prevail, until it becomes universal, and it at once breaks down all distinction between the church and the

• In order to provide a salvo for this difficulty, some say, "How often have we seen the tear of love and gratitude flow down the cheek of parents at the baptismal altar. And who would deprive them of such a privilege?" We might also ask, How often have we seen

world, for in one generation the whole race of Adam are members of the church! Who, then, could preach as did the apostles-" Repent and be baptized?" No man, for they have all been baptized before they were able to repent? Who, then, permit me to ask, dare hold forth a doctrine, which in its legitimate tendency and result, must not only set aside the preaching of the Apostles, and disannul one-half of the Saviour's commission, but which also throws open the doors of the church as wide as humanity, annihilates the world, and converts the spiritual house of God, into one vast tabernacle of flesh and blood?

But we have positive proofs there were no infants in the church in the days of the Apostles. If this can be made to appear, then the most strenuous pedo-baptist must give up the notion of infant church-membership. Let us examine it. Peter, in writing to the church, testifies as follows: "Ye also as lively stones, are built the tear of love and gratitude flow down the up a spiritual house." (1 Pet. ii. 5.) cheek of that Catholic lady, while the priest According to this it appears that the is pardoning her sins, or praying her infant, church was spiritual, not fleshly, and perhaps, that has died without baptism, out that all the members were spoken of of purgatory? And who would deprive her as "lively stones," not dead or inacof that privilege? Would the infant sprinkling? No, no; they would let her enjoy tive, which would have been the case her superstition without being molested! with perhaps a majority of them, had Not so, however, with the enlightened infants been included! Could infants Christian philanthropist. He labors to rebe called "lively stones" in the builddeem such persons from their ignorance and stupidity, and bring them into more elevated, ing of the Lord? Again : "But sublime,and pure enjoyments of unadulterated speaking the truth in love, may grow Christianity. The man who looks upon his up into him in all things, who is the children as fit for the society of angels, with-head even Christ; from whom the out baptism, has more cause to shed tears of the purest love and gratitude, than he who looks upon them as the vile offspring of corruption and depravity, which makes it necessary for them to be baptized, in order to bring them to the covenanted favor and

mercy of God! Pedo-baptists are very kind, in giving parents the "privilege" of offering their infants a sacrifice upon the altar of baptism, but there is no unkindness in depriving infants of the transcendantly blissful privilege" of submitting to this ordinance for themselves! I would say, (when he speaks thus of offering infants a sacrifice upon the altar of baptism), in the language of Samuel to Saul-" Behold to obey is better than sacrifice." (1Sam. xv. 22.)

whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love." (Eph. iv. 15, 16.) It appears to me, that the Apostle penned this portion of scripture for the express purpose of refuting the doctrine of infant church membership; and it is most singular that the text has never been brought into the controversy, with Pedo-Bap

tists. He here clearly informs us that the object and business of the church is to edify itself, and convert sinners, by which the body shall be "increased;" and in order to effect these grand objects, he gives us to understand, that "every joint" must supply some assistance, and that there must be a united effort of the "whole body," and to cap the climax, and show positively that infants could not be included, he tells us that there must be an "effectual working in the measure of every part." Who is there, permit me to ask, after this testimony, who can muster enough credulity, to believe that the unconscious babes composed a part of the church in Paul's day? But this is only a fraction of the testimony which we have to adduce upon this point. It shall be presented in our next.

A. HALL.

And being brought on their way by the church, they passed through Phenice and Gentiles: and they caused great joy unto Samaria, declaring the conversion of the all the brethren. And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received of the church, and of the Apostles and Elders, and they declared all things that God had done with them. But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, that it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses. And the Apostles and Eiders came together to consider this matter."

It is admitted that this portion of scripture has been as much misquoted, misapplied, and abused, as any other passage in the sacred writings. Councils œcumenical, Synods, Conferences, Associations, and Conventions of all sorts ecclesiastic, have leaned upon it for warrant and protection. That it has been tortured, times and ways without number, to countenance and support proceedings hostile to the genius of Christianity, and subversive

DIFFICULTIES IN CHURCHES. of its designs, is freely and cordially

RIGHT OF APPEAL.

THE right of prayer is not more natural, nor necessary, nor expedient, than the right of appeal. There is no government, or state, or family, that can subsist without it. It was a part of every religious institution before the Christian; and if it be no part of it, it is a perfect anomaly in

all social institutions.

The first great difficulty in the

Christian church was settled in this

way, and that, too, while the apostles yet lived. And as this single point, well established, settles the whole question in discussion, we shall now take it up and analyze it. The case is found faithfully reported by Luke, Acts xv. We shall copy from the

common text the first six verses:

"And certain men which came down from Judea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved. When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem, unto the Apostles and Elders about this question.

admitted. Still it is a portion of canonical scripture, and designed to develope the Christian institution both in its matter and form, and is not to be dispensed with as unnecessary to the perfection of Christian records. It has a true and fixed meaning, and is as necessary to the exigencies of of the Acts to the development of Christianity as is the second chapter what the apostolic gospel and mode of preaching it were. My object is, therefore, to ascertain not only its literal meaning, but its abiding utility and proper application.

The case is as follows:-Certain believing Pharisees of Judea had gone down to Antioch in Syria, the first Gentile church in the world, and had endeavored to corrupt the simplicity of the gospel by introducing certain dogmata of their own. These attempts having been resisted, a discussion and controversy arose. Meantime, Paul and Barnabas returned from their tour; and finding these difficulties in the church, undertook their correction, but failed in giving

full satisfaction to the whole community. Whereupon the church, no doubt by and with the consent of the Apostles Paul and Barnabas, agreed to refer the matter to some other tribunal. They chose Jerusalem, probably for two reasons. First, because the Judaizers pretended to have authority from that place; and secondly, because that church had a very intelligent presbytery, and the Apostles might be expected to take part in the adjustment of the matter. They appealed then to the officers of that community.

The reference or appeal being agreed upon, the church at Antioch elected a deputation, determining to send other delegates besides Paul and Barnabas. They went to Jerusalem, and were cordially received by the whole estate of the Elders, Apostles, and church. A meeting was appointed, "and the Apostles and Elders came together for to consider this matter." The Apostles and Elders were the judges. We are not told that the Apostles, Elders, and the whole church came together to consider and decide this matter. But we are told that "the Apostles and Elders came together to consider the matter." The discussion was continued for some time, probably by and between the Elders and those Judaizers. Finally, after there had been much disputing, Peter rose— then Paul-then Barnabas - then James. These four of the Apostles only are named as speakers. But be it observed that Paul and Barnabas being delegates, did not judge in the case. Their speeches were not argumentative; they only narrated simply what God had wrought by their means among the Gentiles. Peter and James argued the case. The latter, indeed, offered his judgment or sentence to the whole tribunal, which was unanimously adopted.

A number of questions here crowd upon us, as- -Who decided this ques

tion ?

Was it decided by Apostles

in their apostolic or presidential character? Why associate Elders with them? Had they not power to judge infallibly without Elders? And why is the whole church represented as concurring in the decision? Is it as a sanction of the proceeding, or simply an intimation of acquiescence in it? &c.

Nothing can be plainer than that "the Apostles and Elders came together to consider this matter." They asked no helps. They certainly were competent to the task themselves. The church could add no authority to the Apostles and Elders; but as the question of communing with uncircumcised Gentiles affected their feelings as Jews, they demonstrated their submission to the Apostles and Elders by concurring in the decision and in the mission of certain persons to Antioch.

But the cardinal question yet remains to be answered, viz.-In what character and capacity did the Apostles participate in this meeting-as Apostles, or simply as judges? Not as Apostles; for in that character they could receive no help from the Elders or brethren. Besides, as Apostles, they were under a plenary inspiration, and needed no reasoning, no debating on the subject. They gave judgment just as the Elders did

without any special revelation or supernatural light upon the subject -as Paul did on another occasion, 1 Cor. vii. 25–40.

These able ministers of the New Testament were sometimes left without any special revelation, that their private and personal advice and example might be useful to the whole church. Their decision in Acts xv. was, it is said, acceptable to the Holy Spirit-i. e. concurred with the scriptures quoted and explained; as in a case referred to Paul by the Corinthians, to whom, when he responded, he said, "I think [in the judgment given] I have the Spirit of God,"

In one word, then, the Apostles

« PreviousContinue »