Page images
PDF
EPUB

sent the debt to be sin, and talk of sin being cancelled. Sin a debt! and this one of the perfect views! Why, if I owe £5, and I, or some one for me, pay £5, the debt is discharged; and must it follow that, if I owe five sins, the committing of five sins will clear me?

[ocr errors]

Next they insist a price was commercially paid. Their words are curious, (p. 23)" that Christ really assumed that debt, and that the price paid was fully and infinitely equivalent to its liquidation." A fair smooth sentence, that reminds one of an old burlesque : "these storms, when grasped with the eye of reason, shall descend in showers of blessings on the people." Now, business-men of Liverpool, did you ever, in commercial transactions, hear of the price of a debt? Such an idea would never have entered your heads had you not a party purpose to serve. Every one knows that a price paid implies a purchase made, and not a debt liquidated, payment and price being just as distinct as a debt and a purchase. If you must have it that the buying-back of sinners to God with the blood of Christ is a commercial transaction, pray inform us who is the vendor from whom they are bought, and to whom the price is paid? You will scarcely say they are purchased from God to God; and surely not a matter of bargain with the Devil. If, like the Pharisees, you must say we cannot tell," the crude commercial notion ends where it began, in mere imagination; and the God-dishonoring effort to make it appear that the blood of Christ was just price enough to liquidate the sins and buy the souls of your favored few, as though a limited Dr. and Cr. and bargain-andsale affair, signally fails.

66

to the cramped, grovelling, selfish dimensions of commercial ideas, there being nothing analagous to it in the business-dealings between man and man. It is as much higher and nobler as heaven is higher and nobler than earth. The light of the knowledge of the glory of God, shining in the face of Jesus Christ, can alone give us enlarged and soul-delighting views of the wisdom and goodness of God in Christ, "who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree," and through whom God can justly be the justifier of each believer.

Mis. 33. "The death of Christ is spoken of as a ransom; a ransom man was unable to pay. None can, by any means, redeem his brother, nor give to God a ransom for him; for the redemption of their soul is precious, and it ceaseth for ever," Ps. xlix. 7. It is strange that these young men should so generally write and quote at random. The death of Christ is neither spoken of nor alluded to in this verse, which merely says of rich men, how unable they are to obtain a prolongation of life. Boothroyd renders it, "No one can, in any wise, redeem a brother, nor give to God a ransom for him, so that he may live on to eternity, and may never see corruption; for the redemption price is so great, that he should for ever give up the attempt."

Mis. 34. The writers produce from Exod. xxx. the law of the ransom appointed to be paid when Israel were numbered, as though it prefigured the redemption by Christ Jesus. This is clearly a misapplication; for in Israel each man paid his own ransom price (an offering of half a shekel), not to buy himself in to be an Israelite, but because he was already an Israelite, and to make atonement for his soul; and this could not, by any stretch of imagination, pre

Note The mixing-up and jumbling together of figures and metaphors, can only be necessary in sup-figure the one Messiah giving himself port of error.

Happily for us, the redemption that is in Christ Jesus cannot be reduced

a ransom for all, that children of wrath might become Abraham's seed and heirs of God.

There are several quotations under | pected to take as one of the perfect this head, which speak of Jesus giving views! If it were not in print, one himself a ransom-of his blood-of should have thought it impossible his eternal redemption-of his being that even G. R. D. should deem an made sin, &c. and which are inter- Apostle foolish enough to represent worded by a running commentary, God as beseeching, and Christ as calculated to make them seem to entreating, the already reconciled to sustain the writers' commercial theory. be reconciled! The candid student This, however, not one of them does, of the Divine word will see that St. and of course all the negatives do not Paul is there distinctly informing the amount to an affirmative. Corinthian brethren how Apostles of Jesus every where executed the office of "ambassadors for Christ," and will carefully note that, if the supplemental words, printed in italics in the common version, are omitted (as they ought to be), the passage will clearly say how the ambassadors acted—viz. "As though God did beseech by us, we pray, in Christ's stead, be ye (sinners, enemies) reconciled to God." Dr. M'Knight justly says, "This is a short specimen of the Apostles' exhortations to the unconverted in every country."

In the Reply (B. M. H. p. 130), we have an instance-an awful instance of the creature contradicting the Creator. There G. R. D. says, "That the Divine Being loves all mankind, the scriptures no where affirm." Now, one is confident that, at the time he had the temerity to write this, he knew that the Lord had said (John iii. 16), “God so loved THE WORLD, that he gave his only begotten son.' Can we account for this outrage upon propriety otherwise than by supposing G. R. D. might take the Lord to mean "the elect world?" If so, let him so read the remainder of the verse, "that whosoever (of the elect world) believeth in him shall not perish." This would, indeed, be Calvinism cutting its own throat.

[ocr errors]

Perv. 34. (Reply, p. 130.) "The Saviour, in his mediatorial prayer, expressly refers to the church alone as being given to him by the Father." Reckless assertion! Pray, turn to the prayer (John xvii.) and be satisfied that Jesus does not say "the church alone" was, but that the Apostles were 'given to him by the Father." The 20th verse makes this very clear: "Neither pray I for these (given ones) alone, but for them also who shall believe on me THROUGH THEIR WORD."

66

Perv. 35. G. R. D. says, "2 Cor. v. 18 and 20 refers evidently to Jews and Gentiles reconciled to God through Christ, for whom he was made sin; and they, not unbelievers, are exhorted to be reconciled to God," (Reply, p. 131.) This, I suppose, we are ex

Perv. 36. "1 Tim. ii. 6 refers to Christ's ransom as embracing men of every class and condition, and is to be testified in due time, not surely by their being lost." What straining to make God partial, and Christ niggardly and unjust! G. R. D. here puts himself in opposition to the Divine Spirit. The latter, by St. Paul, affirms Christ "gave himself a ransom for ALL.” The former, however, only allows that he gave himself for some of all, leaving us to infer that the rest were created for eternal torments! The comment of G. R. D. on the last words of the verse informs one how little he is acquainted with the "readings" of that doubtful sentence.

I end the present communication by noticing the singular subject which concludes the Liverpool Stricture, No. 4. Mr. Campbell, in endeavouring to correct the common error of representing the death of Christ rather as the payment of an immense debt than as an expiation for sin, says, (Christ. Sys. ch. 10, s. 10), “Every

J. D.

PEACE AND UNION.

REPLY TO FRATER. Dear Sir-When I read Frater's last letter, I was strongly reminded of a saying of yours in Edinburgh many years ago, which received the unmingled approbation of all who heard it. It was to this effect—" that the man who was afraid or ashamed of putting his name to his lucubrations, had better let the world go on without being troubled with them."

one feels that, when a third person to say, sins committed during these assumes a debt and pays it, the prin- eighteen centuries do not deserve cipal must be discharged, and cannot punishment? Do they not rather be forgiven. But when sin is viewed mean to say, "Those out of Christ in the light of a crime, and atonement are in their sins, condemned, unholy, offered by a third person, then it is a alien, and lost; while those in Christ question of grace whether the pardon are pardoned, justified, sanctified, or acquittal of the sinner shall be adopted into the family of God, and granted by him against whom the saved?" If they mean this, their crime has been committed; because, pious indignation is thrown away, for even after an atonement is made, the these are Mr. Campbell's words, transgressor is yet as deserving of (Christ. Sys. c. 19, s. 2.) In the punishment as before. There is room, love of the Spirit, then, for both justice and mercy-for the display of indignation against sin, and the forgiveness of the sinner-in just views of sin, and of the redemption there is in and through the Lord Jesus Christ." The Liverpool belligerents take fire at this, and, laying hold of the sentence in italics, cry out, "To say as Mr. Campbell says is to deny the plainest statement in the word of God;" and in their holy indignation see, or think they see, the transgressor "thrown back on the three conditions; and after these are performed, if the guilty sinner feels that neither faith, repentance, nor yet the waters of baptism, can wash away his sins, he is driven "where, gentle reader, would you suppose?" directly to Popery." Gentlemen, you do your judgment and understanding injury by supposing so improbable, if not impossible, a case. A person who has truly believed on the Lord Jesus Christtruly repented and turned to the Lord, and been understandingly buried with the Lord in immersionis little likely to feel as you describe, for he is forgiven-is passed from death unto life-is a child of Godis one of the elect; and to whom should he go? But my attention is more particularly caught by the expression, "Our sins, it is true, deserve punishment, but not after atonement is made." Now, the great sacrifice was offered, and consequently the atonement made more than eighteen centuries ago. Do the writers mean

In your note it appears to me you have pretty well answered all that Frater advanced in animadverting on my letter. As to the questions he put to me at the end of his epistle, it will be time enough for me to answer them when I take up the ground that we have any command or precedent for holding communion with the unbaptized; yet if he does not see the difference between taking up this ground, and holding it as a fundamental principle that we are bound to receive all who hold one Lord, one faith, one immersion, without regard to differences of opinion, I despair of convincing him by anything I could say.

Any one born of water and of the Spirit holding fellowship with the unbaptized, must do so through the influence of opinion, for both Frater and I agree that there is neither command nor precedent in Scripture for such a practice. It therefore follows that a Christian excluded from the Lord's table for doing this, is excluded

for difference of opinion which the Apostle forbids. A brother, indeed, acting thus, presents a fit subject for much solicitude and instruction; but for the exclusion of such I want precept or precedent. Can Frater furnish me with either ?

In Brother Campbell's Debate with Rice, page 785, he says:- "We receive to our communion persons of other denominations, who will take upon them the responsibility of participating with us." And again, page

810-"A few cases such as I have before (alluding to the above) described, have occurred, and I have witnessed them with some degree of satisfaction." Now, with my present knowledge I could not even go this length; yet I could by no means exclude the brethren in America who thus act, or Brother Campbell who approves it. Would Frater? The cases in America and this country are, I admit, somewhat different; yet it appears to me that the spirit which would exclude in the one case, ought to do so in the other: it is only a step further in the same exclusive road.

I perfectly agree with you as to the evils that have been wrought by imaginary or suppositious cases; and had they remained so, they would have been allowed, for me, to have so continued in their proper shade, along with the unknown Frater. It was only when this spirit of exclusiveness seemed to be working actual evil in Dundee, in separating brethren who were equally worthy with themselves, that I ventured to lift up my warning voice.

I agree with you, that the idea of union with all who have been immersed, is at present utopian; yet we ought always to let it be clearly seen and felt that those who stand aloof from us, have the sin and shame of causing and perpetuating division in the family of God.

The surreptitiously carrying infants into the kingdom in their nurse's arms, was a phrase made use of by

Brother Campbell, in Dunfermline, and which I adopted as fitly expressing my mind of the thing intended; and if Frater does not understand the thing meant, I would say he who is ignorant let him be ignorant. By the way, the charge of a want of charity laid against me, comes somewhat oddly from Frater.

Yours in the one hope,
P. C. GRAY.
Edinburgh, May 12, 1848.

ANCIENT AND MODERN
BAPTISM.

IN considering the relation that the modern bears to the ancient view and practice of baptism, we shall, for the sake of convenience, adopt the division of the subject now generally assumed, viz. of subject, of design, and of action or mode. We shall institute a comparison between the Old Baptist position, and that generally taken by our brethren of the Reformation, with the earliest known practice of the Christian church.

1. Then, as it respects the subject of baptism, there appears to be a clear and full accordance between the Old Baptist and our own position with regard to the known practices of the Christian church.

2. With regard to the design of baptism, Baptists generally are rather prepared to deny than to affirm what the scriptures teach, and what the ancient church universally held as the design of the institution, viz. that baptism is for the remission of sins.

3. With regard to the action or mode-while the Baptist churches and our own occupy substantially the same ground as the ancient, yet neither the one nor the other occupy the exact position of the ancient church in this matter. The ancient church regarded immersion as the only baptism in every case where the subject was capable of so receiving it in that manner. These invalids, on their repentance and confession of Christ, were baptized, but not by immersion.

This exception has never received the sanction of any modern churches of the Baptist denomination, and it is as universally approved and practiced by the Christian church in every part of the world.

Having premised these general details, we now proceed to a more particular investigation of the position stated.

The New Testament affords no means for the summary settlement of this question, and therefore it will be necessary, for its satisfactory settlement, to investigate the nature of positive institutions, and the laws to the action of which they are subjected.

1. Then, we take the law of the Sabbath as an illustration of the nature of positive institutions. This law formed a most important part of the Jewish polity: Six days shalt thou labour and do all thy work, but the seventh is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God in it thou shalt do no work, thou nor thy son, &c. In fact, the whole Israelitish nationtheir servants, and even strangers were rigidly interdicted from all labour on that day. Yet, when the Jewish people affected the greatest extent of obedience to this commandment, some deviations from its strict letter were allowed. If an ox or an ass fell into a pit on the Sabbath-day, it was judged lawful to lift it out. To do so would be frequently a work of great labour and difficulty, and consequently contrary to the strict letter of the command, "In it thou shalt do no manner of work."

2. The shew bread will furnish | another illustration of the nature of positive institutions. This bread was commanded to be kept by the priests on a table in the holy place, and for their own exclusive use. Yet the High Priest, under the pressure of the urgent necessities of David, did not hesitate to apply it for his relief and assistance-an action that passes without censure in the Old Testa

ment, and is, by the highest authority, exonerated from all blame in the New.

These facts prove that positive institutions are not immutable in their nature, but have repeatedly yielded to the pressure of urgent considerations and circumstances.

If it should be said that baptism is an institution, sui generis, different in its nature from every other positive institution, we answer, that on those who make the affirmation lies the onus probandi-the task of proving that it is; and till this proof appears, we shall consider it similar in nature and object to the action of the laws that regulate the observance of all other positive institutions whatever: to be observed literally, exactly, and to their full extent, in every case where such observance is practicable; and to admit of another course where such an observance is obviously impracticable.

2. We remark that in cases where a strict and literal compliance with a divine command, to its full extent, becomes impracticable, it then becomes the duty of man to comply with the command so far as his circumstances will admit. A denial of this law would bring the most hideous confusion into the whole region of morals. A owes to B £100, but all the means that A possesses only amount to £20. His inability to pay the whole does not exonerate him from paying the £20, and repairing, to the farthest extent of his power, the error he has committed.

Now, an application of water, in any manner, is a step in the direction of immersion; and he that receives, and he that applies, water in any manner, does more towards a compliance with the divine command than he who does nothing at all. We may, perhaps, with the most perfect propriety, assure an individual that God does not require of him anything that is absolutely beyond his power to perform. But we have no autho

« PreviousContinue »