GPS-11-The Confession
CHAPTER XI. THE CONFESSION.
It is very generally admitted that some sort of a confession of something should be made by everyone at sometime prior to admission into the church of God; but what this confession is, how and when it should be made, and its office in the plan of salvation, are questions which have greatly perplexed those who have spoken and written concerning them for the last three hundred years. In the earlier ages of the church persons were required to confess with the mouth their faith in Jesus Christ as the son of God prior to baptism, and the only question worthy of our consideration at present is whether or not this practice was authorized by inspired precept or example. Paul says: “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.” 2 Timothy 3:16-17. If the man of God is authorized to require the confession to be made by anyone, surely it is a good work; and if a good work, the Scriptures thoroughly furnish the man of God to it; i.e., they thoroughly furnish the man of God with all needful instructions concerning it. If he is not therein thoroughly furnished to it, then it follows that it is not a good work, and should be abandoned. It may be well, then, for us to examine the Divine Volume, and see whether or not it furnishes authority for such a practice. When the Ethiopian nobleman demanded baptism at the hands of Philip, the inspired teacher said: “If thou believes” with all thy heart thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.” Acts 8:37. That this was the proper confession is evident from the fact that it was satisfactory to the man of God, who thereupon proceeded at once to baptize him. And that it should be made after faith is evident from the fact that it would have been false had not the faith preceded it; and that it should be made before baptism is evident from the fact that it was demanded as a condition precedent to baptism. Here, then, we learn what is to be confessed: i.e., that “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God,” and that the time to make it is after faith and before baptism. While this verse is regarded as genuine, the question of authority for this confession is not debatable at all. Here is a plain, unmistakable precedent which we dare not ignore. Our practice must conform to it, or the passage must be removed from the Divine Volume. But we are told that the passage is spurious—an interpolation which constitutes no part of the inspired text. While our limits will not allow us to enter upon an extensive examination of the claims of this verse, nor have the means afforded us been such as to enable us to decide the matter, even to our own satisfaction, we are by no means satisfied that the proofs offered by those who would set it aside are conclusive. Indeed, we are not quite sure that there is, at this day, a possibility of knowing with certainty that it is spurious. This narrative (the Acts), like all the other books of the New Testament, was at first a separate manuscript, and was circulated by being copied by uninspired men. These copies were again copied, and copies of copies were copied, how far from the original we have no means of knowing. The first copy taken was in all probability imperfect, as it is very difficult to copy any thing without imperfections; and these imperfections must have increased, as the copies were more remote from the original, because each copy must contain the errors of the one from which it was taken, with the chance of incorporating others. As the only sure method of correcting these errors was to compare copies with the original, when it wore out, we see not how any further corrections could have been made. That the original manuscript, and all copies taken directly from it, have long since been worn out is next to certain. How, then, are the claims of the verse in question to be settled? Were it wanting in all the manuscripts of the first thousand years, and only found in such us are of modern date, this would be a circumstance well calculated to cast suspicion upon it; but Dr. Hacket tells us that this interpolation was known to Irenaeus as early as the year 170. Then it was bound to have been in copies taken at or before that period. It is fair to presume that the original and all the first copies were circulated among, and read, and handled by thousands of persons, and hence were most likely worn out before that time, so that we are not sure that even Irenaeus had the privilege of comparing such copies as he saw with the original, so as to be assured that it was spurious. Hence, unless Dr. Hacket would furnish us with the testimony upon which Irenaeus based his judgment, we can not accept it as conclusive. Tregelles tells us that this verse was inserted by Erasmus, as being supposed to have been incorrectly omitted in his manuscripts; and from his edition this and similar passages have been perpetuated, just as if they were undoubtedly genuine. Are we to understand by this that the interpolation began with Erasmus? If so, how could Irenaeus have known of it so early as A.D. 170, more than twelve hundred years before the time Erasmus lived? It occurs to us that those who would set aside this verse should harmonize their testimony, for when it is so plainly inconsistent we are inclined to reject it all. The circumstance which casts the darkest shade upon the purity of the verse is the fact that the most profound critics, whose opportunities have been best for examining the subject, and whose peculiar labors called them directly into its examination, have decided against it. Tregelles tells us that “no part of this verse is recognized in critical texts.” While the version of the New Testament put forth by the American Bible Union retains the verse, the translators have appended a foot-note, saying, “It is wanting in the best authorities.” As it was their object to give the English reader a pure version of the mind of the Spirit, we see not why they retained the verse at all, if satisfied that it was spurious. Anderson has excluded the verse from his version of the New Testament, and many other men of great research have pronounced it an interpolation; but, as far as we have been able to examine the grounds of their decision, we regard them as inconclusive; and we think that attacks upon a verse that has had a place in the Bible, according to the testimony of its opposers, since the year 170, more than seventeen hundred years, should be very cautiously made, lest, unfortunately, we shake the confidence of the uninformed in the whole Bible. Were this verse inconsistent with the sense of the context, we might give more credit to attacks upon its purity; on the contrary, as it is not only in harmony with the context, but indis- pensable to a completion of the sense, we insist that a presumption is created in its favor; and we wish to call attention to what we think is plain to the most ordinary reader, that there is evidently a blank in the narrative without the 37th verse. We quote from Anderson’s version of the New Testament, in which the verse is omitted: “And as they went along the road they came to some water, and the eunuch said: See, here is water; what hinders me from being immersed? And he commanded the chariot to stand still, and they both went down into the water, both Philip and the eunuch, and he immersed him.” Now, please observe that when they came to water the eunuch asked a question, saying, “See, here is water, what hinders me from being immersed?” and to this important question his inspired instructor makes no answer whatever! none!! He knew that Jesus, in the very commission which authorized the act about to be performed, said: “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved,” and when asked what hindered baptism he made no answer at all, but acting upon the presumption that the eunuch believed, proceeded to baptize him, without asking whether he believed or not. And, stranger still, the eunuch commanded the chariot to stand still, and got out of it, without knowing whether Philip would baptize him or not. Are we to believe that Philip said nothing in answer to the question? and yet the eunuch commanded the chariot to be still—that both got out of it and went down into the water in silence. Can any sane man believe it? Is there not a perceivable blank which the sense-requires to be filled with just such language as we find in the verse in question? We can not pursue the subject further, but dismiss it with the remark that the verse is fairly deducible from the connection, and it will require stronger proof than we have yet seen to shake our confidence in its purity. But whether it be real or spurious the confession can be justified by other scriptures, the authenticity of which will not be called in question by any believer in the inspiration of the Bible. Upon the banks of Jordan, in the presence of the multitude that waited on the ministry of John, God bore witness to the divine character and mission of His Son, saying: “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” Matthew 3:17. Upon the truth of the grand proposition that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, rests the salvation of the world, and in it are centered all the hopes which mortals can have that reach beyond the grave. It underlies the whole scheme of man’s redemption. For if He be not the Son of God, He was an impostor, the Bible is a fable, and no man was, is, or ever will be under obligations to believe in or obey Him. On the contrary, if this is true, His pretensions were real, His claims are just, and every man who professes to believe it puts himself under obligations to accept the terms he imposes. Hence, Jesus said: “Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven; but whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.” Matthew 10:33. Here He gives us plainly to know the importance of confessing Him [before men. But how did they confess Him? When the parents of the blind man, whose eyes were opened by Jesus, were questioned, they feared the people, for “the Jews had agreed already that if any man did confess that he was the Christ, he should be put out of the synagogue.” John 9:22. Then to confess Him was to confess that He was the Christ, and to deny Him was to deny that He was the Christ. Of course, some were making this confession, and others denying it, or the Jews would not have made such an agreement concerning those who did make it. These sayings among the people may have given rise to the question which Jesus asked His disciples, saying: “Whom do men say that 1, the Son of man, am?” Matthew 16:13. In answer to this question the disciples gave some of the opinions which the people expressed concerning Him, when He put the question directly to them, saying: “Whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered, and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. Matthew 16:15-16. Here the same grand truth is confessed by Peter; and Jesus assures him that on it His church is to be built: as much as to say, “All my claims upon the world rest upon this truth which you have now confessed, not because you have confessed it, but because it is true. You could not have known it, had not my Father, at my baptism, and at my transfiguration, and also through the mighty works I have done in His name, in your presence, revealed it to you. All who confess it put themselves under obligations thereby to accept the terms and obligations I impose, as much as if God, who sent me, did himself impose them; hence I will make this truth the foundation of my church.” By making this confession the party puts himself under the strongest possible obligations to observe all the ordinances emanating from Jesus as Head of the church built upon the truth confessed. Hence says John: “Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God.” 1 John 4:15. And again: “Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God.” 1 John 5:5. Having thus seen that this fact, which was attested by God and confessed by Peter, is the truth to be believed in order to overcome the world, and confessed in order that God may dwell in the party making it, it may be well to see how it is confessed. Paul says that “at the name of Jesus every knee shall bow of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.” Php 2:10-11. Again: “As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.” Romans 14:11. In these quotations two important facts are made apparent. First: The confession is to be made with the tongue. Second: God has determined that it shall be made, and, therefore, it can not be dispensed with or ignored by those who would honor His authority. But from the pen of the same apostle we have another lesson on this subject. He says: “If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thy heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved; for with the heart man believeth unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.” Romans 10:9-10. We here learn that the confession is not only to be made with the mouth, but it is a condition of salvation, and therefore precedes remission of sins. Mark well that Paul does not say “with a nod of the head confession is made unto salvation,” nor does he say that by visiting the sick, or other acts of obedience through life, confession is made—but it is made WITH THE MOUTH unto salvation; and while Paul is thus specific we dare not accept it made in any other way, provided, the subject has the use of the tongue with which to make it. Having learned that the confession with the mouth is a condition of and unto salvation, and therefore before it, and as Jesus says that “he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved” (Mark 16:16), it follows that confession precedes baptism. As the baptized believer is saved, there is no period between his baptism and his salvation in which to make the confession, and hence, as it is made before salvation, it is certainly made before baptism. As it is with the heart man believeth that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and with the mouth he confesses what the heart believes, it follows that the confession with the mouth is subsequent to faith or belief; hence, clearly the confession is located after faith and before baptism. As stated elsewhere, were a man to make the confession with the mouth before he believed with the heart, it would be a downright falsehood, for he would thereby say he believed what he did not believe. Now, if the reader will review the ground over which we have traveled, he will find that God has determined that man shall confess with the mouth his faith in Jesus Christ as being the Son of God before he is baptized, and by so doing he puts himself under obligation to observe all the laws emanating from Him as Head of the church built upon the truth he thus confesses. Paul’s account of Timothy’s confession is in perfect harmony with this view of the whole subject. We quote from Anderson’s version as follows: “Fight the good fight of faith; lay hold on eternal life to which you have been called, and for which you confessed the good confession before many witnesses.” 1 Timothy 6:12. Jesus proposed to confess such as confessed Him before men—Timothy made the good confession before many witnesses. Paul tells the Romans that confession is made unto salvation; and when we supply the antecedent to which the relative “which” refers in his account of Timothy’s confession, we find it reading thus: “For which, eternal life, you confessed the good confession.” Then Timothy made the confession unto salvation, or for eternal life, “whereunto he was called” by the gospel when Paul preached it to him. Surely this is plain enough. That the “good confession” made by Timothy consisted in confessing that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of God, is further shown by the fact that in the next verse Paul applies the very same words—”the good confession: —to the confession made by Jesus before Pontius Pilate. And though in the account given by Matthew of what He said in answer to Pilate, the words I am the Son of God are not found, yet we are assured by the testimony of His enemies that this was embraced in His confession. In derision they said: “If thou be the Son of God, come down from the cross.” And again: “He trusted in God, let him deliver him now, if he will have him: for he said, I am the Son of God.” Matthew 27:40-43. If this, then, was what Paul called the good confession when made by the Saviour, it is also what he called the good confession when made by Timothy, before many witnesses, for eternal life, whereunto he was called by the gospel which was preached to him. Kind reader, have you made this confession with your mouth to your salvation? If not, you may have to make it to your eternal condemnation, for we have seen that the decree has gone forth that every tongue shall confess that Jesus is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. But it is sometimes said that there was not time enough on the day of Pentecost, after Peter quit preaching, for three thousand to have made this confession before their baptism. Will the objector tell us how long it would have taken, on that occasion, for this same three thousand to have each told such an “experience” as HE requires previous to baptism? While it would have been possible for one speaker (and there were twelve present) to have propounded the question, “Do each one of you believe, with all the heart, that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God?” and the response, “I DO” to have come simultaneously from three thousand tongues in as little time as it could have been asked of and answered by a single person, it could not have been possible for such experiences as are now told to have been told in that way. They may all differ in the details, and must therefore be told, listened to, and decided upon separately. Say, then, how long would it have taken to hear three thousand of them in that way? We have seen the inexorable law that every tongue shall confess that Jesus is Lord, and that with the mouth confession is made unto salvation; hence the presentation of difficulties can not set aside the positive law as long as there remains a possibility that the law was obeyed. The objector must show that obedience to the law was impossible before we are at liberty to presume that it was not obeyed, and even then the impossibility might constitute an exception to the law, but not an abrogation of it. Were it profitable, we might entertain the reader with a feast of fat things sometimes narrated in those so-called experiences, but we forebear. We beg permission, however, to suggest a few plain questions for the reflection of our readers before leaving this branch of our subject: If the belief of the fact that Jesus is the Son of God is the faith that overcomes the world, will believing that He is the very and eternal God do the same thing? If this is what must be confessed with the mouth unto salvation, after faith and before baptism, and it is not made, will we get the salvation unto which it should have been made? If Timothy made this good confession for eternal life, may we dispense with it, and still get the eternal life for which he made it? If God has determined that every tongue shall confess that Jesus is Lord, to the glory of God the Father, and we fail to make it unto our salvation, will we not have to make it in the final day to our eternal condemnation? If Jesus has promised to confess before His Father such as confess Him before men, will He still confess us if we fail to confess Him? If God dwells in those who confess that Jesus is the Son of God, will He also dwell in those who do not confess this fact? Does not the language imply that He only dwells in such as make this confession? If this is what has to be confessed, will it be safe to substitute a narrative of our dreams, feelings, and imaginations in the shape of an experience instead of the confession required by the law of the Lord? And if these dreams, feelings, and imaginations constitute all the confession made prior to baptism, when do the parties confess that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, or that Jesus is Lord to the glory of God the Father, to their own salvation, and for eternal life, and which secures the dwelling of God in those who make it? But we have said that in-the earlier ages of the church persons were baptized upon a simple confession of their faith in Jesus Christ. Neander says: “At the beginning, when it was important that the church should rapidly extend itself, those who confessed their belief in Jesus as the Messiah (among the Jews ), or their belief in one God, and in Jesus as the Messiah (among the Gentiles), were immediately baptized, as appears from the New Testament. Gradually it came to be thought necessary that those who wished to be received into the Christian Church should be subjected to a more careful preparatory instruction, and a stricter examination.”—Neander’s History of the Church, vol. 1, p. 385. Thus we have the testimony of this distinguished historian that in primitive times all that was required was that the candidate should confess his faith in the fact that Jesus was the Messiah. How long before this scriptural confession was abandoned he does not tell us, but it was gradual. Hence, as far as his authority goes, it shows what the New Testament confession was, and certainly the church had no right to change it. Dr. Robinson says: “Among primitive Christians there was an uniform belief that Jesus was the Christ, and a perfect harmony of affection.”—Benedict’s History, vol. 1, p. 99. Again: “These churches were all composed of reputed believers, who had been baptized by immersion on the profession of their faith.”—Ibid, p. 8. Mosheim says: “Whoever acknowledged Christ as the Saviour of mankind, and made a solemn profession of his confidence in him, was immediately baptized and received into the church.”—Maclain’s Mosheim, First Century, p. 38. Part II, chap. 2, sec. 7. Again, p. 42, chap. iii, sec. 5, he says: “In the earliest times of the church all who professed firmly to believe that Jesus was the only Redeemer of the world, and who, in consequence of this profession, promised to live in a manner conformable to the purity of his holy religion, were immediately received among the disciples of Christ.” These quotations might be extended almost indefinitely, but the foregoing are deemed sufficient to show that in primitive times the only confession demanded was a belief in the fact that Jesus Christ was the Son of God. As this was the confession authorized of the Lord, and required by the apostles and primitive Christians, who is authorized to demand any thing else now? Can we improve upon the work of the Lord? Surely, it is more safe to keep within the boundary prescribed in the New Testament. Has a church the right to determine whether or not a sinner may obey the Lord? Surely not; yet this is just what is assumed. A man wishes to be baptized in obedience to the Lord, but the church must hear his experience, and determine whether or not it is genuine before they will permit him to be baptized. And they decide upon the value of his experience, not by its approximation to the divine models given in the New Testament, but by comparing it with their own; and if his feelings have been like theirs, he is accepted, otherwise he is rejected. Paul says: “We dare not make ourselves of the number, or compare ourselves with some that commend themselves; but they, measuring themselves by themselves, and comparing themselves among themselves, are not wise.” 2 Corinthians 10:12. Now, if these persons are not doing just the thing here pronounced unwise when comparing experiences, then we know not how they may do so. However much the man may desire to obey God, he can not be permitted to do so unless his experience is like that of each one who decides upon the merits of his. Who has the right to come between the sinner and his God and say he may or may not obey what God hath enjoined upon him? Surely, this is a most fearful responsibility. Nor is this the worst feature of the case; for however anxious a man may be to submit to baptism, and however anxious the administrator may be to wait upon him, he dare not do it until the church is convened to pass upon the merits of the experience. Was this the custom anciently? When the eunuch demanded baptism at the hands of Philip, the latter did not think of convening the church to hear and decide upon the experience of the candidate, but he said: “If thou believes” with all thy heart thou mayest;” and when the eunuch said, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God,” Philip proceeded at once to baptize him, without waiting to know what the church thought of it, or whether this was like theirs, yea or nay. It was what the Lord required, and this was enough for him. Nor is the church any less liable to be imposed upon by these experiences than by a simple confession of faith in Christ. If the man be insincere, he can just as easily fabricate a narrative of falsehoods suited to his purpose as he could falsely confess his faith in Jesus Christ. Is man capable of improving upon the plan instituted by the Lord? If so, why could he not devise a system of salvation without invoking the wisdom of heaven at all? And if we may introduce such an addition to the confession, where will such interpolations stop? If the word of God is perfect, let us come to it, and be satisfied with it.