04. Lecture II; Nature of the Evidence Required

LECTURE II.

NATURE OF THE EVIDENCE REQUIRED. The object of this Lecture is to ascertain the kind of evidence required in discussions on Baptism. Inattention to this has occasioned much unproductive labor. The candid inquirer will consult both his duty and comfort, by recollecting the truth and consequences of the following positions.

Position I. The Scriptures of truth are the only rule to direct us how, in this ordinance, as in every thing else, God is to be glorified and enjoyed.

These words are used partly because they express what is intended, and partly because they anticipate the objection from novelty. Minute attention to what God appoints is repeatedly enjoined both in the Old and in the New Testaments. Deu 4:2, “Now therefore hearken, O Israel, unto the statutes and unto the judgments which I teach you, for to do them: ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you." Isa 8:20, “To the Jaw and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them." 2Th 3:6, “Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us." 2Ti 1:13, “Hold fast the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus." 2Ti 3:16-17, “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, throughly furnished unto all good works." 1Jn 4:6, “We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us: he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error." But I need not multiply proofs. The truth of the doctrine is incontestable. Let us mark the consequence. Arguments for the baptism or sprinkling of infants, if drawn from any other source than the Scriptures, cannot bind the conscience. Of this description are arguments taken from the practice of Pedo-baptists, ancient or modern — arguments founded on the piety, learning, and numbers of such as baptize, or sprinkle infants — arguments founded on the writings of the Jewish Rabbins, and the alleged practice of the Jews in admitting their proselytes — arguments founded on the writings of the Fathers and Church historians —arguments founded on the authority of assemblies and councils — arguments founded on the supposed congruity and utility of baptizing or sprinkling infants. The inquirer, on reflection, must refer to the same class, all arguments which he finds he does not understand.

All the evidence in these circumstances resolves itself into a regard to human authority. To all these and similar arguments the candid inquirer will reply: The Scriptures alone must determine my faith; if I find that in the Scriptures I am directed to baptize or sprinkle my infants, they must be baptized or sprinkled accordingly, whatever the contrary practice may have been, how long soever it may have existed, and how extensively soever it may have preveiled — whatever be the piety, learning, or numbers of its opponents — whatever be the doctrine of Jewish Rabbins or Christian Fathers — whatever be the pretences of congruity or utility; or whatever opinion I may entertain of the learning of the advocates of the opposite practice. On the contrary, if I find no instructions in the Scriptures either to baptize or sprinkle infants, I can neither immerse nor sprinkle them (be the practices and opinions of men what they may) without violating my allegiance to the God of the Scriptures, and contracting the guilt of willworship.

I repeat the conclusion: if a man have ability and inclination to study the writings of the Jews, the Fathers, and Church historians; if he wishes to know the history of Baptism, and of Councils, he may indulge his curiosity; but his conscience must be directed by the Bible alone.

Position II. The Scriptures of the New Testament are the only rule to direct us as to the positive institutions of the Gospel Dispensation.

First, we must prove the truth of the position, and then mark its bearings on the subject before us.

Before, however, we adduce the proof, allow me, in order to secure attention to it, to premise one of the designs of provinga position so obviously true. From our earliest years, we have been accustomed to associate the ideas of the Lord’s-supper and the passover, of circumcision and baptism, of Abraham and his posterity with parents and their children; with what propriety or impropriety, we shall afterwards inquire. It is a fact, that such an association of ideas generally exists. In some of us, it has grown with our growth, and strengthened with our strength. Certain teachers have not failed to aveil themselves of the prejudice. By it, they have led us to visionary speculations respecting the covenants with Noah, Abraham, and Moses. Their object is frequently gained. Men who are not indisposed to be misled, easily find an excuse for gratifying their wishes. Honest inquirers, perplexed and confused by the general practice, and distrustful of their own judgments, hesitate to practise what they know, and perhaps altogether abandon their inquiries after truth. To the first of these classes, I have at present nothing to say. To the second, all attention is due. Their duty is plain. Having learned from the New Testament the mind of the Lord, let them act on their convictions, though they may feel the influence of early prejudices, and though there be still many things in the Old Dispensation which they are not able fully to explain.

I proceed to prove, that if any, through prejudice, should imagine that the doctrines of the New Testament are inconsistent with the institutions of the Old, then the obscure passages in the Old Testament must be explained by the clear passages in the New. I am not to darken my views of the New Testament by looking at it only through the veil of the Old.*

Observe, first, that the Old Dispensation is come to an end, and all its positive institutions, i.e. its ceremonial observances, are abrogated. Before we produce the proof of this assertion, the doctrine must be distinctly stated. It will be of considerable advantage to the inquirer fully to understand it. Mistake or misrepresentation here has given a degree of plausibility to arguments, the fallacy of which would otherwise have been obvious. First, then, let it be noticed, that the plan of redemption, or the covenant of grace, as it is commonly called, is always the same. It admits of no change. It is the same under the New Dispensation that it was under the Old.

Men have always been saved in the same way, whether under the Christian economy, or under the Mosaic, Abrahamic, or more ancient branches of the Old Dispensation.

Let it also be noticed that there are two distinct dispensations, and but two: The Old Testament, and the New Testament; or, as they are generally denominated, the Law and the Gospel. The Old Dispensation had four branches; the first, reaching from Adam to Noah, — the second, from Noah to Abraham — the third, from Abraham to Moses, — the fourth, from Moses to Christ. These four branches are distinct, but the dispensation is one, viz. the Law, or Old Testament. Let it be noticed, thirdly, that the positive institutions flowed down, and increased, until they all met, and were absorbed in the Mosaical branch of that dispensation. Thus from Adam to Noah we find sacrifices, but no other positive institutions. Sacrifices are carried forward into the branch under Noah; the prohibition of blood is added, perhaps the payment of tithes, and the distinction of animals into clean and unclean.

These are carried forward into the branch from Abraham, and circumcision is added. All these together are carried forward into the branch from Moses to Christ. The ceremonial was then completed, and remained in force until it was fulfilled and abolished by Christ. Thus the Savior, speaking of circumcision, says, “Moses therefore gave unto you circumcision, (not because it is of Moses, but of the fathers;) and ye on the sabbath day circumcise a man. If a man on the sabbath day receive circumcision, that the law of Moses should not be broken; are ye angry at me, because I have made a man every whit whole on the sabbath day?" John 7:22-23. Observe, that it was given by Moses, and belonged to his law; but that it was not originally of Moses, being introduced into his law from the branch of the dispensation under the patriarchs. Let it be noticed farther, that the characters of the Old and New Dispensations of the covenant of grace are different. The Old is prophecy; the New is fulfillment. Mat 11:13, “For all the prophets and the law prophesied unto John" Christ came to fulfill these prophecies. Mat 5:17; “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill." The Old Dispensation is the painting, the shadow, the type. The New is the original, the substance, the antitype. John 1:17, “The law was given by Moses; but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ." Truth is opposed not only to falsehood, but to type and shadow. (Dan 7:19; John 4:24) The Old Dispensation is promise; the New is performance. 2Co 1:20, “For all the promises of God in him are yea, and in Him amen, unto the glory of God by us." The contrast is noted in many other ways in the Scriptures: the letter and the spirit, the servant and the son, and the like. Hence, the type and the antitype are often described in the same words. “David" is used to signify both the son of Jesse, and David’s son and Lord. God is the God of Abraham, and of his seed, both in a typical and antitypical sense. The apostle reasons from the type to the antitype. “Abraham had two sons," &c, Gal 4:22-31.

Carrying these things along with us, we proceed to prove the assertion that the Old Dispensation, in all its branches, is at an end, and all its positive institutions abrogated. This the judaizing teachers denied; they taught that men must be circumcised, and keep the law of Moses. Many in our own time teach things of the same kind. As to the doctrine of Baptism, they say, that, excepting the mode of administration, baptism is circumcision, and circumcision baptism; and that unless a law of repeal te produced, we must baptize according to the law of circumcision. The law of repeal I am now to produce. The Lord by Jer 31:31 — He promises to make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah; and the apostle, after quoting the passage, says, — “In that he says, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old, is ready to vanish away," Heb 8:13. Surely that which has vanished away is repealed, and the repeal of the covenant implies the repeal of all its ordinances. Again the apostle, after quoting Hag 2:6, says; — “Whose voice then shook the earth: but now he hath promised, saying, Yet once more I shake not the earth only, but also heaven. And this word, Yet once more, signifieth the removing of those things that are shaken, as of things that are made, that those things which cannot be shaken may remain," Heb 12:26-27. Here we are expressly taught that the things that were shaken were removed, evidently referring to the positive observances of the Old Dispensation, — among which circumcision was one, John 7:23; while the great principle of love, which is the end of the law, must for ever remain. He then proceeds to glory in the stability of the New Dispensation. “Wherefore we, receiving a kingdom which cannot be moved, let us have grace," &c. Again he says, — “If that which was done away was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious," and represents Israel as unable to look to the end of that which is abolished, 2Co 3:11 — 13. In these, and many other passages, we are explicitly taught that the Old Dispensation, with all its rites and ordinances, is at an end, and consequently, it is unlawful for us to observe any of the positive institutions of this abrogated dispensation.

Accordingly, a great part of the New Testament is employed, in opposition to the judaizing teachers, in asserting the liberty of Christians from the laws of the Old Dispensation. The writing of the Old Dispensation is called the Old Testament, — the law and the prophets, — and particularly Moses; because the Mosaic branch of the Old Dispensation included the three preceding branches. This writing begins with Genesis, and ends with Malachi, and comprehends all the branches of the first dispensation. 2Co 3:14-15, — “But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same veil untaken away in the reading of the Old Testament; which veil is done away in Christ. But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the veil is upon their heart."

Notwithstanding all this, it is urged that we are still more or less bound by the law of circumcision; though the form be altered, it is said “the substance, the spirit of circumcision — the thing itself, is binding; at least so far as the subjects of baptism are concerned." But, it is answered, the whole consists of all the parts; and if the whole be abolished, every part must be abolished. This pertinacity, however, obliges me to refer to one example of the many scriptures which declare, that circumcision, in particular, is abrogated. Gal 5:3, “Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing. For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law. Christ is become of no effect unto you." Here the apostle expressly declares, that the law of circumcision is abrogated. Circumcision is abolished, — not the name merely, not the dress merely, — but circumcision itself is abolished.

It is not sprinkling with water, instead of the effusion of blood; not the form of administration that is altered, but circumcision itself is abolished. (The reader is referred to Acts 15:24-29; Gal 4:9; Gal 5:2-6; Gal 6:12-15; Php 3:3; Col 2:11.)