05. Lecture III; The New Testament The Only Rule In Regard to the Institutions

LECTURE III. THE NEW TESTAMENT THE ONLY RULE IN REGARD TO THE POSITIVE INSTITUTIONS OF THE GOSPEL. The position under consideration is, That the Scriptures of the New Testament are the only rule to direct us in regard to the positive institutions of the Gospel; and of this position the first proof is, that the Old Dispensation is at an end. From the Old Dispensation, arguments have been drawn in support of the pontificate — the gradations of the hierarchy — the establishment and materials of national churches — the payment of tithes, — and, what is before us, the baptism or sprinkling of infants. But the Old Dispensation is at an end. Are we, then, to baptize or sprinkle our infants, because infants under the law were circumcised? In the business of life, the plea would be treated with scorn. Suppose an advocate, in pleading for his client, should seriously urge the customs and laws of a foreign country, or an act of parliament that had long ago been repealed, — what judge or jury would endure such impertinence? Should a person raise an action for recovering a debt, on a deed bearing legal evidence that the debt had been paid, and the deed cancelled, — what advocate would undertake the cause, or what court would for a moment listen to the pleader? Yet this is the very pith and strength of the arguments for baptizing or sprinkling infants. The whole rests on institutions that have been abrogated for nearly eighteen hundred years, or rather on inferences from these institutions. What at present we plead for, is, that the doctrine of Baptism must be learned, not from the institutions of the Old Economy, but from the Scriptures of the New Testament. As to inferences, their weight in the present question shall afterwards be considered. In the meantime, allow me to observe, that an inference from nothing amounts to nothing. Should I, without foundation, infer that I shall have an estate, — what would a sober man think of my state of mind, or of my prospects?

Hitherto, we have said that Pedo-baptism or sprinkling, can neither be founded on, nor inferred from the law of circumcision. The reason has been produced; the Old Economy, in general, and circumcision, in particular, are abrogated. This fact, however, viz., the termination of the Old Economy, will carry us farther. Though infants had been not only circumcised, hut baptized, under the abrogated dispensation, they could not, without a new law, be baptized under the Gospel Dispensation. A merchant gives a commission to his agent; if he withdraw that commission, his agent cannot act on the commission now withdrawn: farther agency, though by the same person, and in the same department, requires a new commission. The application is obvious; we are not subject to the law of an abrogated dispensation. I repeat, that we have but to transfer to the ordinary business of life, the arguments for infant baptism, and their futility will instantly appear.

Thus it appears that the old dispensation of the Covenant of Grace, in all its branches, is at an end. The existing dispensation is the Gospel; and it is from the record of that dispensation, the New Testament, that we must take our instructions respecting its positive institutions.

Besides, there is nothing taught in the Old Testament respecting baptism; the obvious consequence is, the truth of the position under consideration, that the Scriptures of the New Testament are the only rule to direct us as to this and other positive institutions of the Gospel dispensation.

2dly, The sacred writers call the Gospel dispensation a New Dispensation; Pedo-baptists take the opposite side: they would carry us back to the weak and beggarly elements of Judaism; some have argued in favor of national covenanting, connected with the identity of the Old and New Testament Churches; all in one way or another deny that the Gospel dispensation is new. The doctrine, therefore, must be proved.

We need not again be reminded that the covenant of grace is under every dispensation the same. We are to prove that the dispensation is new, and confine ourselves, to avoid unnecessary discussions, to its positive institutions. Isa 65:17, “For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered nor come into mind." Jer 31:31, “Behold the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah." 2Co 5:17, “Old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new." The preaching of John the Baptist and the Apostles is called "the beginning of the Gospel," Mark 1:1, &c.; again we read, 1Co 11:25, “After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the New Testament in my blood." Hence the writings of this dispensation are commonly and rightly termed the New Testament. What, then, is the duty of the inquirer? There are two Testaments before him; the one declared by God to be old and vanished away: the other new and everlasting. By which ought he to regulate his practice? The very existence of the Testament, entitled New by the Lord of our consciences, determines the matter. A master calls his servant from one work, and appoints him to perform another; a dutiful servant will act by the instructions last received. We are urged to carry the former state of things along with us. The Scriptures quoted teach us a very different doctrine. The era with which Mark begins his history, is the beginning of the Gospel. It is there, and not before, that we are to begin to learn the institutions of the Gospel. Without knowing, then, the contents of the Old Testament, or of the New, the titles Old and New suggest, as soon as observed, expectations directly the reverse of what is suggested in the arguments for sprinkling of infants." I expect to find changes in the dispensation, numerous and great; and what these changes are, can be learned only from the New Testament. One word more, and I conclude tills proof of our second position. If I find, as the inquirer certainly will, that in the New Testament the whole doctrine of Baptism is clearly revealed, I must act on this paramount evidence, although I feel the influence of inveterate, but groundless associations.

(All must admit that baptism is an ordinance of the new covenant, and surely nothing can be more evident than that the ordinances of the new covenant are intended only for the children of that covenant. Now, all the children of the new covenant, from the least to the greatest, know the Lord, and to such, so far as we can ascertain, is the ordinance of baptism to be confined. —Ed.) This feeling will gradually subside, light will gradually increase, every day I shall be more and more led to esteem all the precepts of my Lord concerning all things to be right, and to hate every false way. “If any man will do His will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God."

3dly, Christ exclusively is Lord of the New Dispensation. Acts 2:36, “God hath made him both Lord and Christ." Mat 28:18, “All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth." Mark 2:28, “The Son of man is Lord also of the Sabbath." In this relation, Christ is preferred to Moses. Deu 18:15, “The Lord thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto Him ye shall hearken. Ver. 18, I will raise them up a prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee (Moses), and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him. And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him." Mat 17:5, While he (Peter) spake to the Lord on the Mount of transfiguration, “Behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them; and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him." It will be recollected, that when this voice was heard, Moses and Elias were with Christ on the mount. There cannot be a doubt that the vision is recorded to call the attention of men from the servant to the Son, from Moses to Christ. Heb 2:5, “For unto the angels hath he not put in subjection the world to come, (the Gospel Dispensation of which we speak. — And Moses, verily, was faithful in all his house, as a servant, for a testimony of those things which were to be spoken after; but Christ as a Son over his own house." “Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus." The Lord is the ordinary title which the disciples give to their Master; and that we may not mistake their meaning, they frequently tell us, and in a great variety of language, that "he is Lord of all," Acts 10:36. From whom, then, are we to receive our instructions respecting the positive institutions of the Gospel Dispensation? The answer is plain; we must receive all our instructions from the Lord and Apostle of our profession, Christ Jesus. It is not to the purpose to say, that the whole Scriptures are dictated by the Spirit of Christ. Our duty is plain from Heb 1:1, “God, who at sundry times and in divers manners, spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by His Son." Him, therefore, we must hear.

4thly, The Apostles were exclusively commissioned to make known to the churches the commands of their King. Them he chose, them he qualified, them he commissioned to execute this trust. It was into their hands exclusively that he committed the keys of his kingdom. Mat 16:19, “And I will give unto thee (Peter and the other Apostles) the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." Mat 19:28, “And Jesus said unto them (the Apostles) verily, I say unto you, that when the Son of Man shall sit on the throne of his glory, (the ascension of Christ) ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel;" that is, Ye shall have the honor of publishing the laws, and introducing the ordinances of the dispensation of the Gospel. Luk 10:16, “He that heareth youheareth me: and he that despiseth you despiseth me; and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me." John 13:20, “He that receiveth whomsoever I send, receiveth me; and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me." The conclusion is obvious. Suppose that I find every thing concerning baptism plainly revealed by the Apostles; suppose that, through a groundless association of ideas, or ignorance of the relation of the Old and New Testaments, I cannot explain some things in the former Dispensation; ought I, or ought I not, to regulate my conduct by those whom Christ has chosen, qualified, commissioned, and sent to regulate it? You have anticipated the answer; but I repeat it in the words of the Apostle: 1Jn 4:6, “We (the Apostles) 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."

5thly, The Apostles were qualified and commissioned to explain the prophecies, types, and other mysteries of the Old Dispensation; and they declare, and have confirmed the truth of the declaration by miracles, that they have faithfully, and as far as the interests of the" Church required, completely executed this part of their commission. Men were miraculously qualified for explaining the mysteries of the Old Testament. 1Co 12:8, “For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit — to another prophecy." Members of churches used these gifts for the edification of the churches to which they severally belonged. The Apostles possessed these gifts in a super-eminent degree, and committed their revelations to writing, for the instruction of all the churches, in every age. Paul often speaks of this branch of his commission and work; for example, Eph 3:3-4, “If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward: how that by revelation He made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words,) whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ.’’ Repeating the same thing to the Colossians, he tells them, that he taught every man in all wisdom, Col 1:25-28. Of the execution of this part of his work, we have manifold examples. I name two or three: The antitype of Abraham’s two wives, Sarah and Hagar — the meaning and antitype of circumcision — the marvelous revelations in the Epistle to the Hebrews. The clearness with which they executed this work, both absolute and comparative, they not only exemplify, but likewise declare. Take one example: 2Co 3:12-15, “Seeing then that we have such hope, we use great plainness of speech; and not as Moses, which put a veil over his face, that the children of Israel could not steadfastly look to the end of that which is abolished: 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." And, after referring to the faithfulness with which he fulfilled the ministry committed to him, he adds, “But if our Gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost, in whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not."

Mark now the proof which these things afford of our position, that the Scriptures of the New Testament are the only rule of the doctrine of the positive institutions of the Gospel Dispensation. Such as prefer to be guided by the Old Testament, ask how the Apostles, accustomed to the circumcision of infants, would understand their commission if it had run in these words: Go and teach all nations, circumcising them. They would have us to look at the doctrine of the Apostles only through the medium of the law, or (as. they generally express it) to carry the former state of things along with us. The facts just produced will enable the inquirer to answer the question. The Apostles were never in their official capacity left to inference, or their own judgment. Whilst Christ was with them in the flesh, they baptized according to His instructions; and when He went to heaven, they delivered to the churches whatever, by the Holy Ghost, He was pleased to teach them. As to ourselves, we have their example, their doctrine, their expositions of the law, and, particularly, complete information respecting circumcision and baptism.

What is the conscientious inquirer now to do? Is he to judge by the mystery, or the explanation of the mystery? Is he to judge by the type, or the plain speech? Is he to examine the subject, by the meridian light, or the comparative darkness? Is he to look at the object through a veil, or with open face? If any man refuse to come to the light, if a man prefer the darkness before it, the Scriptures tell us the reason. The present subject illustrates this information. To darken the clear light of apostolical doctrine by clouds of groundless inferences, is not only preposterous, but sinful. The Apostles are the commissioned expositors of the law: they have executed their commission, as might be expected, from men enlightened and directed by the Holy Ghost. To neglect their teaching for unwarranted imaginations of our own, is highly presumptuous.

6thly, The Apostles declare, and by their miracles have proved the truth of their declaration, that they have executed their commission faithfully and completely. 1Co 4:1-2, “Let a man so account of us, as of the ministers of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God. Moreover it is required in stewards, that a man be found faithful." I am not conscious of any unfaithfulness, but he that judgeth me is the Lord. 2Co 3:6, “God hath made us able ministers of the New Testament." Acts 20:27, "I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God.’’ 1Ti 3:15, “These things write I unto thee, — that thou niayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God." Tit 1:5, “For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as / had appointed thee."

They command all their institutions to be observed on pain of separation. 2Th 2:15, "Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle." 1Co 11:1-2, “Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ. Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them unto you." On occasion of a particular order, 1Co 7:17, "And so ordain I in all churches." 1Co 4:17, “For this cause have I sent unto you Timotheus, who is my beloved son, and faithful in the Lord, who shall bring you into remembrance of my ways which be in Christ, as I teach every where in every church." 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." This language is plain and conclusive, but there is a fact which exceedingly heightens the evidence. The primitive churches were, in general, richly furnished with miraculous gifts. We learn from the last chapter of the first epistle, that the church at Thessalonica enjoyed this distinction. The church of Corinth had prophets, teachers, and other spiritual men — men, in possession of miraculous gifts, in great numbers, and of great distinction. Timothy and Titus were qualified and commissioned for extraordinary work, the work of evangelists. Yet it is not allowed to any, or to all who possessed miraculous gifts in any of the churches — it is not allowed to the evangelists themselves to increase, or diminish, or alter, in the smallest degree, any of the positive institutions of Christianity, as ordained by the Apostles. The consequence need hardly be mentioned. If it shall be found that the Apostles command us to baptize or sprinkle our infants, it is at our peril that we neglect to obey them. But if it shall be found that the Apostles have given no such instructions, I leave it to those who tremble at the word of the Lord, to judge of the temerity of the man who does, on the authority of some groundless imagination, what neither the prophets, evangelists, nor spiritual men of the primitive churches might presume to attempt. Our second position was, That the Scriptures of the New Testament are the only rule to direct us in the positive institutions of the Gospel Dispensation. In proof of this position, six reasons have been adduced. Each of them proves it, much more all of them taken together. Recollect that the Old Dispensation is come to an end, — that the sacred writers call the Gospel a new Dispensation, in distinction from the whole and every branch of the Old Dispensation — that Christ is Lord of the New Dispensation, — and that we are commanded to hear Him, in distinction from Moses and Elias — that the Apostles, exclusively, are commissioned to make known to the churches the laws of the kingdom of heaven, — that the Apostles were qualified and commissioned for the very purpose of explaining the Old Dispensation. Add to all this, that the Apostles have executed their commission faithfully and completely. They have put us in possession of the whole will of God respecting these institutions in general, and respecting baptism and all its parts, in particular. Take these things together, and the path of duty becomes plain. I must learn the institutions of the Gospel from the New Testament, and practice what I have thus learned. This position is still farther confirmed by some general considerations, which come to be stated before I take leave of it. 1st, Take the Old Testament altogether, from Genesis to Malachi, take the New Testament altogether, from Matthew to Revelation, then, let me ask, are we to regulate all the institutions of the latter, by all the institutions of the former, each by each; the elders, for example, of the New Testament by the priests of the Old — the materials of the churches, by the materials of the temple and tabernacle — the constitution of the churches of the one, by the constitution of the church of the other — baptism, by circumcision — the Lord’s-supper, by the passover — the discipline of the last, by the discipline of the first Dispensation, and so on? If we are answered in the affirmative, where, then, it must be asked, do we receive our instructions for this procedure? And why, if such instructions can be found, are they not, in all their extent, reduced to practice? Should it be said that it is not by the Old Testament taken together, but by some particular branch of the Old Dispensation, that the institutions of the New Testament are to be regulated, we must inquire which branch is to be preferred? Not the Mosaic branch, say some, because it is not of the fathers. The meaning of the text alluded to is mistaken. But waving the mistake, the cmestion returns, Which branch is to be preferred? There are three branches before the Mosaic. The first, from Adam to Noah; the second, from Noah to Abraham; the third, from Abraham to Moses. The motive for preferring the Abrahamic branch is obvious. Should we take the first branch, or the second, neither parents nor children were circumcised; and on the principles of Pedo-baptists, there would be no baptism either of parents or of their infants. Still, however, a reason must be asked for the preference, — and it must be farther asked,— Are all the institutions of the Gospel to be regulated by all the institutions of the Abrahamic covenant? If in one thing only the Gospel is to be ruled by that law, a reason must be assigned for this singularity. But, suppose all these difficulties surmounted, (which the inquirer will find to be impracticable) — suppose for a moment that circumcision is to regulate the administration of baptism, a new series of unanswerable questions immediately presents itself. Where is the law obliging us to regulate .baptism by circumcision? And, suppose the law produced — (which cannot be done) is the law of circumcision, in all its parts, or in one particular only, to regulate the ordinance of baptism? If, in one particular only, where is this law of peculiarity? If, in all its parts, why is not the principle acted on in all its extent? Why are not females excluded from baptism, as they were by the Abrahamic covenant from circumcision? Why is not the eighth day exclusively observed? Why are not servants baptized on the faith of their masters, and adults in a family on the faith of their parent? The fact is, that neither Papist, Episcopalian, Presbyterian, nor Pedo-baptist act on their own principles. Christianity has been corrupted on a false principle, and the principle is inconsistently defended for the sake of the consequences of the corruption. The candid inquirer, on reflecting on these things, can hardly fail to be satisfied, that had it not been for a groundless association of ideas, he would never have seriously listened to arguments for infant-baptism, founded on the laws of the Old Dispensation.

He will search the New Testament, and by what he finds there, will regulate his principles and practice, notwithstanding his inability to free himself at once and completely from the influence of long cherished prejudice.