========================================================================
  GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION (TW BRENTS)
  by T.W. Brents
========================================================================

A systematic study of the biblical plan of salvation, examining the key
questions asked in Acts: 'What shall we do?' and 'What must I do to be saved?'
Brents carefully expounds the scriptural steps of faith, repentance, and
obedience from the New Testament.

  Chapters: 17

------------------------------------------------------------------------
  TABLE OF CONTENTS
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1. GPS-00.1-Preface and Contents
    2. GPS-01-Predestination
    3. GPS-02-Election and Reprobation
    4. GPS-03-Calvinistic Proofs Examined
    5. GPS-04-The Foreknowledge of God
    6. GPS-05-Hereditary Depravity
    7. GPS-06-The Establishment of the Church
    8. GPS-07-The Identity of the Church
    9. GPS-08-The New Birth
   10. GPS-09-Faith
   11. GPS-10-Repentance
   12. GPS-11-The Confession
   13. GPS-12-Baptism
   14. GPS-13-Who Should Be Baptized
   15. GPS-14-The Design of Baptism
   16. GPS-15-The Holy Spirit
   17. GPS-16-Testimonials

========================================================================
  CHAPTER 1: GPS-00.1-PREFACE AND CONTENTS
========================================================================

THE

GOSPEL PLAN OF

SALVATION BY

T. W. BRENTS.

“Men and brethren, what shall we do?”—Acts 2:37.

“Lord, what wilt thou have me to do?”—Acts 9:6.

“Sirs, what must I do to be saved?”—Acts 16:30.

PREFACE

A wise man has said, “Of making many books there is no end; and much study is a
weariness of the flesh.” Why, then, should we and another to the “many books”
already before the public? It has now been all of fifteen years since we
conceived the plan, and began the preparation of this work, only bestowing upon
it, however, such fragments of time as we could spare from other labors.
Sometimes we rested a month, sometimes a year, feeling by no means sure that we
would ever finish the work, but intending to do so if permitted to live until
our head become sufficiently gray. Some portions were occasionally given to the
public as contributions to the Gos­pel Advocate and in tracts, in the hope that
they might accomplish some good, if the entire work should never be published. A
very general de­mand for the completion and publication of the book soon came
from those who read the portions published; but we have deemed it prudent to
“has­ten leisurely” lest we might prematurely publish something of which we
would be ashamed in maturer years. When we passed our fiftieth year we engaged
the services of the publisher, and now, on our fifty-first anniver­sary
birthday, we are writing a preface, and yet we are not quite sure that we are
old enough to publish a book on a theme so transcendently impor­tant as the
“Gospel Plan of Salvation.” Our highest ambition is to honor the name of our
Master, and direct sinners to the way of life; hence we would not, for any
earthly consideration, publish a sentence known to be untrue. We wish our book
to live when we shall be sleeping the years away. Yes, and live it will. This is
the frightful thought. LIVE IT WILL. A mistake from the pulpit may soon be
forgotten—should we make a mis­take in an article furnished a paper or
periodical, it may be lost or worn out, and soon pass away; but a book will live
on, when he who wrote it lives only in the work left behind him. How important
it is, then, that every thought penned concerning THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION
should be tried “as by fire” that not a single error should escape the refining
cruci­ble of Holy Writ, and make its way into the permanent literature of the
age Had this responsibility been rightly appreciated, surely many of the books
now on the market would never have met the public eye. But there is another side
to the picture. While it is unquestionably true that much mischief has been done
by the publication of error, it is equally true that much good has been done,
and may yet be done, by pub­lishing the truth. Ceasing to publish truth will
never arrest the publication of error It will continue to be published as long
as man lives in a tene­ment of clay; hence the best that may be done is the
publication of truth with which, in some degree, to counteract its influence.
But for this the world would have been to-day overwhelmed in the stygian waters
of infi­delity and idolatry; hence we would not erase a single impression made
by any truth ever given to man by any who has written before us. It is no part
of our object to supersede any work that has appeared among us; rather would we
be an humble co-worker with all lovers of truth in point­ing sinners to the
“Lamb of God who taketh away the sin of the world.” Every writer has a taste and
a style as peculiarly his own as are his features or his temperament; hence no
two are likely to select exactly the same field of labor, or adopt the same
method of arranging the material used by each respectively. While others have
written upon some, perhaps all, the subjects treated in this work, we are not
aware of any single book filling the place which this is designed to occupy.
While it is directly ad­dressed to the alien, we hope it will aid the young
disciple in obtaining a more extensive knowledge of the “form of doctrine” by
which he was made free from sin: especially will young preachers find it a
valuable compendia of argument and critical authority in elucidation of many
subjects which they will find it necessary to examine. They will here find an
amount of author­ity which would cost them much labor and money were they
compelled to get it from the original authors quoted by us. Many of the works
are out of print, so that only second-hand copies can be had at all, and these
only by importation at fabulous cost. We found it necessary to pay ten,
fif­teen, and even as high as twenty-five dollars for works from which to
ob­tain the author’s definition of a single word, which will be found in this
work. Many of these authors define in Latin which could not be read by the
common English scholar if he had them; here he will find only the English
translation of the author’s Latin, which all can read and easily understand. We
have made no effort at elegance of style, seeking rather to clearly and forcibly
express as much truth as possible in the space occupied. We dare not hope that
every thought is expressed in the best possible manner; but he who reads to be
benefited will likely understand us, and for such readers only were our labors
intended. If we have not spoken as the ora­cles of God speak, then prove all
things, and hold fast that which is good. By the word of God we are ever willing
that our teaching may be tried. It alone can build us up and give us an
inheritance among them who are sanctified; hence to it we commend our readers in
the fear of Him who will judge us all according to our works. T. W. BRENTS.
RICHMOND, TENN., February 10, 1874.

CONTENTS CHAPTER 1 Predestination CHAPTER II. Election and Reprobation CHAPTER
III. Calvinistic Proofs Examined CHAPTER IV. Foreknowledge of God CHAPTER V.
Hereditary Depravity CHAPTER VI. The Establishment of the Church CHAPTER VII.
The Identity of the Church CHAPTER VIII. The New Birth CHAPTER IX. Faith CHAPTER
X. Repentance CHAPTER XI. The Confession CHAPTER XII. Baptism, what is it?

CHAPTER XIII. Who should be baptized?

CHAPTER XIV. The Design of Baptism CHAPTER XV. The Holy Spirit


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 2: GPS-01-PREDESTINATION
========================================================================

THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION

CHAPTER 1.

PREDESTINATION.

Are you “aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and stran­gers from the
covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world?” If so, we
propose to assist you in arriving at a knowledge of your duty, in order that you
may become citi­zens of God’s government on the earth—children of God’s family
—members of Christ’s body, the Church—that you may escape the punishment of the
damned, and secure for yourselves the favor of God and the bliss of heaven. But
while our primary ob­ject is to benefit the alien, it is hoped that a careful
reading of our book will be interesting and profitable to the babes in Christ.
They should not regard themselves as fully grown at birth, and therefore cease
their investigations; but they should desire and feed upon the sincere milk of
the Word, that they may grow to the stature of men and women fully grown in the
kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ. Knowledge is one of the adjuncts of faith:
“Besides this, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue; and to virtue,
knowledge.”2 Peter 1:5. “Wherefore I will not be negligent to put you always in
remembrance of these things, though ye know them, and be established in the
truth. Yea, I Think it meet, as long as I am in this tabernacle, to stir you up
by putting you in remembrance; knowing that shortly I must put off this my
tabernacle.” Vers. 12, 13. But before we proceed to look for the conditions upon
which aliens may secure the favor of our Heavenly Father, it may be well to
inquire whether or not there is any thing they can do that will be conducive to
this end. There are prominent doc­trines taught by those for whose learning and
piety we have the most profound respect, which; if true, render it wholly
unneces­sary, it seems to us, to spend time or labor in instructing the sin­ner
with regard to his duty either to God or man. That we may place these doctrines
properly before the mind of the reader, without any reasonable probability of
misrepre­senting them, we beg permission to make a few quotations from the
fountain whence they flow. “God, from all eternity, did, by the most wise and
holy coun­sel of his own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes
to pass.” Presbyterian Confession of Faith, chap. iii, sec. 1. To the same
import we have the answer to Question 12 (Larger Catechism), as follows: “God’s
decrees are the wise, free, and holy acts of the counsel of his will, whereby,
from all eternity, he has, for his own glory, unchangeably fore-ordained
whatsoever comes to pass, especially concerning angels and men. Now, if the
doctrine here set forth is true, we think it impos­sible for man to err.
Whatever he does, is in keeping with and brought about by God’s fore-ordination
or decree, and therefore can not be wrong. If he does any thing—it matters not
what— whether good or bad—if God has ordained every thing, He has ordained that
thing. If it comes to pass that a man lies, God has not only ordained that he
should lie, but He has unchangeably ordained it. If it comes to pass that a man
steals, God has un­changeably ordained that, too. If it comes to pass that a man
kills his neighbor, God has unchangeably ordained that, also. It did come to
pass that Cain killed his brother: why, then, did God put a curse upon him for
it? It was not only in accordance with the most wise and holy counsel of His
will, but He had freely and unchangeably ordained that Cain should do the very
thing for which He cursed him!!! Can any sane man believe it? God has said:
“Thou shalt not kill. Thou shalt not commit adul­tery. Thou shalt not steal.
Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.” Exodus 20:13-16. As God
has thus plainly forbidden things which do come to pass, it can not be true that
He has unchangeably ordained them. That God should un­changeably ordain that a
certain thing should come to pass, and at the same time positively forbid it, is
an inconsistency entirely incompatible with His divine character, especially
when we add to it the thought that He threatens the guilty with endless
pun­ishment. Surely He, whose laws ever bear the impress of that infinite
justice, goodness, love and mercy which characterize their Author, would not
punish His dependent creature man in the rude flames of an angry hell forever
for doing that which He had unchangeably ordained that he should do: “The Lord
is good to all: and his tender mercies are over all his works.” Psalms 145:9.
“The Lord is righteous in all his ways, and holy in all his works.” Ver. 17.
Therefore when the murderer stains his hands in the blood of his fellow, he can
not take shelter under the doctrine of the creed by saying that God, in
ordaining every thing that comes to pass, ordained that he should kill his
neigh­bor, and thereby avoid the responsibility of the act and the pun­ishment
due his crime. It is true that the makers of the creed disclaim the consequences
of the doctrine, saying, “Yet so as thereby neither is God the author of sin;”
but they have failed to show us how His character may be vindicated from such a
charge in harmony with such a doctrine; and we are unable to see how God is not
the author of what He has unchangeably or­dained should come to pass. If He has
unchangeably ordained every thing that comes to pass, then how can man change
God’s unchangeable ordinance? and if he can not change it, surely no blame can
attach to him for any thing he does. If God un­changeably ordained that a
certain man, on a certain day, should do a certain thing, then there is no power
left to man not to do the thing; for were he to avoid doing it, he would have
changed God’s unchangeable decree, and therefore had more power to change than
God had to enforce. Is any one prepared to assume such a POSITION as this? The
reader will please note the extent of the doctrine in controversy. It is not
that God has from all eternity ordained, but that he has unchangeably ordained;
not some things, but whatsoever cometh to pass—every thing. Surely, the
ordinances or decrees of God are broken every day. He has ordained that men
shall not kill, yet they do kill. He has ordained that they shall not steal, yet
they do steal. He has or­dained that they shall not bear false witness, yet they
swear falsely every day. God compels no man to keep His ordinances, but He will
visit upon him merited punishment if he does not keep them. Paul tells us that
“the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the
power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to
themselves damnation.” Romans 13:1-2. Mow can any one successfully re­sist that
which God has unchangeably ordained? God said, “Yet forty days, and Nineveh
shall be overthrown.” Jonah 3:4. Here was a positive decree or ordinance of God
that did not come to pass, for “God saw their works, that they turned from their
evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto
them; and he did it not.” Ver. 10. Was not this decree changeable? God said to
Hezekiah, “Set thy house in order; for thou shalt die, and not live.” 2 Kings
20:1. Here was another positive ordinance which was changeable, for Hezekiah
turned his face to the wall and prayed, after which God said to him: “I have
heard thy prayer, I have seen thy tears; behold, I will heal thee: on the third
day thou shalt go up unto the house of the Lord, and I will add unto thy days
fif­teen years.” Vers. 5, 6. Here was a decree concerning Heze­kiah’s death,
which was changed, and his life prolonged fifteen years, and the change induced
by his prayers and tears. When David was at Keilah, he inquired of the Lord,
saying: “Will Saul come down as thy servant hath heard? O Lord God of Israel, I
beseech thee, tell thy servant. And the Lord said, He will come down. Then said
David, Will the men of Keilah deliver me and my men into the hand of Saul? And
the Lord said, They will deliver thee up. Then David and his men, which were
about six hundred, arose and departed out of Keilah, and went whithersoever they
could go. And it was told Saul that David was escaped from Keilah; and he
forbare to go forth.” 1 Samuel 23:11-13. When David left Keilah, Saul turned his
pursuit in the direction of David’s flight, and did not go to Kei­lah at all.
Had God decreed, from all eternity, whatsoever comes to pass, it occurs to us
that He would have answered David differently; perhaps something after the
following style: “No, David, Saul will not come to Keilah, nor will the men of
Keilah deliver you into his hands, for I have unchangeably or­dained that you
shall leave Keilah, and Saul will turn his pursuit in the direction to which you
go.” This was what did come to pass, and certainly God did not tell David what
he had fore­ordained to be untrue. Had David remained at Keilah, Saul would have
gone there; hence circumstances, and not immutable decrees, controlled this
event, even as they do most others. Other examples might be given, but these are
enough to show that God has issued decrees that never have come to pass, nor
never will come to pass. Now, if it is true that God fore­ordained every thing
that comes to pass, then it follows that He fore-ordained the reformation of the
Ninevites, the prayers of Hezekiah, and the flight of David from Keilah; hence
when He said, “Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown,” He had
fore-ordained, before time began, that it should not be over­thrown. When He
told Hezekiah to set his house in order, for he should die and not live, He had
fore-ordained that he should live fifteen years longer. And when He told David
that Saul would come to Keilah, and that the men of Keilah would deliver him and
his men to Saul, was it not telling him that events should happen which He had
unchangeably ordained to be oth­erwise? How such a theory is to be harmonized
with the word of the Lord, we know not. By the mouth of his prophet, the Lord
said (Jeremiah 18:7-10): “At what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and
concern­ing a kingdom, to pluck up, and to pull down, and to destroy it; if that
nation, against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of
the evil that I thought to do unto them. And at what instant I shall speak
concerning a nation, and con­cerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it; if it
do evil in my sight, that it obey not my voice, then I will repent of the good,
wherewith I said I would benefit them.” Here we see the same law obtains as to
nations that we have seen applied to cities and individuals. If they, having
done evil, turn from the evil, then the Lord proposes to turn from the evil
which He purposes doing to them; on the contrary, if they persist in
disobedience, they will suffer the consequences, even to extermination. Hence
circumstances have ever varied God’s dealings with men. Again: “God saw that the
wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the
thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And it repented the Lord that
he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.” Genesis 6:5-6.
Now, if the Lord fore-ordained every thing that comes to pass, He fore-ordained
every thing the antediluvians did: why, then, should He grieve over their
wickedness, when every act was but the consummation of His own immutable and
eternal decree? Really, it would seem like God grieving over His own folly. The
Lord said that the children of Judah had “built again the high places of Tophet,
which is in the valley of the son of Hin­nom, to burn their sons and their
daughters in the fire; which I Commanded them not, neither came it into my
heart.” Jeremiah 7:31. “They have built also the high places of Baal, to burn
their sons with fire for burnt offerings unto Baal, which I Com­manded not, nor
spake it, neither came it into my mind.” Jeremiah 19:5. If God fore-ordained
every thing, He fore-ordained these things, for they came to pass; yet He says
He did not command them, nor speak them, neither came they into His mind. Will
the advocates of the doctrine please to enlighten the world as to how God
fore-ordained things which never entered His mind? But we will not press the
argument further. If the doctrine be true, the whole theory of sin,
accountability, rewards, and pun­ishments, in harmony with justice and mercy, is
to us utterly in­comprehensible. Every act of man is but carrying out the
immut­able purposes of Jehovah; and when He gives a man a law, He does it
expressly that he may violate it, so as to furnish a pretext for the punishment
previously ordained for him. Take the sin of Adam as an example: God made him
and placed him under law. It came to pass that he violated this law. He ate of
the fruit whereof God commanded him not to eat. If God fore-ordained whatsoever
comes to pass, then of course He fore-ordained that he should eat. Hence Adam
was in a strait between the law and the unchangeable ordination or decree. It
came to pass that he eat; therefore God ordained that he should eat. The law
said he should not eat. One or the other must be broken. He must eat and violate
the law; or not eat, and change God’s unchangeable decree. This was impossible:
hence to eat and violate the law was a necessity; and yet God would punish him
for it!! Surely, such a theory is at war with the Bible—with all reason and
com­mon sense—as well as a reproach upon the character of our Heavenly Father.
But able and learned men have taught it, good and true men believe it; therefore
we must treat it respectfully, yet examine it fairly, patiently, and thoroughly.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 3: GPS-02-ELECTION AND REPROBATION
========================================================================

CHAPTER II.

ELECTION AND REPROBATION.

We come now to examine the subject of unconditional elec­tion and reprobation;
and that we may see the doctrine in its purity, we beg permission to quote again
from the creed: “By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some
men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life, and others fore­ordained
to everlasting death. These angels and men thus pre­destinated and fore-ordained
are particularly and unchangeably designed, and their number is so certain and
definite that it can not be either increased or diminished. Those of mankind
that are predestinated unto life, God, before the foundation of the world was
laid, according to His eternal and immutable purpose and the secret counsel and
good pleasure of His will, hath chosen in Christ, unto everlasting glory, out of
His mere free grace and love, without any foresight of faith or good works or
persever­ance in either of them, or any other thing in the creature, as
con­ditions or causes moving him “hereunto.” Confession of Faith, chap. 3, sees.
3, 4, 5. It is quite easy to see that the doctrine of unconditional elec­tion
and reprobation is true if the doctrine of unchangeable fore-ordination obtains
as to every thing that comes to pass, un­less we find relief in the more ample
folds of Universalism. If God has unchangeably fore-ordained whatsoever comes to
pass, then of course He has fore-ordained just who shall be saved, and who, if
any, shall be lost; and if He has unchangeably fixed the destiny of every man
before time began without any conditions whatever, then Calvinism or
Universalism must be true. But we think we have seen that God did not so ordain
every thing, and hence this doctrine can not support either of the others. If
ei­ther stands at all, it must be proved by other testimony. For the present,
then, we propose to inquire whether or not God has un­conditionally and
unchangeably fixed the destiny of a definite number of two classes—the elect and
the reprobate. And first, we remark that the words elect, elected, election,
reprobate’ and reprobates, are Bible terms; hence there must be a Bible doctrine
concerning them. Elect means to choose; hence the elect of God are God’s chosen.
God has elected persons, families, nations, and bodies or organizations in
different ages of the world, for the benefit of his creatures, but the final
salvation and happiness of the elected were by no means secured by their
election. On the contrary, God’s elect have to “work out their own salvation
with fear and trembling.” Php 2:12. Hence in very many instances they have
sinned and fallen far from the favor of God, and often forfeited the positions
to which they were elected. But to comprehend the whole subject we must in­quire
who were elected and for what purposes; then we may be able to see what effect,
if any, their election had upon their final destiny. “Behold my servant, whom I
uphold; mine elect, in whom my soul delighteth; I have put my Spirit upon him;
he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles; he shall not cry nor lift up, nor
cause his voice to be heard in the street. A bruised reed shall he not break,
and the smoking flax shall he not quench: he shall bring forth judgment unto
truth.” Isaiah 42:1-3. That the servant of God here called His elect was Jesus
the Christ may be seen by reference to Matthew 12:17-21, where this prophecy is
quoted by Jesus as fulfilled in himself. Surely, it will be admitted that Jesus
was not elected to secure His own salvation, but to be the Saviour of men.
“Wherefore also it is contained in Scripture, Behold I lay in Zion a chief
corner-stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be
confounded.” 1 Peter 2:6. Here Jesus is represented as the elect corner-stone of
the church, on whom others believe to their salvation. But we are more concerned
in examining the election of men, as individuals, col­lective bodies, and
nations. Abraham was elected of God to be the father of the faithful, in whose
seed all families of the earth were to be blessed in Jesus Christ. Galatians
3:16. But as Abraham had more sons than one, it was necessary that an election
take place in his family, for Ishmael and Isaac could not both be the father of
the family from which Jesus the promised seed should come; hence God said, “In
Isaac shall thy seed be called.” Genesis 21:12; Romans 9:7. Isaac had two sons,
Esau and Jacob, both of whom could not be the father of the royal family; hence
God said, “Thou, Israel, art my servant, Jacob whom I have chosen, the seed of
Abraham my friend.” Isaiah 41:8. Jacob had twelve sons; Judah was elected. And
so election has been a necessity all the way from Abraham to Jesus the promised
seed—not to benefit the elected exclusively, -but to benefit the world through
them. When God determined to deliver the children of Israel from Egyptian
bondage, He elected Moses for their leader and law­giver: “Therefore he said
that he would destroy them, had not Moses his chosen stood before him.” Psalms
106:23. But Aaron was elected as speaker for Moses; hence “He sent Moses his
servant and Aaron whom he had chosen.”Psalms 105:26. Notwithstanding Moses and
Aaron were elected—chosen of God to conduct the Hebrews from Egypt to Canaan, a
type of the final home of the righteous; and Moses was the Jewish lawgiver, in
this respect a type of Christ our lawgiver; and Aaron was anointed high priest,
in this respect a type of Christ our High Priest; and he was per­mitted to enter
the most holy place, which was typical of heaven, where Jesus our High Priest
hath for us entered—yet they both sinned, and incurred the displeasure of God,
in conse­quence of which neither of them were permitted to enter the land of
Canaan, the type of the Christian’s home in heaven. “And the Lord spake unto
Moses and Aaron, because ye be­lieved me not, to sanctify me in the eyes of the
children of Is­rael, therefore ye shall not bring this congregation into the
land which I have given them.” Numbers 20:12. Concerning this de­cree, Moses
said: “The Lord was angry with me for your sakes, and sware that I should not go
over Jordan, and that I should not go in unto that good land, which the Lord thy
God giveth thee for an inheritance: but I must die in this land, I must not go
over Jordan: but ye shall go over, and possess that good land.” Deuteronomy
4:21-22. After taking Moses to the top of Pisgah and showing him the beauties of
the land, the Lord said to him: “This is the land which I sware unto Abraham,
unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, saying, I will give it unto thy seed; I have caused
thee to see it with shine eyes, but thou shalt not go over thither. So Moses,
the servant of the Lord died there in the land of Moab, according to the word of
the Lord.” Deuteronomy 34:4-5. Aaron and his sons were not only elected, but
consecrated and anointed priests of God, and officiated in that most sacred
office for themselves and the people. In the eighth chapter of Leviticus may be
found an account of the grand and sublime ceremony with which they were inducted
into that holy office. Thus the male portion of a family were elected and
inducted into the priesthood; and what became of them? The Lord said: “Aaron,
shall be gathered unto his people’ for he shall not enter into the land which I
have given unto the children of Israel, be­cause ye rebelled against my word at
the water of Meribah. Take Aaron and Eleazar his son, and bring them up unto
Mount Hor; and strip Aaron of his garments, and put them upon Elea­zar his son,
and Aaron shall be gathered unto his people, and shall die there. And Moses did
as the Lord commanded: and they went up into Mount Hor in sight of all the
congregation. And Moses stripped Aaron of his garments and put them upon Eleazar
his son; and Aaron died there in the top of the mount.” Numbers 20:24-28. “Nadab
and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, took either of them his censer, and put fire
therein, and put incense thereon, and offered strange fire before the Lord,
which he com­manded them not. And there went out fire from the Lord and devoured
them, and they died before the Lord.” Leviticus 10:1-2. Now, if the doctrine of
eternal unconditional election and repro­bation be true, to which class did
Nadab and Abihu belong? The destiny of all being unalterably fixed before time
began, it follows that these were of the eternally elect, or of the eternally
reprobate. Did God elect them of the non-elect, or eternally reprobate, and
anoint them priests to officiate in the tabernacle, having previously determined
upon their destruction, and un­changeably fore-ordained the wickedness for which
He intended to kill them? Or were they of the eternally elect, and their
in­terest in heaven made sure before the foundation of the world,” and God
killed them for wickedness which he had unchangeably fore-ordained they should
do, that he might take them home to glory? Is it not more rational to conclude
that God elected them, anointed and consecrated them priests, intending to be
with and bless them as long as they were faithful to Him, and punish them when
they forsook Him; and that their unhappy end was the result of their own
voluntary rebellion against the law of the Lord? God elected Saul to be the
first king over Israel. He told Samuel how he might know him; and having
presented him to the people, “Samuel said to all the people, See ye him whom the
Lord hath chosen, that there is none like him among all the peo­ple? And all the
people shouted and said, God save the king.” 1 Sam. x 24. He not only elected
him, but he gave him the spirit of prophecy, and when “a company of the priests
met him, the Spirit of God came upon him, and he prophesied among them.” 1
Samuel 10:10. Nor was this all, but he sacredly anointed him to reign over his
people. “Then Samuel took a vial of oil, and poured it upon his head, and kissed
him, and said, Is it not because the Lord hath anointed thee to be captain over
his in­heritance?” 1 Samuel 10:1. The Lord was with and prospered him in battle,
as long as he was faithful to Him, but when he disobeyed him, Samuel said: “Hash
the Lord as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the
voice of the Lord? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than
the fat of rams. For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is
as iniquity and idolatry. Because thou hast rejected the word of the Lord, he
hath also rejected thee from being king.” 1 Samuel 15:22-23. Will the reader
observe the fact that he was rejected, not because God had eternally reprobated
him, or unchangeably fore-ordained his rejection, but because he rejected the
word of the Lord. From all these examples we learn that when God elected any one
to any POSITION however important, it did not unconditionally secure for him an
entrance into the climes of endless bliss, or even a continuance in the office
to which he was elected; but on the contrary the general principle is quite
apparent that He blessed and prospered him as long as he continued faithful to
His will, and failed not to pun­ish and reject him when he rebelled against Him.
Thus far we have seen individuals in the age of types and shadows elected to
peculiar privileges, for the benefit of them­selves and others; and we have seen
many of the elect perish on account of their sins, and the time would fail us to
record all the cases which illustrate these principles in the government of God;
we come now to look for the election of nations and bodies to religious
promotion on the same principles. One of the first promises made to Abraham by
the Lord was: “I will make of thee a great nation, and will bless thee, and make
thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing; and I will bless them that bless
thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the
earth be blessed.” Genesis 12:2-3. In due time God gave Abraham a son, Isaac, to
whose wife Re­becca the Lord said: “Two nations are in thy womb, and two manner
of people shall be separated from thy bowels; and the one people shall be
stronger than the other people, and the elder shall serve the younger.” Genesis
25:23. As we will have occa­sion to notice this passage again, it is sufficient
here to remark that this was said to her concerning Jacob and Esau, as the
rep­resentatives of two nations which were to descend from her through them, one
of which was to be stronger than the other and bear rule over it; and this was
“that the purpose of God ac­cording to election might stand.” Romans 9:11. Thus
we find that the descendants of Jacob were elected the national family of God;
hence he said: “O Jacob, my servant; and Israel, whom I have chosen.” Isaiah 44
: l. “For Jacob my servant’s sake and Is­rael mine elect.” Isaiah 45:4. God
changed the name of Abram to Abraham, because He made him the father of many
nations. Genesis 17:5. He also changed the name of Jacob to Israel, say­ing:
“Thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel: for as a prince hast thou
power with God and with men, and hast pre­vailed.” Genesis 32:28. Henceforth the
descendants of Jacob were called the “children of Israel;” and very often only
Israel, the adopted name of their illustrious progenitor—an example of which
Paul gives, Romans 10:1 : “Brethren, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for
Israel is, that they might be saved.” These God clearly recognized as His
people. When He appeared to Moses for the purpose of sending him to deliver
them, He said: “I have surely seen the affliction of my people which are in
Egypt.” Exodus 3:7. And verse 10, he says: “Come now therefore, and I will send
thee unto Pharaoh, that thou mayest bring forth my people the children of Israel
out of Egypt.” Moses said to them: “The Lord hath taken you, and brought you
forth out of the iron furnace, even out of Egypt, to be unto him a people of
inheritance, as ye are this day.” Deuteronomy 4:20. Again: “Because he loved thy
fathers, therefore he chose their seed after them, and brought them out in his
sight with his mighty power out of Egypt.” Deuteronomy 4:37. “The Lord had a
delight in thy fathers to love them, and he chose their seed after them, even
you above all people.” Deuteronomy 10:15. “For thou art an holy people unto the
Lord thy God, and the Lord hath chosen thee to be a peculiar people unto
himself, above all the nations that are upon the earth.” Deuteronomy 14:2. “For
thou art an holy people unto the Lord thy God: the Lord thy God had chosen thee
to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of
the earth. The Lord did not set his love upon you, nor choose you, because ye
were more in number than any people; for ye were the fewest of all people: but
because the Lord loved you, and because he would keep the oath which he had
sworn unto your fathers, hath the Lord brought you out with a mighty hand, and
redeemed you out of the house of bondmen, from the hand of Pharaoh king of
Egypt.” Deuteronomy 7:6-8. Though we are here to prove that those children of
Israel were the elect people of God in that age of the world, yet in passing we
may note the ad­ditional fact apparent in the last quotation, that He loved
them, not because they were elected from all eternity as individuals; nor did He
elect them because He loved them personally “be­fore the foundation of the world
was laid,” but because He loved their fathers and had entered into a covenant
with them; and He refers their election to a time when they had, not only an
indi­vidual and personal, but a national existence, and were few in number
compared with other nations, associating it with the time of their deliverance
from Egyptian bondage. We need not refer the reader to other recognitions of the
Israelites as the na­tional family of God, but it is necessary to our purpose
that we note one other fact, which is, that they constituted the church in that
dispensation; hence says Stephen, concerning Moses: “This is he, that was in the
church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina,
and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us.” Acts
7:38 Paul mentions some of the eminent privileges of these people: “Who are
Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants,
and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises; whose are
the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came.” Romans 9:4-5.
Next we would call the attention of the reader to the all-impor­tant fact that
the same general principle characterized God’s dealings with this elect national
family, or typical church, that we have seen prominent in His dealings with
elect individuals— namely, that He blessed and prospered them when they were
faithful to His laws, and that He punished them, and finally ex­terminated them
as a nation, for their wickedness. Soon after God delivered them from Egyptian
bondage, He called Moses to Him and said: “Thus shalt thou say to the house of
Jacob, and tell the children of Israel; ye have seen what I did unto the
Egyptians, and how I bear you on eagles’ wings, and brought you unto myself. Now
therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall
be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people; for all the earth is mine; and
ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the
words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel. And Moses came and
called for the elders of the people, and laid before their faces all these words
which the Lord com­manded him. And all the people answered together, and said,
All that the Lord hath spoken we will do.” Exodus 19:3-8. God pref­aces this
solemn covenant by calling the attention of the people to the wonderful
exhibition of His power put forth in their salva­tion, and the destruction of
their enemies; and promises that they should be a peculiar treasure to Him on
condition that they obey His voice, which on their part they solemnly promise to
do. But they very soon forgot their obligations to God; hence “with many of them
God was not well pleased; for they were over­thrown in the wilderness.” 1
Corinthians 10:5. For their idolatrous wor­ship of the calf made by Aaron, three
thousand fell in one day. (Exodus 32:28.) For their fornication, twenty-four
thousand died in the plague. (Numbers 25:9.) Twenty-three thousand of them died
in one day. (1 Corinthians 10:8.) For their murmuring against God, many of them
were destroyed by serpents. (Numbers 21:6.) And for their crimes of various
kinds, God abandoned them in their conflicts with the nations around them, until
multiplied thou­sands were slain in battle, their cities were burned to ashes,
and their homes made desolate, and strangers devoured their land in their
presence. (Isaiah 1:7.) They were taken captive into Baby­lon and kept there for
seventy years. Thus did God afflict and scourge them as a father scourgeth his
rebellious son, but they would not reform; until finally He asks, “Why should ye
be stricken any more? ye will revolt more and more.” Isaiah 1:5. Nor did He
afflict them without warning, for He said to them: “If ye shall at all turn from
following me, ye or your children, and will not keep my commandments and my
statutes which I have set before you, but go and serve other gods and worship
them: then will I Cut off Israel out of the land which I have given them; and
this house which I have hallowed for my name, will I Cast out of my sight, and
Israel shall be a proverb and a byword among all people. 1 Kings 9:6-7. Never
was there a more faithful picture of human wretchedness than is here given of
the present condition of this once elect and highly favored people of God. He
has utterly destroyed them as a nation from the face of the earth. They are not
only cut off from the country which God gave them to be a permanent inheritance,
but they are scat­tered among the nations, until there is not a place on the
globe where civilization has gone where straggling Jews may not be found; and
the very name Jew is a name of reproach to him who wears it—a “proverb and a
byword among all people.” And what was the condition set forth in this most
solemn warning to them? Was it, “If you are of the eternally reprobate?” Nay,
verily, they were God’s own elect. But will it do to assume that, because there
was no hell threatened in the Jewish law, these were merely temporal punishments
inflicted upon God’s elect, and hence he has taken, or will take them to heaven?
Were there any others worse than these? Before any one so assumes, let him
remember that almost, perhaps quite, every known species of crime was practiced
by these elect; and if these whore­mongers, idolaters and tempters of God were
fit for heaven, then it must be true indeed that election, and not character,
qualifies for that place. Before any one so assumes, let him further re­member
that these Jews, the elect of God, rejected and mur­dered the Lord of glory; and
he said, “If ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.” John 8:24.
Notwithstanding the gospel was first preached to the Jews, and some of them
be­lieved on Christ as the promised Messiah, yet not one of the Jews can be
found who, as a Jew, believes, to-day, that Jesus was or is the Christ, the Son
of God. How then are they to be saved over his declaration that “If ye believe
not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins?” Are they to die in their sins, and
be saved in their unbelief? He says, “He that believeth not shall be damned “
Mark 16:16. Now, we would note the fact that the Jewish age was a typical age:
the church in the wilderness was, in a sense, a type of the church of God;
Moses, the Jewish lawgiver, was, in a sense, a type of Christ our lawgiver;
Aaron, the Jewish high priest, was a type of Christ our High Priest; the Jewish
priests were types of Christians in the gospel age who are priests now.—Hence
says Peter, “Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, a holy
priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus
Christ.” 1 Peter 2:5. And again, verse 9, he says, “But ye are a chosen
generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a peculiar people.” Then if these
elect types, from the least to the greatest, both as individuals and as a body,
had to be faithful to God or forfeit their election, may we not in the same way
forfeit our election? After telling us that “with many of them God was not well
pleased, for they were overthrown in the wilderness,” Paul says: “These things
were our examples, to the intent we should not lust after evil things, as they
also lusted. Neither be ye idolaters, as were some of them; as it is written,
The people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play. Neither let us commit
fornication, as some of them committed, and fell in one day three and twenty
thousand. Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were
destroyed of serpents. Neither murmur ye, as some of them also murmured, and
were destroyed of the destroyer. Now all these things happened unto them for
ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the
world are come. Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he
fall.” 1 Corinthians 10:5-12. We know not how the apostle could have given more
conclusive proof that the number of the elect composing the church of God at
Corinth, was liable to be diminished by apostasy than is here given. He tells
them of the overthrow of many of the Jews, and mentions, specifically, the sins
for which thousands of them fell and tells them that these things happened to
them as examples, and are written for our admonition; “wherefore let him that
thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall.” But why this ad­monition, if the
numbers of the elect and reprobate are so certain and definite that they can
neither be increased nor diminished? Were this true, Paul’s most solemn warning
to his brethren was a mere “raw head and bloody bones,” to alarm them when there
was no danger, for none of them could fall! And the creed is consistent with
itself, if not with the Bible at this point; for it says: “They whom God hath
accepted in his Beloved, effectually called and sanctified by his Spirit, can
neither totally nor finally fall away from the state of grace; but shall
certainly persevere therein to the end and be saved. This perseverance of the
saints depends not upon their own free will, but upon the immutability of the
decree of election, flowing from the free and unchangeable love of God the
Father; upon the efficacy of the merit and inter­cession of Jesus Christ; the
abiding of the Spirit and the seed of God within them; and the nature of the
covenant of grace; from all which ariseth also the certainty and infallibility
thereof.” Chap. xvii, sees. 1, 2. The doctrine here set out is a necessary
outgrowth of the doctrine of unconditional election and reprobation. If God has
unchangeably fixed the destiny of every man before time began, then it follows
that such destiny can not be changed by any act of the creature—nay, not even by
the Creator; for that which is unchangeable can not be changed even by God
himself. Therefore none of the eternally elect can fall if that doctrine
ob­tains; and whenever it is clearly shown that a Christian may apostatize, and
be lost, the whole theory of unconditional elec­tion and reprobation is
exploded. We will therefore be some­what careful to see how this is. And if
there was not another sentence in the Bible touching the subject, Paul’s most
solemn warning to the Corinthians would be quite sufficient to settle the
question forever. He tells them of the falls of the Jews as exam­ples to his
brethren, and that their deplorable end was recorded as a solemn admonition to
others, lest they, feeling secure, might fall. What could be more conclusive? In
the last verse of the preceding chapter, the apostle says, “I keep under my
body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached
to others, I myself should be a castaway.” 1 Corinthians 9:27. If Paul, the
great apostle to the Gentiles, had to keep such constant watch-care over
himself, lest, after all his labor, he should be lost, is it not possible that
others may fall? It is not necessary to show that Paul was one of the elect, for
this will surely be admitted: yet he was in danger of falling; and had he
fallen, would not the number of the elect have been diminished thereby, and the
number of the reprobate correspondingly in­creased? Jesus said: “I am the vine,
ye are the branches. He that abi­deth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth
forth much fruit; for without me ye can do nothing. If a man abide not in me, he
is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them
into the fire, and they are burned.” John 15:5-6. Why charge them to abide in
him, if they could not do otherwise than abide in him? and why liken them to
withered and dried branches which men gather and cast into the fire to be
burned, if by reason of the immutability of the decree of election they could
not do otherwise than persevere to the end and be eter­nally saved? Paul tells
Timothy of “Hymeneus and Philetus; who concern­ing the truth have erred, saying
that the resurrection is passed already; and overthrow the faith of some.” 2
Timothy 2:18. Here were persons who had faith, and that faith was overthrown by
false teaching. Surely, these persons were of the elect, for the creed tells us
that “The grace of faith whereby the elect are en­abled to believe to the saving
of their souls, is the work of the Spirit of Christ in their hearts.” Chap. xiv,
sec. 1. Without stopping for the present to inquire how the elect, whose souls
never could have been lost, can believe to the saving of their souls, we remark
that faith is the work of the Spirit in the heart of the elect, according to the
creed; hence Hymeneus and Philetus diminished the number of the elect just as
many as there were persons whose faith they overthrew. But we will hear what
Paul has to say to the Hebrews, chap. 11: verses 4-6: “For it is impossible for
those who were once en­lightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were
made partakers of the Holy Ghost, and have tasted the good word of God, and the
powers of the world to come, if they shall fall away, to renew them again unto
repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him
to an open shame.” Here it is most clearly taught that even those who had been
blessed with those extraordinary spiritual manifestations peculiar to the age of
the apostles, might fall away; else why the language, “if they do fall away,”
when they could not so fall? But again he says: “If we sin willfully after that
we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice
for sins, but a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery in­dignation,
which shall devour the adversaries. He that despised Moses’ law died without
mercy under two or three witnesses; of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye,
shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and have
counted the blood of the covenant wherewith he was sanctified an unholy thing,
and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?” Hebrews 10:26-29. Here was a
sorer punishment than death awaiting, under certain conditions, persons who had
been sancti­fied by the blood of the covenant. Surely, these sanctified per­sons
were of the elect, even according to the creed, for it says: “Sanctification is
a work of God’s grace, whereby they, whom God hash, before the foundation of the
world, chosen to be holy, are, in time, through the powerful operation of his
Spirit, apply­ing the death and resurrection of Christ unto them, renewed in
their whole man after the image of God.” Larger Catechism, answer to Question
75. Then Paul intended to teach that God’s elect, after sanctification by the
blood of the new covenant, might sin willfully and be worthy of sorer punishment
than those who died without mercy under the law of Moses. But we will hear Peter
on the same subject. He says: “If after they have escaped the pollutions of the
world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again
entangled therein and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the
beginning. For it had been better for them not to have known the way of
righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment
delivered unto them; but it is happened unto them according to the true proverb,
The dog is turned to his own vomit again, and the sow that was washed to her
wal­lowing in the mire.” 2 Peter 2:20-22. Here we find that persons who have
escaped the pollutions of the world may again be en­tangled in and overcome by
them; and we are clearly told that if they are so overcome, then the latter end
with them is worse than the beginning. Better for them not to have obeyed the
gos­pel at all than to turn back into wickedness. As the sow that was washed may
go back to wallowing in the mire, so may he who was cleansed from sin become
worse than before. Paul testified to such of his Galatian brethren as were
circumcised, that “Christ is become of no effect unto you, who­soever of you are
justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.” Galatians 5:4. Here, it seems
to us, all controversy on the possibility of “falling from grace” should cease.
We see no place for fur­ther argument on the subject; indeed, we know not how to
make an argument on a passage like this. We have learned how to reason from
premises to conclusions, but here there is no room for reason. When Paul most
solemnly testifies that such as had turned back to the law and been circumcised
had “fallen from grace,” it must simply be accepted as true, or the truth of the
statement denied. Surely, these were once in grace—in favor with God—in
Christ—for it would be the merest twaddle to talk about persons falling from
positions which they never occupied. This being true, it follows that every
person who thus falls di­minishes the number of the elect and increases the
number of the reprobate; hence the whole theory of unconditional election and
reprobation is untrue. But it is not only true that Christians, God’s elect, may
fall as individuals, but it is also true that congregations composing the
“church of God” at certain places may fall. In proof of this position we would
refer the reader to the several messages to the Asiatic churches, only a few
extracts from which we have here room to make. After approving many good traits
of character in the church at Ephesus, God said to them: “Nevertheless I have
somewhat against thee; because thou hast left thy first love. Remember therefore
from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will
come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except
thou repent.” Revelation 2:4-5. Here was a church which had many elegant traits
of character, yet it had left its first love, so that it had to repent and do
its first works or have its candlestick quickly removed. Certainly, this had
reference to the removal of the church as a body. To the church of the
Laodiceans he said: “I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot; I
would that thou wert cold or hot. So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither
cold nor hot, I will spew thee out of my mouth. Because thou sayest, I am rich,
and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou
art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked: I Counsel thee to
buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment,
that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy naked­ness do not appear;
and anoint thine eyes with eye salve, that thou mayest see. Revelation 3:15-18.
Here was a church which God said he would spew out of his mouth, and after many
epi­thets of reproach upon it he gives it such counsel as would en­able it to
reinstate itself in his favor by reformation and obedi­ence. God said, “If the
wicked will turn from all his sins that he hath committed, and keep all my
statutes, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall surely live, he shall
not die. All his transgressions that he hath committed, they shall not be
men­tioned: in his righteousness that he hath done he shall live. Have I any
pleasure at all that the wicked should die? saith the Lord God: and not that he
should return from his ways and live? But when the righteous turneth away from
his righteousness and committeth iniquity, and doeth according to all the
abominations that the wicked man doeth, shall he live? All his righteousness
that he hath done shall not be mentioned: in his trespass that he hath
trespassed, and in his sin that he hath sinned, in them shall he die. Yet ye
say, The way of the Lord is not equal. Hear now, 0 house of Israel; is not my
way equal? are not your ways un­equal? When a righteous man turneth away from
his righteous­ness, and committeth iniquity, and dieth in them; for his iniquity
that he hath done shall he die. Again, when the wicked man turneth away from his
wickedness that he hath committed, and doeth that which is lawful and right, he
shall save his soul alive. Because he considereth and turneth away from all his
transgressions that he hath committed, he shall surely live, he shall not die.”
Ezekiel 18:21-28. This general principle characterizes all God’s dealings with
man in every age of the world. We come now to consider the doctrine of eternal
uncondi­tional election and reprobation in its bearing on the subject of the
atonement. If God, before the foundation of the world, un­conditionally ordained
just who and how many should be saved, and who and how many lost, then of course
the atonement made by Christ could not reach those who were fore-ordained to
dis­honor and wrath, and therefore they could not have any interest in his
death. Indeed it is difficult, according to the theory, to see the benefits of
Christ’s death at all; for the atonement could not make the salvation of the
elect any more secure, nor could it possibly change the condition or chances of
the reprobate. Here again the creed is consistent with itself, as far as the
reprobate are concerned, for it does not assume that the benefits of the
atonement can in any way reach them; not because of any fault in them, but
because Christ did not die for them. It says: “Nei­ther are any other redeemed
by Christ, effectually called, justi­fied, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but
the elect only.” Chap. 3, sec. 6. Then, when it is shown that Christ died for
all men, the doctrine of unconditional election and reprobation will have been
again exploded. Paul says, “We see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the
angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honor, that he by the
grace of God should taste death for every man.” Hebrews 2:9. What can this mean?
It can mean nothing less than that Christ died for every man. Surely, it would
re­quire elastic rules of interpretation to supply the word elect here, so as to
make it read that “Jesus tasted death for every elect man.” Before making this
addition to the word of the Lord, let the reader consider well the following
quotation: “For I Testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy
of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the
plagues that are written in this book.” Revelation 22:18. “For God so loved the
world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him
should not perish, but have everlasting life; for God sent not his Son into the
world to con­demn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.”
John 3:16-17. Here we find that the love of God ex­tended to the world, and the
object of sending His Son into the world was the salvation of the world. But
here again we are asked to supply the word elect, so as to restrict the love of
God to the elect. But the same apostle, in another place, supplies a word better
calculated to give his use of the word world as con­nected with the atonement.
He says, “He is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also
for the sins of the whole world.”1 John 2:2. Could language be more ample or
compre­hensive? and would any one ever have thought of restricting its meaning
to the whole elect world, had not the salvation of a the­ory required it? We
know that the word world is sometimes used in a limited sense—that is, when it
is intended to apply to a part, and not all of the human race; but it applies in
such cases to the wicked, as distinguished from the elect. A single example will
abundantly show this. Jesus said to his disciples: “If the world hate you, ye
know that it hated me before it hated you. If ye were of the world, the world
would love his own; but be­cause ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you
out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.” John 15:18-19. In this
quotation the word world occurs several times in a limited sense, but every time
it refers to the wicked as distinguished from the elect. But the context itself
utterly forbids any such restricted use of the term in John 3:16-17. Let us
examine it a little. The passage not only teaches that God loved the world, but
also that the object of sending His Son into the world was that the world might
not perish, but have everlasting life. Then if the love of God, and the world to
whom He sent His Son, be con­fined to the elect world, it follows that whosoever
of this elect world believes on Him may not perish; but others of the elect
world may not believe on Him, and therefore perish. This view is quite prominent
in the verse immediately following: “He that believeth on him is not condemned:
but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed on
the name of the only begotten Son of God.” John 3:18. That is, he, of this elect
world that God loved, and to whom He sent His Son, that believeth not, is
condemned already. This doctrine the ad­vocates of the theory will not allow.
And it will do no better to confine the word world to the Jews, reading it thus:
“God so loved the Jewish world that he sent his only begotten Son ’ etc.: for
that would exclude all others but Jews from the benefits of the atonement, even
the makers of the creed themselves. Nor will it do to apply the word world here
to the Roman Empire, for this would exclude the other nations, and thus come in
direct conflict with the commission sending the apostles to disciple all
nations, and into all the world to preach to every creature. Then it must mean
just what it says: “He is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world.”
“Because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead: and that
he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto
themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again.” 2 Corinthians
5:14-15. Here the apostle clearly teaches that Christ died for all af­fected by
the sin of Adam; hence the language: “If one died for all, then were all dead.”
Then as “death passed upon all men” (Romans 5:12), even so Christ died for all
men. “Therefore, as by the offense of one, judgment came upon all men to
condemna­tion; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all
men unto justification of life.” Romans 5:18. Without turning aside to offer an
exegesis of this verse, it is sufficient for our present purpose to call
attention to the very obvious fact that, as Adam’s sin affects all men, even so
the benefits of Christ’s death are offered to all men. To the same effect spake
Jesus when He said: “I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto
me. This he said, signifying what death he should die.” John 12:32-33. Surely,
He did not expect all men to be drawn unto Him by His death unless all were
interested in His death. What attraction could His death have for a reprobate,
when he knew He died not for him, or any but the elect? Again: Paul says, “There
is one God, and one mediator be­tween God and men, the man Christ Jesus; who
gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.” 1 Timothy 2:5-6.
Here, as usual, Paul is in contact with the theory which says substan­tially
that Christ gave himself a ransom for the elect only. It is evident, from this
connection, that the ransom was co-extensive with the mediatorial office—yea,
with the reign of God himself —”For there is one God, and one mediator between
God and men, the man Christ Jesus; who gave himself a ransom for all.” Wherefore
he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing
he ever liveth to make interces­sion for those he is able to save; and he is
able to save to the uttermost; yet he can save none, only those for whom he
died; therefore he died for the uttermost that come to God by him. Surely, we
can not be mistaken in this. When the angel of the Lord announced the birth of
Christ to the shepherds who watched their flocks in the plains of Judea, he
said, “Fear not: for, behold, I bring you glad tidings of great joy, which shall
be to all people.” Luke 2:10. It occurs to us that the angel would have spoken
more like the creed had he said, “Behold, I bring you glad tidings of great joy,
which shall be to the elect.” Surely, the announcement of a Saviour born could
not have been glad tidings of great joy to those who were eternally reprobate,
and therefore could not hope for an interest in His mission and death, or the
atonement made by Him. Nor is it very easy to see how the news of His birth
could have been glad tidings of great joy even to the elect, for He could not
make their salvation any more secure than it was made by the immut­able decree
of election. Peter did not so understand the subject, for he said, “Wherefore
the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure.”
Then it was not already sure. But why strive to make it sure? “For if ye do
these things, ye shall never fall.” 2 Peter 1:10. Then if they did not do these
things they would fall, and make void their election; at least they would be
liable to do so. Hence, as the announcement of His birth was glad tidings of
great joy to all people, it is certain that Christ died for all people; and
therefore all people may be saved through the atonement made by Him. It is
certain that all will not be saved; but it will not be because the provisions of
the atonement did not embrace them, but because they would not accept salvation
as offered to them. It is conceded by all parties that Christ died for the elect
or saved; hence we propose next to show that He also died for such as have been
or may be lost. Paul says: “But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now
walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ
died.” Romans 14:15 “And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish,
for whom Christ died.” 1 Corinthians 8:11. These passages teach as clearly as
language can teach anything that there were members of the church of God, both
at Rome and at Corinth, for whom Christ died, who were liable to perish—be
destroyed; hence Christ died as well for those who perish—are destroyed— as for
those who are saved. These passages show, too, that the disc pies at Rome and
Corinth were liable to fall away—perish —be destroyed; hence his admonition to
those in charge of the weaker members to guard against such result. How can it
be, then, that the destiny of every one was immutably fixed by the decree of
election? But we will hear another apostle on the same subject. Peter says: “But
there were false prophets among the people, even as there shall be false
teachers among you who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying
the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift de­struction.” 2
Peter 2:1. Here were false teachers that denied the Lord that bought them, and
thereby brought upon them­selves swift destruction. How did the Lord buy them?
Paul admonished certain persons “to feed the church of God, which he purchased
with his own blood.” Acts 20:28. Then it was with the blood of Christ that He
bought or purchased these false teachers who denied Him, and destroyed
themselves. Before leaving this passage, we may note another fact which appears
in it. These false teachers brought destruction upon themselves and this they
could not have done if they were eternally and un­changeably ordained to
dishonor and wrath by God’s decree. The decree destroyed them, and no act of
theirs—if such decree was made concerning them. We next propose to show that
salvation is attainable by all men, because the gospel of salvation is to be
preached to all men. Jesus charged the apostles to “teach all nations, baptizing
them.” Matt. xxvii): 19. And again: “Go ye into all the world and preach the
gospel to every creature.’’ Mark 16:15. Why preach the gospel to every creature
when the larger portion were not embraced in its provisions? It occurs to us
that something like the following would have been more appropriate: “Go ye into
all the world and preach the gospel to the elect, that they may know the ample
provisions made for them before the foun­dation of the world; but to the
reprobate say nothing, for as they can not by any possibility avert the awful
doom that surely awaits them, it is better to let them remain ignorant of their
fate as long as possible.” If this be true, we can see no use of all the labor
and expense of printing Bibles, building meeting-houses, and preaching the
gospel to either saint or sinner. If we are of the definite number elected and
fore-ordained- to eternal life, there is no chance for us to be lost; and if
not, we can not be saved. We have often heard this doctrine preached from the
pulpit, when the sermon closed with an exhortation to sinners to come to the
anxious-seat to seek salvation or pray for pardon of sin. What a mockery! Why
tell a man that God has unaltera­bly fixed his destiny before time began, and
then exhort him to "flee from the wrath to come” and “lay hold on eternal
life”—as though he could either change or confirm God’s eternal and im­mutable
decree!! Surely, his efforts could do no good, nor could his negligence do any
harm, for “Those of mankind that are pre­destinated unto life, God, before the
foundation of the world was laid, according to his eternal and immutable
purpose, and the secret counsel and good pleasure of his will, has chosen in
Christ unto everlasting glory, out of his mere free grace and love, without any
foresight of faith or good works, or persever­ance in either of them, or any
other thing in the creature, as conditions or causes moving him “hereunto.”
Conf., chap. iii, sec. 5: Thus we see that faith, good works, nor any other
thing, can avail, for the whole matter was unalterably fixed before time began.
Salvation, upon certain conditions, was the great object of preaching the gospel
to every creature; and among these con­ditions faith occupies a conspicuous
place: “Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.” Romans 10:17.
Hence the necessity of preaching the gospel—teaching the word of God to every
creature, that he might have the privilege of believing and obeying it;
therefore the promise: “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he
that believeth not shall be ’ damned.” Mark 16:16. The fact that Jesus required
the gospel to be preached among all nations, to every creature, promising
salvation to those who would believe and obey it, is evidence high as heaven
that all may have salvation who will accept it upon the conditions specified.
Surely, God would not mock His creatures by preaching the gospel, and offering
salvation to them on cer­tain conditions, when He had eternally and unchangeably
or­dained that they should not be saved, and put it out of their power to comply
with the terms offered. Nor is this all: He fol­lows the promise of conditional
salvation with the awful threat that “He that believeth not shall be damned.” We
can not see why any one should be required to believe and trust in a Saviour who
did nothing for them, and believe and obey a gospel the provisions of which did
not embrace them. Men are required to believe upon and trust in Jesus, in order
to salvation: “Many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his
disciples, which are not written in this book: but these are written, that ye
might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.” And why believe this?
“That believing ye might have life through his name.” John 20:30-31. Jesus said,
“He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not
the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.” John 3:36.
Thus we see that man is denied eternal life, and subjected to the abiding wrath
of God, not because of any eternal decree against him personally, but because of
his unbelief; hence “He that be­lieveth on him is not condemned: but he that
believeth not is condemned already.” And why is he condemned already? Is it
because of God’s eternal decree against him? No; but “because he hath not
believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.” John 3:18. Thus the
justice of God is vindicated in the punishment of man. If he is not saved, it
will not be because God eternally and unchangeably ordained his destruction; nor
will it be be­cause God willed not his salvation. Hear Him most solemnly deny
such an imputation: “If the wicked will turn from all his sins that he hath
committed, and keep all my statutes, and do that which is lawful and right, he
shall surely live, he shall not die. All his transgressions that he hath
committed, they shall not be mentioned unto him. In his righteousness that he
hath done he shall live. Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die?
saith the Lord God: and not that he should return from his ways and live.”
Ezekiel 18:21-23. “For I have no plea­sure in the death of him that dieth, saith
the Lord God; where­fore turn yourselves, and live ye.” Ver. 32. And again: “As
I live, saith the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but
that the wicked turn from his way and live.” Ezekiel 33:11. This is either true
or it is untrue. If God, from all eternity, fixed the destiny of all men, and
ordained a definite number to life and a definite number to dishonor and wrath,
and that “according to the unsearchable counsel of His own will whereby He
extendeth or withholdeth mercy as He pleaseth” (Conf., chap. iii, sec. 7), then
we see not how God has not plea­sure in and wills not that which is according to
the secret coun­sel and good pleasure of His own will. It requires greater skill
than we possess to harmonize the Bible and the creed here “The Lord is not slack
concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to
us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to
repentance.” 2 Peter 3:9. How can this be true, if God fixed the destiny of each
one in accordance with the unsearchable counsel of His will be­fore time began?
He who can, may explain. Paul says: “I exhort therefore, that, first of all,
supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all
men; for kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and
peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. For this is good and acceptable in
the sight of God our Saviour; who will have all men to be saved, and to come
unto the knowledge of the truth.” 1 Timothy 2 : l4. Here we learn that all men
are the objects of prayer. And why? Because God wills the salvation of all men.
Then if all are not saved, it will be because “ye will not come to me that ye
might have life.” John 5:40. Their own obdurate will is the great barrier to the
salvation of men. When Jesus beheld the wickedness of the people of Jerusalem,
and the consequent destruction that awaited them, he said: “O Jerusa­lem,
Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto
thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen
gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!” Matthew 23:37. Mark
well the reason: “Ye would not.” Yes, the Son of God would gladly have saved
them from the danger which threatened them, even as He would now save all who
would come to God by Him; yet they would not—neither will ye. “The Spirit and
the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is
athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely “ Rev.
xxii : 17. Not whosoever was elected from all eternity, but whosoever will, let
him take the water of life freely. Then whosoever perishes is lost because he
will not partake of that which is freely offered to him. His unending wail may
be, “God is just, though I am lost.” Jesus said, “The Son of man is come to seek
and to save that which was lost.” Luke 19:10. Was there ever a time when the
elect were lost? If so, when? The creed tells us that they were predestinated
unto life before the foundation of the world was laid, hence, if they were ever
lost, it must have been before that: therefore they could not have been the
objects of Christ’s mis­sion, for these were lost when He came. Again He says:
“They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I
Came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.” Mark 2 : l7; Luke
5:31-32. Were the eternally elect the sinners which Jesus came to call to
repentance? Surely, they were not sick enough to invoke the aid of Jesus, the
great Physician, for they were eternally and immutably ordained to eternal life;
hence they were not sick—at all events they could not have been sick unto death.
The Scriptures abound with testimony showing that men are not elect before
conversion. A few passages of this class are all for which we have room in this
work. In speaking of himself and his Ephesian brethren, Paul tells us that they
were “by na­ture the children of wrath, even as others.” Ephesians 2:3. If they
had been elected to salvation before time began, we see not how, at any time,
they could have been children of wrath, even as others not of the elect. Again:
“Ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God
dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ he is none of his.”
Romans 8:9. All persons know that, prior to conversion, the Spirit of Christ was
not in them, and hence, at that time, they were none of His; yet according to
the theory, they were always His. “As many as are led by the Spirit of God, they
are the sons of God.” Romans 8:14. Then of course the converse is true, that as
many as are not led by the Spirit of God are not the sons of God. All
unconverted persons are led by the spirit of the wicked one, and not by the
Spirit of God; therefore no unconverted man is a son of God. It will be conceded
that the elect are sons of God; hence when not sons of God, none are elect.
“Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be
reprobates.” 2 Corinthians 13:5. Prior to conversion, Christ is in no one. Paul
says, “I travail in birth again until Christ be formed in you.” Galatians 4:19.
As Christ has to be formed in men, it fol­lows that He was not always in them;
and when He is not in them, they are reprobates: therefore none are elect until
con­verted. “If any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are
passed away; behold, all things are become new.” 2 Corinthians 5:17. If all the
elect were in Christ from before the foun­dation of the world, then conversion
makes no man a new crea­ture in Him; for if in Him at all, they were always in
Him. Paul says, “Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, and my fellow
prisoners’ who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before
me.” Romans 16:7. If Paul and his kinsmen were in Christ from before the
foundation of the world, then he made a most egregious blunder here. When was
it, and how is it that they were in Christ before him? Once more: “They that are
Christ’s have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.” Galatians
5:24. Then those who have not crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts
are not Christ’s. There was a time in the history of every man when he had not
crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts, and therefore a time when he
was not Christ’s. All the elect are Christ’s; therefore there was a time in the
life of every man when he was not of the elect: hence none are personally and
unconditionally elected to eternal life from before the foundation of the world.
Speaking of his brethren in the Lord, Peter said: “Ye are a chosen generation, a
royal priesthood, a holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should show forth
the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvelous light:
which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God; which had
not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.” 1 Peter 2:9-10. Here, again,
we know not how to make an argu­ment. This passage is so manifestly opposed to
the whole the­ory of eternal and unconditional election and reprobation that
there is no room to reason about it. These were a chosen gener­ation, a royal
priesthood; a holy nation, a peculiar people; hence they were God’s elect beyond
controversy: yet in time past they were not a people, but then were the people
of God. Do you say these were Gentiles? Suppose they were: what relief does this
bring to the theory? It only shows the more clearly that once they were not
God’s people; yet when the apostle wrote, they were God’s people—yes, verily,
they were His peculiar peo­ple. Were they elected in Christ before the
foundation of the world! Then we would gladly know what time in the past it was
at which they were not the people of God. Once they had not obtained mercy. When
was this? Elected to eternal life be­fore the foundation of the world, out of
God’s mere free grace and love, and yet had not obtained mercy!!! But if the
doctrine already quoted from the Confession is true—that before the foundation
of the world was laid, accord­ing to an immutable and eternal purpose of His
own, without any foresight of faith, good works, or any thing else in man, God
unconditionally elected some men and angels to eternal life, and at the same
time fore-ordained the residue to dishonor and eter­nal wrath—then we know not
how to avoid the conclusion that He is a respecter of persons. Against this
imputation upon the character of our Heavenly Father, at least two inspired pens
have given testimony. Paul said, “There is no respect of persons with God.”
Romans 2:11. Again: “He that doeth wrong, shall re­ceive for the wrong which he
hath done: and there is no respect of persons.” Colossians 3:25. Once more:
“And, ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing
that your Master also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with
him.” Ephesians 6:9. It is probable that Peter once had similar thoughts upon
this subject to those of Calvinists now. Certain it is that he thought the
privileges and blessings of the gospel were confined to the Jews, and it
required nothing less than a miracle to convince him of his error; but when
convinced, he at once re­plied: “Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter
of per­sons.” Acts 10:34. From that time he gladly taught the gospel to those
previously regarded unworthy of its privileges. Finally, let us examine the
subject of a general judgment through Calvin­istic glasses. “The times of this
ignorance God winked at; but now com­mandeth all men every-where to repent:
because he hath ap­pointed a day in the which he will judge the world in
righteous­ness by that man whom he hath ordained.” Acts 17:30-31. But why
appoint a day of judgment in which to judge the world, if the numbers of the
elect and reprobate were made cer­tain and definite beyond increase or
diminution before time began? Surely, the line of separation was drawn deep and
wide between them by the immutable decree which assigned each one his position
long in advance of his being. But God will judge the world in righteousness;
therefore His judgment will be in accordance with principles of justice: “For we
must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive
the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good
or bad.” 2 Corinthians 5:10. John says: “And I saw the dead, small and great,
stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which
is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were
written in the books, according to their works. And the sea gave up the dead
which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them:
and they were judged every man according to their works.” Revelation 20:12-13.
Why judge a man according to his works, when every thing he did was specifically
ordained and put out of his control before time began? Why not judge him, if at
all, according to the eternal decree which immutably fixed his destiny? From
such a stand­point as Calvinism the whole theory of a future judgment seems to
us a most sublimely ridiculous farce. That the decree of election, and not the
things done in the body, is the rule or law by which Calvinism proposes to judge
the world, is further shown by the fact that reprobate infants that die in
infancy are consigned to eternal misery for no other reason than that they were
not of the elect. On page 64, chap. x, sec. 3, the creed says: “Elect infants
dying in infancy are re­generated and saved by Christ through the Spirit, who
worketh when and where and how he pleaseth. So also are all other elect persons
who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.” Yes,
elect infants are saved by Christ, but what of the non-elect? “Others not
elected, though they may be called by the ministry of the Word, and may have
some common operations of the Spirit, yet they never truly come to Christ, and
therefore can not be saved.” The words “elect in­fants” clearly imply non-elect
infants. Elect means to choose. There can be no choice where there is but one
person or class of persons The above quotation tells us that elect infants dying
in infancy are saved; and of course the non-elect infants dying in infancy, or
in living to adult age, can not be saved, as Christ never died for them, or any
but the elect. Though you may con­sign your infant to the tomb while so young
that it never could have had a wicked thought or done a wicked act, yet you have
no assurance of its ever being raised in the image of Christ, for the reason
that you can not tell whether it is or is not one of the elect No, you can not
tell whether its little tongue will be employed in praising God, or in fruitless
cries and bitter wailings in the eternal pit of despair, for no fault of its
own, or any one else but simply because God unchangeably decreed it that
horrible fate. Calvinism has no escape from this difficulty. The num­bers of the
elect and reprobate having been made certain and definite before time began, it
follows that he who is reprobate— at all, was so at birth; hence those who die
in that condition are hopelessly lost. There is no remedy that can reach such
cases. Therefore, Calvinists who are not prepared for such results should
abandon a theory which necessarily produces them.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 4: GPS-03-CALVINISTIC PROOFS EXAMINED
========================================================================

CHAPTER III.

CALVINISTIC PROOFS EXAMINED.

As the Bereans “were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they
received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the Scriptures daily,
whether those things were so” (Acts 17:11), even so we should search the
Scriptures and re­ceive the truth revealed in God’s word with that readiness of
mind that has ever characterized His true and devoted followers. Let us,
therefore, very carefully consider the Scriptures relied on to prove the
doctrine in question. Ananias said to Saul “The God of our fathers hath chosen
thee.” Acts 22:14. This shows that Paul was elected or cho­sen; but for what was
he chosen? Perhaps we may learn what Ananias meant here by reference to what the
Lord said to him when He sent him to Paul: “The Lord said unto him, Go thy way:
for he is a chosen vessel unto me.” Chosen for what? “To bear my name before the
Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel.” Acts 9:15. Before giving this
instruction to Ananias, the Lord said to Paul: “I have appeared unto thee for
this pur­pose, to make thee a minister and a witness both of these things which
thou hast seen, and of those things in the which I will ap­pear unto thee;
delivering thee from the people, and from the Gentiles, unto whom now I send
thee, to open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the
power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and an
in­heritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me.” Acts
26:16-18. Taking these Scriptures together, we see very clearly what the object
of Paul’s election was; and his own salvation is not even mentioned in any one
of the explanations given He was elected to be a minister and a witness for
Jesus, and to bear the gospel to the Gentiles; hence says he, “I speak to you
Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office.”
Romans 11:13. Here, then, was the office to which he was elected; but even his
election to the apostleship did not secure his final salvation, for he says, “I
keep under my body, and bring into subjection: lest that by any means, when I
have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway.” 1 Corinthians 9:27 That
Paul was not elected in Christ to salvation before the foundation of the world,
is clearly shown by the fact that Andronicus and Junia were in Christ before
him. Romans 16:7. “And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and
glori­fied the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life
believed.” Acts 13:48. This is relied on to show that men are ordained to
eternal life from before the foundation of the world, and that this ordination
is an indispensable antece­dent to faith. First we beg permission to suggest
that the trans­lation of this verse, in the common version, is manifestly
defec­tive; but even in it there is not a word said about how long they were
ordained to eternal life before they believed. That the or­dination was from
before the foundation of the world is assump­tion; nothing more. If men are
ordained to eternal life before they believe, then they are in a state of
condemnation, their or­dination to the contrary notwithstanding; for the Lord
said: “He that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed
in the name of the only begotten Son of God.” John 3:18. It is difficult to see
how a man who is ordained to eternal life can, at the same time, be a condemned
unbeliever. Not only are they in a state of condemnation, but this theory
teaches that they do not believe, in order to their justification; for they were
ordained to eternal life before they believed in the eternal life to which they
were ordained. This is not only sustained by the common rendering of this verse,
but it is made doubly obvious by the fact that the theory places the ordination
before the be­ginning of time. On the contrary, there is not a truth in the
Bible better established than that men are required to believe, that they may
have eternal life: “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten
Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting
life,” John 3:16. When Jesus said, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be
saved” (Mark 16:16), did He intend to teach that he that would believe and be
baptized had always been saved? or when Paul said to the jailer, “Believe on the
Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved” (Acts 16:31), did he mean to teach
that he had always been saved, having been ordained to eternal life from be­fore
the foundation of the world? Absurd as this may appear, it must be true, or
Calvinism must be false. But there are other difficulties hanging about the
common rendering of this verse. McGarvey, in his Commentary, has the following
very pertinent remarks:

“If it be true that ’as many as were fore-ordained to eternal life believed,
then there were none of the fore-ordained left in that community who did not
believe. Hence all those who did not then believe, whether adults or infants,
were among the rep­robate, who were predestinated to everlasting punishment.
Now, it is certainly most singular that so complete a separation of the two
parties should take place throughout a whole com­munity at one time.”

Truly, this would have been a most singu­lar circumstance—such a one, indeed, as
no sane man can believe ever occurred; hence that the translation is defective
is obvious, even to those who know nothing of the original; for a faithful
translation of God’s word is always not only true, but perfectly consistent with
itself. We have several translations of this verse, most of which substantially
agree with the following version: “And the Gentiles hearing this rejoiced, and
glorified the word of the Lord; and as many as were disposed for eternal life
be­lieved.” (Compilation from George Campbell, Macknight, and Doddridge, by A.
Campbell.) This rendering is perfectly con­sistent with the facts and the
general teaching of the Scriptures; and, better still, is faithful to the
original, and at once removes all ambiguity from the passage.

“For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image
of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover, whom
he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also
justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.” Romans 8:29-30. First
it will be observed that all these verbs are in the past tense, and express
actions perfected at the time the apostle wrote. Persons seem to understand the
passage to mean that God fore­knew and predestinated the elect before time
began, perhaps from eternity, and calls and justifies them now in his good time,
and will glorify them in heaven finally. This can not be, for those of whom the
apostle spake were glorified at the time he wrote, and for the same reason it
can not apply to any who have lived since that time. The creed says: “God did,
from all etern­ity, decree to justify all the elect; and Christ did, in the
fullness of time, die for their sins, and rise again for their justification
nevertheless they are not justified until the Holy Spirit cloth in due time
actually apply Christ unto them.” Conf., chap. 11, sec. 4. Thus we see that
Calvinists themselves have justification to take place in the life-time of the
party justified. Hence, as those of whom Paul wrote were justified before that
time, it can not apply to any who have lived since, even according to the creed,
but must apply to persons who had lived before the time he wrote. Hence the
passage can not come to the support of Calvin­ism at all. Here we could well
afford to rest our examination of the passage, seeing it proves not the doctrine
in question; but we will endeavor to find persons to whom the language of the
apos­tle will correctly apply. It is not important to inquire when God knew the
persons here mentioned—we grant that He knew them when He predestinated them to
be conformed to the image of His Son; and this was done before they were called
and justified: this is all that can be claimed—the question which concerns us
more directly is, Who were these of whom Paul spake as having been foreknown,
predestinated, called, justified, and glorified prior to the time he wrote?
While we look for an answer to this ques­tion, it may be well for us to bear in
mind that God predesti­nated them to be conformed to the image of His Son, that
He might be the first-born among many brethren. The word con­form means “to
shape in accordance with; to make like; to re­duce to a likeness or
correspondence in character, form, man­ners, etc.” (Webster.) Then, to be
conformed to the image of His Son is to be made like Christ, or in His image or
likeness. Thus far all is plain. Let us try again. Paul says: “The first man is
of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven. As is the earthy,
such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also
that are heavenly. And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also
bear the image of the heavenly.” 1 Corinthians 15:47-49. Paul is here speaking
of the resurrection of the body, and after directing the mind to the time of
that event, he says: “As we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also
bear the image of the heavenly”—thus teaching clearly that the children of our
heavenly Father wear the image of Adam through life, but will wear the image of
Christ when raised from the dead and furnished with immortal bodies like His:
And it cloth not yet appear what we shall be; but we know that when he shall
appear we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.’ 1 John 3:2. Though
the image of Christ, in a certain sense, may have been begun in us when we put
Him on by a birth of water and Spirit, yet it will never be complete until we
are glorified with Him; and He was not glori­fied until after His death,
resurrection, and ascension. John says, “The Holy Ghost was not yet given,
because Jesus was not yet glorified.” John 7:29. This clearly implies that the
Holy Ghost was given as soon as Jesus was glorified; and as the Holy Spirit was
not given until the day of Pentecost, it follows that his glorification did not
long precede that event. Therefore, those of whom Paul spake were not only
predestinated, called, and justified, but had also been raised from the dead,
conformed to the image of Christ, and glorified prior to the time he wrote. This
not only shows that the passage does not embrace all the elect, but it also
shows that it did not refer to the apostles, as some suppose, for they were not
all dead at that time, and hence could not have been then glorified. Then, when
and where had any persons been raised from the dead to die no more prior to this
writing by Paul? It could not have referred to Lazarus, Jai­rus’ daughter, and
the widow’s son which were raised by Christ, for he was not the first-born among
them, nor were they raised to glorification, but simply restored to life to live
and die again. Let us look further, then, for we have not yet found per­sons to
whom the passage can apply. “And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the
saints which slept arose and came out of the graves after his resurrection, and
went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.” Matthew 27:52-53. These
persons were raised from the dead to die no more, but to be glo­rified with
their risen Lord. We have seen that those of whom Paul wrote were predestinated
to be conformed to the image of His Son, which image, if we are correct, was
perfected when they were glorified. Then, for what were they thus to be
con­formed to the image of His Son? “That he might be the first­born among many
brethren.” When was He the first-born among many brethren? Certainly, it was not
when He was born in the flesh, for many were thus born before Him; nor was He
the first-born of water, for many were baptized by John before Him. Paul says He
is “the firstborn from the dead.” Colossians 1:18. Then He was the first-born
from the dead of the many brethren who came from their graves after His
resurrection; and hence these were they who were predestinated to be conformed
to the image of His Son, that He might be the first-born from the dead among
them. Of these it may be correctly said that they had been foreknown,
predestinated, called, justified, and glorified, at the time Paul wrote; but we
know of no others of whom this may be truly said. Are we asked who these were?
we answer that, as no inspired writer has given their names in this connec­tion,
of course we do not know their names; but we do know that He was the first-born
from the dead among those who came from their graves after His resurrection:
hence our argument is complete with or without their names. We think it likely,
how­ever, that they were Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and the patriarchs and prophets
of former times. That these were foreknown, called, and predestinated to the
work assigned them, may be seen in the language of God to one of them. Jeremiah
said: “The word of the Lord came unto me, saying, Before I formed thee in the
belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified
thee, and ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.” Jeremiah 1:4-5. Those of
whom Paul spake were fore­known—Jeremiah was foreknown; those were
predestinated—Jer­emiah was ordained; those were called—Jeremiah was called.
“The Lord said unto me, Say not, I am a child: for thou shalt go to all that I
shall send thee, and whatsoever I Command thee thou shalt speak. Be not afraid
of their faces: for I am with thee to deliver thee, saith the Lord. Then the
Lord put forth his hand and touched my mouth. And the Lord said unto me,
Be­hold, I have put my words in thy mouth. See, I have this day set thee over
the nations, and over the kingdoms, to root out, and to pull down, and to
destroy’ and to throw down, to build and to plant.” Ver. 7-10. Then he was not
only foreknown, pre­destinated, and called, but sanctified, too, and qualified
for the work assigned him; hence he needed only to be justified in his obedience
(which doubtless he was), raised from the dead, and glorified with Christ, to
fill to repletion the character of those of whom Paul spake. Does any one doubt
that he was one of them? then let him show to whom the language in question will
more fitly apply, and we will acknowledge the favor. We come next to examine the
ninth chapter of Paul’s letter to the church at Rome, in which he discusses the
abrogation of the Jewish polity, and the election of a new people upon the
princi­ple of faith in Christ and obedience to His laws. The Jews, as we have
seen, had been the only acknowledged family or people of God for many ages past;
but in the fullness of time God broke down the middle wall of partition between
Jew and Gentile and offered salvation to every creature, among all nations, who
would accept it on the terms proposed; hence when the parents of Jesus brought
Him into the temple, good old Simeon took him up in his arms and said, “A light
to lighten the Gentiles, and the glory of thy people Israel.” Luke 2:32. Paul
says this: “In other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now
revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit: that the Gentiles
should be fellow heirs and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in
Christ by the gospel.” Ephesians 3:5-6. This extension of gospel privileges to
persons so long re­garded unworthy, very naturally excited the pride and envy of
those accustomed to the exclusive enjoyment of such distin­guished honors and
privileges; hence they declined to enjoy sal­vation for no other reason than
that the Gentiles were made fellow heirs with them. They refused to recognize
the fact that “there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the
same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.” Romans 10:12. They
failed to see that the salvation of the Gentiles did not lessen the chances of
the Jews; hence Paul quotes the language of Moses as applicable to them: “I will
provoke you to jealousy by them that are no people, and by a foolish nation I
will anger you.” Romans 10:19. The election contemplated in the gospel was
offered to the Jews first, and some embraced it and were content to become the
elect of God; not as Jews by natural birth, but as Christians by a birth of
water and Spirit. These Paul calls “The election’,, in opposition to those who
made themselves reprobate by refusing the “election of grace,” and adhering to
their former election as the descendants of Abraham; hence “the election hath
obtained it, and the rest were blinded.” Romans 11:7. “Not as though the word of
God had taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel.”
Romans 9:6. The election of a new church composed of Jews and Gentiles was not
contrary to the promises of God to Abraham, saying, “I will establish my
covenant between me and thee, and thy seed after thee, in their generations, for
an everlasting covenant; to be a God unto thee, and thy seed after thee.”
Genesis 17:7. God gave them very clearly to understand that the perpetuity of
their covenant rela­tion to Him depended on their obedience; hence said He, “If
ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar
treasure unto me above all people.” Exodus 19:5. Hence when they ceased to obey
Him, His promises to them were at an end; hence Paul asks, “Hash God cast away
his peo­ple? God forbid.” Romans 11:1. If they were lost at all, it was their
own fault. But even so, “For they were not all Israel, which are of Israel.”
Many of the descendants of Jacob had al­ready fallen. The greater part of the
ten tribes that were car­ried into captivity never returned to be again united
to the Israel of God. Hence this passage not only shows the rejection of the
unbe­lieving Jews to be no infraction of God’s promises to Abraham, but it shows
the doctrine of eternal unconditional election to be false, for we have seen
that all the children of Israel were once the elect of God; but when Paul wrote,
many who were of Israel were not Israel, because they had fallen on account of
their own wickedness. But the apostle vindicates the justice of God in rejecting
the unbelieving Jews by showing that many of the children of Abra­ham were not
embraced in the promise of God to him at first. Said he: “Neither, because they
are the seed of Abraham, are they all children”—for then the descendants of
Abraham by Hagar and Keturah would have been included—”but, in Isaac shall thy
seed be called. That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not
the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.
For this is the word of promise, At this time will I Come, and Sarah shall have
a son.” Romans 9:7-9. The children of Abraham by Hagar and Keturah were children
of the flesh, but God saw fit to promise him a son by him wife Sarah, when she
was past age, through whom all the families of the earth were to be blessed in
Jesus Christ; hence, in due time, Isaac, the child of promise, was born, in whom
Jesus, the promised seed of Abraham, was called. But the calling of Jesus
through the line of Isaac did not consign the descendants of Abraham by Hagar
and Keturah to endless punishment; nor were their chances for heaven diminished
by this election of Isaac. Jacob had twelve sons, which became the heads of
twelve tribes; but God saw fit to call Jesus the promised seed of Abraham,
through the tribe of Judah, Jacob’s fourth son by Leah. Now, will any one assume
that calling the Messiah through the line of Judah consigned all the others to
endless punishment? If not, why should the descendants of Abraham be regarded as
eternally lost because they did not come through the family of Isaac? God never
promised Abraham that He would unconditionally save or damn any one. He promised
him a son by Sarah, and He gave him Isaac. He promised to multi­ply his seed
until they should become numerous as the stars of heaven or the sand upon the
sea-shore, and He did it. He prom­ised to give his seed the land of Canaan for a
possession, and He did this also; but they forfeited it by their rebellion
against Him. He promised that through his seed all the families of the earth
should be blessed in Jesus Christ; but when Jesus came, accord­ing to the
promise, they wanted to appropriate the blessing to themselves, to the exclusion
of the Gentiles: hence they were seeking to thwart the very promise of God to
Abraham which they thought was made void by carrying it into effect. “And not
only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac
(for the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that
the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him
that calleth;) it was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. As it is
written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.” Romans 9:10-13. That we may
understand this passage, it may be well to call the reader’s attention to the
fact that there are two quotations in it which should not be blended. One
quotation is from Genesis, and was spoken before Jacob and Esau were born; the
other is from Malachi, and was spoken long after they were both dead. Before the
children were born, it was said to their mother, “the elder shall serve the
younger;” but in the next verse is a quota­tion from Malachi, where it is
written, “Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.” By blending these
quotations, God is made to say that He loved Jacob and hated Esau before they
were born; or had, either of them, done good or evil. This is doing great
injustice to the record. Let us see what was said of them before they were born:
“And Isaac entreated the Lord for his wife, because she was barren: and the Lord
was entreated of him, and Rebekah his wife conceived; and the children struggled
together within her, and she said, If it be so, why am I thus? And she went to
inquire of the Lord. And the Lord said unto her, Two nations are in thy womb,
and two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels; and the one people
shall be stronger than the other people; and the elder shall serve the younger.”
Genesis 25:21-23. Here is what was said before Jacob and Esau were born, and we
find not a word about hating Esau and loving Jacob in the whole narrative. But
as Paul said it was so written, we may expect to find it somewhere; hence let us
try again: “The burden of the word of the Lord to Israel by Mala­chi: I have
loved you, saith the Lord. Yet ye say, Wherein hast thou loved us? Was not Esau
Jacob’s brother? saith the Lord: yet I loved Jacob, and I hated Esau, and laid
his mountains and his heritage waste for the dragons of the wilderness.” Malachi
1:1-3. This was said about fourteen hundred years after Jacob and Esau were both
dead; hence it can not prove that God loved or hated either of them before they
were born. But both passages refer to Jacob and Esau as the representatives of
the two nations which descended from them; hence the language of God to
Re­bekah: “Two nations are in thy womb, and two manner of peo­ple shall be
separated from thy bowels; and the one people shall be stronger than the other
people; and the elder shall serve the younger.” Please note the fact that it is
not said “the one man shall be stronger than the other man,” but “one people
shall be stronger than the other people.” Nor was it said the elder man shall
serve the younger man; on the contrary, the inference is clear that the people
who should descend from the elder were to be subject to the descendants of the
younger. This passage was never fulfilled in the person of these two brothers.
Esau never did, as an individual, serve Jacob; on the contrary, Jacob feared
Esau, and came much nearer serving him. When Jacob, at the suggestion of his
mother, fraudulently obtained his father’s bless­ing, which was intended for
Esau, the anger of the latter was kindled against his brother: “And Esau hated
Jacob because of the blessing wherewith his father blessed him: and Esau said in
his heart, The days of mourning for my father are at hand; then will I slay my
brother Jacob. And these words of Esau, her elder son, were told to Rebekah: and
she sent and called Jacob, her younger son, and said unto him, Behold, thy
brother Esau, as touching thee, cloth comfort himself, purposing to kill thee.
Now therefore, my son, obey my voice; and arise, flee thou to Laban my brother
to Haran; and tarry with him a few days, until thy brother’s fury turn away;
until thy brother’s anger turn away from thee, and he forget that which thou
hast done to him.” Genesis 27:41-45. Jacob fled to Padan-aram, and there
remained twenty years in the service of Laban, at the end of which he re­turned
with two wives, two concubines, eleven sons, and great wealth. “And Jacob sent
messengers before him to Esau his brother, unto the land of Seir, the country of
Edom. And he commanded them, saying, Thus shall ye speak unto my lord Esau; Thy
servant Jacob saith thus, I have sojourned with Laban, and stayed there until
now; and I have oxen, and asses, and flocks, and menservants and womenservants,
and I have sent to tell my lord, that I may find grace in thy sight. And the
messen­gers returned to Jacob, saying, We came to thy brother Esau, and also he
cometh to meet thee, and four hundred men with him Then Jacob was greatly afraid
and distressed: and he di­vided the people that was with him, and the flocks,
and herds, and the camels in two bands; and said, If Esau come to the one
company, and smite it, then the other company which is left shall escape.”
Genesis 32:3-8. Here we find that, in place of Esau serving Jacob personally,
Jacob feared Esau greatly—called him his lord, and himself the servant. In his
distress, he prayed God thus: “Deliver me, I pray thee, from the hand of my
brother, from the hand of Esau: for I fear him lest he come and smite me, and
the mother with the children.” Ver. II. He also sent messengers with presents to
give Esau, that he might buy his favor if possible. Then it is evident that
neither Jacob nor Esau was mentioned under any personal consideration, but only
as the representatives of the nations which should descend from them
respectively; nor was there any thing in the love of God for one, or in His
hatred of the other, which could affect the eternal destiny of either. It is
quite certain that all of Jacob’s posterity were not saved, and it is equally
certain that all of Esau’s posterity were not lost. Indeed, it can not be shown
that even Esau himself was eter­nally lost. He was wicked when he sold his
birthright, and is called a “profane person” for so doing. It is also certain,
that he was wicked about the time of his father’s death, for we have seen that
he would have killed Jacob had he not fled to the land of Padan-aram; but that
he remained wicked as long as he lived is by no means certain. True, Paul says
that, “When he would have inherited the blessing, he was rejected: for he found
no place of repentance, though he sought it carefully with tears.” Hebrews
12:17. It was in his father that he found no place of re­pentance, and not in
himself. He could not induce his father to revoke the blessing conferred upon
Jacob, although fraudulently obtained. When Esau met Jacob returning from
Padan-aram, “Esau ran to meet him, and embraced him, and fell on his neck, and
kissed him: and they wept.” Genesis 33:4. Here we find that all his anger toward
his brother had disappeared; and they lived in friendship ever afterward, as far
as we know. “By faith Isaac blessed Jacob and Esau concerning things to come.”
Hebrews 11:20. If the reader will examine these blessings, he will find that
there was not a word about eternal life or eternal death in either of them. They
pertained to national and temporal affairs entirely. To Jacob, Isaac said, “See,
the smell of my son is as the smell of a field which the Lord hath blessed:
therefore God give thee of the dew of heaven, and the fatness of the earth, and
plenty of corn and wine: let people serve thee, and nations bow down to thee: be
lord over thy brethren, and let thy mother’s sons bow down to thee: cursed be
every one that curseth thee, and blessed be every one that blesseth thee.”
Genesis 27:27-29. To Esau, Isaac said: “Behold, thy dwelling shall be the
fatness of the earth, and of the dew of heaven from above; and by thy sword
shalt thou live, and shalt serve thy brother: and it shall come to pass when
thou shalt have the dominion, that thou shalt break his yoke from off thy neck.”
Genesis 27:39-40. Now we find no allusion to the final salvation or condemnation
of either, in these blessings; but it is easy to see that they are connected
with the purpose of God as expressed to their mother: “The one peo­ple shall be
stronger than the other people; and the elder shall serve the younger.” See the
same thought in Jacob’s blessing. “Let people serve thee, and nations bow down
to thee: be lord over thy brethren, and let thy mother’s sons bow down to thee.”
In Esau’s blessing we have still the same: “By thy sword shalt thou live, and
shalt serve thy brother.” Thus we see, in these blessings, the servitude spoken
of before the birth of the children, which was never fulfilled in them, but was
fulfilled in their posterity. That the language, “Jacob have I loved, but Esau
have I hated,” was intended to apply to the two nations, Israel and Edom,
represented by Jacob and Esau, is evident from the lan­guage of the context from
which Paul made the quotation: “Was not Esau Jacob’s brother? yet I loved Jacob,
and hated Esau, and laid his mountains and his heritage waste for the dragons of
the wilderness. Whereas Edom saith, We are impoverished, but we will return and
build the desolate places.” Malachi 1:2-4. Here the prophet uses the term Edom,
the name of the nation which descended from Esau, and the plural pronoun we,
agreeing with it, to designate the same people hated and punished by the Lord.
Hence when the Lord, by his prophet, said, long after both men were dead, “Jacob
have I loved, but Esau have I hat­ed,” He was speaking of Israel and Edom as
nations, but not of Jacob and Esau as individuals. It may not be out of place
here to remark that the term hate, is sometimes used in the sense of loved
less—to regard with less favor; e.g.: “And when the Lord saw that Leah was
hated, he opened her womb: but Rachel was barren. And Leah con­ceived, and bore
a son; and she called his name Reuben: for she said, Surely the Lord hath looked
upon my affliction; now therefore my husband will love me. And she conceived
again, and bore a son; and said, Because the Lord hath heard that I was hated,
He hath therefore given me this son also: and she called his name Simeon.”
Genesis 29:31-33. Here it is said that Jacob hated Leah; but by an examination
of the preceding verse, it will be seen that nothing more is meant by it than
that she was loved less than Rachel. “He loved also Rachel more than Leah, and
served with him yet seven other years.” Ver. 30. Another example may be found in
the language of the Sa­viour: “If any man come to me, and hate not his father,
and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own
life also, he can not be my disciple.” Luke 14:26. This is a pretty hard
sentence—that, to be a disciple of the Lord, a man must not only hate all his
kindred, but he must also hate his own life; but when we have the same thought
in different lan­guage, it is quite plain: “He that loveth father or mother more
than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is
not worthy of me.” Matthew 10:37. Then, when God said, “I loved Jacob, and I
hated Esau,” if we interpret the passage in the light of this definition, the
thought is that He loved the children of Israel more than Edom, the descendants
of Esau. “What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God” in
rejecting the unbelieving Jews? “God forbid for; for he saith to Moses, I will
have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will
have compassion.” Vers. 14, 15. There was no injustice on the part of God in
re­jecting the unbelieving and rebellious Jews. As a Sovereign, He had a right
to dictate terms of mercy to those who would be­come subjects of His kingdom.
These terms were first offered to and rejected by the Jews; hence the apostle
appealed to the dec­larations of God to Moses, their own lawgiver, to show them
that God had always shown mercy to whom He would, and upon just such terms as
pleased Him. At a very early period in Jewish history God gave them to know the
terms upon which they might remain the recipients of His mercy. Said He: “I the
Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the
children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; and showing
mercy unto thousands of them that love me and keep my commandments.” Exodus
20:5-6. Then God will visit iniquity upon those who hate Him, because they hate
Him; and He will show mercy to those who love Him, because they love Him. “He
that covereth his sins shall not prosper: but whoso confesseth and forsaketh
them shall have mercy.” Proverbs 28:13. Hence we find that God’s mercy is not
dispensed ac­- cording to eternal and immutable decrees, but he that will
con­fess and forsake his sins shall have mercy. Peter tells us of a people
“which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.” 1 Peter 2:10. Then
they did not obtain mercy in a de­cree made before time began. Jesus said,
“Blessed are the mer­ciful, for they shall obtain mercy.” Matthew 5:7. And James
says, “He shall have judgment without mercy that hath showed no mercy.” James
2:13. Hence the Calvinist, who imagines himself one of the chosen few to whom
God hath shown mercy from be­fore the foundation of the world, and is unwilling
that the mer­cies of God extend to all men, may thus bring upon himself judgment
without mercy. “So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth,
but of God that showeth mercy.” Romans 9:16. It is possible that this verse
alludes to the blessing conferred by Isaac upon Jacob. Isaac willed that Esau,
the first-born, should have the blessing; Esau ran for the venison with which to
secure it; nevertheless Jacob obtained it. The blessing, as we have seen, was
not a per­sonal one, but pertained to Jacob’s descendants, and had no ref­erence
to eternal salvation, but conferred temporal blessings only. Hence it can yield
no support to the theory in question. It is true, as shown in another part of
the argument, that Jacob was elected to be the seed of Isaac, through whom
Christ should come—but this was before Jacob and Esau were born—that the purpose
of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of Him that calleth.
Neither the purchase of his brother’s birthright, nor the blessing conferred by
his father, had any thing to do with this election. “For the Scripture saith
unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might
shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the
earth.” Romans 9:17. Now, are we to understand by this that Pharaoh was one of
the eternally reprobate, and that God fore­ordained the wickedness of his nature
and the hardness of his heart? Is this the thought? Let us go back to the
Scriptures from which Paul quoted, and see how this is: “For this cause have I
raised thee up, for to show in thee my power, and that my name may be declared
throughout all the earth.” Exodus 9:16. Now, is there one word in the context
about eternal uncondi­- tional election and reprobation? or is there any thing
about elec­tion at all? It is said that God raised up Pharaoh that He might show
His power in him; but who did He not raise up for this purpose? The same might
have been truly said of Moses, in whom His mighty power was exhibited in the
destruction of the Egyptians and the salvation of the children of Israel, yet I
sup­pose no one will insist that he was raised up eternally reprobate. God
commanded Pharaoh to let his people go, but he persis­tently refused to obey
God; hence God overruled his rebellion to His own glory. Even so God offered
salvation to the Jews, upon condition that they would believe and obey the
gospel. Like Pharaoh, they rebelled against Him; hence He exhibited his power in
their destruction as a nation, that his name might be glorified in all the
earth. But surely this can not prove that they were eternally reprobate, for
they had been God’s elect or cho­sen people up to that time. Not only so, but
salvation upon the terms of the gospel was first offered to them; and surely God
did not offer them a salvation which was never intended for them, and which He
had unchangeably ordained that they should re­ject. But we are told that God
hardened Pharaoh’s heart: “There­fore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy,
and whom he will he hardeneth.” Romans 9:18. Are we to understand by this that
God created Pharaoh with a stubborn and rebellious heart, and promoted a spirit
of wickedness in him by the plagues in­flicted upon him? If so, all the
threatenings of God were but temptation to evil; yet James says, “Let no man say
when he is tempted, I am tempted of God, for God can not be tempted with evil,
neither tempteth he any man; but every man is tempted when he is drawn away of
his own lust, and enticed.” James 1:13-14. The mercies and blessings of God tend
always to harden or soften the hearts of those who receive them. If rightly
appre­ciated, they tend to awaken a sense of gratitude in the heart; but if
abused, they tend to harden the heart. When the hand of affliction falls heavily
upon us, we are either wilted into submis­sion to God’s will, or, as in time of
war, we become hardened until some care no more for the life of a man than for
the life of a beast. Thus it was with Pharaoh: when the hand of affliction was
upon him, he would promise to let the people go; but as soon as the affliction
was withdrawn, the spirit of rebellion revived: “When Pharaoh saw that there was
respite, he hardened his heart and hearkened not unto them, as the Lord had
said.” Exodus 8:15. “And Pharaoh hardened his heart at this time also, nei­ther
would he let the people go.” Ver. 32. “And when Pharaoh saw that the rain and
the hail and the thunders were ceased, he sinned yet more, and hardened his
heart, he and his servants.” Exodus 9:34. Then it can only be said that God
hardened Phar­aoh’s heart because He sent afflictions upon him which he abused
to the hardening of his own heart. In the same way it may be said that the
gospel hardens men now. It is preached to them as the power of God to salvation,
if they will accept it; but, rejecting it, they become hardened, until they can
resist the most stirring appeals to which mortals can be subjected in this life.
Hence said the apostle: “To the one we are the savor of death unto death; and to
the other the savor of life unto life. And who is sufficient for these things?”
2 Corinthians 2:16. We think it possible for men to continue in rebellion
against God until they pass entirely beyond the reach of all the agencies of the
gospel by which God proposes to save them. Such were some of the Jews in Paul’s
day: “Because that when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither
were thankful, but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart
was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools; and changed
the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man,
and to birds and to four-footed beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also
gave them up to un­cleanness, through the lust of their own hearts, to dishonor
their own bodies between themselves; who changed the truth of God into a lie,
and worshiped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed
forever. Amen. For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections.” Romans
1:21-26. Thus we see that God gave them up to uncleanness and vile affections,
not because they were eternally reprobate, and He had predestinated them to be
wicked, and created vile affections within them, but because of their own
willful and persistent re­bellion against Him. Paul speaks of him whose “coming
is after the working of Satan, with all power and signs, and Lying won­ders, and
with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they
received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause
God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: that they
all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in
unrighteousness.” 2 Thessalonians 2:9-12. God sends men strong de­lusions, not
because they were eternally reprobate, and predes­tinated to wickedness and
destruction, but because they receive not the love of the truth, that they might
be saved. And though many are thus deluded and hardened in falsehood,
infidelity, and crime, it is the result of their own wickedness, and not
be­cause of any eternal and immutable decree against them. They “walk in the
vanity of their mind, having the understanding dar­kened, being alienated from
the life of God, through the igno­rance that is in them, because of the
blindness of their heart: who, being past feeling, have given themselves over to
lascivi­ousness, to work all uncleanness with greediness.” Ephesians 4:17­-19.
Here were persons whose hearts were harder than that of Pharaoh, for he could
feel even to the last chastisement laid upon him; but these were past feeling,
and completely given over —not by any eternal decree, but they had given
themselves over to the service of Satan. “Nay, but, O man, who art thou that
replies” against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast
thou made me thus? hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to
make one vessel unto honor, and another unto dis­honor? What if God, willing to
show his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the
vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: and that he might make known the riches
of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,
even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles.”
Romans 9:20-23. Here the apos­tle has reference to the language of God to the
prophet concern­ing the potter, and the clay that was marred in his hand while
at­tempting to make a vessel of it. Let us go back and see what was originally
taught by it, and then we may be better prepared to un­derstand Paul’s use of
it: “The word which came to Jeremiah from the Lord, saying, Arise, and go down
to the potter’s house, and there I will cause thee to hear my words. Then I went
down to the potter’s house, and, behold, he wrought a work on the wheels; and
the vessel that he made of clay was marred in the hand of the potter; so he made
it again another vessel, as seemed good to the potter to make it. Then the word
of the Lord came to me, saying, O house of Israel, can not I do with you as this
potter? saith the Lord. Behold, as the clay is in the potter’s hand, so are ye
in my hand, O house of Israel. At what instant I shall speak concerning a
nation, and concerning a king­dom, to pluck up and to pull down, and to destroy
it; if that na­tion against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will
repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them. And at what instant I will
speak concerning a nation, and concerning a king­dom, to build up and to plant
it, if it do evil in my sight, that it obey not my voice, then I will repent of
the good wherewith I said I would benefit them.” Jeremiah 18 : l-10. Here we
find that this parable was used concerning the na­tion or kingdom of Israel: “As
the clay is in the potter’s hand, so are ye in my hand, O house of Israel.” But
are we taught that nations and kingdoms are eternally and unconditionally
ordained to prosperity or destruction? Surely, no language could have been
employed which would teach more clearly the opposite. Though God may have spoken
against a nation or kingdom to destroy it, yet if it turn from its wickedness
for which it was condemned, He will turn from the evil which He said He would
bring upon it. And though He may have spoken in favor of a kingdom or a nation
to build and to prosper it, yet if it do evil, then He will turn from the good
wherewith He said He would benefit it. True, the figure shows that God had the
power to bless and prosper a nation, or to pluck up and destroy it—and who
doubts this?—but the figure also shows that He will exer­cise His power in the
salvation or destruction of nations, as they obey or rebel against Him, and not
according to eternal decrees. The house of Israel as a nation and kingdom failed
to accom­plish the object designed in its creation, and hence was marred in the
hand of the Potter. He therefore gave it a less honorable form, but did not cast
it away entirely. They were captured, carried into Babylon, and there remained
as slaves and captives in a strange land for seventy years. This they might have
averted by turning from their wickedness; for God said, as we have already
quoted, that “if that nation against whom I have pronounced, turn from their
evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them.” They did not
turn away; hence the threatened punishment came upon them. But it did not amount
to their destruction. It was corrective as well as punitive, and brought them to
repentance in Babylon; hence the Potter took the vessel that had been seventy
years in dishonor, and made it again a vessel unto honor by restoring the Jews
to their national­ity. The reader would do well to bear in mind that a vessel in
dishonor is not necessarily a vessel of wrath fitted to destruction; for it may
yet turn from its wickedness and be made a vessel unto honor. But at the time
the apostle wrote, the Jewish king­dom had not only been marred in the hand of
the Potter, but it was fast approaching the condition of a vessel of wrath
fitted to destruction. The prophet gave a most appalling picture of the
punishment which threatened them and very soon came upon them: “Thus saith the
Lord, Go and get a potter’s earthen bottle, and take of the ancients of the
people, and of the ancients of the priests, and go forth unto the valley of the
son of Hinnom, which is by the entry of the east gate, and proclaim there the
words that I shall tell thee.” Jeremiah 19:1-2. After recounting the wickedness
of which they had been guilty, he pronounces their doom as fol­lows: “Therefore,
behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that this place shall no more be called
Tophet, nor The valley of the son of Hinnom, but The valley of slaughter. And I
will make void the counsel of Judah and Jerusalem in this place; and I will
cause them to fall by the sword before their enemies, and by the hand of them
that seek their lives: and their carcasses will I give to be meat for the fowls
of the heaven, and for the beasts of the earth. And I will make this city
desolate, and a hissing: every one that passeth thereby shall be astonished and
hiss because of all the plagues thereof. And I will cause them to eat the flesh
of their sons and the flesh of their daughters, and they shall eat every one the
flesh of his friend in the siege and straitness, where­with their enemies, and
they that seek their lives, shall straiten them. Then shalt thou break the
bottle in the sight of the men that go with thee, and shalt say unto them, Thus
saith the Lord of hosts, Even so will I break this people and this city, as one
breaketh a potter’s vessel, that can not be made whole again: and they shall
bury them in Tophet, till there be no place to bury.” Jeremiah 19:6-11. While
God was bearing with these vessels of wrath fitted to destruction, Christ came,
as the promised seed of Abraham, their father, in whom all the families of the
earth were to be blessed but the Jews were unwilling that all families of the
earth should enjoy salvation with them: hence the apostle alludes to the pot­ter
and the clay to teach them that when their government was marred in his hand, it
was his prerogative to make of it just such government as pleased him. As the
stubbornness and rebellion of the Jews caused them to be carried into Babylon,
so their re­maining stubbornness and rebellion prevented them from uniting with
the Gentiles in forming one grand spiritual family most honorable of all others;
hence, at the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus and his army, their nationality
was literally destroyed, as predicted by the Lord through Jeremiah, and enforced
by breaking the potter’s earthen bottle into fragments, which could never be
united again. While the material was clay it could be given another form when
marred in the hand of the potter, but after it became an “earthen bottle” and
was broken, the wreck was complete: “Even so will I break this people and this
city, as one breaketh a potter’s vessel, that can not be made whole again.” But
not withstanding this was said of the people and the city, it took individuals,
collectively considered, to make up the peo­ple; hence said the apostle: “What
if God, willing to show his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with
much long­suffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction, and that he
might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had
afore prepared unto glory, even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only,
but also of the Gentiles? As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people,
which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved. And it shall
come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my
people; there shall they be called the chil­dren of the living God.” Romans
9:22-26. Thus the apostle most clearly proves to the Jews, by quota­tion from
their own prophets, that the Gentiles, who had not been God’s people, were to
become the children of the living God. Hence the argument can not apply to
individuals only as j making up the classes of which the apostle spake. Surely,
we can not be mistaken here. But suppose we are, and the apostle intended to
make a personal application of the argument, what then? Will the parable of the
potter and the clay, thus applied, prove the Calvinistic theory of unconditional
election and repro­bation? Let us see. If the clay marred in the hand of the
potter, it was not because he designed it to be so, for he intended to make a
good vessel of it. Even so God wills not the death of any, but that all come to
repentance and live. Calvinists teach, that the non-elect were vessels of wrath
from before the beginning of time; were never designed for any thing else—nay,
were unchangeably ordained to dishonor and wrath. Again: The potter did not make
a vessel that he might de­stroy it himself. If the clay so marred in his hand
that it was not fit for the more honorable vessel at first designed, he worked
it over and made of the same lump another vessel of less value; but it was
nevertheless made for use or sale, not that he might himself destroy it. But,
according to the theory in question, God, the great Potter, made the non-elect
to be vessels of wrath, and fitted them for destruction, that He might exhibit
His power in their destruction—this being the object of their creation. Once
more: When the lump of clay marred in the hand of the potter, so that it would
not make a vessel unto honor, as first contemplated, he worked it over and made
of the same lump an­other vessel as it pleased him. The theory will not allow
the purposes of God to fail; on the contrary, they insist that his ves­sels
always come out just as He designed them. If so, the clay never mars in His
hand, and hence there is no fitness in the par­able. Indeed, they seem to have
two lumps—one elect, and the other reprobate; and if the clay came from the
elect lump, it can not make a reprobate vessel, for not an atom of that elect
mate­rial can be lost: on the contrary, if the clay came from the repro­bate
lump, no mechanical skill can work it over and make an elect vessel of it. The
theory makes every man elect or repro­bate from before time began, and he must
so remain while etern­ity endures. Therefore the parable will not fit Calvinism
any­where. After mentioning many vices to be avoided, Paul says: “In a great
house there are not only vessels of gold and of silver, but also of wood and of
earth; and some to honor and some to dis­honor. If a man, therefore, purge
himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honor sanctified and meet for the
master’s use, and prepared unto every good work.” 2 Timothy 2:20-21. He speaks
of “the house of God” as the “church of the living God.” 1 Timothy 3:15. Then in
the church or house of God there are vessels comparable to gold and silver, wood
and earth; some more and some less honorable, while others are a disgrace to the
cause they profess to love. And Paul here clearly shows that this difference is
made, not by an immutable decree of God, but by the parties themselves: “If a
man therefore purge himself from these”—not if God purge him, but if he purge
himself—”he shall be a vessel unto honor.” But let us pursue the apostle’s
argument. He says, “Even so then at this present time there is a remnant
according to the election of grace.” Romans 11:5. As there had been seven
thou­sand men, in the days of Elias, who had not bowed the knee to the image of
Baal, even so there was still a remnant when Paul wrote who had accepted
salvation upon the terms of the gospel of the grace of God, and these are they
of whom he spake, say­ing, “Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for,
but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded.” Ver. 7. This
remnant of Israel who accepted salvation upon gospel terms are denominated the
election, and the rest were blinded; that is, all Israel except this remnant
elected to salvation. Now, are we to conclude that those who were blinded were
eternally repro­bate? Before any one so affirms, let him remember that Israel
was once God’s elect people, and he must be prepared to show how they became
reprobate after having been eternally, immutably, and unconditionally elect,
according to his theory. Leaving Calvinism to grope its way out of this
difficulty as best it can, let us go on to see whether or not it is possible for
these reprobates to become elect again. In the 8th verse we learn that God gave
these reprobates “the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears
that they should not hear.” In the 9th verse, Paul quotes David thus “Let their
table be made a snare and a trap, and a stum­blingblock’ and a recompense unto
them; let their eyes be dar­- kened, that they may not see, and bow down their
back always Please remember that this was all said of those who were not of the
election of grace, but were reprobates. Now let us read on “I say then, Have
they [these reprobates] stumbled that the should fall? God forbid: but rather
through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to
jealousy. Now if the fall of them [Then they were not eternally reprobate, else
they could not have fallen] be the riches of the world, and the diminishing of
them [The creed says they can neither be in creased nor diminished] the riches
of the Gentiles; how much more their fullness? For I speak to you Gentiles,
inasmuch as: am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office: if by am
means I may provoke to emulation them which are my flesh, and might save some of
them [the reprobates]. For if the casting away of them be the reconciling of the
world, what shall the receiving of them [reprobates] be, but life from the
dead?” Ver 11-15. Then comes the figure of the olive-tree, showing that the
Jews, or natural branches, were broken off because of their unbelief, and the
Gentiles were grafted in. But even they must be faithful; for said he: “If God
spared not the natural branches. take heed lest he also spare not thee. Behold
therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but
toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also
shalt be cut off. [Ah, how can they be cut off if the number of the elect can
neither be increased nor diminished?] And they also, if they abide not still in
unbelief shall be grafted in; for God is able to graft them in again.” Ver.
21-23. Thus reprobate Israel may again be elect if they will: “For I would not,
brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in
your own conceits, that blind­ness in part is happened to Israel [those not
elect], until the ful­ness of the Gentiles be come in. And so all Israel shall
be saved.” Vers. 25, 26. Is it possible that these blinded repro­bates may yet
be saved? They may be saved, if Paul is good authority: “For as ye [Gentiles] in
times past have not believed God, yet have now obtained mercy through their
[Jews] unbe­lief; even so have these also not believed, that through your mercy
they [reprobate Jews] also may obtain mercy. For God hath concluded them all in
unbelief [What for? That he might damn them all? No, but] that he might have
mercy upon all.” Ver. 30-32. Where, then, is the eternal decree of unconditional
election and reprobation? Well may the apostle exclaim, “O the depth of the
riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his
judgments, and his ways past finding out” only as He has revealed them. We come
next to examine the same subject as taught in Paul’s letter to the Ephesians.
Will the reader open the divine volume and very carefully read the letter from
its beginning to the 6th verse of the fourth chapter, inclusive? We have not
room to transcribe it all, but every word deserves to be indelibly written upon
every human heart. We will begin with that portion of it supposed to give
sup­port to the theory of unconditional election. The apostle says: “Blessed be
the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all
spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ: according as he hath chosen us
in him before the founda­tion of the world, that we should be holy and without
blame be­fore him in love: having predestinated us unto the adoption of children
by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good plea­sure of h s will, to the
praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the
beloved: in whom we have re­demption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins,
according to the riches of his grace; wherein he hath abounded toward us in all
wisdom and prudence; having made known unto us the mys­tery of his will,
according to his good pleasure, which he hath purposed in himself; that in the
fullness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both
which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him: in whom also we have
ob­tained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the pur­pose of him
who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will: that we should be to
the praise of his own glory, who first trusted in Christ. In whom ye also
trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation.”
Ephesians 1:3-13. Without stopping to inquire after the meaning of the word
world in the 4th verse, let us proceed to analyze the passage and see whether or
not there is any thing like unconditional election in it: “According as he hath
chosen us in him before the founda­tion of the world.” Here we learn that
certain persons were cho­- sen in Christ before a certain time, but there is not
yet a word as to whether they were chosen conditionally or unconditionally. This
must be learned somewhere else. For what were they cho­sen? “That we should be
holy and without blame before him in love.” This is the character to be worn by
the persons chosen, and it clearly shows that the apostle ~vas speaking of a
class, and not of individuals as such. What more? “Having predestinated us unto
the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself.” And how is it
predestinated that children shall be adopted into God’s family by Jesus Christ?
“According to the good pleasure of his will.” Then what is the good pleasure of
his will in this matter? That the gospel shall be preached “among all nations,
to every creature.” “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he
that believeth not shall be damned.’’ Mark 16:16. Then it is the good pleasure
of His will that every creature who will believe the gospel and be baptized
shall be saved, and all who are thus saved are His children by Jesus Christ,
through whom He gave the conditions of adoption. This is all plain; let us go
on: “Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good
pleasure, which he hath purposed in him­self.” And what is the mystery of His
will thus made known? “That in the dispensation of the fullness of times he
might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven and
on earth; even in him: in whom also we have ob­tained an inheritance, being
predestinated according to the pur­pose of him who worketh all things after the
counsel of his own will.” Now, if these persons were unconditionally and
per­sonally predestinated to this inheritance, then it follows that Universalism
and not Calvinism gets the benefit of the quotation, for we have seen that He
purposed to gather together all things in Christ—not the elect few, but all
things. To whom was this made known, and what is the meaning of it? “B)r
revelation he made known unto me the mystery, as I wrote afore in few
words”—back yonder in the first chapter—”whereby, when ye read, ye may
understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ, which in other ages was not
made known to the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and
prophets by the Spirit.” Ephesians 3:3-5. To whom was this long-concealed
mystery made known by the Spirit? His holy apostles and prophets. Then they were
the persons referred to by the pronouns we and us, from the 3d to the 12th verse
(inclusive) of the first chapter, to whom this mystery was made known, as Paul
wrote afore in few words in the 10th verse of that chapter. And what was this
long-concealed mystery? “That the Gentiles should be fellow heirs, and of the
same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel.” Ephesians 3:6.
Then these holy apostles and prophets were the persons chosen in Christ before
the founda­tion of the world, that they as a class should be holy and without
blame before Him in love; and though as a class they were of this character, yet
as an individual, one of them betrayed the Lord for money. Does this prove the
doctrine of unconditional election? That we may see, if possible, more clearly
that the pronouns we and us in this context do refer to a particular class of
persons of which Paul was one, and that the calling of these did not em­brace
all the elect as taught by Calvinists, we will pursue the connection a little
further. The apostle says, “That we should be to the praise of his glory, who
first trusted in Christ.” Here is the same pronoun we, including Paul and
others, to whom he re­ferred as the called and predestinated, “who first trusted
in Christ. In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the
gospel of your salvation.” Vers. 12, 13. Now, if we who first trusted in Christ
included all the elect, who were the ye who also trusted in him after they heard
the gospel of their salvation? The apostles and prophets were of the Jews who
first trusted in Christ, and the Ephesians were Gentiles. who also trusted in
Him after they heard the gospel: “Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past
Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the
Circumci­sion in the flesh made by hands; that at that time ye were with­out
Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the
covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world; but now, in
Christ Jesus, ye, who some­time were far off are made nigh by the blood of
Christ. For he is Our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the
middle wall of partition between us; having abolished in his flesh the enmity,
even the law of commandments contained in ordi­nances for to make in himself of
twain one new man [or church], so making peace; and that he might reconcile both
unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby; and came and
preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh; for
through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father.” Ephesians 2 :
l1-18. Therefore, “keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is
one body [com­posed of Jews and Gentiles], and one Spirit, even as ye are called
in one hope of your calling; one Lord [who died for both Jew and Gentile], one
faith [common to Jew and Gentile], one bap­tism [enjoined upon all, for there
is] one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you
all,” if Christians, whether Jew or Gentile. Ephesians 4:3-6. The next passage
to which we are referred as proving eternal unconditional election is found, 2
Thessalonians 2:13-14 : “But we are bound to give thanks to God for you,
brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to
salva­tion, through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:
whereunto he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord
Jesus Christ.” In examining this passage, it is important to inquire what
be­ginning it was from which these persons were elected or chosen. Was it the
beginning of eternity? Eternity had no beginning. Was it the beginning of time?
Then the theory of eternal elec­tion is false, for time had a beginning, and is
not eternal. As the election was through sanctification of the Spirit and belief
of the truth, it is impossible that the election could have antedated the belief
of the truth through which it was effected. John says: “I write no new
commandment unto you, but an old commandment which ye had from the beginning.
The old commandment is the word which ye have heard from the beginning.” 1 John
2:7. And again: “Let that therefore abide in you, which ye have heard from the
beginning.” Ver. 24. Now, what beginning was this? Surely, not the beginning of
time, the beginning of the world, or any other time or thing which began before
their birth, for this they “heard from the beginning.” Nor was it the begin­ning
of the Christian dispensation, for it is most likely that none of them heard the
gospel until long after that beginning. Then it was the beginning of their
spiritual life—the time of their con­version. From that beginning they had heard
the gospel—had the old commandment, and knew God; hence to this begin­ning the
apostle undoubtedly refers; and we suppose Paul refers to the same beginning
from which the Thessalonians were cho­sen to salvation through sanctification of
the Spirit and belief of the truth. Were we to say that the sheriff was elected
through the votes of the people, no one would understand that he was elected
before he received the votes of the people. When Paul said persons were “saved
through faith” (Ephesians 2:8), he certainly did not mean to teach that they
were saved through faith before they had faith. Then, when the same apostle said
that the Thes­salonians were chosen through sanctification of the Spirit and
be­lief of the truth, he surely did not mean that they had been cho­sen from
before time began, or at any time before they believed the truth and had their
hearts purified by it. But we are referred to 1 Peter 1:2, where the apostle
addresses his brethren as “elect according to the foreknowledge of God the
Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of
the blood of Jesus Christ.” This election is accord­ing to the divine
foreknowledge, not contrary to it. The whole scheme of redemption was in the
mind of God before it was re­vealed to man. Therefore, when the conditions of
salvation were embodied in the gospel and proclaimed to the world, they were
presented just as they had existed in His mind before; hence, when any one
complies with the conditions of salvation, he is elected according to the
foreknowledge of God, because elected according to a plan previously known to
Him. When we say of the governor that he was elected according to the
constitu­tion of the State, we do not mean that the constitution elected him,
but that he was elected by a majority of the votes of the people, according to
the provisions of the constitution, and not against its provisions. So when any
one obeys the gospel, he is elected according to the foreknowledge of God,
because God foreknew the provisions of the gospel; but the foreknowledge of God
did not elect him. Finally, we come to examine the last passage in the Bible
which we have ever known brought to the support of uncondi­tional election and
reprobation: “The beast which thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out
of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition; and they that dwell on the earth
shall wonder, (whose names were not written in the book of life from the
foundation of the world,) when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and
yet is.” Revelation 17:8. It is the parenthetical por­tion of the quotation
which is believed by some to give support to the doctrine in question. As there
are persons here spoken of whose names were not written in the book of life from
the foun­dation of the world, it is inferred that there are persons whose names
were so written. This, we admit, is a legitimate infer­ence, but inferences
rarely ever stop within proper bounds. It is further inferred that when a
person’s name is written in the book of life, his interest in heaven is secure
to him; hence there are those whose names were written in the book of life and
made sure of heaven from the foundation of the world, without regard to any
thing done by them, whether good or evil. This is not deducible from the
language of the text, and is at war with the spirit of the whole Bible, which
rewards or punishes man ac­cording to his works, and is most plainly
contradicted in the same book from which the quotation is made. “He that
overcom­eth, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out
his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father,
and before his angels.” Revelation 3:5. Now, let us apply the same rules of
inference here that were ad­mitted applicable to the other passage. As it is
said of certain persons that their names were not written in the book of life,
it is inferred that the names of others were so written: then when the Lord said
of a certain character, “I will not blot out his name out of the book of life,”
the inference is equally clear that the names of others would be blotted out of
the book of life. From this conclusion there is no escape; hence the fact that
the name of a person is written in the book of life is not conclusive proof that
he will finally be saved in heaven. “For I testify unto every man that heareth
the words of the prophecy of this book, if any man shall add unto these things,
God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: and if any man
shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away
his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things
which are written in this book.” Revelation 22:18-19. Then, a man may have a
part in the book of life and yet so conduct himself that it may be taken away
from him Nor was this a new thought first revealed to John in the isle of
Patmos; for when Aaron made the golden calf, and the children of Israel were
threatened with destruction for worshiping it, Moses prayed the Lord to forgive
their sin, and said: “If not, blot me, I pray thee, out of thy book which thou
hast written. And the Lord said unto Moses, Whosoever hath sinned against me,
him will I blot out of my book.” Exodus 32:32-33. As sin or disobedience causes
God to erase or blot out the names of per­sons from the book of life, and
obedience causes their names to be retained or not blotted out (Revelation 3:5),
is it not probable that obedience caused their names to be enrolled when first
writ­ten in the book? “They that feared the Lord spake often one to another, and
the Lord hearkened, and heard it, and a book of remembrance was written before
him for them that feared the Lord, and that thought upon his name.” Malachi
3:16. This book seems to have been written before the Lord for those who feared
Him and thought upon His name. It will be observed that the names were written
from, not before, the foundation of the world. Then, as persons have lived and
feared the Lord, their names were inserted in God’s book. We do not suppose that
God had a literal book in which the names of His people were written before or
after the foundation of the world; but in the mind of God they are recognized as
His from the time they bear His name and become obedient to His will. If God had
a literal book in which the literal name of every person was written be­fore
time began, it follows that all parents and others concerned in giving children
their names must have been inspired in order that they might give the child the
name designed for it, other­wise they might miss the name occasionally. One
thing is cer­tain, however, whether the book be literal or figurative, viz: that
names, though written in the book of life, are still liable to be blotted out of
it; and surely, while the names of any persons re­main written in the book of
life, they are elect. Jesus said to his disciples, “Rejoice, because your names
are written in heaven.” Luke 10:20. Paul told his brethren that they had come
“to the general assembly and church of the first-born, which are written in
heaven.” Hebrews 12:23. To another he said: “I entreat thee also, true
yokefellow, help those women which labored with me in the gospel, with Clement
also, and with other of my fellow laborers, whose names are in the book of
life.” Php 4:3. After John de­scribed the heavenly Jerusalem, he said: “There
shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth; neither whatsoever
worketh abomination, or maketh a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb’s
book of life.” Revelation 21:27. From all these quotations it is evident that,
while the names of persons are written in the book of life, in heaven they are
elect; but when their names have been so written and blotted out of the book of
life, they become reprobates, and, unless rein­stated, must be lost. Therefore
the number of the elect can be diminished, and hence the doctrine of eternal
unconditional elec­tion and reprobation can not be true. Now, we believe we have
examined every passage of Holy Writ supposed to favor the doctrine of personal
unconditional election and reprobation, and we feel sure that many readers will
rejoice with us in the conviction that no such monstrous ab­surdity is taught in
God’s holy word. We conscientiously be­lieve it not only antagonistic to the
teaching of the Bible, but contrary to the spirit and genius of the Christian
religion, and at war with the love, mercy, and justice of God. He had the entire
control of man’s creation, and certainly would not have created him, having
unalterably consigned the greater portion of his pos­terity to eternal misery,
dishonor, and wrath, for no fault of their own, or any thing in their power to
prevent. How God could be glorified by the eternal punishment of man, in order
to carry out a decree made by Himself before the creation of man, is a matter
utterly incomprehensible to us. The doctrine makes God an embodiment of cruelty,
tyranny, and oppression too horrible to contemplate; and we see not how any one
who believes it can acceptably obey God. “He that cometh to God must believe
that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.” Hebrews
11:6. Do Calvinists believe that God will reward the reprobates, however
diligently they may seek Him? How can he who believes himself either one of the
elect or one of the reprobate, and that therefore there is nothing he can do
that will in any way affect his salvation, ask such a question as. “What must I
do to be saved?” (Acts 16:30) or in faith obey any command as a condition of
salvation? We speak with all due respect when we say we think such a thing
impossible until such persons can correct their faith on this subject. If we
be­lieved it, we would never make another effort to persuade any person to make
his calling and election sure; because, if the doc­trine is true, no effort
which man can make in the way of obedi­ence to God can in the least increase his
chances for future bliss, or in any way change the final destiny of any one of
Adam’s race. Let us turn our backs upon the theory, and our eyes to the word of
the Lord, and with hearts lifted in gratitude to God, seek to realize the grand
truth perceived by Peter at the house of Cornelius—”that God is no respecter of
persons: but in every na­tion he that feareth him and worketh righteousness, is
accepted with him.” Acts 10:34-35.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 5: GPS-04-THE FOREKNOWLEDGE OF GOD
========================================================================

CHAPTER IV. THE FOREKNOWLEDGE OF GOD.

Finally, we come to examine the last strong fortress of Cal­vinism, which it
holds in alliance with Universalism by the com­mon consent of those who oppose
them. It is based upon the as­sumption that God, from all eternity, foreknew
every thing that ever has or ever will come to pass; therefore, He foreknew just
who and how many would be saved, and who, if any, would be lost. And as the
final destiny of every person must be exactly as foreseen by God, it follows
that such foreknowledge amounted to an immutable decree. If God knew, ere time
began, that Cain would kill his brother, then there was no possibility left to
Cain to avoid the deed. Had there been such possibility, Cain might have availed
himself of it, and failed to do that which God foreknew he would do, thereby
falsifying the foreknowledge of God. If God foreknew that Cain, or any one else,
would act wickedly and be lost, then there was no possibility left him to have
acted righteously and to have been saved; for had he availed himself of such a
possibility and been saved, it would have been in despite of God’s foreknowledge
to the contrary. Ergo, as God foreknew every thing, He must have decreed ev­ery
thing; and as He foreknew the destiny of every man, it fol­lows that He decreed
the destiny which man had no power to avert. We believe this is a fair exhibit
of the Calvinistic side of the argument; but Universalism applies the same
principle to all men that Calvinism applies to the elect. It assumes that God
will not punish man for that which he had no power to avoid (and yet we see that
he is so punished every day); and as all must pursue the course marked out for
them in the foreknowl­edge of God, none will be punished for carrying out the
immuta­ble purposes of Jehovah. Forgetting that God has such attri­butes as
justice and vengeance, it draws largely upon His love, goodness, and mercy: “God
is infinite love, and must have de­sired the salvation of all men. As He
foreknew the destiny of every man, and had power to create only such as seemed
good to Him, He would, of course, create only such as He foresaw would be saved.
Hence all men were created for salvation, and will finally be saved.” Thus we
have presented the arguments respectively drawn by Calvinists and Universalists
from what they are pleased to call the unlimited foreknowledge of God; and it is
but the part of candor to admit that they are not without some degree of
plausibility. There are, however, at least three sides to this argu­ment, viz:
the Calvinist’s side, the Universalist’s side, and the Lord’s side, and of the
three we prefer the last. Many have been the efforts to harmonize the
free-agency of man and the unlimited foreknowledge of God, and though we have
read every thing written on the subject that has fallen under our no­tice, we
have never yet read a plausible theory concerning it. From our stand-point,
therefore, the premises are doubtful, to say the least of them: may we not,
then, with becoming reverence, inquire whether or not God eternally foreknew
every thing that ever has or ever will come to pass? In approaching the
examination of the subject we wish to state most plainly that we pretend not to
comprehend the mind and purposes of God, only as He has revealed them to us. We
pretend not to have fathomed the depths of the wisdom and knowledge of the
infinite Jehovah. With Paul, we are ready to exclaim: “O the depth of the riches
both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and
his ways past finding out! for who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath
been his counselor?” Romans 11:33-34. Oh, the insignificance of man in the
presence of God! Indeed, it seems to us unsafe to build a theological system
upon an incom­prehensible foundation; hence those who base their theory upon the
supposed attributes of God, to say the least of them, are liable to build upon
the sand. Do they not thereby say that they have sounded the depths of the
wisdom and knowledge of God, and have found them extending to a perfect
knowledge of every thing that ever has or will come to pass? Do they not, in
theory, say that they have searched His judgments, and have found that a
definite number were approved, and the reprobates condemned, before time began,
or that all were unconditionally approved? Do they not say that they have
searched His ways and known His mind to perfection, and can therefore safely
build a theological system, involving the destiny of the human race, upon their
knowledge of the attributes of God? We may know God’s will, and the extent of
His knowledge where He has revealed them to us, but beyond this we dare not go.
When God speaks, it is the province of man to hear and believe, whether he can
or can not see to the end. When God commanded Abraham to go, he went, not
knowing whither he went (Hebrews 11:8); hence, when God says He purposed to do
any thing, we must accept it as true, whether He did it or not; and when He says
He did not know a thing, it is unsafe to say that He did know it, His word to
the contrary notwithstanding. But has God spoken to man on the subject? Let us
see: “And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that
every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And it
repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at
heart. And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face
of the earth.,’ Genesis 6:5-7. Now, if God knew before He created man just how
wicked he would be, and what he would do, what can this mean? “God saw that the
wickedness of man was great.” Did He not always see? And why did God grieve over
a result which was as plain to Him be­fore He created man as when He saw the
overt acts of wicked­ness performed? And if the wickedness of man was such as to
cause God to destroy him, why would not this wickedness fore­seen have prevented
his creation at first? If seeing the wickedness of man caused God to repent
making him, and to determine to destroy him, does not it follow that He did not
know, prior to his creation, how wicked he would be? Surely, He would not have
created man for the purpose of bringing grief to His own heart, and destruction
to His creature. But why did God not know the wickedness of the antediluvians,
from eternity? Certainly, it was not because He was not capable of knowing
fu­ture events, for we know He did foretell many things long be­fore they came
to pass. The Psalmist says, “Great is our Lord, and of great power: his
understanding is infinite.”Psalms 147:5. “Could there be any thing unknown to
him whose understanding is infinite?” Let us see. God is as infinite in power as
He is in understanding. No one, we suppose’ will deny that He is omnip­otent as
well as omniscient, yet there are some things He cannot do; e.g., God can not
lie. Titus 1:2; Hebrews 6:18. God could not have made two hills without a low
place between them. Then if there are some things which God can not do, though
om­nipotent, may there not be some things which He DID not know, though
omniscient? But it may be said that God can not lie, because it is incompatible
with His nature, and not because He has not power to lie. Very well; then He did
not know, be­fore making man, just how wicked he would be, simply because such
foreknowledge would have been incompatible with the free-agency and
responsibility of man. To be responsible, man must be free. If God knew before
He gave Adam the law in the garden that he would violate it when given, then he
was not free; for he could not have falsified God’s foreknowledge if he would:
hence to violate the law was a necessity. The great scheme of salvation
conceived by Infinite Wisdom contemplated human re­sponsibility based upon
freedom of will, and God had power to avoid the foreknowledge of every thing
incompatible with His attributes and the scheme of salvation devised by Him. He
who says God could not avoid knowing every thing, limits the power of Him who is
omnipotent. God can limit the exercise of His own attributes, but it is
dangerous for man to assume such power. We dare not limit the knowledge of God;
but if He saw fit to limit the exercise of His own knowledge, we fear to say He
had not the power and the right to do so. Infinite power does not require God to
do every thing, but it implies the ability to do whatever is in harmony with His
attributes and purposes. He could instantly kill every man who violates His law,
but, in great mercy, He has seen fit to limit the exercise of His power, and
permits us to live: so, in the morning of the first day, God could have looked
down the stream of time and have seen the secret intentions of every heart that
would ever be subjected to His law, but, in infinite mercy, He saw fit to avoid
a knowledge of every thing incompatible with the freedom of the human will and
the system of government devised by Him for man. Does any one say God had not
power to do this? then let him explain how it was that God grieved over the
wickedness of man when He saw that it was great in the earth; yea, let him
explain why it was that the wickedness of man caused God to repent that He had
made him, if He as clearly saw it before He made him as afterward; and let him
further explain why it was that the wick­edness of man, which caused God to
determine to destroy him from the earth after He had made him, if clearly
foreseen by Him, did not prevent God from creating man at first. God exercises
His attributes through means, or without them, as may best serve His purposes.
When He would exert His power in the creation of any thing, He said, Let it be,
and it was. When He would bear witness to the divine character of His Son, a
voice came from the eternal throne, saying, “This is my beloved Son, in whom I
am well pleased.” Matthew 3:17; Matthew 17:5. When He would rebuke the madness
of Balaam, He en­abled the beast on which the ungrateful wretch rode, to speak
in the language of man. Numbers 22:28. When He would re­buke Belshazzar for the
unholy use to which he applied the sa­cred vessels of His house, He caused the
fingers of a man’s hand, where there was no man, to write the king’s doom on the
plas­tered walls of his own palace. Daniel 5:5. When He gave His law to the Jews
at Sinai, He inscribed it on tables of stone with His own finger; but when He
established the new covenant, He wrote His laws upon the hearts of His people
with the tongues and pens of men. Even so He could know or not know what­ever He
desired to know, with or without means. When He would test the complaints that
had reached Him concerning the wickedness of the cities of the plains, He said:
“Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very
grievous, I will go down now, and see whether they have done al­together
according to the cry of it which is come unto me; and if not, I will know.”
Genesis 18:20-21 Certainly, God could have known what was going on in these
cities without going down there to see about it, but He declined to know until
He em­ployed His angels, in the likeness of men, as means for the pur­pose of
obtaining the information. But this was not a case of foreknowledge, but simply
a case where God made use of means to acquire a knowledge of what had already
occurred. This is certainly true, but does it remove the difficulty? Did God
know, before time began, all about the wickedness of these cities, and forget
it, so as to make it necessary to send His angels to acquire a knowledge of that
which He had previously known? Surely, no one is prepared to take a Position
like this. Do words mean any thing? If so, when God said, “I will go down now,
and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is
come unto me; and if not, I will know,” what did He mean? Had He always known?
“But this language was used in an accommodated sense.” Was it, indeed? Then let
us seek for its meaning in this sense. To whom was it accommodated? Not to God,
certainly, for He needed no accommodation. He could have made the communi­cation
in any set of words which contained it, either through a medium or without one.
Then, if the language was accommo­dated at all, it must have been to Abraham, to
whom it was spo­ken, and to us for whose benefit it was recorded; but if it
con­veyed some other idea than is usually conveyed by the same set of words,
then we see not how it was accommodated to any one. The only way by which
language can be accommodated to any one consists in its adaptation to the
comprehension of the party addressed and the thought to be conveyed by it; e.g.:
If a Ger­man would communicate any thing to me, he must speak to me in English,
as I would not be likely to understand him were he to address me in the German
language. Hence, by speaking En­glish, he would accommodate his language to me.
But this is not all: he must use such English words as would embody the thought,
otherwise I might still fail to understand him. If he wanted to buy a horse of
me, and he should say, “I want to sell you some goods to-day,” I would fail to
understand him, because the idea of buying a horse is not in the words, “I want
to sell goods.” Nor is this all: he would deceive me by using words calculated
to convey one thought when he designed to convey another. Then when God
substantially said to Abraham, “I will go down and see whether or not things are
as reported to me; and if not, I will know”—if He meant that He had always seen
and always known the things spoken of, we insist that the lan­guage used not
only failed to be accommodated to the thought, but was calculated to make a
false impression upon all before whom it might come. Let us try a few other
passages of like construction by the same accommodated rules of interpretation.
In the same chapter from which we have quoted the language in question, God
twice said to Abraham, by the mouths of the same angelic messengers, “I will
return unto thee, according to the time of life, and Sarah shall have a son.”
Vers. 10,14. Did God mean that He had already returned, and that Sarah had
already been blessed with the promised son? Again: The Lord said to Abraham, “I
will make thee exceeding fruitful” Did He mean that Abraham had always been
faithful? “I will make nations of thee.” Did He mean that nations had always
been made of Abraham? “I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the
land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting
possession.” Did He mean that He had, from etern­ity, given the land of Canaan
to Abraham? Once more: When Jesus said, “On this rock I will build my church”
(Matthew 16:18), did He mean that His church had always been built? If not, how
can we accommodate the language “I will know” to the thought “I have always
known?” When Abraham, in obedience to the command of God, had placed his beloved
son upon the sacrificial altar, and had stretched forth his hand, and taken the
knife to slay his son, “the angel of the Lord called unto him out of heaven, and
said, Abra­ham, Abraham. And he said, Here Amos 1. And he said, Lay not thy hand
upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him; for now I know that thou
fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, shine only son, from me.”
Genesis 22:11-12. What can this mean? “Now I know that thou fearest God.” Did He
al­ways know it? Nay, how did He then know it? “Seeing thou hast not withheld
thy son, shine only son, from me.” Does not this language imply that God saw in
Abraham a degree of faith­fulness unseen before? Paul says God tried Abraham
here. Hebrews 11:17. Why did God try him, if He knew perfectly well what Abraham
would do before He tried him? But it is said that this trial of Abraham was to
show him the strength of his own faith. Then God should have said, “Now you know
you fear God, because you see you have not withheld your son, your only son,
from me.” It occurs to us that an accommodation of language to thought would
require a change like this. Respecting the idolatry of the Jews, God, by the
mouth of His prophet, said: “They have built the high places of Tophet which is
in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to burn their sons and their daughters in
the fire; which I Commanded them not, nei­ther came it into my heart.” Jeremiah
7:3 l. Here were things done by men which the Lord said came not into His heart.
Did He know from eternity that which never came into His heart? But we are told
that this only means that it never entered into God’s heart to command the
wickedness which they did. He plainly says He did not command it before using
the words “neither came it into my heart.” Surely, something additional was
im­plied by these words; if not, why use them at all? Let us exam­ine the
construction of the quotation. What did they do? They burnt their children. What
was it which God commanded them not? That which they did. What was it that came
not into the mind of the Lord? That which they did, the burning of their
children. In the sentence, “Neither came it into my heart,” if the pronoun it
does not refer to burning their sons and daughters in the fire, then we confess
our inability to construe it at all. In another place the Lord said: “They have
built also the high places of Baal, to burn their sons with fire, for
burnt-offerings unto Baal, which I Commanded not, nor spake it, neither came it
into my mind.” Jeremiah 19:5. Let us examine the pronouns in this quotation.
“Which I Commanded them not.” To what does the relative which refer? To the act
of burning their sons with fire. “Nor spake it.” To what does the pronoun it
refer? That which they did, and were commanded not. “Neither came it into my
mind.” Now, to what does this it refer? Certainly, to that which they did, which
God commanded them not, nor spake it. Unless we take the liberty of adding to
the word of the Lord, we see not how to construe the language otherwise. But we
are told that these passages are explained by another: “They built the high
places of Baal, which are in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to cause their
sons and their daughters to pass through the fire unto Molech; which I Commanded
them not, neither came it into my mind, that they should do this abomination, to
cause Judah to sin.” Jeremiah 32:35. And how does this passage explain the other
two? Perhaps this is ex­plained by the other two. If we understand the auxiliary
should in the sense of would, then we have most perfect harmony in all of them.
But it matters not which rendering is adopted here, for when the passages are
all considered they abundantly show that it never entered into the mind of God
that they either would or should do the things they did. Let it be remembered
that Cal­- vinism assumes that God eternally and immutably fore-ordained every
thing that comes to pass. It did come to pass that the Jews did these things;
therefore it follows that God fore-ordained that they should do them; and yet He
says it never came into His mind that they should do them. In another part of
the argument we invoked the aid of Calvinists to explain how God fore-ordained
that which never came into His mind. All must see that this is impossible, and
hence God did not fore-ordain these things. Calvinism further assumes that
whatever was fore­known was fore-ordained: then, as these abominations were not
fore-ordained, it follows that they were not foreknown; hence, even from this
stand-point, they never entered the mind of the Lord. Universalism is also
entangled in the meshes of this net, for it and Calvinism agree that all things
foreknown were fore-ordained, and must come to pass accordingly. Let
Universalists, therefore, join with Calvinists in showing how God fore-ordained
that which never came into His mind; for when­ever they admit that the
foreknowledge of God does not amount to an immutable decree, and that things may
turn out otherwise than as foreseen by God, then their argument drawn from the
unlimited foreknowledge of God will have been exploded, and the strongest prop
which ever gave support to Universalism will have been withdrawn. When the
children of Israel worshiped the golden calf made by Aaron at the foot of Sinai,
the anger of the Lord was kindled against them, and He said to Moses, “Let me
alone, that my wrath may wax hot against them, and that I may consume them: and
I will make of thee a great nation.” Exodus 32:10. Moses interceded for the
people with arguments too powerful to be re­sisted. Said he, “Wherefore should
the Egyptians speak and say, For mischief did he bring them out to slay them in
the mountains, and to consume them from the face of the earth? Turn from thy
fierce wrath, and repent of this evil against thy people. Remember Abraham,
Isaac, and Israel, thy servants, to whom thou swearest by shine own self, and
saddest unto them, I will multiply your seed as the stars of heaven, and all
this land that I have spoken of will I give unto your seed, and they shall
inherit it forever.” Vers. 12, 13. Was there ever a more powerful speech, of the
same length uttered by mortal lips? He reminds the Lord of His deliverance of
this people, and what His enemies would say of His motives in doing so—of His
devoted servants whose children these were, and His oath of promise to them.
This speech prevailed, “And the Lord repented of the evil which he thought to do
unto his people.” Ver. 14. Was the Lord decep­tive in His pretensions of anger
to Moses against the people? Were His threats of destruction all hypocrisy? The
earnest ap­peals of Moses show that he did not so understand them; yet they were
mere sound if He knew, when making them, that He would not execute them. But He
repented of the evil which He thought to do unto His people, and did not do that
which He thought He would do. But if He eternally foreknew every thing that
comes to pass, it follows that He foreknew He would not do this evil to His
people; hence He knew He would not do that which He thought He would do. Can
this be true? Is it possi­ble to think we will do that which we know we will not
do? Men sometimes say they think they will do that which they know, at the time,
they will not do; but they do that which it is impossible for God to do when
they so speak. Surely, we should be slow to cast such an imputation upon the God
we adore. The inspired Word is the measure of our faith; hence, when it says God
thought He would do a thing, we accept it as true, feeling sure that no valid
objection can be brought against it. The Book of God, to be worthy of its
Author, must be harmoni­ous in all its teaching. But the disciples of the
Saviour once said to Him, “Now are we sure that thou knowest all things.” John
16:30. And Peter once said, “Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I
love thee.” John 21:17. Will the reader bear in mind that it is one thing to
know all things, and quite another to foreknow all things—one thing to know a
thing, and quite another thing to know a thing before it is a thing, or when it
has no existence. If we make these texts prove that Jesus had unlimited
foreknowl­edge of every thing that has or will take place, we come in con­flict
with His own word, when he said, “Of that day and of that hour knoweth no man,
no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the SON, but the Father.” Mark
13:32. Now, here is one thing which it is certain he did not know; hence the
fact that Jesus knew all things did not imply that He foreknew every thing. But
John said, “God is greater than our heart, and know­eth all things.” 1 John
3:20. Yes, and in just as strong terms he said to his brethren, “Ye have an
unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things.” 1 John 2:20. Then, if the
fact that God knows all things proves that He foreknew all things, the same
language proves that the disciples to whom John wrote also had unlimited
foreknowledge! Does any one believe this? Then the language has no application
to foreknowledge what­ever. Further: There is no fact more clearly established
than that the word all is often used in the Bible to indicate a great amount or
a great number, when it must not be understood without limit; e.g.: It is said
that all the people in a certain re­gion were baptized by John, and yet many
rejected the counsel of God against themselves by not being so baptized. And
even the very words all things are used in a limited sense. Paul says charity
“beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all
things.” 1 Corinthians 13:7. Are we to believe all things, whether true or
false? Surely not. Then the sum of John’s teaching was that his brethren, having
an unction from the Holy One, know all things about which he ~vas writing to
them. Then we shall continue to believe that our Heavenly Father had power to
limit the exercise of His knowledge to an extent com­patible with the
free-agency and accountability of man and the scheme of salvation devised for
him, until we are shown a more excellent way. This being so, neither Calvinism
nor Universal­ism can be sustained by their long cherished hobby, unlimited
“foreknowledge;” but how they will be successfully met by those who admit it, is
more than we can foreknow. We must see it done, then we will, perhaps, know how
it has been done. When we wrote the foregoing we were not aware of a sin­gle
authority, save the Bible, from which we might derive the slightest
encouragement; since we sent it to press, however, we have found an article from
the pen of Dr. Adam Clarke, from which we make the following ver~r significant
extract; not be­cause there is any thing additional in it, but that our readers
may see that we are, at least, in good company: “As God’s omnipotence implies
his power to do all things, so God’s omniscience implies his power to know all
things; but we must take heed that we meddle not with the infinite free-agency
of this Eternal Being. Though God can do all things, he does not all things.
Infinite judgment directs the operations of his power, so that though he can,
yet he does not do all things, but only such things as are proper to be done. In
what is called il­limitable space, he can make millions of millions of systems,
but he does not see proper to do this. He can destroy the solar sys­tem, but he
does not do it: he can fashion and order, in endless variety, all the different
beings which now exist, whether mate­rial, animal, or intellectual; but he does
not do this, because He does not see it proper to be done. Therefore it does not
follow that, because God can do all things, therefore he muse do all things. God
is omniscient, and can know all things, but does it follow from this that he
must know all things? Is he not as free in the volitions of his wisdom as he is
in the volitions of his power? The contingent as absolute, or the absolute as
contin­gent? God has ordained some things as absolutely certain: these he knows
as absolutely certain. He has ordained other things as contingent: these he
knows as contingent. It would be absurd to say that he foreknows a thing as only
contingent which he has made absolutely certain. And it would be as ab­surd to
say that he foreknows a thing to be absolutely certain which, in his own eternal
counsel, he has made contingent. By “absolutely certain” I mean a thing which
must be in that order, time, place, and form, in which Divine wisdom has
ordained it to be; and that it can be not otherwise than this infinite counsel
has ordained. By “contingent,” I mean such things as the infi­nite wisdom of God
has thought proper to poise on the possibil­ity of being or not being, leaving
it to the will of intelligent beings to turn the scale. Or contingencies are
such possibilities, amid the succession of events, as the infinite wisdom of God
has left to the will of intelligent beings to determine, whether any such event
shall take place or not. To deny this would involve the most palpable
contradictions, and the most monstrous ab­surdities. If there be no such things
as contingencies in the world, then every thing is fixed and determined by an
unaltera­ble decree and purpose of God, and not only all free-agency is
destroyed, but all agency of every kind, except that of the Crea­- tor himself,
for on this ground God is the only operator, either in time or eternity: all
created beings are only instruments, and do nothing but as impelled and acted
upon by this almighty and sole Agent. Consequently, every act is his own, for if
he have purposed them all as absolutely certain, having nothing contin­gent in
them, then he has ordained them to be so; and if no con­tingency, then no
free-agency, and God alone is the sole actor. Hence the blasphemous, though,
from the premises, fair conclu­sion, that God is the author of all the evil and
sin that are in the world, and hence follows that absurdity—that, as Clod can do
nothing that is wrong, WHATEVER IS, IS RIGHT. Sin is no more sin, a vicious
human action is no crime, if God have decreed it, and by his foreknowledge and
will impelled the creature to act it. On this ground there can be no punishment
for delinquencies, for if every thing be done as God has predetermined—and his
determinations must necessarily be all right—then neither the in­strument nor
the agent has done wrong. Thus all vice and vir­tue, praise and blame, merit and
demerit, guilt and innocence, are at once confounded, and all distinctions of
this kind con­founded with them. Now, allowing the doctrine of the contin­gency
of human actions (and it must be allowed in order to shun the above absurdities
and blasphemies), then we see every intelligent creature accountable for its own
works, and for the use it makes of the power with which God has endued it; and,
to grant all this consistently, we must also grant that God foresees nothing as
absolutely and inevitably certain which he has made contingent; and because he
has designed it to be contingent, therefore he can not know it as absolutely and
inevitably certain. I conclude that God, although omniscient, is not obliged, in
con­sequence of this, to know all that he can know, no more than he is obliged,
because he is omnipotent, to do all that he can do.” Commentary on Acts ii : 47.
Although Dr. Clarke offers not a single scriptural quotation or reference in
proof of the positions taken, yet we regard his rea­soning upon the attributes
of God, and the bearing of foreknowl­edge upon the free-agency and
accountability of man, as simply irresistible. We have long entertained these
views, but have never preached them from the pulpit, nor until now given them to
the press. We were forced to them while preparing for a de­bate with a
Universalist, some twenty years ago, since which we have studied the subject,
until a Position then cautiously taken has become a settled conviction. We feel
strengthened by find­ing ourself in company with a man of such power as Dr.
Clarke.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 6: GPS-05-HEREDITARY DEPRAVITY
========================================================================

CHAPTER V.

HEREDITARY DEPRAVITY.

Having previously disposed of unconditional election and rep­robation as taught
by the Presbyterian Confession, we come now to notice another doctrine taught by
the same authority, as well as by most of the denominations, which obtains much
more general acceptance than the Calvinistic view of election and rep­robation,
but which is equally fatal to the obedience of faith re­quired in the gospel, to
which we deem it proper to call atten­tion before we set out to learn the duty
of man in order to his adoption into the family of God. This is what is called
by its advocates “Hereditary Total Depravity.” We will make a few quotations
from the Presbyterian Con­fession of Faith, as the highest authority known to us
that con­tains this doctrine, which will correctly set it before the reader. And
we do not make these quotations for the purpose of follow­ing this doctrine into
all its legitimate results in detail, but for the purpose of showing its bearing
upon the subject of obedience to God: “By this sin (eating the forbidden fruit)
they (our first par­ents) fell from their original righteousness and communion
with God, and so became dead in sin, and wholly defiled in all the faculties and
parts of soul and body. They being the root of all mankind, the guilt of this
sin was imputed and the same death in sin and corrupted nature conveyed to all
their posterity descend­ing from them by ordinary generation. From this original
cor­ruption, whereby we are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to
all good, and wholly inclined to all evil, do proceed all actual
transgressions.” Now, it seems to us that if this picture correctly represents
the disposition of the human heart at birth, the devil can be no worse. His
Satanic Majesty can not be more than utterly indis­posed, disabled, and opposite
to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil. Nor can we very well see how man
can get any worse in the scale of moral turpitude. He can not get worse than
wholly defiled in all the faculties of soul and body—and this is his condition
at birth, if the doctrine be true—yet Paul tells Tim­othy that “evil men and
seducers shall wax worse and worse.” 2 Timothy 3 : l3. How can they get worse?
Wholly defiled in all the faculties of soul and body! Opposite to all good, and
wholly in­clined to all evil, and still wax worse and worse! Does not the common
observation of every man contradict this doctrine? The theory is, as we shall
see directly, that this corrupt nature re­mains until the man is converted to
Christianity, as some teach, while others insist that it remains through life
even in those truly regenerated. Then we can not be wholly defiled, opposite to
all good by nature, for we see many men who make no pretension to Christianity
at all, quite as ready to visit the sick and adminis­ter to the wants of the
poor as many who claim to have had their hearts cleansed by the Spirit of God.
These persons are surely not opposed to all good while thus doing good; if they
are, then their feelings and actions are strangely inconsistent. But we are told
that from this original corruption do proceed all actual transgressions. If this
be true, how came Adam to sin? This corruption of nature is the cause of all
actual transgression, and it was the consequence of Adams’s sin, but not the
cause of it, according to the theory, and hence he was not under its influ­ence
until after he sinned. As this inherited corruption of na­ture is the source of
all actual transgression now, what caused his transgression then? His
transgression must have been caused by some other influence than the corruption
of nature supposed to be the consequence of his sin; and if so, why may not the
same or similar causes influence others now? We are now sub­ject to many
temptations from which he was then free. He could not have been tempted to steal
from his neighbor, for there was no one then living to be his neighbor, and no
one owned any thing but himself. He could not have been tempted to kill, for
there was no person to kill but his wife. He could not have had a temptation to
adultery, for the only woman on earth was his wife Notwithstanding he was free
from many sources of temp­tation that beset our pathway, he failed in the first
trial he had of which we have a record. Then, surely, other causes than
corruption inherited from him on account of his sin may cause transgression now.
But we are told that “this their sin God was pleased, accord­ing to his wise and
holy counsel, to permit, having purposed to order it to his own glory.” Chap.
vi, sec. 1. It does not seem to us that “permit” is exactly the word here. We
have already been told that “God, from all eternity, did, by the most wise and
holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to
pass.” It did come to pass that they ate of the fruit whereof God commanded them
not to eat. Then does it not follow that God not only permitted them to eat, but
un­changeably ordained that they should eat the fruit and violate the law He had
given, having “purposed to order it to his own glory?” But how God could be
glorified by this violation of His law, especially if we contemplate its results
in the light of this theory, we are not very well prepared to see. We have been
accus­tomed to think that the best way to glorify God is to honor His authority
by obedience to His commands. How could God be glorified by the direct violation
of His positive command, when it made man wholly defiled in all the faculties of
soul and body? Did He glory in man becoming opposite to all good and wholly
inclined to all evil, that He might punish him in hell forever? Could there be
any justice in placing man under a law which God had unchangeably ordained he
should break? Was it not downright mockery for God to command him to obey when
He had previously decreed that he should disobey? But was God glorified by the
corruption of His creature man? Let us see: “And God saw that the wickedness of
man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his
heart was only evil continually. And it repented the Lord that he had made man
on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.” Genesis 6:5-6. Did God grieve on
account of His own glorification? If God was glorified by Adam’s sin, the
conse­quence of which was the entire corruption of the nature of his offspring,
from whence flow all actual transgressions, the wicked­ness of the antediluvians
was as much the result of it as the wickedness of any other people; hence we can
not see how He would grieve over the result of an act which He had previously
determined to order to His own glory, and which He had un­changeably ordained
should come to pass.

Again: Would God have given man a command that He had unchangeably fore-ordained
to be broken, that He might subject him to “death, with all miseries, spiritual,
temporal, and eternal,” then tell us that He “so loved the world that he gave
his only be­gotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but
have everlasting life” (John 3:16), and at the same time restrict the benefits
of His death to a few elect ones, and allow the devil to have the many, and thus
be glorified by their de­struction—it being no fault of theirs? But if all
actual transgres­sions proceed from this supposed corruption of nature, it is
diffi­cult to account for the difference of inclination to sin which we see
manifested by different persons. We are accustomed to ex­pect the same cause,
when surrounded by the same circum­stances, to produce the same effect on all
occasions; yet we see persons, even in the same family, surrounded by as nearly
the same circumstances as human beings can be in this life, some­what
differently inclined to sin; and, as circumstances differ, these differences
increase, until one is a moral, upright man, an­other a drunkard, another a
thief, and another a murderer. Can any one tell, in keeping with this theory,
why Cain killed his brother? They were both possessed of the same corrupt
nature, and precisely to the same extent. Why, then, was one more vi­cious than
the other? We can not increase or intensify the meaning of such words as wholly,
all, total, etc. We can not say more wholly defiled, more all the faculties,
more all evil, more all good. If all Adam’s progeny are wholly defiled in all
the fac­ulties of soul and body, opposed to all good and wholly inclined to all
evil, Cain could not have been more corrupt than Abel. And if this corrupt
nature is the source of all actual transgres­sions, it was the cause of Cain’s
sin; and Abel being possessed of this corruption of nature to the same extent,
would have been just as much inclined to kill Cain as Cain would have been to
kill Abel. Men differ as widely in their inclinations to sin as it is possible
for them to differ in any thing, and they could not thus differ if the same
corrupt nature influenced all and was pos­sessed by all to the same extent.

But worse still From our stand-point the theory necessarily damns every infant
that dies in infancy. If all infants come into the world with natures inherited
from our first parents, wholly defiled in all the faculties of soul and body,
then those who die in infancy must go to hell on account of this defilement, or
go to heaven in this defilement, or they must have it removed in some way
unknown to the Bible. The makers of the creed plainly saw this difficulty, and
attempted to provide for it. Chap. x, sec. 3, they tell us that “elect infants,
dying in infancy, are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit, who
worketh when and where and how he pleaseth.” Thus they provide for elect
in­fants dying in infancy, but they make no effort to save any but the elect,
telling us plainly that Christ died for none others. But the Calvinists are but
a very small part of those who adopt this theory—how will the others escape? The
Cumber­land Presbyterian Confession of Faith substitutes the word all for elect,
thus: “All infants dying in infancy are regenerated and saved by Christ, through
the Spirit, who worketh when, and where, and how he pleaseth.” Chap. x, sec. 3.
And how did the authors know this? Where is the proof that Christ, hy the
Spirit, removes this depravity from those dying in infancy and allows it to
remain in the living ones? The creed refers us to Luke 18:15-16 : “And they
brought unto him also infants, that he would touch them: but when his disciples
saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Suffer
little children to come unto me, and forbid) them not: for of such is the
kingdom of God.” We have two objections to this proof: “First, These were living
and not dead or dying children: how can it, therefore, prove any thing about
what the Spirit does for those dying in infancy? Second, It proves just the
oppo­site of infantile depravity. If Jesus had said, “Suffer little chil­dren to
come, and forbid them not, that the total depravity and corruption of their
little defiled hearts may be removed by the Spirit, for of such as they will
then be is the kingdom of God,” then the text would have been appropriate. But
as it is, it would fill the kingdom of God with subjects wholly defiled in all
the faculties of soul and body, opposed to all good, and wholly inclined to all
evil. “Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not, for of such
[not as they will be, but are now] is the kingdom of God”—that is, of such total
depravity, and sub­jects wholly defiled in all the faculties of soul and body,
is the kingdom of God!!! Mr. Jeter, the great Baptist luminary of Virginia,
says: “In­fants dying in infancy, must, by some process known or unknown, be
freed from depravity—morally renewed or regenerated, or they can never be
saved—never participate in the joys of heaven.” Jeter’s Campbellism Reexamined,
pages 51, 52. And on page 49 he says: “I shall now proceed to show that, in the
case of dying infants and idiots, regeneration takes place by the agency of the
Spirit, without the Word.” Thus we see that one error assumed and adopted
creates the necessity for perhaps many others. The false assumption that infants
are wholly de­praved has forced upon these authors and their ilk the doctrine of
infant regeneration and abstract spiritual influences. Nor is this all: the
doctrine of infant baptism originated here. Does any one demand proof? He shall
have it. Dr. Wall, the most voluminous and authoritative writer that has ever
wielded a pen in defense of infant baptism, says: “And you will see in the
following quotations that they often conclude the necessity of baptism for the
forgiveness of sins, even of a child that is but a day old.” Wall’s History,
vol. 1, page 48. After making a quotation from Justin Martyr, who wrote about
forty years after the apostles, and about A.D. 140, our author says: “I recite
this only to show that in these times, so very near the apostles, they spoke of
original sin affecting all mankind descended of Adam; and understood that,
besides the actual sins of each particular person, there is in our nature
itself, since the fall, something that needs redemption and forgiveness by the
merits of Christ. And that is ordinarily applied to every particular person by
baptism.” Ibid, 64. On pages 104, ’05, Dr. Wall quotes Origen, one of the most
learned of the Greek fathers, as follows: “Besides all this, let it be
considered, what is the reason that, whereas the baptism of the Church is given
for forgiveness of sins, infants also are, by the usage of the Church, baptized;
when, if there were nothing in infants that wanted forgiveness and mercy, the
grace of baptism would be needless to them.... Infants are baptized for the
forgiveness of sins. Of what sins? Or when have they sinned? Or how can any
reason of the laver in their case hold good, but according to that sense that we
men­tioned even now: none is free from pollution, though his life be but of the
length of one day upon the earth? And it is for that reason, because by the
sacrament of baptism the pollution of our birth is taken away, that infants are
baptized.” In the writings of Cyprian, bishop of Carthage, is a letter written
by a council of sixty-six bishops to one Fidus, about the close of the second
century. Dr. Wall gives that part of this let­ter which pertains to the subject
in hand, and says of it: “These bishops held that to suffer the infant to die
unbaptized was to en­danger its salvation.” Wall’s History, vol. 1, page 139. In
support of infant baptism, Mr. Wesley says: “If infants are guilty of original
sin, then they are proper subjects of bap­tism, seeing, in the ordinary way,
they can not be saved unless this be washed away by baptism. It has been already
proved that this original stain cleaves to every child of man, and that here­by
they are children of wrath, and liable to eternal damnation.” This comes to us
not only as written by Mr. Wesley, but it was “Published by order of the General
Conference” in New York, in 1850. Doctrinal Tracts, page 251. Many other
quotations might be given from various authors held in high esteem by the
various parties of these days; but surely these are sufficient to show that
infant baptism grew out of the false assumption that infants are totally
depraved in all the faculties and parts of soul and body —children of wrath, and
liable to eternal damnation for Adam’s sin, unless baptized. We know that modern
defenders of the practice are unwilling to admit this, but Dr. Wall, as a
historian, gives authority for what he says; and historical facts, though
ig­nored, can not be wiped out. They are events of the past, and must so remain,
though erased from the pages of every book on earth. If, therefore, we have
succeeded, or do succeed, in show­ing that the dogma of hereditary total
depravity is untrue, we will have shown not only that man has the power to
believe and obey God, but also that the doctrine of abstract spiritual
influences, infant regeneration, and infant baptism, as dependencies upon it,
are necessarily untrue. Then, seeing the importance of our subject, let us
continue our examination of it. If Adam’s posterity inherited the corrupt nature
described after the fall, then why do not children of Christians inherit their
par­ents’ purified natures after their conversion? Surely’, if God di­rectly
controlled the matter, He would have had as much plea­sure in the transmission
of purity of nature to the children of the faithful, as He would have had in
entailing corruption of nature on the children of the disobedient. And if He had
not specially controlled it, but left it to the laws of nature, we can see no
rea­son why purity of heart would not have been as readily transmit­ted to the
children of the Christians as defilement of nature would have been to the
children of the wicked. But the creed tells us that “this corruption of nature,
during this life, cloth re­main in those that are regenerated.” Presbyterian
Confession, chap. vi, sec. 5, page 41. Here, as usual, the creed and the Bible
are in direct antagonism. When Peter addressed his fel­low-apostles and elders,
on one occasion, he said: “Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago
God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of
the gospel, and believe. And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness,
giving them the Holy Ghost, even as unto us; and put no difference between us
and them purifying their hearts by faith.” Acts 15:7-9. In writing to his
brethren, he says, “Seeing you have purified your souls in obeying the truth.” 1
Peter 1:22. Now, if this corruption remains in those who are truly converted,
how is it possible for persons to be wholly defiled in all the faculties and
parts of soul and body, utterly indisposed, disabled, opposite to all good, and
wholly inclined to all evil, as described by the creed, and yet their hearts
purified by faith, and their souls by obedience, as described by Peter. Surely,
the con­verts to the creed are not the brethren of Peter; nor are they the blest
of the Lord, for he says, “Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see
God.” Matthew 5:8. Jesus, in his explanation of the parable of the sower, (Luke
8:15), says, “But that on the good ground are they, which in an honest and good
heart, having heard the word, keep it, and bring forth fruit with patience.” If
there was not another pas­sage of scripture in the Bible bearing on the subject,
this one would be quite sufficient to spoil the whole theory. Had Jesus been
educated in the theological schools of our day, He would not have spoken of
honest and good hearts receiving the Word, for He would have been therein taught
that there are none such; but, on the contrary, all Adam’s race are wholly
defiled in all the faculties of soul and body, opposed to all good, and wholly
in­clined to all evil. It seems to us that all speculative theorizing about
doubtful interpretations of Scripture, to sustain our favorite dogma, should
bend before such direct, plain, and positive state meets of the Saviour as the
above quoted. But we are told in the creed that our natures are not only made
totally corrupt by Adam’s sin, but that the GUILT of it was imputed to all his
descendants. This we regard as a fatal mistake growing out of a failure to
discriminate between guilt and consequences. It is certainly true that we suffer
in consequence of Adam’s sin, but that we are in any sense guilty of it, of
morally accountable for it, is not exactly clear to us. To suffer the
consequences of an act is one thing, but to be held guilty of it, by imputation
or otherwise, is quite a different thing. A man, for illustration, may own an
estate sufficient to abundantly sup­ply the wants of his family for life, but,
by gambling, he may have it all swept away in a single day; his wife and
children may be reduced to poverty and want by his wickedness, and thus made to
keenly feel the consequences of his act, but surely no one would regard them
guilty in consequence of their misfor­tune. So we suffer death as a consequence
of Adam’s sin, as we will more clearly see directly; but this is not quite
sufficient to show that we are guilty of or responsible for it If we are guilty
of or responsible for his first sin, why are we not accountable for all other
sins committed by him? As he was childless when driven from the garden, and was
an hundred and thirty years old when Seth, his third son, of which we have an
account, was born, and was nine hundred and thirty years old when he died, it
follows that he lived more than eight hundred years after eat­ing the
interdicted fruit. It is next to certain, therefore, that he did many things
wrong during this long period. Is there any good reason why we are guilty of his
first sin, and guilty of no other sin committed by him? And if we are
responsible for and guilty of Adam’s sin, are we not equally guilty of all the
sins committed by our own father? He is much nearer us than Adam, and we can
plainly see in ourselves some things inherited from him. If, then, we are guilty
of the sins of Adam, we see no escape from the guilt of our father’s sin. And as
these are but two extremes in the long chain of parentage from us to Adam, we
can see no reason why we may not be held guilty, accord­ing to the same rule, of
all the sins of every parent between them. If so, well may we ask, “Lord, who
then can be saved?” When we do the best we can, we have quite enough in our own
record to answer for; and if we are thus charged with the sins of those who have
lived before us, then the last lingering ray of hope for the salvation of man is
forever extinguished. We are encouraged, however, by the fact that God has
contradicted the whole theory, saying: “The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The
son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the
iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and
the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.” Ezekiel 18:20. It seems to us
that the prophet intended to describe the false reasoners of our day, when he
said: “The Gentiles shall come unto thee from the ends of the earth, and shall
say, Surely our fathers have inherited lies, vanity, and things wherein there is
no profit.” Jeremiah 16 : l9. But is it possible, in the nature of things, that
sin can be transmitted from parent to child? In order to arrive at a
satisfactory solution of this question, it may be well to ascertain what sin is;
and this we can do with great certainty, for we have a definition of it given by
inspiration. John says “sin is the transgression of the law.” 1 John 3:4. In the
light of this definition, how is it possible that a transgression by one man may
be transmitted to another, or from parent to child? God has said, “Thou shalt
not kill.” In violation of this law, a man thrusts a dagger to the heart of his
neighbor. This is sin. Now this act, being the act of a father, can not possibly
become the act of his child; nor can the child be made responsible for it. He
may approve the act, and for this approval may receive merited punishment; but
it was the wicked approval that brought guilt to him, and not the act of the
father. Without such approval, he may suffer in consequence of his father’s
act—may be made an orphan by it—but surely the act itself can not become his
act. Sin is nowhere in God’s word defined to be a weakness, or hereditament, but
a transgression or act of the guilty himself. “God is love,” and can not punish
man for that which he has no power to prevent. But we have said that we die as a
consequence of Adam’s sin. This is true, and yet we are not guilty of it. When
Adam fell from the plastic hand of God, he was as mortal as he was after he ate
of the interdicted fruits: how, then, is death a consequence of that act? He was
placed in a garden or orchard, in which grew, among others, two trees,
respectively called The tree of life, and the tree of the knowledge of good and
evil. For his government in this garden, God gave him a law, saying: “Of every
tree of the garden that mayest freely eat: but of the tree of the knowledge of
good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day thou eatest thereof
dying thou shalt die.” Genesis 2:16-17. We have adopted the marginal reading of
the Polyglot Bible, because it is agreed, by scholars, to be an improvement upon
the King’s translation. It will be seen, by an examination of this law, that
Adam had access to the tree of life before he ate of the interdicted fruit, and
the properties of the fruit of this tree were such as to counteract the mortal
tendencies of his nature, and keep him alive as long as he had access to it. But
when he violated God’s law, it was only necessary that he should be driven from
the garden, so that he might no longer have access to this life-giving fruit,
that, under the laws of mortality to which his nature subjected him, he might
suffer the penalty of the law which said, “dying thou shalt die.” Hence, God
said: “Behold, the man has become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now,
lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live
forever: therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till
the ground from whence he was taken. So he drove out the man: and he placed at
the east of the garden of Eden cherubim, and a flaming sword which turned every
way, to keep the way of the tree of life.” Genesis 3:22-24. Thus we see how Adam
died in consequence of his sin, and that he would not have died had he not
sinned; hence says Paul, “By one man sin entered into the world, and death by
sin.” Romans 5:12. Not that he possessed physical immortally before he sinned,
for he did not, but he had a remedy for his mortality of which he was deprived
after he sinned. We are sometimes asked whether or not the lower animals die as
a consequence of Adam’s sin? We answer they do not, but they die as a result of
the common laws of mortality to which the whole animal creation are subject.
They have been subject to these laws from the time they were created, not having
had access to the fruit of the tree of life, as Adam did before he sinned. From
this stand-point it is easy to see how Adam’s posterity died as a consequence of
his sin. His children inherit from him just such an organization as he had both
before and after he sinned and as they are born out of the garden of Eden, and
away from the tree of life, they can not have its fruit to counteract the mortal
tendencies of their nature, and hence, like him, dying they die. Shall we hence
conclude that Adams offspring are guilty of his sin? As well may we conclude
that the African child that falls a victim to cannibalism sinned by being born
in Africa. It was its misfortune to be born in a locality where men eat each
other: so it is our misfortune to be born out of the garden of Eden, where, for
a time we can not get fruit from the tree of life; but if we do our Father’s
commandments, there is coming a period when we will have a right to the tree of
life, and may enter through the gates into the city. There is much speculation
in the world with reference to the kind of death Adam and his posterity died as
a consequence of his sin. Mr. Ewing, in his Lectures (page 63), tells us that,
“By reason of our union with our federal head and representative, we sinned in
him, and fell with him, and death is the consequence—death spiritual, temporal,
and eternal.” If the death which Adam and the human race died was not only
spiritual and temporal, but eternal, then we see no remedy that can reach such a
case. Eternal must mean without end—of endless duration. Then, if this death be
eternal, there can be no more life and hence all our efforts to save those who
are eternally dead can do no good, and the whole family of man is
lost—hopelessly lost. If a single son of Adam be saved, it follows that he was
not eternally lost; for—it matters not in what sense he be dead —if ever made
alive, that is an end to his death, and, consequently, his death could not have
been eternal. But Mr. Ewing further tells us (page 62): “The whole soul of man
is entirely depraved, corrupt, and alienated from God—a child of wrath, an heir
of hell, going astray from the womb, conceived in sin, an enemy to God, having a
heart deceitful above all things and desperately wicked; the understanding
darkened, the affections earthly, and the whole man sensual and devilish.”
Truly, this is an appalling picture of our nature at birth, entailed upon us for
no other reason than that we descended from Adam, with whom, by a single act of
his, we fell into this deplorable condition six thousand years before we were
born. And when we add to this thought the language of the Presbyterian
Confession—that “this corruption of nature, during this life, cloth remain in
those that are regenerated”—we have a most ridiculous description of Christian
character manufactured by this theory. Behold a Christian with a heart not only
entirely depraved, sensual and devilish, but hating God’ and an heir of hell!!!
We do not suppose the authors of these books believed this monstrous absurdity
themselves, or intended to teach it to others, but they were involved in it by
the blinding influences of a false theory. Be this as it may, however, we can
not admit that this is a correct picture of that “holiness without which no man
shall see the Lord.” The mind of man is composed of numerous faculties, which
may be divided into two grand divisions, called, respectively, Animal and
Intellectual. By “animal faculties,” we mean such as are possessed by man and
beast; or we might simply say by animals, for man is only an intellectual
animal. As examples of this class of faculties we may mention Alimentiveness,
Combativeness, Detructiveness, Amativeness, Philoprogenitiveness, etc., etc. In
man they are usually called propensities, but in lower animals they are called
instincts. Paul calls them “the carnal mind,” and tells us “it is not subject to
the law of God, neither indeed can be.” Romans 8:7. It would do but little good
to read the Ten Commandments to a horse, as he would not be subject to them
—neither, indeed, could he be; and it would do about as little good to read them
to the purely carnal mind of man (if it were possible to do so), composed of
similar constituents, which knows no law but animal gratification. But God has
given to man an intellectuality capable of appreciating law, and has given him a
law adapted to his organization, by which his carnal propensities are to be
exercised, and by which the whole man is to be governed. And while the whole man
is governed by laws received from God, and applied by the intellectual man, all
is harmony and order, and without sin; but when these laws are superseded by
animal propensities, such as appetite, passion, and lust, then come confusion,
violence, and crime. And thus originated sin in the garden of Eden. God gave
Adam a law for the government of his appetite, and while he obeyed it he had
life and peace; but when law was supplanted by appetite, sin came, and death by
sin. From the description of man’s nature found in the creeds, it would seem
that the authors regard these animal propensities as filling the entire measure
of the human mind. But the duality of mind is well established by experience,
observation, metaphysics, reason, and the Bible. The carnal mind we have seen
already: the perceptive and reflective faculties, of which there are many, and
the moral sentiments, such as Benevolence, Veneration, Conscientiousness,
Firmness, Hope, etc., make up the intellectual and moral nature of man, to which
God’s law is addressed, and Paul tells us, “they that are after the flesh do
mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit, the things of
the Spirit. For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is
life and peace.” Romans 8:5-6. The antagonism of these two departments of man’s
nature is well shown in Paul’s description of himself. “I find then,” says he,
“a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me. For I delight in
the law of God after the inward man. But I see another law in my members,
warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of
sin which is in my members.” Romans 7:21-23. Had this dual nature been dispensed
with in the creation of man, he must have been all animal, and therefore nothing
more than a brute; or he must have been all intellectual and moral, without any
counter-tendencies in his nature, and therefore would have been a mere machine,
acting as compelled to act, under one set of principles, and hence there would
have been neither merit nor demerit in any thing he did; nor could he have had
the slightest freedom of will, and, therefore, could not have been in the
slightest degree accountable to his Creator, Who, in that event, would have been
operating him as a mechanic does his machine. But if we can arrive at the
meaning of the language, “dying thou shalt die,” as connected with the law given
to and violated by Adam, then we think we may arrive at a knowledge of the kind
of death he died. This we certainly can do with great clearness, as we have an
exegesis of the language by God Himself. After Adam violated the law, God
adjudicated his case, and pronounced the sentence upon him. Both as the Giver of
the Law and as God, He certainly knew what He meant by the language of the law,
and He certainly pronounced the sentence in accordance therewith. What, then,
was the sentence? “Dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.” Genesis
3:19. Surely, this must mean literal, physical death, nothing more, nothing
less. Moses wrote the history of this affair about two thousand five hundred
years after it occurred, when the word die, in all its forms, was of no doubtful
import, but had a well-settled mean­ing in the current usage of that day. A few
examples may not be out of place here. In the fifth chapter of Genesis we have
the word employed by the same writer no less than eight times, as follows: “And
all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.”
Ver. 5. “And all the days of Seth were nine hundred and twelve years: and he
died.” Ver. 8. “And all the days of Enos were nine hundred and five years: and
he died.” Ver. 11. “And all the days of Cainan were nine hundred and ten years:
and he deaf.” Ver. 14. “And all the days of Mahalaleel were eight hundred ninety
and five years: and he died.” Ver. 17. “And all the days of Jared were nine
hundred sixty and two years: and he died.” Ver. 20. “And all the days of
Methuselah were nine hundred sixty and nine years: and he died.” Ver. 27. “And
all the days of Lamech were seven hundred seventy and seven years: and he died.”
Ver. 31. These cases clearly show what Moses understood by the word die, and as
he is the same writer that recorded the law violated by Adam, he must have meant
the same by. “die,’~ in the law, that he meant in the other cases referred to.
Again, the word die must certainly mean just the opposite of the word live. This
word in its various forms occurs in the same chapter to indicate physical life.
Had God afflicted Adam with greater punishment than the terms employed indicated
to him, then would He not have deceived him? And He determined upon other and
greater punishment for him, after he committed the act, than that threatened in
the law violated, then we insist that it was ex post facto in its character, and
therefore unjust. The circum­stances under which Adam viola ed God’s law would
have rather invoked a commutation of punishment than an increase of it. He did
not know good and evil until he acquired a knowledge of it by eating the fruit
of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. This is evident from the language
of God after he ate of it: “Be­hold, the man is become as one of us, to know
good and evil.” Genesis 3:22. He could only appreciate the law as a positive
pro­hibition, but his moral obligation to obey God, as his Creator, he could not
appreciate. He did not so much as know that he was naked, for God said: “Who
told thee that thou west naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree whereof I commanded
thee that thou shouldest not eat?” Ibid, 11. Certainly, then, if ignorance be a
mitigating circumstance, Adam was entitled to the full benefit of it. From our
stand-point such a thought as spiritual corruption by inheritance is utterly
impossible. Paul says, “We have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and
we gave them rever­ence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the
Father of spirits, and live?” Hebrews 12:9. Does not this passage plainly prove
that the fathers of our flesh are not the fathers of our spir­its? To our mind
it shows that while our bodies are inherited from our parents, the Spirit is not
so inherited, but comes di­rectly from God. Hence the style: “Fathers of our
flesh,” “The Father of spirits.” Our bodies we inherit from our parents, and,
consequently, physical impurities may be transmitted from par­ent to child, but
we suppose all will agree that the mind, the spiritual or inner man, is the seat
of moral depravity. If, then, we do not get our spirits by inheritance, it is
impossible that we should inherit spiritual depravity from Adam. May we further
examine the Scriptures on this subject? “The burden of the word of the Lord for
Israel saith the Lord, which stretcheth forth the heavens, and layeth the
foundation of the earth, and formeth the spirit of man within him.” Zechariah
12:1. If God forms the spirit within man, it seems improbable that he gets it by
inheritance. Again: Solomon says, “Then shall the dust return to the earth as it
was, and the spirit shall return to God who gave it.” Ecclesiastes 12:7. By this
we learn not only that the spirit returns to God at death, but that God
originally gave it. The words “re­turns to God” clearly imply that it had been
there before. We can not say we returned to a place to which we had never been.
In returning, it did not go in or with the body, as the body re­turned to the
ground as dust. As, therefore, the spirit returns independent of the body, is it
not likely that God gave it to man, not by or through the body, but for the
body? The words “God who gave it” have somewhat the same ring, too;
nevertheless, they alone would not be quite conclusive, for He gives us food,
raiment, and many other things through means prepared to produce them. The
question for us, then, is does he give the spirit through means or without
means—does He give it di­rectly or indirectly—does He give it as we have seen
that He takes it—or does He give it by procreation, organization, or some other
means? Let us see. When Jesus restored the ruler’s dead daughter to life, Luke
says “her spirit came again, and she arose straightway.” Luke 8:55. The spirit
of the damsel came again. From whence did it come? Solomon says the spirit
re­turns to God, who gave it. Then it is clear that her spirit went to God when
she died, and came directly from Him when she was made alive. The words “came
again” imply that it had done the same thing before; and as we have no account
of her being mi­raculously made alive before it follows that it was at the
begin­ning of her existence that her spirit came directly from God the previous
time. But we are told that the spiritual man did not come directly from God, but
is the creature of the organization. We have not room for a thorough examination
of this objection here, but we must notice it briefly—not by way of respect for
materialistic infi­delity, of which it is the cornerstone, but in respect to our
own argument, against which it may be presented. First, then, if the spirit came
not from God, how are the scriptures above quoted and the reasonings therefrom
to be met? And how can a mate­rial organization create an immaterial soul
capable of existence separate from the organization after the latter has ceased
to be? Or if the soul, created by materiality, is itself material, why is it not
subject to chemical analysis? The material organization is not only subject to
chemical analysis, but has been analyzed re­peatedly. The ultimate elements of
it have been found, and if the soul is also material, why has it not been
subjected to the same process? Surely, the advocates of materialism have the
ability to do it if it were possible—and the defense of their the­ory would
invoke the disposition to do it—if they, then, have not done it, it is clear
that, because of the soul’s immateriality, they can not do it. That the soul is
capable of existence after the sep­aration of soul and body, is dear from what
we have already quoted from Solomon—that the body returns to the ground and the
spirit returns to God, who gave it; not only so, but it is also clear from
numerous other passages. Paul says: “Therefore we are always confident, knowing
that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord.... We are
confident, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with
the Lord.” 2 Corinthians 5:6; 2 Corinthians 5:8. John “saw under the altar the
souls of them that were slain for the word of God.” Revelation 6:9. We might
further quote Luke 16:24; Luke 16:27, concerning the rich man and Lazarus, and
many other scriptures on this subject; but enough has been quoted to satisfy
those who read and believe the Bible, and others will not likely read what we
write about it. The body may be likened to a machine controlled by the mind or
spiritual man. No machinery has ever been known capable of generating its own
motive power; hence the “Perpetual Motion” has not been invented. If the human
organism creates the soul, its own motive power, then it is an exception to all
known law on the subject. If, then, our argument holds good, and the spirit
came, not by inheritance, but directly from God, it follows that when it is
given, it is not only good, but very good, and the whole theory of hereditary
depravity is most certainly false. The child comes into the world with its
infantile mind composed of numerous faculties susceptible of being cultivated
and devel­oped by impressions made upon it through the senses, and when all its
faculties are properly balanced, educated, and governed, they are calculated to
make the man useful and happy, but if ne­glected may make him vicious and
miserable—and h s inclina­tions to virtue or vice depend much upon the
circumstances and influences surrounding him; hence inclinations to sin are as
dif­ferent in different persons as the circumstances have been differ­ent by
which they have been influenced from infancy to man­hood. We most firmly believe
that many men who were raised under improper influences and became desperately
wicked—per­haps terminated their lives upon a scaffold—if they had been raised
under wholesome influences, would have been useful members of society and
finally saved in heaven, and vice versa. Thus we see the importance of observing
Solomon’s admonition: “Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is
old he will not depart from it;” with which Paul agrees, saying, “Bring up your
children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.” But there are differences
of mental power manifested by dif­ferent persons, growing out of a difference in
the physical ma­chinery inherited from our parents. This we not only admit, but
firmly believe; but these do not affect our position in the least. An engine may
run a vast amount of well-made and properly ap­plied machinery, and thus exhibit
great power, but were we to apply the same engine to heavy, cumbersome,
unwieldy, unbal­anced machinery, it could do but little, though the same man
op­erated it. So a man who has inherited a fine organization, large and well
balanced brain, of fine material, will exhibit much more mental power than one
who had inherited an imperfect organization of coarse material. But inherited
weakness, whether physical or mental, is not sin—no guilt can attach to it—and
therefore the differences in mental power spoken of can not prove the doctrine
of total depravity; on the contrary, if they prove any thing concerning it, they
contradict it, for these differences can not be the result of total depravity,
because all who are totally depraved are, in this respect, exactly alike. There
is no comparative degree in total depravity. But we must briefly notice some of
the proofs relied on to sustain the doctrine. First, we are told that the infant
gets angry as soon as born, and thus gives evidence of total deprav­ity. If this
be proof conclusive, then God is totally depraved, too, for He said to Moses,
when the people worshiped the calf made by Aaron, “Let me alone, that my wrath
may wax hot against them.” Exodus 32:10. And again: “God is angry with the
wicked every day.” Psalms 7:11. Does the infant smile as well as cry? And does
it not very soon divide its toys and food with its associate, thus exhibiting
feelings of kindness as well as anger? But we are referred to some scriptures
which we must notice: “As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one;
there is none that understandeth; there is none that seeketh after God; they are
all gone out of the way; they are together become un­profitable; there is none
that doeth good, no, not one. Their throat is an open sepulcher; with their
tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips; whose
mouth is full of cursing and bitterness; their feet are swift to shed blood;
de­struction and misery are in their ways, and the way of peace have they not
known. There is no fear of God before their eyes.” Romans 3:10-18. Now, we only
need to carefully read this quota­tion in order to see that it can not apply to
any inherited corrup­tion of nature existing at birth, but to such as had
corrupted themselves by wicked works. Infants are not expected to be righteous,
for righteousness consists in doing right. Nor are they expected to
understand—to seek God—to have gone out of the way, or in the way—to have done
good or evil. Their tongues have not used deceit, nor are their mouths full of
cursing and bitterness, for they can not talk at all. Their feet are not swift
to shed blood, for they can not hurt any one. And it will be borne in mind that
the passage is relied upon to prove an inher­ited corruption of nature that
comes into the world with us by or­dinary generation. Paul makes this quotation
from David—Ps. xiv—where he tells how they became corrupt: “They have done
abominable works.” Hence their corruption came not by Adam’s sin, but by their
own wickedness. Next we examine the language of David—Ps. Ii: 5: “Behold I was
shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.” Whatever may be the
meaning of this passage, it can not be the imputation of sin to the child. “In
sin did my mother conceive me;” that is, she acted wickedly when I was
conceived. Were the wife to say, “In drunkenness my husband beat me,” or the
child that “in anger my father whipped me,” surely no one would attribute
drunkenness to the wife or anger to the child; neither can they impute the sin
of the mother to the child. We come now to notice the language of the prophet
with regard to “Judah and Jerusalem”—Isaiah 1:5-6 : “Why should ye be stricken
any more? ye will revolt more and more: the whole head is sick, and the whole
heart faint. From the sole of the foot even unto the head there is no soundness
in it; but wounds and bruises and putrefying sores.” This was not spoken with
regard to any inher­ited defilement attaching to any one, but with regard to the
Jews as a nation. As a nation they had become corrupt—not by in­heritance, but
by actual transgressions of their own. And God had scourged them, and afflicted
them for their own wickedness (not Adam’s sin), unfit as a nation, they were
comparable to a man full of wounds and bruises and putrefying sores, and still
they would not reform; hence, by His prophet, He asks, ’Why should ye be
stricken any more? ye will revolt more and more?” —as much as to say: “I have
sent fiery serpents to bite you, by which thousands have died; I have allowed
you to go to war with the nations around you until multiplied thousands have
been slain in battle; and in various ways I have chastened you as a father
chasteneth his children; but all to no purpose. Why should I afflict you
further? it will only make you worse and worse.” “Your country is desolate; your
cities are burned with fire; your land strangers devour it in your presence, and
it is des­olate as overthrown by strangers”—thus clearly speaking of na­tional
calamities that had befallen them as a nation. Not a word of allusion to Adam’s
sin or its consequences in the whole con­nection. We are next referred to the
language of David—Psalms 58:1-8 : “Do ye indeed speak righteousness, O
congregation? do ye judge uprightly, O ye sons of men? Yea, in heart ye work
wickedness; ye weigh the violence of your hands in the earth. The wicked are
estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they are born, speaking lies.
Their poison is like the poison of a serpent; they are like the deaf adder that
stoppeth her ear: which will not hearken to the voice of charmers, charming
never so wisely.” Here, again, we need only read the passage carefully to see
that it can not apply to infants at birth. In heart these work wicked­ness:
children at birth do not work wickedness. The wicked are estranged from the
womb: the theory says all are wicked and estranged. They go astray as soon as
they are born—speaking lies: the theory says they are born astray. These persons
spake lies: infants can not speak at all. Shall we hear David’s prayer for them?
“Break their teeth, O God, in their mouth.” Do infants have teeth in their mouth
at birth? He continues: “Break out the great teeth of the young lions, O Lord.
Let them melt away as waters which run continually: when he bendeth his bow to
shoot his arrows, let them be as cut in pieces.” Surely, this was a singular
prayer coming from David for the punishment and destruction of infants!!! This
was simply strong language used to describe the wickedness of the congregation
and judges mentioned in the first verse! We are next referred to the language of
Paul to the Ephe­sians chap. 2: 1-3: “And you hath be quickened who were dead in
trespasses and sins.” This does not fit the theory, for then it should read
“dead in a trespass or sin.” But how came their death? “Wherein in time past ye
walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the
power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:
among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our
flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature
the children of wrath even as others.” This shows us clearly how their nature
became corrupt, which was by wicked works, or, as Paul expresses it, fulfilling
the de­sires of the flesh. Not a word about Adam’s sin: they were dead in their
own sins. But we are referred to Romans 5:12 : ’’Wherefore, as by one man sin
entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for
that all have sinned.” This passage does have reference to Adam’s sin and its
consequences, but it falls very far short of proving that all men, or even Adam,
be­came totally depraved. David sinned very grievously; yet his heart was
perfect with the Lord his God (1 Ks. 15: 3), insomuch that he was a man after
God’s own heart. (1 Samuel 13:14; Acts 13:22.) If his sin left his heart perfect
with God, how did a sin­gle sin of Adam totally deprave him and all his
posterity? If a man were to commit a crime worthy of death, and were to have the
sentence of death passed upon him, still all this could not prove him totally
depraved, opposed to all good, and wholly in­clined to all evil; he may have
some good emotions yet. Here we might safely dismiss the passage, having shown
that it does not prove that for which it is introduced; but can we learn the
meaning of it? The fact that almost every exponent of it has a theory of his
own, derived from it, is quite enough to prove the import of it to be doubtful.
A doubtful interpretation of an ob­scure passage must not come in contact with a
plain passage ~about the meaning of which there can be no mistake. When the
phrase “all have sinned” is interpreted to mean that the whole race of man
sinned in Adam, it seems to us a plain contradiction of God’s law, which says:
“The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the
father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness
of the righ­teous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be
upon him.” The theory says the children of Adam do bear his iniquity, and his
wickedness is not only on him, but also on them. It is also antagonistic to
John’s definition of sin—that “sin is the transgression of the law;” and also
with the fact seen al­ready—that a transgression or act (for sin is an act) of
one man can not be transmitted to or become the act of another. We re­gard the
passage as clearly metonymical. The consequences of Adam’s sin being suffered by
all, the sin is said to have been committed by all; the consequences being put
for the act. The apostle alludes to the sin of Adam, as a consequence of which
all suffer death in accordance with the laws of their mortal nature inherited
from Adam, they not having fruit from the tree of life with which to counteract
mortality as Adam had before he sinned; and thus “death reigned from Adam to
Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s
trans­gression.” Ver. 14. It is somewhat strange to us that those who profess to
disbe­lieve Universalism can believe that the death here spoken of is spiritual
death. If spiritual death passed upon all men because they all sinned in Adam,
then Universalism must be true; for the apostle goes on to say: “If through the
offense of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace,
which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.” The grace of God
and the gift by grace has abounded to just as many through Christ, the last
Adam, as are dead by the offense of the first Adam; “therefore, as by the
offense of one, judgment came upon all men to condemnation, even so by the
righteousness of one, the free gift came upon all men unto justification of
life.” Ver. 18. The same all who suffer by the offense of one,\are made alive by
the righteousness of another. This is not only the teaching of Paul here, but he
communicates the same thought to his brethren at Corinth. The fifteenth chapter
of his first letter to them is devoted to the resurrection of the dead, and in
the 22d verse he has the following very significant language: “For as in Adam
all die, even so in Christ shall ail be made alive.” As in Adam all die—not d ed
back yonder in the garden, but die now in Adam. And who dies in Adam? All men,
most certainly. Even so in Christ shall the same all be made alive: the infant
and the aged, the wicked and the just, all die, and their “dust re­turns to the
earth as it was;” but when the trump of God shall sound, they will be raised
from the dead through Christ—”but every man in his own order: Christ the
firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ’s at his coming.” Ver. 23. But we
are sometimes told that if man is not guilty of Adam’s sin, then Christ’s
mission and death were useless. Surely, such persons have very narrow views of
the subject. How shall we escape the punishment due us on account of our own
sins? And how shall we be raised from the dead only through Christ? It is
nowhere said in the word of the Lord that Christ died to save man from Adam’s
sin; but we have abundant testimony proving that He came to save man from his
own sins. Joseph was told by the Lord to call the infant Saviour Jesus, because
He should save His people from their sins, not Adam’s sin. Peter commanded his
hearers, when preaching from Solomon’s porch: “Repent ye therefore, and be
converted, that your sins may be blotted out.” It was their sins which were to
be blotted out, and not Adam’s sin. God’s promise, in the new covenant, to His
people was: “And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.” The new
covenant made no provision for Adam’s sin; therefore, if God ever remembered it
against His people under this covenant, He is remembering it yet. Paul said to
the Colossians, “You being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your
flesh.” They were not dead in Adam’s sin, nor in the uncircumcision of his
flesh. Under the Jewish law, God made provisions for pardon of sins committed
against it, and He mentions many sins for which offerings were to be made in a
prescribed form; but He provided no remedy for Adam’s sin, nor did He ever speak
of it as chargeable to the Jews. Surely, if God has Adam’s sin in re­membrance
against Adam’s posterity, He would have mentioned it somewhere, or in some
dispensation made provision for the pardon of it. Christ came, then, “who his
own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree;” but He came not only that
we might have pardon of our sins, but, as we have already seen, that we may have
a resurrection of the dead; hence, the language of Paul: “If Christ be not
raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins. Then they also which are
fallen asleep in Christ are perished.” Surely, these are objects sufficiently
important to in­voke the mission and sufferings of the Christ the Son of God—
salvation from sin, a resurrection from the grave, and eternal life. We come now
to notice the practical bearing of the doctrine of total depravity, as an effect
of Adam’s sin, upon the reception of the gospel as the power of God unto
salvation. The Presbyterian Confession of Faith tells us that “Man, by his fall
into sin, hath wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good
accompanying salvation . . . is not able, by his own strength, to convert
himself or to prepare himself “hereunto.” Chap. ix, sec. 3. Now, if the alien
has lost all ability of will to any spiritual good, it follows that he can not
even will or desire his own salvation. What can he do, then? Just nothing at
all! he is as passive as a block of marble in the hands of the sculptor. But
“when God converts a sinner, and translates him into the state of grace, he
freeth him from his natural bondage under sin, and by his grace alone ena­bles
him freely to will and to do that which is spiritually good.” Ibid, sec. 4. Thus
we see that this theory brings man into the world wholly defiled in all the
faculties of soul and body, op­posed to all good, and wholly inclined to all
evil, not even able to will any spiritual good accompanying salvation, until God
con­verts and translates him into the state of grace, so as to free him from his
natural bondage, and enable him freely to will and to do that which is
spiritually good. Then, if God never converts him and he is finally lost, who is
to blame for it? Surely, not man, for he could not even will or desire his own
salvation, or prepare himself “hereunto. Why did Christ command that the Gospel
be preached among all nations, and to every creature, promising salvation to
those who would believe and obey?”, when He must have known, if this theory be
true, that they could neither believe nor obey it?—nay, they could not even so
much as will or desire their salvation, or any thing good connected therewith,
to say nothing of doing any thing to secure it. And why did He threaten them
with damnation if they did not believe it, when, according to the theory, they
have no more power to believe it than they have to make a world? We insist that
the doctrine is too monstrously absurd to be en­tertained by any one for a
moment—antagonistic to the whole tenor of God’s word and the spirit of the
Christian religion— alike dishonoring to God and destructive to man. And when we
remember that the world has been taught this doctrine for cen­turies by the
large majority of those who have spoken and writ­ten concerning it, we are made
to wonder, not that infidelity is abroad in the land, but that there are not an
hundred infidels where there is one. God never, at any time, commanded man to do
that which he was unable to do; and the very fact that He commands man to
believe and obey Him, is evidence, high as heaven, that he has the ability to do
the things required of him. All things necessary for man’s salvation and
happiness which he is unable to do for himself, God has done or will do for him;
but what he is able to do for himself, God requires of him, and will not do for
him. These fundamental truths, however, we must leave the reader to amplify for
himself: we can not pursue this branch of our subject further at present; though
we have not ex­hausted it, we fear we may exhaust his patience ere we get
be­fore him some remaining thoughts deemed important to our in­vestigation. If
God charged Adam’s posterity with the guilt of his sin, we wish to know when it
was or will be, forgiven. Was it forgiven when Jesus made the atonement? If so,
the whole theory of man’s present guilt of that sin is destroyed, for he can not
be guilty of a sin already pardoned. Is it pardoned when man is pardoned for his
own sins? No, for the creed tells us that it re­mains through life in those who
are regenerated; and it also tells us that it is appointed unto all men once to
die, for that all have sinned. Surely, he would not yet have to die for a sin
that had been pardoned. Is it forgiven at death? Where is the proof of it? And
what are the conditions, if any, upon which it is to be done? Or, if
unconditionally pardoned, what are the means to accomplish it? Is it forgiven in
the intermediate state between death and the judgment? If so, why can not all
other sins be pardoned in that state? And if they can, why the necessity of
having them pardoned in this life? Is it pardoned at the final judgment? If so,
then we will be judged according to the deeds done in Adam’s body, and not every
one according to the deeds done in his own body. Is it not pardoned at all?
Then, will the Christian be damned for the guilt of Adam’s sin after having been
pardoned for his own sins? If so, the sentence will not be, “Depart from me, ye
workers of iniquity,” but, “Depart from me, all ye that have washed your robes,
and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.” Though your sins have all been
canceled from the book of God’s remembrance, in accordance with the provisions
of the new covenant, and though your righteousness is as robes of linen clean
and white, there is one sin which, though not committed by you, is imputed to,
or charged against you, for which you must go with the devil, that deceived you
in Adam, into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false
prophet are, where you shall be tormented day and night forever and ever. Or, if
he does not go to hell on account of it, will he go to heaven with it still
charged against him with a nature to­tally depraved, wholly opposed to all good,
and inclined to all evil? We most confidently deny that any one of Adam’s
poster­ity ever has been or will be sent to hell for Adam’s sin. As we have
stated more than once, all die as a consequence of it, and through Christ will
be raised from the dead. Those who are in­telligent, and therefore responsible,
and who have heartily ac­cepted and complied with the terms of pardon for their
own sins, as offered them in the Gospel through Christ, will be raised to the
enjoyment of life eternal. Here they will gain even more in Christ than they
lost in Adam. As saith the poet: “In him the tribes of Adam boast More blessings
than their father lost.” They exchange not only temporal for eternal life, but
they ex­change mortal for immortal bodies, and for the first time will they have
put on immortality. Having done the commandments, they will have a right to the
tree of life, and will enter through the gates into the city. In these immortal
and spiritual bodies they will not again be subject to temptation and sin. The
devil, who seduced Adam, will not be there; but they will have the society of
God their Father, Jesus their elder brother, and, as saints of the Most High,
they will join the angelic host in praising God and the Lamb forever and ever
“There pain and sickness never come, And grief no place obtains; Health triumphs
in immortal bloom, And endless pleasure reigns! No cloud these blissful regions
know, For ever bright and fair! For sin, the source of every woe, can never
enter there. There no alternate night is known, Nor sun’s faint sickly ray; But
glory from the sacred throne Spreads everlasting day.” But what of the wicked?
“As in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.” The wicked die
as a conse­quence of Adam’s sin, without their volition or agency; so, without
their volition or agency, they will be raised from death through the merits of
the resurrection of Jesus the Christ; but not to life eternal: “These shall go
away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.” They
will be judged, every man according to his works, not Adam’s works. They will be
judged, not for his sin, because they are not, never have been, nor can they
ever be, guilty of it, but for their own sins of which they are guilty. And
having refused the terms of pardon offered them in the gospel, by which they
might have been pardoned, they will be condemned: “The fearful, and unbelieving,
and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and
idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burned with
fire and brimstone.” And how long will this awful inheritance be theirs? “They
shall be tormented day and night forever and ever.” O! friendly sinner, is this
to be thy final doom? “What could your redeemer do More than he has done for
you? To procure your peace with God, Could he more than shed his blood? After
all this flow of love, All his drawings from above, Why will you your Lord deny?
Why will you resolve to die?” But there is yet another class. Infants, idiots,
and other irre­sponsible persons, die as a consequence of Adam’s transgression,
and will be raised from the dead by the same power and through the same means
employed in the resurrection of others. We have seen that sin is the violation
of law; and as they have never been subject to any law requiring any obedience
of them, it follows that they have violated no law, and are hence without sins
of their own. And as Adam’s sin was not committed by, and therefore never
charged to them, there is no sin for which they need forgiveness, and,
therefore, for which they may be condemned to endless punishment. Jesus said,
“Of such is the kingdom of God,” and required others to be converted and be­come
as they are, in order to enter it; therefore if their purity of heart and
innocence of character were such as to constitute the standard of purity for
those who would enter the kingdom of God on earth, we think they will scarcely
be refused admit­tance into heaven by the same adorable Son of God, who
pro­nounced blessings on them here. In coming from the dead how­ever, they will
exchange their natural, mortal bodies for spiritual, immortal bodies, and will
be thus prepared to enter “Where the saints of all ages in harmony meet, Their
Saviour and brethren transported to greet; While the anthems of rapture
unceasingly roll And the smile of the Lord is the least of the soul.”


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 7: GPS-06-THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE CHURCH
========================================================================

CHAPTER VI. THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE CHURCH.

It will be admitted by all that God has an organized govern­ment on the earth.
This government is variously called in the New Testament “the kingdom of God,”
“the kingdom of heaven,” “the kingdom of God’s dear Son,” “church of God,” “the
body of Christ,” etc. We do not mean to say that the phrases “kingdom of God”
and “the kingdom of heaven” always mean the same thing—namely, the church in all
its parts; on the contrary, they frequently occur, especially in the parables of
the Saviour, when only a particular feature or constituent part of the kingdom
is indicated. A few examples illustrative of this Position may be examined with
profit. Jesus said: “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle
than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.” Matthew 19:24. “Many
shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and
Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven; but the children of the kingdom shall be cast
out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” Matthew
8:11-12. These passages with others which we might give, have mani­fest
reference to the kingdom of ultimate glory. On another oc­casion, Jesus said:
“The kingdom of God cometh not with obser­vation: neither shall they say, Lo
here! or, Lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is among you.” Luke
17:20-21. This, with other passages which we might give, had reference to Jesus
as King, who had come not with pride, ostentation, and show, but was then among
them. In the parable of the sower and the seed, a record of which we have in
Matt. xiii, the gospel, as the law of induction into and government for those in
the kingdom, is the feature repre­sented. The parable of the tares and the
parable of the fisher’s net, found in the same chapter, have reference to the
character of those in the kingdom, some of whom were good and others bad. The
parable of the mustard-seed and the parable of the leaven hid in three measures
of metal, refer to the growth or ex­tension of the kingdom. With one example
from Paul, we close these illustrations. He says: “The kingdom of God is not
meat and drink, but righ­teousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.”
Romans 14:17. Here the words “kingdom of God” refer to the characteristics of
those in the kingdom. Other examples might be given, but these are quite
sufficient to show that, while the phrases “king­dom of God” and “kingdom of
heaven” are sometimes synony­mous with church, they must not always be so
understood. As respects law, the church is truly a kingdom—an absolute monarchy.
All its laws emanate from the King, and its subjects have no part in making
them. There is no representative de­mocracy connected with it. No council,
convention, or legisla­tive assembly has power or authority to abolish, alter,
or amend them. It is a kingdom, not a republic. As respects organiza­tion, it is
called a body, of which Christ is the head, all its sub­jects are members, and
in which dwells the Spirit, by which it is vitalized or kept alive, and without
which it would become a dead body. As respects relationship to the world, it is
fitly called the church—”ecclesia,” or called out of the world, and is,
therefore, not of the world. It was set up, established, orga­nized, begun on
earth, in the city of Jerusalem, on the day of Pentecost, by the authority of
the Lord Jesus Christ, under the immediate agency of the apostles, guided by the
direct inspira­tion of the Holy Spirit. A brief examination of the teaching of
the Scriptures on this subject is important to the development of “the gospel as
the power of God unto salvation,” and will repay the attentive reader. That we
may properly appreciate the importance of arriving at truth on this subject, it
may not be amiss to state that there are several theories differing from each
other with regard to the time when this kingdom was set up, each one of which
has its own doctrines growing out of its own theory. And if we are cor­rect in
the proposition stated as to time and place, it follows that all theories
setting up the kingdom, organizing the body, or be­ginning the proclamation of
the gospel, and laying, first, the foundation of the church at any other time or
place, are not only wrong, but all doctrines growing out of such theories are
false. And if we succeed in uprooting the trunk, all the branches draw­ing
support from the parent trunk fall with it. To be more specific:

One theory begins the church in an eternal covenant, as its advo­cates call it,
which is supposed to have been entered into be­tween God and His Son before the
foundation of the world was laid. It is assumed that in this covenant the
salvation of the elect was unconditionally secured, and the balance of the human
race consigned to eternal misery. If God and His Son were the contracting
parties to the covenant, and the final destiny of man, the consideration about
which the covenant was made, is it not passingly strange that the devil should
be the largest beneficiary? He was not represented in the covenant at all,
unless God repre­sented him, or acted as his proxy. We are told that few go in
at the strait gate, while many go the broad road and enter in at the wide gate
that leadeth to destruction. If this be the result of such a covenant, why was
God so liberal to the devil and so illib­eral to His Son? But we do not propose
to discuss these the­ories here: we call the attention of the reader to them, at
the threshold of our investigation, for the purpose of awakening at­tention to
the importance of arriving at the truth in the premises. Passing from this
theory, then, there is another which establishes the kingdom or church of God in
the family of Abraham. The advocates of this theory insist that, as infants were
included in the provisions of the covenant made by God with Abraham, they are in
the church now, and hence comes the doctrine of in­fant church membership. They
further assume that baptism came in the room of circumcision, and, as infants
were then cir­cumcised, they must now be baptized; and thus some of them think
they have Divine authority for infant baptism—which will be considered in due
time.

Others set up the kingdom in the days of John the Baptist; hence the name
“Baptist Church,” etc. Thus we see that the time when the kingdom of God was set
up on the earth is a most important matter—one that, rightly understood, would
tend much to heal the wounds in the body caused by the many unfor­tunate
divisions among those professing to be the people of God. It is said: “Behold,
the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of
Israel and with the house of Judah: not according to the covenant that I made
with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of
the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my cov­enant, and I regarded
them not, saith the Lord.” Hebrews 8:8-9. Then we need not look to the covenant
made at the time of the deliverance of God’s people from Egyptian bondage for
the be­ginning of the covenant under which the church of our day was
established. It was to be a new covenant, and not according to that one. It was
to be “a more excellent ministry”—”a covenant which was established upon better
promises.” Ver. 6. And wherein was it a better covenant? The old was “a figure
for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacri­fices,
that could not make him that did the service perfect as pertaining to the
conscience; which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings and carnal
ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation.” Chap. 9: 9, 10. “But
in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year; for it
is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.”
Chap. 10: 3, 4. But “in that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first
old. Now that which de­cayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.” This old
cove­nant was ready to vanish away and give place to the new one. And what were
to be its provisions? “This is the covenant that I will make with the house of
Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws in their mind, and
write them in their hearts; and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me
a people: and they shall not teach every man his neighbor, and every man his
brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the
greatest. For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and
their iniquities will I re­member no more.” Hebrews 8:10-12. Under the old
covenant, sins were only pardoned a year at a time, and thus were remem­bered
again; but, under the new and better covenant, God has promised to be merciful
to their unrighteousness, and sins and iniquities once pardoned are to be
remembered no more. But we did not come here to follow out the superior
advan­tages of one and the disadvantages of the other, but to learn ’as we think
we have—that we live, not under the same covenant that was made with the Jews,
under which they offered sacrifices ac­cording to the law, but under a new
covenant, superior in its provisions to the old. We have now arrived at the
proper point to look for the beginning of this new and better order of things.
During the time the Jews were held captive by Nebuchad­nezzar, king of Babylon,
God made known to him, in a dream— which was interpreted by Daniel, one of the
Jewish captives— certain great national changes that were to take place, in
which were foretold the destruction of his own government and three others which
were to consecutively arise after it; and finally the establishment of the
kingdom of God, which was never to be de­stroyed, but was to fill the whole
earth and stand forever. As these kingdoms were to succeed each other in regular
chronolog­ical order, we have only to follow them up and see the rise and fall
of each, noting carefully the dates as we proceed, in order to see when God
established His kingdom. For a full account of this remarkable revelation from
God, the reader is referred to the whole of the second chapter of Dan­iel. We
have only room to transcribe the dream, and the inter­pretation of it, contained
in the 31st to the 45th verse, inclusive: “Thou, O king, sawest, and behold, a
great image whose brightness was excellent, stood before thee; and the form
thereof was terrible. This image’s head was of fine gold, his breast and his
arms of silver, his belly and his thighs of brass, his legs of iron, his feet
part of iron and part of clay. Thou sawest till that a stone was cut out without
hands, which smote the image upon his feet, that were of iron and clay, and
brake them in pieces. Then was the iron, the clay, the brass, the silver, and
the gold broken to pieces together, and became like the chaff of the sum­mer
threshing floors, and the wind carried them away; that no place was found for
them: and the stone that smote the image became a great mountain, and filled the
whole earth. This is the dream, and we will tell the interpretation thereof
before the king. Thou, O king, art a king of kings: for the God of “heaven hath
given thee a kingdom, power, and strength, and glory; and wheresoever the
children of men dwell, the beasts of the field and the fowls of the heaven hath
he given into shine hand, and hath made thee ruler over them all. Thou art this
head of gold. And after thee shall arise another kingdom inferior to thee, and
an­other third kingdom of brass, which shall bear rule over all the earth. And
the fourth kingdom shall be strong as iron; forasmuch as iron breaketh in pieces
and subdueth all things: and as iron that breaketh all these, shall it break in
pieces and bruise. And whereas thou sawest the feet and toes part of potter’s
clay and part of iron: the kingdom shall be divided; but there shall be in it of
the strength of the iron, forasmuch as thou sawest the iron mixed with the miry
clay: and as the toes of the feet were part of iron and part of clay, so the
kingdom shall be partly strong and partly broken. And whereas thou sawest iron
mixed with the miry clay, they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men: but
they shall not cleave one to another, even as iron is not mixed with clay. And
in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom which shall
never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it
shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand
for­ever. Forasmuch as thou sawest that the stone was cut out of the mountain
without hands, and that it brake in pieces the iron, the brass, the clay, the
silver and the gold; the great God hath made known to the king what shall come
to pass hereafter: and the dream is certain and the interpretation thereof
sure.” Now, it will be observed that the Lord here tells Nebuchad­nezzar that he
was the head of gold. This kingdom embraced the countries of Chaldea, Assyria,
Syria, Arabia, and Palestine, and ended with the death of Belshazzar, B.C. 538
years, when it was overthrown by Cyrus, king of Persia, and Darius, king of
Media. These two kings were kinsmen; and after they had thus broken up the
Chaldean or Babylonian empire, the government assumed the name of the
Medo-Persian kingdom, that was repre­sented by the breast and arms of the image,
and was the second government in numerical or chronological order. It began, as
we have seen, 538 years B.C., and was overthrown by Alexander (son of Philip),
king of Macedon, B.C. 331 years. But he died B.C. 323 years, having reigned only
a little more than seven years. But as the Macedonian empire is represented by
the belly and thighs of the image, we must look for a division in it. Hence,
after the death of Alexander, his government became di­vided among his generals.
Cassander had Macedon and Greece; Lysimachus had Thrace and those parts of Asia
which lay on the Hellespont and Bosphorus; Ptolemy had Egypt, Lybia, Ara­bia,
Palestine, and Syria; Seleucus had Babylon, Media, Persia, Susiana, Assyria,
Bactria, Hyrcania, and all other provinces, even to the Ganges. Thus this empire
founded on the ruins of the Medo-Persian “had rule over all the earth.” But as
the thighs of brass in the image represent the divided state of the empire, the
above four divisions are soon merged into two, viz: those of the Lagidae and
Seleucidae, reigning in Egypt and Syria. A distin­guished historian says: “Their
kingdom was no more a different kingdom than the parts differ from the whole. It
was the same government still continued. They who governed were still
Mac­edonians.” When did these thighs end? In the year B.C. 30, Octavius Caesar
overturned the Lagidae, and Egypt, one of the thighs, became a Roman province.
Not many years after this (we have forgotten the date; our pencil notes here
have become dim, and we have not the history by us just now to which to refer),
Pom­pey overthrew the Seleucidae, dethroned Antiochus, and thus Syria, the other
thigh, became a Roman province. Thus we find the Roman government succeeded the
Macedonian, and is evi­dently the fourth kingdom represented by the feet and
toes of the image that stood before Nebuchadnezzar, composed of iron and clay.
Without going into a minute application of the Scriptures to each of these
governments, it is sufficient for our present purpose to show, as we think we
have done, that these governments did, in their order, overthrow and succeed
each other. Then, as they are numbered first, second, third, and fourth in the
interpreta­tion given by Daniel, it is certain that they, following in that
nu­merical order, and each one consuming its predecessor, are the kingdoms
indicated. And as they all merged into the Roman government thirty years before
the coming of Christ, it follows that some time after that period, and during
the existence of the Roman government, we may look for the God of heaven to set
up a kingdom. We can not go back behind the date of this dream to look for the
kingdom, for it was to smite the image on its feet—that is, it was to be set up
during the existence of and come in contact with the government represented by
the feet. And Daniel tells Nebu­chadnezzar that the whole affair was designed to
make “known to the king what shall come to pass hereafter”—not before the
foundation of the world, or in the days of Abraham, but hereafter. As this
prophecy brings us down to within thirty years of the coming of Christ to
establish the government—in the time of which the kingdom of heaven was set
up—we may expect the harbinger of the Saviour soon to commence preaching about
it Accordingly, Matthew says: “In those days came John the Baptist preaching in
the wilderness of Judea, and saying, Re­pent ye, for the kingdom of heaven is at
hand.” Matthew 3:1-2. Here we find John announcing the near approach of the
king­dom for the origin of which we have been looking. But we are sometimes told
that John set up the kingdom himself. Let us hear the Saviour on this point.
After John was cast into prison, and his labors were at an end, Jesus taught his
disciples to pray as follows: “Our Father, who art in heaven, Hallowed be thy
name. Thy kingdom come,” etc. Matthew 6:10. Would Jesus have instructed his
disciples to pray for the kingdom to come if it had already come? It is true,
many repeat this petition now who be­lieve that the kingdom has long since come;
but surely such per­sons think little about what they are saying Like the
school­boy, they find it in their lesson and must repeat it. We may pray for the
kingdom to be advanced in the earth, but we can not pray for it to come after it
has come, any more than we may pray for God to send down the Spirit, since it
was sent from heaven to the earth on the day of Pentecost, and has been here
ever since. Once more: When John heard of Jesus, he sent to Him to know if He
were the Christ, or whether he should look for another. After Jesus had answered
and sent the messengers away, He said to those around Him: ’verily I say unto
you, Among them that are born of women, there hath not risen a greater than John
the Baptist: notwithstanding, he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is
greater than he.” Matthew 11:11. Then, as he that was least in the kingdom of
heaven was greater than John, it follows that He was not in it; and surely He
did not set up the kingdom and fail to enter it himself. Nor were the disciples
of Jesus, though they had left all and followed Him, in the kingdom, for He once
rebuked them, saying: ’Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted and become
as a little child, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.” Matthew 18:3.
He did not say, “Except ye be converted, etc., you shall be turned out of the
kingdom,” but, “ye shall not enter” it—clearly showing that they were not then
in it, which surely they would have been had it then existed. They were to seek
the kingdom (Luke 12:31), for it was the Father’s good pleasure to give it to
them (ver. 32). Persons do not seek for that which they already have, but may
seek for that which is to be given or has been promised to them. As the kingdom
had been promised to them, and they were still to seek it, we conclude that it
did not then exist.

But we are not done with the Saviour’s teaching on this point yet. When He sent
forth the twelve apostles, under their re­stricted commission, He told them what
to preach; and it is wor­thy of remark that the language is, verbatim, the same
as that used by John—”The kingdom of heaven is at hand.” Matthew 10:7. When He
sent out the seventy, He gave them, in substance, the same message—”The kingdom
of God is come nigh unto you.” Luke 10:9. Now, it is very apparent that the
object of all this teaching was to let the people know that the kingdom was
ap­proaching, that they might be prepared for it when it came. But when He came
into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, and learned, by inquiry, what was said of
Him, and Peter confessed Him as “the Christ, the Son of the living God,” He said
to Peter, “Upon this rock I will build my church.” Matthew 16:18. This language
is too plain to admit of doubt. There would be no sense in say­ing, “I will
build my house in a certain place” if it had been built long years before; and
there would have been just as little sense in the language used by the Saviour
if He had intended to teach that His church or kingdom had been built prior to
that time. Thus we must press our investigations still further—its erection is
still later than the time He used this language. Six days before His
transfiguration He said: “Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that
stand here, which shall not taste of death till they have seen the kingdom of
God come with power.” Mark 9:1. Here we not only find Him teaching that the
coming of the kingdom was yet future, but that it would come in the life-time of
those then living. But later— when Jesus instituted the Supper—He said: “For I
say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God
shall come.” Luke 22:18. Thus we see that near the end of the Saviour’s sojourn
on the earth He still taught the people to look ahead for the coming of the
kingdom; and we next propose to show that those to whom He spake so understood
His teaching: “And as they heard these things, He added and spake a parable,
because He was nigh unto Jerusalem, and because they thought that the kingdom of
God should immediately appear.” Luke 19:11. Thus we see they understood it was
yet future, but thought its approach nearer than it really was. Coming down,
now, to the time of His death, “Joseph of Arimathea, an honora­ble counselor,
which also waited for the kingdom of God, came and went in boldly unto Pilate,
and craved the body of Jesus.” Mark 15:43; Luke 23:51. Here was a man of
capacity to un­derstand the Saviour’s teaching, who waited for the kingdom to
come even after the Saviour was dead. Surely, he was not wait­ing for that which
had already come. Let us next examine a prediction made by the prophets: “And it
shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the Lord’s house shall
be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the
hills; and all nations shall flow unto it. And many people shall go and say,
Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God
of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his path: for
out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.”
Isaiah 2:2-3. This very interesting proph­ecy was uttered by Micah (chap. 4: 1,
2), in very nearly the same words: “But in the last days it shall come to pass,
that the mountain of the house of the Lord shall be established in the top of
the mountains, and it shall be exalted above the hills; and the people shall
flow unto it. And many nations shall come and say, Come, and let us go up to the
mountain of the Lord, and to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us
of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for the law shall go forth of Zion,
and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.” This prophecy gives us to know that
the establishment of the mountain of the Lord’s house was to take place in the
last days; and we can see no other last days that could have been intended, only
the last days of the Jewish dispensation—the last days of that covenant which
Paul tells us had waxed old and was ready to vanish away. But we get another
important item of information from this prophecy; and for the sake of it, we
have delayed the introduc­tion of the whole, until the mind of the reader was
prepared for it. The word of the Lord was to go forth from Jerusalem. Hence,
when Jesus was instructing and preparing His apostles for the establishment of
His kingdom, “He said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behooved Christ
to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day; and that repentance and
remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, begin­ning
at Jerusalem.” Luke 24:46-47. Jerusalem is the place from which the word of the
Lord was to go forth, and it con­sisted in preaching repentance and remission of
sins among all nations, and this was to begin there. Jerusalem is the place,
be­yond the possibility of a doubt. But to establish a kingdom, there must be
persons duly quali­fied for the work; hence Jesus, at the beginning of His
personal ministry, selected twelve men and took them under His immedi­ate care,
and for three years and a half instructed them in the work they were to
perform—not only so, but He selected one of them to lead off as foreman, in the
opening of His kingdom, and said to him: “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I
will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it; and I
will give thee 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.” To Peter, then, was given the exalted
privilege of first opening the kingdom, with power to bind and to loose on the
earth, with the assurance that his act would be recognized in heaven.
Notwithstanding Peter had been a constant attendant upon the teaching of the
Saviour, this work was too important to be en­trusted to unaided human
frailty—man is imperfect and forget­ful: an important item of instruction given
by the Lord might be forgotten by Peter when the final destiny of the human race
trembled in awful suspense upon his decision—hence says the Saviour: “But the
Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he
shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance,
what­soever I have said unto you.” John 14:26. Thus he is secured against the
frailties and imperfections of human recollection. But operations are to begin
at Jerusalem; therefore he must go there and wait the time appointed of the
Father; hence Jesus says to him, with the other apostles: “Behold, I send the
promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye
be endued with power from on high.” Luke 24:49. “Jerusalem is the place you are
to begin, Peter; therefore go there, and wait for the coronation of Jesus Christ
as King of the kingdom to be set up; then He will send you the promised aid from
on high.” Shall we go with him to the appointed place and wait the developments
of the time when Jesus is crowned King of kings and Lord of lords? Without a
king there can not be a kingdom. “He led them out as far as Bethany, and he
lifted up his hands, and blessed them. And it came to pass, that while he
blessed them, he was parted from them, and carried up into heaven.” Luke
24:50-51. Angelic hosts escort Him to the throne appointed of His Father. On
nearing the portals of the skies, His attendants demand admittance, saying:
“Lift up your heads, O ye gates; and be ye lifted up, ye everlasting doors; and
the King of glory shall come in.” Before the porters of heaven admit the parties
demanding entrance, they ask, “Who is the King of glory?” The attendants answer,
“The Lord strong and mighty, the Lord mighty in battle : ” And again the demand
is re­peated: “Lift up your heads, O ye gates; even lift them up, ye everlasting
doors; and the King; of glory shall come in.” Then the question again comes from
within, “Who is the King of glory?” and the same announcement is made: “The Lord
of hosts, he is the King of glory.” Ps. xxiv. He is admitted, crowned
King—angels, principalities, and powers are made sub­ject to Him. The Holy
Spirit is dispatched with the joyful tid­ings from heaven to Jerusalem— “And
they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues,
as the Spirit gave them utterance.” Acts 2:4. And what did they say? Here is
Peter, the proper person, at Jerusalem, the proper place; and Jesus, as King, is
on His throne—surely, all things are ready now. Among other things, Peter said:
“Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the
Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see
and hear. For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The
Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, until I make thy foes thy
footstool. Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath
made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.” Acts
2:33-36. Here, for the first time, is the grand fact an­nounced to the denizens
of earth—that Jesus reigns in the king­dom of heaven. Persons ask admittance:
Peter uses the keys of the kingdom; they enter and are added to them. Them! who?
The disciples—the hundred and twenty. After this, the church being organized,
the “Lord was adding daily those that were being saved.”. If, prior to this
time, the kingdom had been in existence, it would have been a kingdom without a
king, for Jesus was not then crowned King—”the Holy Ghost was not yet given
(John 7:39); because that Jesus was not yet glorified.” Then, if the “body,
which is the church” (Colossians 1:24), had existed prior to the glorification
of Jesus, and the descent of the Holy Spirit, it would have been a body without
a spirit, and therefore a dead body, as “the body without the spirit is dead.”
James 2:26. Again: “He is the head of the body, the church.” Colossians 1:18.
When did he become the head of the body? “The eyes of your understanding being
enlightened; that ye may know what is the hope of your calling, and what the
riches of the glory of his in­heritance in the saints, and what is the exceeding
greatness of his power to us-ward who believe, according to the working of his
mighty power, which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and
set him at his own right hand in heavenly places, far above all principality,
and power, and might, and do­minion, and every name that is named, not only in
this world, but also in that which is to come: and hath put all things under his
feet, and gave him to be head over all things to the church.” Ephesians 1:18-22.
Then, as He was never given to be the head of the church until He was set at His
Father’s right hand, and ob­tained His exalted name, it follows that, if the
church or body existed prior to that time, it was a body without a head. And for
the very same reason, if the kingdom, church, or body was not then set up, Jesus
was a king without a kingdom, and a head without a body, and the Spirit was upon
the earth without a habitation or dwelling-place.

*Twofold New Testament, by T. S. Green—Acts 2:47.

One more point, and we are done on this branch of the sub­ject. When Peter was
making his defense before his brethren, for going down to the house of
Cornelius—in speaking of the events that occurred there, he says: “And as I
began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning.” Acts
11:15. Here we have the very word beginning, referring to the time when the Holy
Ghost fell on the disciples on the day of Pentecost. The Holy Ghost fell on them
on that day, and Peter refers to it as at the beginning. Beginning of what? Let
him who thinks the kingdom or church began some time prior to the day of
Pentecost, tell us what beginning is here referred to. Prior to the day of
Pentecost the church was always spoken of as a thing of the future; subsequently
it was spoken of as hav­ing a real existence. John, Jesus, and the disciples
preached that it was at hand. We have seen that Jesus taught His disciples to
pray for it to come—said He would build it—that it would come in the life-time
of those present. After that day, Luke says “great fear came upon all the
church.Acts 5:11. “There was a great persecution against the church which was at
Jerusalem.” Acts 8:1. “Tidings of these things came unto the ears of the church
which was in Jerusalem.” Acts 11:22. “A whole year they assembled themselves
with the church and taught much people.” Ver. 26. Paul addressed his letters to
“the church of God at Corinth.” 1 Corinthians 1:2; 2 Corinthians 1:1. And he
said: “God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all the churches
of the saints. Let your women keep silence in the churches.”1 Corinthians
14:33-34. He admonished them to “give none offense, neither to the Jews, nor to
the Gentiles, nor to the church of God.” 1 Corinthians 10:32. “If any man seem
to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.” 1
Corinthians 11:16. “I perse­cuted the church of God.” 1 Corinthians 15:9;
Galatians 1:13. These pas­sages, with others which we might present, show that
after Pen­tecost the church was spoken of as a thing of real existence. Why this
difference in the phraseology of the New Testament be­fore and after that day?
If the church existed before Pentecost, why was it not spoken of in the same way
it was afterward? Before that day, Jesus charged Peter to feed His lambs—feed
His sheep (John 21:15-16); after that time, Paul exhorted the elders “to feed
the church of God.” Acts 20:28. Before the day of Pentecost, Jesus said, “On
this rock I will build my church;” after that day, Paul told the church at
Corinth that it was “God’s building” (1 Corinthians 3:9)—”the temple of God.”
Ver. 16. Before Pentecost, Jesus said to the disciples that, unless they were
con­verted, they should not enter into the kingdom (Matthew 18:3); but after
that, Paul told the disciples that they had been trans­lated into the kingdom.
(Col. i : 12 ). Why were the disciples spoken of as having to enter the kingdom
before Pentecost, but as in it afterward? These distinctions might be greatly
multi­plied, but enough has been presented to show a difference in style
inexplicable upon any other hypothesis than that the church began on the day of
Pentecost, and was therefore spoken of as a thing future before that day, but as
an existing organiza­tion afterward. We are not unaware that there are
scriptures which seem to indicate the existence of the kingdom at the time Jesus
was per­sonally on the earth; but we take it to be an inflexible rule of
biblical interpretation that no obscure passage must be so con­strued as to come
in contact with a principle, doctrine, or fact clearly taught elsewhere. The
Bible must be harmonious in all its teaching, otherwise it can not be of God.
Hence we need not seek a theory contradicting any thing so clearly taught as is
the fact that the church of God began on the earth, in Jerusalem, on the first
Pentecost after the crucifixion of Jesus. Such efforts are much more likely to
make skeptics than Christians of the un­taught. Before the temple was built by
Solomon, all the material was so prepared that when every piece was placed in
its Position the building was complete without the sound of a hammer in its
construction. All parties agree that this was typical of the church of God. If
so, we may expect to find materiel ’ prepared for the Christian temple before
its erection. John began the preparation of this material, Jesus completed it.
John preached the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins (Mark 1:4),
and the sins of those who complied with the terms imposed were remitted, in
accordance with the gospel preached by him. When he was cast into prison and his
ministry ceased, that of Jesus began ( Matthew 4:12-17); hence, in this respect,
the ministry of Jesus was but a continuance of the preparatory ministry begun by
John. While Jesus did many things which John could not do, their preaching, in
this respect, was the same. Jesus es­tablished His claims to be King—gave laws
for the establishment and government of His church—qualified men to organize it—
entered heaven with His blood, where He made the atonement for the world—was
crowned King, and sent the Holy Spirit with the news of His coronation—thus
perfecting the preparations for the building of His temple. The builders, guided
by the Holy Spirit, put the material in Position and the spiritual temple stood
forth. As the material which composed the temple of Solomon was prepared before
it was placed together, so the material which first constituted the temple of
God was made ready by John and Jesus for Position in it. Hence it existed in its
materials before the day of Pentecost; but, as an organic structure before that
time, it had no existence. We could give much testimony from learned men who
differ from us on other matters, yet agree with us here. In Smith’s Dictionary
of the Bible, article CHURCH, we find the following paragraph: “From the gospels
we learn little in the way of detail as to the kingdom which was to be
established. It was in the great forty days which intervened between the
resurrection and the ascension that our Lord explained specifically to his
apostles the things pertaining to the kingdom of God (Acts 1:3); that is, His
future church. Its origin: —The removal of Christ from the earth had left His
followers a shattered company, with no bond of external or internal cohesion,
except the memory of the Mas­ter whom they had lost, and the recollection of his
injunctions to unity and love, together with the occasional glimpses of His
presence which were vouchsafed them. They continued to­gether, meeting for
prayer and supplication, and waiting for Christ’s promise of the gift of the
Holy Ghost. They numbered in all some 140 persons—namely, the eleven, the
faithful women, the Lord’s mother, his brethren, and 120 disciples. They had
faith to believe that there was a work before them which they were about to be
called to perform, and, that they might be ready to do it, they filled up the
number of the twelve by the appointment of Matthias ’to be a true witness,’ with
the eleven, ’of the resurrection.’ The day of Pentecost is the birthday of the
Christian church. The Spirit, who was then sent by the Son from the Father, and
rested on each of the disciples, combined them once more into a whole—combined
them as they never had been before combined, by an internal and spiritual bond
of cohesion. Before, they had been individual followers of Jesus; now they
became his mystical body, animated by his Spirit.”


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 8: GPS-07-THE IDENTITY OF THE CHURCH
========================================================================

CHAPTER VII. THE IDENTITY OF THE CHURCH

We have found that the Church of God was organized in the city of Jerusalem, on
the day of Pentecost; and it is worthy of note that all the forms of speech used
to indicate it are in the singular number; thus: “kingdom of heaven,” “kingdom
of God;” “kingdom of his dear Son,” “church of God,” “household of faith,”
“house of God,” “the pillar and ground of the truth,” “the body,” “temple of
God,” etc., etc. Where the word churches occurs in the plural number, it has
reference to the congregations worship­ing at particular places, and not to the
kingdom, body, or church, which has been the object of our search. Paul tell his
Ephesian brethren that “there is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called
in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and
Father of all.” Ephesians 4:4-6. The con­nection in which we here have the
phrase “one body” as clearly shows that there is but one body as does the phrase
“one God” show that there is but one God. But, in Romans 12:4-5, we are told
that, “as we have many members in one body, and all mem­bers have not the same
office: so we, being many, are one body in Christ.” And again: “But now are they
many members, yet but one body.”1 Corinthians 12:20. Thus we see that language
can not more clearly indicate any thing than that Christ has but one organized
body on the earth. What constitutes this one body? What is this one body? With
reference to Christ, Paul says “he is the head of the body, the church.”
Colossians 1:18. And again, verse 24, he says: “Who now rejoice in my sufferings
for you, and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my
flesh for his body’s sake, which is the church.” Here we are ex­pressly told
that the body is the church. Once more: “And hath put all things under his feet,
and gave him to be the head over all things to the church, which is his body,
the fulness of him that filleth all in all.” Ephesians 1:22-23. Here the order
is reversed—the church is His body. Then the church and body are the same is His
body. Then the church and body are the same, and are used interchangeably; but
the unity of thought is quite apparent. “The body,” “the church”—not a church,
some church, or anychurch, but THE CHURCH. There being but one body, and that
being the church, it follows that there is but one church. Then if, in kindness,
we may be plain and candid, without being of­fensive, we would like to inquire
how it comes to pass that there is a Catholic Church, an Episcopalian Church,
several kinds of Presbyterian Churches, several kinds of Methodist Churches,
several kinds of Baptist Churches, etc., etc., each claiming Di­vine authority
for its existence, and yet all acknowledging the Bible to be true, and an
infallible rule of faith and practice. Is there not something wrong here? We
hear Paul addressing “the church of God at Corinth,” but he never speaks to or
in­structs the Presbyterian Church, the Methodist Church, the Bap­tist Church;
nor does he ever address any class of persons as a church at all, only those who
compose the one body, or king­dom, of which Christ is the Head and King. But we
are told that these sectarian organizations are branch­es of the one church, or
body, of which Paul speaks. This makes the matter no better, but rather worse.
Paul nowhere addresses the Presbyterian branch of the church, the Methodist
branch of the church, or the Baptist branch of the church. In order to sen­sibly
speak of branches of the church, one of three figures must be before the mind,
viz.: a tree with trunk and branches, a vine with its stem and branches, or a
stream with its tributaries. A tree and its branches and a vine and its branches
are so nearly alike in their illustrative character, chat we may consider them
together, while we see if either or both of them will symbolize the church. When
did these branch organizations shoot forth? We do not know that we can correctly
date the origin of all of them; nor is it necessary that we should go back to
the begin­ning of the Roman Catholic and Greek Churches; for chose who advocate
the branch church doctrine do not admit these to be sister branches with them at
all. According to history, the Episcopal Church began about the year 1521.
Presbyterianism began about the year 1537. Scotch Presbyterianism about the year
1558. English Presbyterianism about the year 1572. Baptistism began about the
year 1611. Quakerism began about the year 1655. Methodism began about the year
1729. Secederism began about the year 1733. Cumberland Presbyterianism,
according to Burder, began on Cumberland River about the year 1810. The church
of God began in Jerusalem about the year 33.

We believe these embrace the most prominent organizations of this country, and
we see that we can not get a single one, ex­cept the church of God, further back
than the sixteenth century. Was the church without branches for the first
fifteen hundred years of its existence? and did she bring no fruit during that
time? Neither tree nor vine can maintain its life and bring forth fruit without
branches; yet if these organizations are the branches, then it follows that the
church was a branchless, fruit­less, lifeless thing until they came into being.
Since then, in one-third of that time, it has put forth a host of branches, and
branches of branches, and branches of branches of branches, until they have
become so thick that we are inclined to think that the pruning-hook is
necessary. Each of the branches differs in constitution, character, and fruit
from all the others. Such a tree! such a tree!! What a monstrosity!!! A tree
bearing apples, pears, peaches, apricots, quinces, plums, cherries, berries,
nuts of all kinds, “hard-shell” and soft, melons, pumpkins, squashes, etc.,
etc., and yet all come from the same “incorruptible seed”—the word of God!
Strange as such a sight would appear, it would take a tree with more different
kinds of branches and fruits than we have mentioned to represent the church of
God, if it has as many branch churches growing out of it as there are
denomina­tions claiming to be branches of it at present. But we may be told that
this variety was produced by grafting. If so, the graft­ing was not done by
Paul, nor in accordance with his formula; for he speaks of branches which were
“cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and were grafted contrary to
nature into a good olive tree.” Romans 11:24. Naturally, branches bear fruit
like that of the tree from which they were taken, but Paul’s grafts bore fruit
contrary to nature, like the natural branches of the tree into which his grafts
were inserted, they were taken from the world, and were engrafted into Christ,
the true Vine— made members of his body, or church; and, whether they were Jews
or Gentiles, Christianity, or pure and undefiled religion, was the fruit.
Therefore, if these sectarian parties were grafted branches of the one church of
God, they would all partake of its “root and fatness,” and there would be no
difference in them or their fruit. One could not bear sprinkling as baptism,
another pouring, another immersion, another all three, and another none at all;
another, vicarious atonement, total hereditary depravity, abstract spiritual
operations, unconditional election and reproba­tion, and many other doctrines
differing as widely as these do. Once more: Men usually take branches for
grafting from other trees than the one into which they are to be inserted. It is
true, Paul tells us that these natural branches that were broken off because of
unbelief, might be grafted in again if they abode not in unbelief; but when they
were broken off they were as for­eign as the unnatural branches. Then, as the
one church of God is supposed to be made up of these branch churches, where is
the trunk into which they were grafted? and where is the tree from which they
were taken before grafting? Is this great church tree all branches? and from
what church were these branch churches taken before grafting? These branches are
churches, according to the theory, and not individuals. Then whence came they?
They were not taken from the church of God, for there would be no use in taking
a branch from a tree and grafting it back into the same tree. Then from what
tree or vine were they taken? or, to speak without a figure, from what church
did these branches come, before they became part and parcel of the church made
up of them? It will not do to say they were taken from the world, for they came
from there as individ­uals, not as organizations. And if we look at it under the
figure of a great stream and its branches or tributaries, the same difficulties
are in the way. As these organizations are branches, where is the main stream
into which they flow? and where are the fountains whence they come? They come
not from Christ, the Fountain of living water; for all the branches making up a
great stream come not from the same spring, for then they would be a unit from
the first, and there could be no branches at all. Then, if they come not from
the inexhaustible Fountain of the human imagination, we know not their source.
Let us go to Christ, whence flows the pure, limpid stream of living water, of
which he who drinks shall thirst no more, but have a well of water springing up
in him unto eter­nal life. But we do read of branches, and we will now try to
find what a branch is. Jesus says, “I am the vine, ye are the branches.” John
15:5. Here, Jesus speaks of his disciples as branches of Him, and in Him. “Abide
in me,” says He, verse 4. Paul speaks of himself and brethren as having been
“baptized into Christ.” Romans 6:3. His baptism did not give him a literal
entrance into Christ, but it gave him entrance into His body, or the body
organized by His authority, by which a relationship was created like that of a
vine and its branches, or a body and its members. The same writer tells us that
“by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body.” 1 Cor. xii 13. By the
authority and according to the teaching of one Spirit we are all baptized in
water into one body, or church, and become members of it; and when speaking to
the Romans, with regard to the same relation­ship, he says, by baptism we enter
into Christ; and thus individ­uals, as such, become branches of Him, the true
Vine; but an or­ganized body of persons or an organized church can not, as such,
be termed a branch of the one body, or church, of God. If any one insists that
it can, then we would gladly see the scrip­tural process by which such a
relationship is created. We are profoundly ignorant of any such instructions, as
well as any pre­cedent or authority of any kind authorizing it; hence when
asked, as we frequently are, to what branch of the church we belong, we answer,
that we claim to be an humble branch our­self, but know nothing about belonging
to branches. Jesus, as King, has but one kingdom; as Head, has but one body; as
Bridegroom, has but one bride, and is the Author of but one church, and His
people should be one people, and no divisions among them. But we have heard
persons—yes, indeed, preachers too—thank God for divisions, so as to furnish an
or­ganization suited to the taste of every one, that the people may be without
excuse for disobedience to the gospel. “Thank God,” say they, “that there are so
many different denominations, each holding a different doctrine, that all can be
suited. If our church don’t suit you, in the multitude of others you can find
one suited to your fancy; so you can not fail to be suited.” Such persons, to
say the least of it, have a different view of this sub-­ ject from that
entertained by the Saviour, for He considered unity among His people as of the
utmost importance, and prayed for it in His most solemn prayer to His Father:
“Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me
through their word; that they all may be one, as thou, Father, art in me, and I
in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou
hast sent me.” John 17:20-21. Thus we see that Jesus considered divisions among
those claim­ing to be His people as a most fruitful source of infidelity; and He
was not mistaken. We verily believe that divisions among those claiming to be
the people of God have made more infidels than all the writings of Voltaire,
Paine, Gibbon, Hume, Owen, and every other avowed infidel that has ever wielded
a pen on the earth. A celebrated Indian chief, when asked by a mission­ary what
he thought of the religion of the Bible, said: “Go home, and agree among
yourselves, and then come to me, and I will consider the matter.” Hence Paul,
unlike those who love and create divisions, said: “I beseech you, brethren, by
the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you speak the same thing, and that there
be no divisions among you.” 1 Corinthians 1:10. But we have been asked why the
Lord’s people are not one, if such be the import of His prayer? It is said that
his Father always heard Him when He prayed, and not only heard Him, but granted
His petitions, or that for which He prayed: why, then, are His people divided?
Is it not possible that the class of persons for whom he prayed are all one? He
prayed for unity among those who should believe on Him through the words of His
apostles. He did not pray for such as might believe on Him through the
traditions of their fathers, or the teachings of men’ as set forth in
Disciplines, Confessions of Faith, Catechisms, etc., which might be taught them
from childhood. These are the sources of much of the faith that is in the world,
and persons whose faith comes in this way come not within the range of the
prayer made by the Saviour. It is sometimes said that these different
organizations are only as many different roads leading to heaven, and when we
get there, we will not be asked which road we came, or what kind of conveyance
brought us there. We are willing to grant that no such questions will be asked
those who get there. But will we get there? This is the important inquiry. We
would be glad to see proof of the fact that there are as many ways to heaven as
there are denominations in the world, before we accept the doc­trine as safe.
The greatest Teacher that has ever condescended to instruct man on this subject
said: “Strait is the gate, and nar­row is the way, which leadeth unto life, and
few there be that find it.” Matthew 7:14. Again He said, “I am the way.” John
14:6. The Pharisees, recognizing this fact, said: “Master, we know that thou art
true, and teaches” the way of God in truth.” Matthew 22:16; Mark 12:14; Luke
20:21. Even wicked spirits gave testimony to the same fact, for through a damsel
one said, “These men are the servants of the most high God, which show unto us
the way of salvation.” Acts 16:17. Peter says “the way of truth shall be evil
spoken of.” 2 Peter 2:2. Verse 15, he says certain persons had “forsaken the
right way.” And again, verse 21, he says “it had been better for them not to
have known the way of righteousness.” Apollos “was instructed in the way of the
Lord,” but when Aquilla and Priscilla found that he knew only the baptism of
John, they “expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly.” Acts 18:25-26.
The Holy Spirit signi­fied that the way into the holiest of all was “not made
manifest while the first tabernacle was standing.” Hebrews 9:8. Thus we find
Jesus, the Holy Spirit, evil spirits, opposing Pharisees, apostles, and other
disciples, all speaking of the way to heaven, but none of them speak of the
ways, or in any way imply that there are more ways than one from earth to
heaven; hence we con­clude that there is one way, and only one way. We read of
“wicked ways,” “pernicious ways,” “the ways of death,” etc., but the way to
heaven is so straight and narrow that it is found by few. Indeed, there can be
but one straight line between any two points; hence those who do not travel the
straight and nar­row way, must necessarily travel crooked ways, which are marked
out by men, and not by the Lord. “It is not in man that walketh to direct his
steps.” Jeremiah 10:23. Surely, then, we had bet­ter walk as God directs. Guided
by Him, we are safe, but there is safety nowhere else. But there is another
thought connected with these organiza­tions which demands our attention just
here. Quite a number of them recognize each other as orthodox, yet they differ
very widely in their teaching upon matters vital to the interest of
Christianity. As an intended compliment to the society of his town, a
distinguished clergyman once said: “There is great una­nimity among the orthodox
denominations of our town—that is, Methodists, Baptists, Presbyterians, and
Cumberland Presby­terians.” As the Christian Church was the only church, in the
town alluded to by the gentleman, not mentioned in his list of orthodox
denominations, of course it was regarded by him as heterodox—so much so, indeed,
that it was important to specify the orthodox denominations, lest their “good
name” be injured by an association with what he was pleased to call
“Campbellism” under the general name of orthodoxy. We have no complaint to make
as to the motives which prompted the statement, for we doubt not that it was
made, as Saul persecuted Christians, in all good conscience, but we mentioned it
because it gives us a pretty fair idea of the general use, or rather abuse, of
this term; and we propose to examine briefly the claim of these denomina­tions
to it. We have the word orthodoxy from orthos, right, true, and doxa, opinion,
from dokeo, to think; hence its import, to think right—soundness of faith—a
belief in the genuine doctrines taught in the Scriptures. Modern divines,
however, define the term about thus: “Orthodoxy is my doxy, and heterodoxy is
your doxy, to the full extent of your difference from me. Then, as or­thodoxy
means to think right—a belief in the genuine doctrine taught in the
Scriptures—soundness of faith, etc., it will be ex­pected that these so-called
orthodox denominations will agree among themselves; for it can not be maintained
that they are all sound in faith, and believe the genuine doctrine taught in the
Scriptures, while they believe and teach doctrines contradictory to each other.
Things which are equal to the same thing, are equal to each other; hence if each
of these is equal to the genuine doctrine of the Bible, they will be found equal
to or exactly like each other. Are they thus united, speaking the same thing? We
will see. The Presbyterians say, “God, from all eternity, did, by the most wise
and holy counsel of his own will, freely and un­changeably ordain whatsoever
comes to pass.” Confession of Faith, chap. iii, sec. 1. The Methodist, Baptists,
and Cumber­ lands say: Not so: it comes to pass that men kill, steal, and do
many other things which God has positively forbidden; hence He could not have
ordained that they should thus act, and then threaten the guilty with endless
punishment for carrying out His own ordination. The Presbyterians say: “By the
decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some men and angels are
predestinated unto everlasting life and others fore-ordained to everlasting
death. These angels and men thus predestinated and fore-ordained are
particularly and unchangeably designed, and their number is so certain and
definite that it can not be either increased or diminished.” Conf. Faith, chap.
iii, sec. 3, 4. The others say: Not so: every man may make his election or
condem­nation sure, as he chooses; hence they seek with commendable zeal, to
increase the number of the elect, and thus diminish the number of the
reprobates. Presbyterians say: “Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated
and saved by Christ through the Spirit, who worketh when, where, and how he
pleaseth; so, also, are all other elect persons who are incapable of being
out­wardly called by the ministry of the Word. Others not elected, although they
may be called by the ministry of the Word, and may have some common operations
of the Spirit, yet they never truly come to Christ, and therefore never can be
saved.” Conf. Faith, chap. x, sees. 3, 4. The others say: Not so: all infants,’
dying in infancy, are saved; and all other persons, who are incapable of being
outwardly called by the ministry of the Word, are saved, if they die in that
condition. The Presbyte­rians, Baptists, and Cumberlands say: “Once in grace,
always in grace”—that is, after a man is truly converted, he can not fall away
and be lost. The Methodists say: Not so: let him that thinketh he standeth take
heed lest he fall; for though he be a child of God, an heir of heaven, still
there is great danger that he may fall away and be lost forever. The
Presbyterians, Meth­odists, and Cumberlands say that infants of believing
parents are proper subjects of baptism, and are entitled to membership in the
church. Baptists say: Not so: faith is a prerequisite to bap­tism, and as
infants can not believe, they should not be baptized. They are not capable of
appreciating law, and hence are not sub­jects of government, and therefore are
not fit subjects for the Lord’s kingdom. Presbyterians, Methodists, and
Cumberlands say that baptism is rightly administered by sprinkling or pouring
water on the head of the candidate. Baptists say: Not so: there is as much
authority for putting water on the feet as on the head for baptism. The
Presbyterians, Methodists, and Cumberlands say all Christians should eat at the
Lord’s table together when convenient. Baptists say: Not so: Presbyterians,
Methodists, and Cumberlands are good Christians, and therefore fit to surround
the throne of God in heaven, but they can not eat at a Baptist table. When they
come to our house, they may preach, pray, sing, exhort, and labor for us, but
they shall not eat with us. Presbyterians say, “Neither are any others redeemed
by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but
the elect only.” Conf. Faith, chap. iii, sec. 6. The others say Christ tasted
death for every man. And thus we might multiply differ­ences almost ad
infinitum. Now is it possible that these contra­dictory doctrines are all the
“genuine doctrine taught in the Scriptures?” They are the doctrines of these
so-called orthodox denominations. Orthodoxy means “to believe the genuine
doc­trine taught in the Scriptures.” One of two things is, therefore, certain:
the Scriptures teach these contradictory doctrines held by these denominations,
or the word orthodoxy is a misnomer when applied to them, and they have no right
to appropriate it to themselves. But say they: “We all believe in one great God,
the Author of the Bible, the efficacy of the blood of Jesus, the operation of
the Spirit in conversion, the importance of a hearty faith in Christ as the
Saviour of sinners, a thorough change of heart, and repent­ance for sins
committed, and a turning from sin to holiness: and as we are agreed in these
great leading features of the genuine doctrine of the Bible, we claim to be
orthodox, though we may and do differ in these minor matters of which you have
been speaking.” But stop! Do we not believe in these great leading features of
doctrine, and insist upon them as strongly as you do, and do you not still
regard us as heterodox? What, then, is the matter? It must be something else
that constitutes you orthodox and us heterodox. What is it? It is this: these
denominations all unite in telling penitent simpers to come to the altar,
anxious­ seat, or mourner’s bench, to pray and be prayed for in order to
remission of sins, and we tell the same persons to repent and be baptized in the
name of Jesus Christ for remission. This is the true secret of the whole matter.
Here is the line between so-called orthodoxy and heterodoxy. Can they find
authority for their instructions in the Bible? Not if the salvation of the world
depended on it. Can we find authority for our teaching in the Bible? Most
assuredly we can find it, both in precept and ex­ample. We have the precise
words: “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ,
for the remission of sins.” Acts 2:38. “Arise, and be baptized, and wash away
thy sins.” Acts 22:16. “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.” Mark
16:16. Then, if to believe and teach the gen­uine doctrine taught in the
Scriptures constitutes orthodoxy, we are orthodox according to the true import
of that term. There is no escape from this Position. From our very heart have we
been grieved at efforts made to make Christianity look as much like sectarianism
as possible, in order to court the popular cant of orthodoxy. While we continue
to believe and practice the genuine doctrine taught in the Bible, we are
orthodox; but when we forsake these truths, in order to get the world to call us
orthodox, we give evidence that we love the praise of men more than the
approbation of God. ’Tis better to show that we have a valid claim to the title,
by believing the truth, than seek to make our faith look like error to induce
the world to call us orthodox. But we often hear persons say, when called on to
obey the-. gospel, that “there are so many denominations differing so widely
from each other in their teaching of what is in the Bible, that we know not
which is the right church. They all teach dif­ferent doctrines, and hence may
all be wrong, but can not all be right, for the Bible must be harmonious in all
its parts, if it be a revelation from God. There is the most perfect harmony in
all His laws governing the material universe; hence we are not pre­pared to
receive contradictory theories as law from Him for the government of His
creature man, for whom all other things were made. We see not why His laws for
the government of the nob­lest of His work, made in His own image, should be
less harmoni­ous and perfect than laws given by Him in the great book of
na­ture. We therefore conclude that some of these organizations, if not all, are
spurious; and if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself
to battle?” Truly, this is a difficulty, but we beg such persons to remember
that there never was a spurious coin yet that was not an imitation of something
pure; hence, as there are spurious churches, we may be sure that there is one of
pure origin somewhere; and we propose to assist the reader in recognizing the
one body, or church of God, of which all others are counterfeits; and many of
them but poorly exe­cuted, at that. We think that if we subject the church to
the same criteria by which we test the identity of persons and things, it will
be found with such marks, features and other means of recognition as will enable
us to identify it with great certainty. Were you hunting for a man who was
personally a stranger to you, whose name was Martin Luther, and you were to find
a man whose name was John Wesley, you would know at once that he was not the man
for whom you were hunting, unless he had changed his name. If you knew him to
bear the character of an honest man, you would continue your search until you
found a man wearing the name of the man you desired to see. Then, if you wish to
find “the church of God” (1 Corinthians 1:2; 2 Corinthians 1:1), and you find a
church calling herself the Roman Catholic Church, the Episcopalian Church, the
Baptist Church, the Pres­byterian Church, the Methodist Church, or any other
unscrip­tural name, is it not enough to cause you to suspect that you have not
found the true church, and continue your search a little further? There are
doubtless many good persons in each of these sectarian organizations, but this
proves not that any one of them, or all of them together, is the church of God.
God had a people in Babylon, but He admonished them to come out of her, that
they partake not of her sins, and receive not of her plagues (Revelation 18:4).
But we are told that there is nothing in names. Then why not as well expect
salvation through one name as another? Speaking of Christ’s name, Peter says:
“Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under
heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.” Acts 4:12. But if there is
nothing in names, we may as well expect salvation through the name of Beelzebub
as through the name of the Lord. If there is nothing in these denominational
names, why think so much of them as to prefer to wear them rather than the name
that honors Christ our head? Do they not tend to keep up divisions and gender
strife among good people? and if there is nothing in them, why not give them up?
Let us not strive about words or names, to no profit; for if there is nothing in
them, we may give them up and lose nothing; but by exchanging them for the name
authorized of God we may gain much. The church is said to be “the bride, the
Lamb’s wife” (Revelation 21:9), and, as such, should wear the name of her
Bridegroom. “The head of the woman is the man” (l Cor. 11: 3), and hence she
honors her head by wearing his name; and she dishonors her head when she refuses
to wear his name and assumes another. Suppose a citizen of your neighborhood
were to marry a wife, and when she is called by his name, she objects to it,
saying, “There are so many branches of my husband’s family that, for the sake of
distinction, I prefer to be called by some other name,” and thereupon assumes
another—perhaps the name of some other man of her acquaintance—what would you
think of her? and how would you treat her if she were your wife? Would she not
have dishonored you, as her husband? dishonored him whose name she wished to
assume? and dishonored and dis­graced herself? and would you not regard her as
unworthy to be your wife or enjoy the privileges of your house? Would she not
have placed a foul blot upon her character, that would render her unworthy the
confidence and respect of the virtuous and good of every age and clime? and
would you not feel a little like telling her to go and live with him whose name
she preferred to wear? What say you? Then if the wife of a citizen would so far
dishonor her husband, and degrade and debase herself by refus­ing to wear the
name of her husband, will it be less dishonoring to Christ for His bride to
refuse to wear and be called by His name? and will it be less a blight upon the
character of His bride for her to assume and wear other names than His? Will He
own that organization as His bride, before His Father in the great day of the
marriage, that has, owns, and willingly wears some other name than His? Will He
say: “My wife hath made herself ready, and to her was granted that she should be
arrayed in fine linen, clean and white: for the fine linen is the righteousness
of saints.” Revelation 19:7-8. Is the assumption of other names than that of the
husband, the righteousness of saints that is compara­- ble to fine linen, clean
and white, with which the church is to be clad as a bride adorned for her
husband when he comes to re­ceive her? By the way, what will our Baptist friends
do for a name now? They adopted the official name of John the Baptist as their
denominational name, preferring to honor the servant of the Bridegroom rather
than the Bridegroom himself; but the Bible Union, to which, as a church, they
are fully committed, wiped the word Baptist from the revised edition of the New
Testament, giving us “Immerser” instead thereof; thus, “John the Immerser.” (See
revised New Testament, Matthew 3:1.) Will they keep pace with the translation
and adopt the name “Immerser Church?” This would be rather wanting in euphony,
to say the least of it; but the word Baptist is not in the revised Scriptures
put forth by the Bible Union at all. They have very correctly and faith­fully
translated the original into Immerser, and every scholar, if honest, will
approve the translation. Then, will they give up the name Baptist? The late John
Waller, of Kentucky, saw this in prospect, while president of the Bible Union,
and said: “If a faithful and pure version of God’s holy word takes from me my
denominational name, then I say let it go! LET IT GO!! LET IT GO!!!” Are his
surviving brethren capable of rising with him above every earthly consideration
to a reception of the name given in a pure version of God’s word, to the
exclusion of every thing else? To this question time will furnish an answer.
Another means of knowing persons and things is by their age. If you wish to find
a man known to be forty years old, and you meet a lad of ten or twenty years
old; or a man whose whitened locks, furrowed cheeks, and bowed frame betoken
that the weight of many years is upon him: in either case you will know that
this is not the man you wish to see; and this assurance will be made doubly sure
if he wears not the proper name. The church of God, like every thing not
eternal, has its age; and as the age of a man is reckoned from the time of his
birth, so the age of the church is computed from the time of its organization.
We have seen that this took place on the first Pentecost after the crucifixion
of the Messiah; any organization, therefore, which began at any other time,
either before or since, is not the church of God. Every theory teaching that the
church began at any other time, before or since, is wrong—surely wrong. Were 1,
or an angel from heaven, to teach that the church of Jesus Christ began in
eternity—in the days of Abraham—in the days of John the Baptist—it would be
error, and unworthy of reception. Again: The record says that Jesus was born in
Bethlehem of Judea; and had any one appeared at the time He came, claiming to be
the Messiah, who had been born anywhere else, he would have been known to be an
impostor. Even so we have seen that the church of God was organized in
Jerusalem; any organization, therefore, that began at any other place, is not
the church of God. Should we find a church which began in eternity—in the garden
of Eden—in Mesopotamia—at Sinai—in the Wilderness of Judea—at Augsburg—at
Westminster—at Geneva—at Phila­delphia—on Cumberland River—or at Bethany—we
would know it could not be the church of God. Again: The church of God was
“built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself
being the chief corner-stone.” Ephesians 2:20. Should we find a church claiming
to be built upon the experience of uninspired men, however wise and good they
may have been, it can not be the church of God. Again: The organic law of the
United States is the constitu­tion thereof. A government having any other
organic law can not be the government of the United States of America. The
or­ganic law of the church of God is the New Covenant dedicated with the blood
of Jesus; hence any church having any other or­ganic law than this covenant can
not be the church of God. The church that has the Mormon Bible as its organic
law can not be the church of God. Why not? Because its organic law is the
production of men, and not the covenant dedicated with the blood of Jesus. Then,
can a church be the church of God, the organic law of which is the Westminster
Confession of Faith, the Cumberland Presbyterian Confession of Faith, the
Philadelphia Confession of Faith, the Methodist Discipline, or any other human
production? Will the reader ponder well this question? The church of God is
entered by a birth of water and Spirit; any church which admits to membership in
any other way can not be the church of God. Hence a church that receives infants
to membership can not be the church of God, because born of water they may be,
but born of water and of the Spirit they can not be. All the subjects of the
church of God know the Lord, from the least to the greatest of them: this being
so, a church whose members are, in part, infants, can not be the church of God,
be­cause such can not know the Lord. This line of thought-might be pursued much
further; but we have seen that the church of God was organized in Jerusalem,
nowhere else—on the day of Pentecost, at no other time—wears a name honoring the
Bridegroom, and no other—is built upon the foundation of apostles and prophets,
Jesus Christ being the chief corner-stone, and other foundation can no man
lay—has for its organic law the covenant dedicated with the blood of Jesus,
nothing else, more or less—has only such members as have been born of water and
of the Spirit, and know the Lord, from least to greatest. An organization,
therefore, which bears all these marks of identity, may be the church of God;
none other can be. If such an organization can not be found, then the church of
God has no existence on the earth. Suppose a man were to come into a community
with the con­stitution and by-laws of the Good Templars, and by teaching its
doctrines he were to make a number of proselytes to its princi­ples, and were to
initiate them according to its forms, and orga­nize them, at a particular place,
as a body built thereon, what would we call the organization? A society of Good
Templars. Very well. Another man comes with the Mormon Bible, and by preaching
its doctrines makes proselytes to Mormonism, and or­ganizes them upon the Mormon
Bible, according to its provi­sions: what shall we call this organization? A
Mormon Church, most certainly. Very well. But suppose another man comes with the
Presbyterian Confession of Faith and preaches its doc­trines, makes proselytes,
and organizes them according to its provisions, what shall we call this
organization? A Presbyterian Church. Very well. It would not be a Mormon Church,
cer­tainly; and why not? Because it is not organized upon the Mor­mon Bible or
indoctrinated with its teaching. Well, another man comes, and having the
Methodist Discipline, he teaches its doctrines, makes proselytes and organizes
them upon it as a basis of future action: what shall we call the organization? A
Presbyterian Church? No. Why not? Because it has not been taught the doctrines
of or organized upon the Presbyterian Confession of Faith. But it must be called
a Methodist Church because it has been taught the doctrines of that Discipline
and organized upon it. Then suppose another man comes with the Word of God, and
by preaching its doctrines he makes proselytes and organizes them according to
its provisions, to keep the ordinances therein inculcated, what shall we call
this organization? Shall we call it a Presbyterian Church? No; the word of God,
by which it has been created, says nothing about a church called by that name.
Shall we call it a Methodist Church? The word of God says nothing about a
Methodist Church. Shall we call it a Baptist Church? The word of God says not a
word about a Baptist Church. Then, of what church does the word of God speak? It
speaks of the church of God. Then, as the word of God is what was taught the
proselytes, in accordance with which the organization was effected, and it
speaks of the church of God, is not this organization likely to adopt a name
found in its organic law? If so, we feel sure that we have given such marks as
will enable us to find the church which has been the object of our search.
Surely, it is worthy of all acceptation, and we will not seek another, but seek
an entrance into this one.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 9: GPS-08-THE NEW BIRTH
========================================================================

CHAPTER VIII. THE NEW BIRTH.

We have said that persons enter the church of God in one way, and in only one
way. In this we are sustained by the positive statement of Jesus himself. In a
conversation with Nicodemus on this subject, He said: “Except a man be born
again, he can not see the kingdom of God.” John 3:3. And in the 5th verse He
said: “Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he can not enter into
the kingdom of God.” By the phrase “kingdom of God,” here, He meant the church
of God, or system of government established by God’s authority on the earth. To
this, we suppose, all agree. When we speak of entering the kingdom of God, then,
we do not mean heaven, the holiest of all into which Jesus, our adorable High
Priest, hath for us entered, but the kingdom established on the earth, on the
day of Pentecost. Into this kingdom or church he that is not born again can not
enter. This kingdom is a system of government, and those who enter it must be
subjects of government, capable of understanding and obeying its laws. Infants,
idiots, and irresponsible persons are not such; it was not, therefore,
established for them, and their salvation is not suspended upon an entrance into
it. Jesus says: “Of such is the kingdom of heaven”—that is, of such as they are
now, without being born again. Having seen that a man must be born again, in
order to enter the kingdom, and that it is the office of the new birth to
introduce the party born into the kingdom, it follows that a more important
subject never engaged the attention of man; we will therefore, examine it
carefully, and somewhat in detail in the hope that the class of persons for
whose benefit we write may ponder well what may be said, and that some good may
be done in the name of Jesus. The first thing necessary to a birth is parentage.
There must be a father and a mother, or there can be nothing born. Who, then,
can be our spiritual parents? Paul salutes the brethren to whom he wrote, thus:
“Grace, to you and peace, from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.”
Romans 1:7; 1 Corinthians 1:3; 2 Corinthians 1:2; 1 Thessalonians 1 : l; 2
Thessalonians 1:2; 1 Timothy 1:2; Philem. 3. In all these places, Paul, in the
same words, recognizes God as our Father; and Jesus taught His disciples to
address God, in prayer, as “Our Father who art in heaven.” Matthew 6:9. John
says: “Behold what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we
should be called the sons of God.” And again: “Beloved, now are we the sons of
God.”1 John 3:1-2. Other scripture might be quoted, but these are sufficient to
identify our Father with great clearness. Paul, in his allegory with reference
to the two covenants, tells us that “Jerusalem which is above is free, which is
the mother of us all.” Galatians 4:26. This heavenly Jerusalem, answering in the
allegory to the free woman, is our spiritual mother; hence, in the 31st verse,
he says: “So, then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the
free.” But, before there can be a spiritual birth, the subject must have been
begotten. Man is begotten of his father and born of his mother, both physically
and spiritually. He is not born of his father, at all, either at the same time
when born of the mother or at any other time. The father may have been in his
grange long ere the child is born, and how he is born of his father when born of
his mother, is not very clear to us. John says: “Whosoever believeth that Jesus
is the Christ is begotten of God: and every one that loveth him that begat
loveth him also that is begotten of him.” 1 John 5:1. Also, verse 18th, it is
said: “We know that whosoever is begotten of God sinneth not; but he that is
begotten of God keepeth himself.” In keeping with the Bible Union and Anderson’s
translations, we have exchanged the word born for begotten, in each of the
verses quoted, and we venture to state further that there is not a place in the
New Testament where the words “born of God” occurs, that a faithful translation
would not render “begotten of God.” In no place will the Spirit’s teaching,
faithfully translated, represent us as born of God—born of our Father. Such a
thought is absurd in the very nature of things; and no one who understands the
new birth, or the natural birth, from which the figure was drawn, will entertain
such a thought or use such language. But to proceed. Peter speaks of his
brethren as “being born [begotten] again, not of corruptible seed, but of
incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth forever.” 1 Peter
1:23. Here we learn that the word of God is the spiritual seed with which
persons are spiritually begotten. And in order that we may be begotten of this
incorruptible seed, our Father has ordained that human agents shall preach it to
the world. Hence, in this sense, Paul calls Timothy and Titus his sons in the
common faith; and also to the Corinthians, he said: “In Christ Jesus I have
begotten you through the gospel.” 1 Corinthians 4:15. Then, when Paul preached
the word of God, gospel, or incorruptible seed, to the Corinthians, and they
believed and received it, they were begotten of God, and Paul speaks of them as
having been begotten of him through the gospel, because he was the person
through whom God made known the gospel to them. Hence says James: “Of his own
will begat he us with the word of truth.” James 1:18. The gospel is the power of
God unto salvation only to those who believe it; but “how shall they believe in
him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?”
Romans 10:14. So, then, “it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save
them that believe.” 1 Corinthians 1:21. Then, when a man believes the gospel, is
he not born again? “Devils believe and tremble.” James 2:19. They also
acknowledge Jesus the Son of God. Mark 3:11. Were they born again? “Among the
chief rulers also many believed on him; but because of the Pharisees they did
not confess him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue; for they loved
the praise of men more than the praise of God.” John 12:42-43. There are now
many such as these chief rulers were then; are they born again? If a man be born
again when he first believes the gospel, when is he begotten, and where are the
elements of birth—water and Spirit —of which Jesus said he should be born? John
says Jesus “came unto his own, and his own received him not: but to as many as
received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that
believe on his name.” John 1:11-12. Jesus came to His own prepared people, and
many of them did not receive Him, or believe on Him; but to as many of them as
did receive Him by believing on his name, He gave the power or privilege of
becoming sons of God. Believing on His name, then, did not make them sons, but
prepared them to become sons. When a man believes the gospel, and with meekness
receives it into a good and honest heart, he is then begotten of God, and is
prepared to be born. The vital principle is then implanted in the heart; but he
is no more born again at that time than he was physically born the moment he was
conceived. As it is not the office of a birth to give life, but to BRING the
subject to the enjoyment of life previously possessed in a different state, so
without being begotten by the Father through the gospel, and thus having the
principle of life implanted in the heart, the subject born would be dead when
born, if it were possible for him to be born at all. When he is spiritually
begotten, he may avail himself of the means of God’s appointment for a birth,
and be born into the kingdom, or he may refuse them, as he may elect. In this
particular there is no analogy between a physical and a spiritual birth. In the
former we have no agency in being begotten or born, nor is either in the least
under our control, in the latter both are to a considerable extent, under the
control of the subject. He may (as many do) refuse to hear the gospel at all, or
he may refuse to believe it after he has heard it. If he believes it not, his
doom was pronounced by Jesus when He said, “He that believeth not shall be
damned.” He may also refuse to obey it after he has believed it; if so, he
“believes in vain,” and his faith is dead, not having been made perfect by
obedience. Faith causes us to love and fear God, and desire to do His will; it
also causes us to hate sin because it is contrary to His will; hence Peter, in
speaking of the conversion of the Gentiles, said that God “put no difference
between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.” Acts 15:9. This, the
effect of faith, is what is called a change of heart, and must precede the new
birth. But a change of heart is one thing—the new birth a different thing. The
conversion of Saul of Tarsus will make apparent the truth of this Position.
While he was “yet breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples
of the Lord, he went unto the high priest, and desired of him letters to
Damascus, to the synagogues, that if be found any of this way, whether they were
men or women, he might bring them bound unto Jerusalem. And as he journeyed, he
came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from
heaven, and he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul,
why persecutes” thou me? And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I
am Jesus whom thou persecutes”.” Acts 9: 1-5. It will be seen that Saul set out
on his journey with his heart filled with bitterness against the disciples, and
thought he was doing right to persecute and punish them. Jesus convinced him by
a miracle that He was what He professed to be. Saul’s faith was changed from
believing that Jesus was an impostor to the belief of the truth that He was the
Son of God. This change in his faith produced a corresponding change in his
heart, and he abandoned his errand of persecution, and was willing to become a
disciple himself. He was then begotten of God; but was he born again? If this
was the birth, when and where were the elements of birth with which he then came
in contact? Three days hence he was born of water and of the Spirit, in
obedience to a divine command given him by Ananias: “Arise and be baptized, and
wash away thy sins, calling upon the name of the Lord.” Acts 22:16. His heart
was changed by the way, but he was born again three days afterward. Faith
produces repentance, and repentance changes the practices of the subject—causes
him to cease doing evil and commence doing right—but he is not yet born again.
His heart may be as submissive to God’s will as it can ever get to be; yes, he
may be a worshiper of God to the best of his knowledge, and still not be born
again. The new birth does not consist in a reformation of life. An examination
of the character of Cornelius will give proof of this: “There was a certain man
in Caesarea called Cornelius, a centurion of the band called the Italian band, a
devout man, and one that feared God with all his house, which gave much alms to
the people, and prayed to God always. He saw in a vision evidently, about the
ninth hour of the day, an angel of God coming in to him, and saying unto him,
Cornelius. And when he looked on him he was afraid, and said, What is it, Lord?
And he said unto him, Thy prayers and shine alms are come up for a memorial
before God.” Acts 10:14. Here was a devoted, charitable, praying, and
God-fearing man, quite as good as the best of our day, as far as reformation of
life can make them good, and yet he was not born again. But says an objector,
“He was born again, for he saw an angel that told him so.” Not exactly: he did
see and converse with an angel that told him his prayers and his alms were
coming up for a memorial before God, and he told him more than this—” Send men
to Joppa, and call for Simon, whose surname is Peter; who shall tell thee words,
whereby thou and thy house shall be saved.” Acts 11:13-14. Was he born again and
still unsaved? The promise “shall be saved” clearly shows that he was unsaved;
and not only so, but he was to hear words of Peter by which he was to be saved.
Was he saved by the words before he heard them? If so, why did not the angel
shape the language thus: “who shall tell thee words by which you are or have
been saved.” If he was at that time born again, it follows that there is no
salvation in being born again, for it is as clear as language can make any
thing, that he was not then saved, in the gospel sense of that word. If he was
born again when the angel appeared to him, he was born again without ever having
heard the gospel, and therefore without gospel faith. Peter, in alluding to this
matter, said that “God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth
should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.” Acts 15:7. Then Cornelius had
neither heard the gospel nor believed it until Peter preached it to him, and
surely a cause must be desperate that could assume that he was born again prior
to that time. Then as his conduct was as good before birth as after it, it
follows that the birth did not consist in a reformation of life in this case. A
birth contemplates a change of state—a transition or passing from one state to
another. A change of state, then, and the beginning of a new life, is the
thought conveyed by the expression “born again,” and we have the same thought
presented by Paul, in his epistles, in other figures, varied to suit the
circumstances under which he wrote. He expresses it by the figure of marriage,
Romans 7:4; by the figure of grafting, Romans 11:24; by the figure of adoption,
Romans 8:15, Galatians 4:5; and by the figure of translation from one government
to another, Colossians 1:13. If an individual be married to Christ, his state is
changed—he is born again. If he be taken from the wild olive-tree and grafted
into the tame olive-tree, or from the world and grafted into Christ, the true
Vine, his state is changed—he is born again. If he be taken—as a child—from one
family and adopted into another, the family of God, his state is changed—he is
born again. If he renounce his allegiance to one government, the devil’s, and be
legally translated into another, the kingdom of God’s dear Son, his state is
changed—he is born again. We might amplify each of these figures of speech, and
show the correctness of the Position assumed; but our space will only allow us
to use a single one of the illustrations given: A gentleman visits and seeks the
hand of a lady under unfavorable circumstances, and is rejected. There may be a
single cause or many causes co-operating to produce his rejection. She may be
unfavorably impressed with his character, or she may worship at the shrine of
another, whose heart she hopes to win, or both causes may cooperate in producing
his rejection. Circumstances change, however, and she finds her first suitor an
unworthy man, and she becomes disgusted by him. Meanwhile, she learns more of
the character of the man she rejected, and finds him chaste in his conversation,
courteous, polite, and accomplished in manners—that a social, warm, and
undissembling heart controls him—that he has a mind well stored with valuable
information—that he has descended from a good family—and, above all, that he is
possessed of inexhaustible wealth. A knowledge of these facts changes her heart,
and she now admires and loves the man she once rejected. She receives him
gladly, and is willing to become the sharer of his prosperity or adversity
through life, but she is not yet his wife. Though her heart is changed, her
state is not; she was in the single or unmarried state, at first, and is so yet.
The parents may consent, the license be secured, the proper officer be present
for the solemnization of the nuptials, the supper prepared and the wedding
furnished with guests, and still she is not married; and were the process here
arrested, she would not be entitled to the privileges of his house, to wear his
name, or to inherit his estate. When she is married and her state legally
changed, then, and not till then, is she entitled to all these privileges
growing out of the new relation. Now for the application. The gospel is preached
to the sinner—he is in love with the transient pleasures afforded in the service
of the devil. The carpenter’s Son, born in Bethlehem and cradled in a manger,
has no charms for him. By-and-by he finds that the pleasures of sin are
deceptive, and the devil, in whose service he delighted, has nothing with which
to reward him but misery and woe. Meanwhile he learns more of Him who proposes
to save all who will come to God by Him. He finds Him so chaste in conversation,
that guile is not found in His mouth; so amiable in disposition, that when He is
reviled He reviles not again, and yet so powerful, that the furious winds and
boisterous waves are calm at His bidding, the grave yields up the dead to live
again, and devils tremble at His word; the waters are firm as a pavement beneath
His majestic tread, God is His Father, and He the only Son and Heir to all
things—He is chief among ten thousand and altogether lovely. With faith like
this, he can not fail to feel grieved that he ever loved the devil or his
service, because he is the enemy of Him whom he now loves supremely. Surely, his
heart is now changed—is he born again? If so, there is no fitness in the figure,
for he is not married yet. Though his heart is changed, his state is not; and if
he stops at this point, he can no more claim the Christian name and character
than can the unmarried woman claim the name and patrimony of him to whom she is
espoused. But it is insisted that this change of heart is the new birth, and
(strange enough, too) the same persons insist that we have no change of heart,
and deny the importance of it, when, in reality, we have their change of heart
and new birth, in our change of heart. We insist that we must not only love our
betrothed, but we must be married to the Bridegroom according to law, before we
can claim the privileges of His bride. He will not permit us to live with Him in
adultery if we were so disposed. A change of heart, then, is not a change of
state; it must precede the new birth, but it is not the new birth. The language
“born again,” was unique when used by Christ to Nicodemus. No inspired man had
used such language before: is there any reason for its use then? The Jews
believed that Jesus had come to re-establish the kingdom of David and literally
sit on his throne on the earth; hence when he entered Jerusalem, on one
occasion, “They that went before, and they that followed, cried, saying,
Hosanna; Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord: Blessed be the
kingdom of our father David, that cometh in the name of the Lord.” Mark 11:9-10.
And even His apostles did not understand the nature of His kingdom until after
they received the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost, and were by it guided
into all truth. “When they therefore came together, they asked of him, saying,
Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?” Acts 1:6. It
is not unreasonable that Nicodemus had the same mistaken views of the kingdom,
and he knew well that he was born into that kingdom, and had a right to
citizenship in it by virtue of Abrahamic parentage; and being “a ruler of the
Jews,” “a master of Israel,” he may have expected to be entitled to an office in
Christ’s kingdom on that account. Jesus corrects this mistake by telling him
that the kingdom of God was not to be entered in that way; but as a birth gave
him entrance into that, he must be born again to enter this. There is much
speculation about the import of this language; but as Jesus attempted to explain
the matter to Nicodemus, and then asked, “Art thou a master of Israel and
knowest not these things?” we are encouraged to approach the examination of the
subject in the belief that He intended to be understood, and, as “a teacher come
from God,” He was competent to make clear what He attempted to explain. Let us,
then, take up the language in which the conversation is recorded, and see
whether or not we may understand it: “There was a man of the Pharisees named
Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews.” So reads the first verse, and from it we learn
that, at one time in the world’s history, there lived a man whose name was
Nicodemus; that he belonged to the sect of the Jews’ religion called the
Pharisees; and that he was a distinguished personage or ruler among the Jews. 2d
verse: “The same (Nicodemus) came to Jesus by night (not in daylight) and said
unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can
do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.” Here we learn that
Nicodemus was convinced by the miracles which Jesus did that He was really a
teacher come from God. This is all plain; let us try again. 3d verse: “Jesus
answered and said unto him, Verily, verily I say unto thee, except a man be born
again, he can not see the kingdom of God.” Here we learn, not how a man may be
born again, but the indispensable necessity of being born again in order to see
or enjoy the privileges and blessings of the kingdom of God. 4th verse:
“Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter
the second time into his mother’s womb, and be born?” Here we find that
Nicodemus knew nothing of but one birth, and this was a birth of the flesh, and
that he could not understand how a man, when old, could be born in this way; he
therefore asks an explanation, ’How can a man be born when he is old?” Jesus
attempts to tell him how it can be; hence the 5th verse: “Jesus answered,
Verily, verily I say unto thee, except a man be born of water, and of the
Spirit, he can not enter into the kingdom of God. Here we learn that the
elements of birth are water and Spirit, and that a man must be born of both to
be born again—not born of water and begot ten by the Spirit, as some
translations would indicate, but he must be born of both to be born at all. How
is he to be born of water and of the Spirit? One answers that he must get
religion in the altar, grove, or elsewhere, and being then baptized with the
Spirit, he is born of the Spirit, and after a time he is baptized in water and
is then born of water. Well, this theory makes baptism in water indispensable to
entering the kingdom. Will the reader think of this? It also makes two births
where there should be but one. The language is born again, not again and again,
or twice more—once at the altar and once at the creek. This is not all; the
order is transposed. Jesus said born of water and of the Spirit; this theory
says born of the Spirit and of water. It is out of joint at every angle. Another
theory says that we are “born of water when we are born into the world, and born
of the Spirit when we get religion.” This will provoke a smile on the face of
our readers; but it is taught by men of lofty pretensions, and must be noticed,
whether worthy of respect or not, because it is regarded important by those who
present it. It makes the answer of Jesus wholly inapplicable to the question
asked by Nicodemus, who did not inquire how a child had been born into the
world, but “How can a man be born when he is old? The answer was, not that you
have once been born of water, and must be born again of the Spirit, hut you must
be born again. How? Of water AND of the Spirit. Another theory makes that part
of the Saviour’s language which applies to the Spirit apply to the belief of the
gospel at the time the subject is spiritually begotten. While this theory may
not be, practically, as mischievous as those already noticed, it is quite as
unphilosophic and foreign from the truth as any one of them. It breaks up the
order of the Lord’s arrangement and takes the term Spirit, which comes after
water, and places it in theory as far before water as faith precedes baptism. If
this be the thought, it occurs to us that the Lord was unfortunate in the
selection of terms in which to express it. It would have been as easy to have
said, a man must be begotten by the Spirit and born of water, as he have said
what He did say. But we are told that the Greek word genneethee, here rendered
born, is else­where rendered begotten, and hence may have that meaning here. We
grant that it is often so rendered; but should it be so rendered here? If so, it
must mean begotten as to water as well as Spirit, and hence the process is all
begetting, and there is no birth about it. Is any one prepared for this? Will he
render the passage, “begotten of water and of the Spirit?” But may not the word
genneethee mean begotten as to Spirit and born as to water? It must be thus
divided in meaning, to fit the theory; and hence our neighbors may be right in
saying that eis [for], in Acts 2:38, means in order to as to repentance, but
because of as to baptism. Such renderings are at war with all rules of exegesis
on the subject. THE SENSE OF A WORD CAN NOT BE DIVERSE OR MUL­TIFORM AT THE SAME
TIME AND IN THE SAME PLACE. Ernesti, p. 9. Again: IN NO LANGUAGE CAN A WORD HAVE
MORE THAN ONE LITERAL MEANING IN THE SAME PLACE. Ernesti, p. 11. According to
these rules, we may translate genneethee either begotten OR born, as the sense
may require, but we can not translate it by both in one place; yet we might as
well so render it in words as in the­ory. Let those who do so, agree with our
neighbors that baptid­zontes means sprinkle, pour, AND immerse, in Matthew 28 :
l9. If we may thus bifurcate the meaning of genneethee, in John 3:5, and make it
mean both begotten AND born at the same time and in the same place, then we may
as well have an end to all rules of interpretation, and no longer complain of
others for doing that which we do ourselves. Surely, Jesus understood the figure
He employed; and if so, the theory is wrong. To be begotten of God is entirely a
different thing from being born of water and of the Spirit. He who believes the
gospel, and is truly begotten of God, is not half born, but has the full measure
of a birth of water and of the Spirit between him and the kingdom of God, and
must be born of BOTH to be born at all. Begetting must pre­cede a birth, but it
is no part of a birth. But as one error often begets others, so this theory has
led to the notion that “regeneration and the new birth are identical.” Generate
means to beget; re, as a prefix, means again. Hence regenerate must mean to
beget again. Born means brought forth, and born again is synonymous with reborn,
hence, if language means any thing, to regenerate or beget again is one thing,
and reborn or born again is a different thing. Physically, a man is generated or
begotten and subsequently born; spiritually, he is regenerated ( i.e., begotten
again ), and subsequently reborn ( i.e., born again). Regeneration is the
beginning, that may end in sal­vation. We are saved by the washing of
regeneration and renew­ing of the Holy Spirit. Titus 3:5. The washing that
belongs to or follows regeneration is not regeneration. The regenerated man may
be born again—no one else can be; but it is re-birth, not regeneration, that
reaches salvation.

But our question is yet unanswered, and having been gone from it so long, we
must repeat it, lest it may have been forgot­ten: How is a man born of water and
of the Spirit? We answer that he is born of water as a means appointed by the
Spirit for a birth. How is a man begotten of God? Not literally. How then? He is
begotten with the word of truth, the gospel, as the means appointed for this
purpose. Then why not a man be born of the Spirit when born of water as the
means appointed by the Spirit for a birth? Baptism is the act by which we are
placed in and delivered from the water, according to the teaching of the Spirit,
and thus we are born of water and of the Spirit; hence we are “buried with him
in baptism, wherein also we are risen with him.” Colossians 2:12. To be, if
possible, more plain—to be born contemplates a delivery, a coming forth from one
state into an­other. Then were we to immerse a man in water, without faith,
repentance, or any thing else ( as we are often accused of doing), when
delivered from the water he would be born of water, but not of water and of the
Spirit, because the process was not in accordance with the teaching of the
Spirit; then it is equally clear that if born of water, as taught by the Spirit,
he is born of water and of the Spirit. But we are told that the word water, in
the sentence “water and of the Spirit,” does not mean water; and one quibbler
will say it means grace, another that it means Spirit; and a third will say that
he does not know what it means, but it can not mean water, for then he must be
bap­- tized or into the kingdom of God he can not go—and his theory tells him
baptism is a non-essential. So the word of the Lord is made to bend to suit the
theory instead of giving shape to the theory. But we are told that the Greek
particle kai, here ren­dered and, is sometimes rendered “even” and that this
sentence should read thus: “Except a man be born of water, even of the Spirit,”
etc. It is true that the word is sometimes so rendered, but can it be rendered
“even,” in this connection? And is the primary meaning of the word, and the
rules of translation give preference to the primary meaning, unless the sense
requires its removal. Does the sense require that and should give place to even,
in the sentence before us? Theories may require such a change, but the sense
does not either require or allow it. The word water has no qualifying term, and
wherever we find water, whether in the Jordan or elsewhere, we have the proper
element. But not so of the Spirit. It is made definite, the Spirit—not spirit, a
spirit, some spirit, or any spirit, but the Spirit. “Born of water and of the
Spirit”—immersed in and born of water, ac­cording to the teaching of the Spirit.
How perfect the sense! But another tells us that the word water is exegetical of
the word Spirit; hence to be born of water and of the Spirit, is to be born of
the Spirit like an overflow of water. Whoever saw an exegesis given in advance
of the word explained? We feel ashamed that it is necessary to notice such
quibbles as these. Suppose a man living at the time the Saviour was on the
earth, who had witnessed the many immersions performed in those days, had heard
Jesus say, “Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit he can not enter
into the kingdom of God,” and he had no theory or prepossessions to give shape
to his conclusions, but had to form them only by the language used, would he
conclude that the word water meant grace, Spirit, or any thing else but water~
Would he not more likely conclude, with Wesley, Clarke, and others, that it had
reference to water baptism? Is there a man out of the lunatic asylum who can
believe that any one of these quibbles would ever have been thought of had it
not been necessary to devise some means to save some theory from being destroyed
by the obvious meaning of the Saviour’s language? There were two questions asked
by Nicodemus, in the 4th verse: The first, “How can a man be born when he is
old?” Jesus answered as we have seen in the 5th verse. The second question, “Can
he enter the second time into his mother’s womb and be born?” shows that he had
entirely mistaken the kind of birth required. This mistake Jesus corrects, in
the 6th verse, by saying: “That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that
which is born of the Spirit is spirit”—as much as to say to him: “You are
thinking of a birth of the flesh, and a second birth of this character would be
indeed impossible. But I am speaking of a moral transition of the spiritual or
inner man. The man born again is the same physical man as he was before, but the
temper and disposition of the inner man are not like they were before. ‘That
which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must
be born again.’ Seeing your difficulty grows out of a failure to recognize the
existence of an invisible or ’inner man’ (Ephesians 3:16) dwelling in ’our
earthly house of this taberna­cle’ (2 Corinthians 5:1), and which is the subject
of the change pro­duced by the new birth, I will use an illustration which will
make plain the fact just stated, that ’that which is born of the Spirit is
spirit,’ hence the 8th verse, ’The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou
hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh or whither it
goeth; so is every one that is born of the Spirit.’“ The mist and fog that men
have thrown around this verse envelop it in darkness thick as that with which
God cursed the land of Egypt. And we are of the opinion that most of it has
grown out of a failure to keep before the mind the difficulty under which
Nicodemus was laboring, for the removal of which Jesus introduced the
illustration, and failing to get the point in the comparison at the right place.
We once listened to a very el­oquent man through a labored effort to explain the
new birth, at the close of which he said that this verse was designed to teach
us that the new birth is incomprehensible to all finite minds. Others can see
that it teaches the doctrine of abstract and myste­rious spiritual operations;
others say that, as the wind blows down a large oak, and leaves others standing
around it, so the Spirit is partial in its operations, converting one or two out
of the many who were with him or them at the mourner’s bench. Jesus did not say,
“So is the Spirit,” or “So is the operation of the Spirit”—no such comparison
was made or intended. Others say that the language was addressed to Nicodemus,
and is not appli-­ cable to us at all, because we can tell where the wind comes
from and where it goes to. “He bringeth the wind out of his treasure.” Psalms
135:7. “Who hath gathered the wind in his fist.” Proverbs 30:4. And what is
gained by these quotations? Where is God’s treasure from whence the wind comes?
and where is His fist in which it is gathered? But suppose we can tell where the
wind comes from and goes to, what light has been thrown on the new birth by the
discovery? We confess ourself unable to see any at all. If we go back to the 4th
verse and see the difficulty in the mind of Nicodemus to be a second birth of
the flesh, then come to the correction given to this mistake in the 6th
verse—”That which is born of the Spirit is spirit”—and then regard the 8th verse
as an illustration used to teach the existence of an invisible principle or
spiritual man, which is changed by the new birth, then, it seems to us, there
need be no difficulty in un­derstanding the matter. We have seen many
translations of this verse, quite a number of which we have before us at this
writ­ing; and it is worthy of note that, whether the Greek pneuma be rendered
wind or spirit, the illustrative qualities of the figure are still the same:
they are both invisible—recognized by sound and not by sight. “So is every one
that is born of the Spirit”—it being spirit that is so born. While the kingdom
was yet in prospect, Jesus taught the peo­ple by parables and figures; but after
its establishment, figures gave place to facts, commands, and promises. Jesus
commis­sioned his apostles to preach the gospel to every creature, prom­ising
salvation to those who would believe and obey it. He also promised them the Holy
Spirit to guide them into all truth, and enable them to unerringly perform the
work He had assigned them. When it came, they began to preach as it inspired
them —persons were cut to the heart and made to cry out, “Men and brethren, what
shall we do?” Peter did not tell them to be born again, because the time for
figures had passed; he therefore said to them: “Repent, and be baptized every
one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins.” Acts 2:38.
Thus he told them plainly, without a figure, to do that which would translate
them into the kingdom of God’s dear Son, and produce that change of state
indicated by the figurative language of Jesus as used in the conversation with
Nicodemus when He said: “Ex­cept a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he
can not enter into the kingdom of God.” When Peter thus addressed them, “they
that gladly received his word were baptized; and the same day there were added
unto them about three thousand souls.” Now, are they born again? Surely, they
are. When were they born again? Just when they did what Peter commanded them to
do. Then, if they were born again when they were baptized in the name of Jesus
Christ for the remission of sins, will you not be born again when you do as they
did? and if it took this to introduce them into the kingdom of God then, will
any thing less do you now?


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 10: GPS-09-FAITH
========================================================================

CHAPTER IX.

FAITH.

We hope that the reader has carefully studied the lessons al­ready given, and
that he has not forgotten the marks on the guide-posts along the road to the
Tree of Life. But as we started far back in the brush, bogs, muck, and mire of
Calvinism, our journey thence to citizenship in the kingdom of God has been
necessarily a long one, and made rapidly; it may not be amiss for us to go back
and familiarize ourselves a little with the scenery along the road. We have seen
that the destiny of each individual was not un­alterably fixed in heaven or hell
before time began, and that God is no respecter of persons, but in every nation
he that feareth Him and worketh righteousness is accepted with Him; and hence
every one may make his calling and election sure—that you did not enter the
world laden with hereditary depravity, by reason of which you are wholly opposed
to all good, and irresis­tibly inclined to all evil, and unable to do any thing
commanded you of God; but, on the contrary, you are quite competent to fear God
and keep His commandments, and in doing so you will have discharged your whole
duty. We have further seen that God has one kingdom, body, or church, on the
earth, and only one; that it was set up on the day of Pentecost, in Jerusalem,
by the authority of the Lord Jesus Christ, through the agency of the apostles,
as guided by the Holy Spirit; and may be as surely known and identified, as men
and things may be known by the features peculiar to them. And men must enter it
by being born of water and of the Spirit; and thus, as individuals, they become
branches of Christ, the true Vine, or members of his body, the church; but to
speak of organizations as branches of the church of God, is nothing less than
the confused dialect of Babylon. We have further seen that before we can be born
again, we must have been begotten with the word of God, as the incorruptible
seed necessary to the accomplishment of this end, and that this Word must be
preached, heard, and believed, in order to the production of that change of
heart, and reformation of life, which must necessarily precede the new birth. As
faith is the grand mainspring which propels the human machinery in all
acceptable obedience to God, we propose to pause here while we open our Bibles
and examine it in the light of inspiration. We think it likely that more has
been said and written on the subject of faith than on any other subject
con­nected with theology; and if every trace of every thing that un­inspired men
have spoken and written could be blotted out of human memory, we are not sure
that the world would be greatly injured by the sacrifice. Indeed, it seems to us
that the greatest labor on the part of those who would understand the subject,
is to disentangle it from the speculations of men with regard to it. What, then,
is faith? whence cometh it? and what is its office in the plan of salvation?

WHAT IS FAITH?

Many persons speak of it as some indescribable gift infused into the heart by
God, when they neither expected nor desired it; while others seem to think it a
gift, only to be obtained after hours, perhaps days, weeks, months’ or even
years, spent at the mourner’s bench, or elsewhere, in imploring God to bestow it
upon them. Paul says: “Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence
of things not seen.” Hebrews 11:1. This verse is perhaps better rendered by
Anderson, thus: “Faith is a sure con­fidence with respect to things hoped for, a
firm persuasion with respect to things not seen.” Christianity is a system of
faith, and is not susceptible of demonstration like a problem in mathemat­ics.
We do not know that there is such a place as heaven, like we know that there is
such a place as Nashville; because the lat­ter we have seen, the former we have
not seen. We have a sure confidence with respect to it—a firm persuasion that it
exists, be­cause we believe the testimony concerning it, “For we walk by faith,
not by sight.” 2 Corinthians 5:7. Faith, then, may be defined as a firm,
unshaken confidence, conviction, or belief in the truth of a proposition, based
upon testimony concerning it. The order is: Fact, TESTIMONY, FAITH. First, a
fact must exist, then it must be revealed with testimony sufficiently strong to
establish its truth, then the confidence in, or firm belief of this testimony is
faith. In support of this position, it may be well to make a quo­tation or two.
When Jesus saw the centurion’s confidence that a word from the Master would heal
his servant, He said to them following Him, “I have not found so great faith,
no, not in Israel,” and then said to the centurion, “As thou hast believed, so
be it done unto thee. And his servant was healed in the self-same hour.” Matthew
8:10; Matthew 8:13. Here Jesus used the words faith and belief in­terchangeably,
showing clearly that the centurion’s belief was his faith. Again: Paul tells us
that “without faith it is impossible to please God, for he that cometh to God
must believe that he is.” Hebrews 11:6. Here the necessity of belief is given as
a reason why persons can not please God without faith; and the fact that we can
not please God without faith, is as good a reason why we must believe;
therefore, with Paul, faith and belief were synony­mous terms. Once more:
“Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.” Romans
4:3. What was accounted to Abraham for righteousness? Belief; and that this
belief was faith is seen in the 9th verse in which it is said, “Faith was
reck­oned to Abraham for righteousness.” Surely, nothing could be more clear
than that believing God constituted Abraham’s faith. Why, then, was not faith
used in the 3d verse in place of the word believed? Because the word faith is
always used as a noun, and never as a verb; nor is there any power as a noun,
and never as a verb; nor is there any power in the English language to convert
it into a verb. We can not say, “Abraham faithed God,” but we can say, “Abraham
believed God, and his faith was accounted to him for righteousness.” We can not
say, “Faith on the Lord Jesus Christ, but we can say, “Believe on the Lord Jesus
Christ and thou shalt be saved.” We can not say, “He that faitheth not shall be
damned,” but we can say, “He that believ­eth not shall be damned.” We can not
say, “If thou faithest with all thy heart, thou mayest,” but we can say, “If
thou be­lievest with all thy heart, thou mayest.” Nor can we convert the word
faith into a participle, and say, “That faithing ye might have life through his
name,” but we can say, “That believing ye might have life through his name.”
When the thought is ex­pressed in the shape of a command to be obeyed, or as
having been obeyed, or as a condition to be complied with as an act of the mind
precedent to further obedience to the gospel, the style is: believe, believeth,
believes”, believed, believing, etc.; but when used as a noun, to indicate the
conviction which exists in the mind, with one single exception (2 Thess. ii 13),
the word faith is always used. These facts will be further developed as we
proceed with the examination of our second question, viz.:

HOW DOES FAITH COME?

After asking, “How can they call upon him in whom they have not believed? and
how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they
hear without a preacher?” (Romans 10:14) intending, doubtless, to make the
im­pression that they could do neither, and clearly showing that after the facts
of the gospel exist, the order is: preaching, HEAR­ING, BELIEVING, Paul remarks,
“So then faith cometh by hear­ing, and hearing by the word of God.” Romans
10:17. Hence, after Jesus had taught the grand facts of the gospel to the
apostles, His first charge to them was, “Preach the gospel to every crea­ture.”
Mark 16:16. And why? Certainly, that those interested might hear, BELIEVE, and
OBEY it. In His most solemn prayer to His Father He said, “Neither pray I for
these alone, but for them also who shall believe on me through their word.”John
17:20. Observe, he prayed for them who should believe on him through the words
of the apostles; and as He required them to preach the gospel, the people were
expected to believe in Him by hearing the gospel which the apostles were
required to preach. In keeping with this arrangement, Peter preached to the
Pentecostians, and “when they heard this they were pricked in their heart.” Acts
2:37. So their faith came by hearing, and they were of the class of believers
for whom Jesus prayed. The faith of the Gentiles, too, came in the same way; for
Peter said, “Brethren, ye know that a good while ago God made choice among us,
that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and
believe.”Acts 15:7. Luke further tells us that “many of the Corinthians hearing
believed, and were bap­tized.” Acts xvii): 8. “It came to pass in Iconium, that
they [Paul and Barnabas] went together into the synagogue of the Jews, and so
spake, that a great multitude both of the Jews and also of the Greeks
believed.”Acts 14:1. The Samaritans also “believed Philip preaching the things
concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, and were baptized,
both men and women.” Acts 8:12. Many other examples might be given illustrative
of the same fact; indeed, there is not a single ex­ample on record where faith
came not in this way. We once saw an educated mute, who was quite an intelligent
member of the church of God. We wrote on a slip of paper and handed him the
following question: “Sir: Paul says ’faith comes by hearing; as you can not
hear, how came your faith?” He was a good penman, and quickly wrote the
following answer: “Though I can not hear, thank God I can read. I heard the
gos­pel like I heard the question you asked me. John says: ’Many other signs
truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples which are not written in this
book; but these are written that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the
Son of God; and that believ­ing ye might have life through his name.’ John
20:30-31. I read, understood, believed, and obeyed what was written.” We were
pleased with his answer, for it evinced that he knew much more about the faith
required by the gospel than many who have ears to hear but seem not to
understand what faith is, or how it comes. We have often heard persons praying
most earnestly to God to give them faith, and the preachers exhorting them to
believe, without presenting one word of testimony to produce faith, as though
their loud vociferations could scare them into the exer­cise of faith, or awaken
their God (who, like Baal, was either asleep or on a journey), that He might
hear and answer their prayers for faith. Such persons always have the deepest
sympa­thy of our heart; hence, in great kindness, we say to them, “Come, now,
and let us reason together.” When they ask far faith, they have not faith, for
surely they would not so earnestly beg for that which they already have. James
says: “Let him ask in faith, nothing wavering, for he that wavereth is like a
wave of the sea, driven by the wind and tossed; let not that man think that he
shall receive any thing of the Lord.” James 1:6-7. Now, as he asks for faith,
and would not knowingly ask for that which he has, it follows that he has not
faith, and therefore can not ask in faith; therefore let him not think that he
will receive any thing of the Lord, or that the Lord will give him the faith for
which he asks. Again: “Whatsoever is not of faith is sin.” Romans 14:23. Then,
as they pray for faith, and therefore have not faith, their prayers can not be
of faith; and as whatsoever is not of faith is sin, it follows that all such
prayers are sin. Once more: “Without faith it is impossible to please God.”
Hebrews 11:6. As prayers for faith are not made in faith, but without faith and
as without faith it is impossible to please God, therefore such prayers are not
pleasing to God. And as they are sinful, and therefore not pleasing to God, and
noth­ing can be received in answer to them, it surely would be better not to
make them. But an objector says: “It is certainly legitimate to ask God, in
prayer, for that which He has promised to give us; and the Bible says faith is
the gift of God; therefore we may ask Him for it.” Most assuredly we may pray to
God for that which He has promised to give us; but do the Scriptures teach that
He has promised to give faith to those who are without it? Before we proceed to
examine the proofs relied on to support the theory, we beg permission to remark
to our contemporaries that consistency looks quite as well in them as in us, and
the demand to reconcile scriptures seemingly at war with positions taken should
extend to them as well as to us. This is not always remembered. Every knotty
quotation is reserved for us to explain, every seem­ing contradiction is
zealously sought after and brought forward for us to harmonize, and every
quibble that can be thought of is expected to be attended to by us, while the
objector’s theory may be flatly contradicted by the plainest teaching of
inspiration, and no attempt is made by him to explain or harmonize any thing. We
are tired of this. We want to see an objector be a man, and dig up the briers,
thistles, and thorns from his own garden before he points at the weeds and grass
in ours. Come, then: what do you think of the quotations already made from James
1:6-7, Romans 14:23, and Hebrews 11:6, and our reasonings thereon? And when you
shall have harmonized these with the right of such as have no faith to pray for
faith ( and many others which you can easily find), then try the following: “He
that believeth not shall be damned.” Mark 16:16. Will God punish men in hell
forever for not believing, when He has to give them faith? While you smooth
these kinks out of the theory that faith is a direct gift from God to the
sinner, we will see whether or not your proofs contradict us. The first passage
we will examine may be found in 1 Corinthians 12:8-10, where Paul, in speaking
of the miraculous gifts of the Spirit, says: “For to one is given by the Spirit
the word of wis­dom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit; to
another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same
Spirit; to another the working of miracles; to an­other prophecy; to another
discerning of Spirits; to another div­ers kinds of tongues; to another the
interpretation of tongues.” We have given the sentence with reference to faith
with is con­text, and the connection most clearly shows that the faith which
enumerated among the gifts of the Spirit is not the faith for which the alien is
taught to pray. If he may pray for faith because it is here said to be the gift
of the Spirit, then he may pray for the power to work miracles, prophesy, speak
with tongues, and in­terpret tongues, for they are all in the same connection
and by the same authority said to be gifts of the same Spirit. Surely, no one
will say that this faith, or any of these gifts, is to be given to the
unconverted alien, in answer to prayer, or in any other way. There was a faith
of which Jesus said: “If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say
unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove: and
nothing shall be impossible unto you.” Matthew 17:20. And again: “If ye had
faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye might say unto this sycamine tree, Be thou
plucked up by the root, and be thou planted in the sea; and it should obey you.”
Luke 17:6. We hear Paul also calling Titus his “son after the common
faith.”Titus 1:4. Paul had preached the gospel to Titus, and when he believed it
he was begotten by the incorruptible seed, or word of God; and this belief of
the gospel Paul calls the common faith, because this is the faith common to all
God’s people. But the word com­mon implies uncommon, hence, as Paul spake of the
common faith, he did it in contrast with the uncommon or miraculous faith given
by the Spirit. Does any one think he has it now? Then let him remove the
mountain or tree by his word, and thereby establish his claim. The next and last
passage to be examined is in the following words: “For by grace are ye saved
through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God.” Ephesians
2:8. Is faith the thing here said to be the gift of God? The demonstrative that
never refers to the thing nearest us or last spoken of. For such pur­pose this
is preferred. That, as a demonstrative, refers to the thing farther off or
previously spoken of; hence, in this sentence, it must refer to something behind
faith. We would paraphrase the sentence thus: “By grace are ye saved through
faith; and that salvation is not of yourselves: it is the gift of God.” This is
the obvious import of the passage. But we are told that faith is the gift of God
because He has given us the testimony which produces it. To this we do not
greatly object; but still there can be no propriety in praying for it, nor can
their prayers avail any thing if they do pray. They have the testimony: why not
believe it? Is God to give them more testimony? If they believe all the
testimony, they have faith enough and need not pray for more. Faith is produced
by testimony, and as far as testimony goes, faith may go, but where the
testimony stops, faith must and will stop. The testimony concerning Jesus tells
us that He was born of Mary in Bethlehem —was baptized by John in Jordan, and
commenced His ministry in the hill country of Galilee—was crucified on Calvary,
and was buried in Joseph’s new tomb. Now, suppose the testimony had stopped at
this point, how much faith would any person have had to-day in His resurrection,
ascension, and glorification? Just none at all. As far as testimony goes, faith
may go, but no further; all beyond is mere speculative opinion. Our faith may be
strengthened or weakened by increasing or weakening the tes­timony. We have
faith in the testimony of men, and we have faith in the testimony of God, but
our faith in the testimony of God is as much stronger than our faith in the
testimony of men as we regard God superior to man and His testimony more
reli­able than that of man. This difference—no more, no less. “If we receive the
witness of men, the witness of God is greater.” 1 John 5:9. For my thoughts are
not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord; for as the
heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my
thoughts than your thoughts.” Isaiah 55:8-9. But we are told that the belief of
testimony is merely historic faith. And what kind of faith is not historic
faith? If by his­toric faith is meant a belief in the historic account of Jesus,
heaven, hell, salvation, and condemnation given in the word of Truth, then we
hesitate not to admit that we have that kind of faith, and know of no other. But
you tell us you want divine faith. If by divine faith you mean that which is
predicated upon divine testimony, then we have divine faith, and want no other.
But you want evangelical faith. And what sort of faith is that? Is it to believe
all that the evangelists have spoken and written? If so, we have evangelical
faith. But you want saving faith. What is meant by saving faith? If it is, with
all the powers of the soul, to believe in Jesus Christ as the Son of God and our
Sa­viour, then we have saving faith. But you want the faith of credence. And
what do you mean by this? Is it to give full credit to all the divine testimony?
Then we have the faith of credence. But you want the faith of reliance. And what
kind of faith is this? Is it to rely, with full confidence, on the testimony of
inspiration? Then we have the faith of reliance. But you want a trusting faith.
Do you mean by this a faith which ena­bles you to trust in Jesus Christ and the
efficacy of His blood for salvation? Then this is the kind of faith we have, and
want no other. Then of what use are all these qualifying terms as ap­plied to
faith? They serve only to becloud the subject, and never can do any good. We
have heard persons taught that they must believe that God had pardoned them, and
whenever they would believe this they would realize that it was so. It is not
strange that persons feel like they are pardoned when they believe that God has
pardoned them; but if we must believe that we are pardoned in order to be
pardoned, then we confess, frankly, that we neither have nor want that kind of
faith. Are we to believe that there are as many different kinds of faith as
there are qualifying terms here used? Paul said, “There is one Lord and one
faith.”Ephesians 4:5. When you believe all that God has said, through inspired
men, to the world, and believe it be­cause God has said it, you have all the
faith which mortals can have or God requires of them. Pollok has well said:
“Faith was bewildered much by men who meant To make it clear, so simple in
itself; A thought so rudimental and so plain, That none by comment could it
plainer make. All faith was one. In object, not in kind, The difference lay. The
faith that saved a soul, And that which in the common truth believed, In essence
were the same. Hear, then, what faith, True Christian faith, which brought
salvation was— Belief in all that God revealed to men; Observe, in all that God
revealed to men, In all He promised, threatened, commanded, said, Without
exception, and without a doubt.”

WHAT IS THE OFFICE OF FAITH?

Having seen what faith is and how it comes, we are now pre­pared to inquire what
it does. And we may as well say at once that it induces the performance of every
act of acceptable obedi­ence to God—every one. We are lost in attempting to find
any thing done in hearty obedience to God that is not, either directly or
indirectly, the result of faith. Is your heart subdued to the will of God, and
your affections and passions all mellowed by love, that God-like principle that
enables you to love your ene­mies, and do good to and pray for them that
persecute and evilly treat you? This is the work of faith. Are you heartily
sorry for all your past sins and determined to forsake them and walk hum­bly and
uprightly henceforth? These are the results of the sub­jugation of your heart to
the will of God by faith. Have you confessed with the mouth the Lord Jesus
before men, that He may confess you before His Father and the holy angels? Then
you have but confessed with the mouth what the heart believed. Have you been
buried with Christ in baptism and arisen to walk in newness of life? If so,
Jesus, in the commission which autho­rized the performance of this act,
associated it with faith, saying, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be
saved;” and Philip made the eunuch’s faith an indispensable prerequisite to his
bap­tism, saying, “If thou believes” with all thy heart thou mayest.” And, as
without faith it is impossible to please God, had he bap­tized him without
faith, it would not have been pleasing to God; and hence were you to be baptized
without faith, it would not be a service well pleasing to Him. Do you, as
Christians, love mercy, deal justly, walk humbly and uprightly before God? If
so, it is all the result of faith; for the Christian lives by faith, walks by
faith, and dies in faith. But we are not yet ready to develop the life of the
Christian; hence we must go back and as­sist the alien through that CHANGE IN
THE AFFECTIONS OF THE HEART which we have seen to be the first result of faith.
Paul says: “Ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doc­trine which was
delivered you; being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of
righteousness.” Romans 6:17-18. By this we learn that the obedience which freed
the Romans from sin was from the heart; and we may safely affirm that all
accept­able obedience must come from a heart sincerely desirous to honor God’s
authority. All else is downright mockery. But no alien can obey from the heart
without a changed heart; hence it may be well to inquire what a change of heart
is, and how it is brought about. In order to acquire any thing like a
satisfactory knowledge of the subject, it is important to know what the
spiri­tual heart is, and then we may better understand how and when it is
changed. As the physical heart is the center of the physical circulation, from
whence passes the vital current, giving life and nutriment to all parts of the
body, so the mind of man is the great center of all spiritual impressions and
emotions, and is therefore called the heart—if you please, the spiritual heart.
If in this we are not mistaken, then all reference of spiritual emo­tions and
changes to the physical heart is out of place. Let us see how this is. “And God
saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every
imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.” Genesis
6:5. It can not require an argument to show that thoughts originate in the mind,
which is here denominated the heart. Solomon says: “The heart knoweth his own
bitterness.” Proverbs 14:10. “The heart of the righteous studieth to answer.”
Proverbs 15:28. As stud-y is the work of the mind, and as the mind is the
store-house of all knowledge, we can not be at a loss to know that it was the
mind which Solomon called the heart. “Jesus perceiving the thought of their
heart.” Luke 9:47. As thoughts proceed from the mind, it is evidently what Jesus
here calls the heart. “The heart also of the rash shall understand knowledge.”
Isaiah 32:4. Here it is quite clear that the prophet used the term heart with
refer­ence to the mind. With a single quotation from an apostle, we must close
our proof on this subject: “With the heart man believ­eth unto righteousness.”
Romans 10:10. Until it can be shown that the physical heart can believe and
appreciate testimony, it is un­necessary to make an argument to show; that Paul
here used the word heart as equivalent to the mind. Thus we see that God, Jesus,
Solomon, Isaiah, and Paul used the term heart with refer­ence to the mind or
intellect, with all its faculties, with which we think, understand, feel, and
receive impressions. We may cultivate and develop the faculties of the mind so
as to enlarge our powers of thought and capabilities of acquiring and retain­ing
knowledge, by making impressions on it through the senses; but this is not what
is meant by the phrase “change of heart,” as used by theologians with reference
to conversion. And it may be well to remark that we use the phrase “change of
heart” by way of accommodation to the parlance of our times, and not be­cause we
find such language in the Bible. It is not there. It is true that, in Daniel
4:16, it is said of Nebuchadnezzar: “Let his heart be changed from man’s and let
a beast’s heart be given him;” but this had no reference to conversion to
Christianity. Indeed, while we confine ourselves strictly to the literal
significa­tion of the terms we are by no means sure that such a thing as a
change of heart is at all possible. We may change the affections and purposes of
the heart or mind, but how we may change the heart or mind itself, is not very
clear to us. The affections and purposes of the heart are no more the heart than
the fruit of a tree is the tree. In the Scriptures, however, the term heart is
sometimes used in this sense—i.e., to indicate the affections and purposes of
the mind; and as these may be changed, it is with reference to them that we use
the phrase “change of heart.” When we speak of a change of heart, then, we mean
a change of the affections and purposes of the heart. Nothing more— nothing
less. Many persons are prating about a “change of heart,” who are wholly
destitute of any just conceptions of what it is, or how it is produced. One of
them will tell you that “It is the work of grace in the heart,” while another
will tell you that “It is the new birth,” “Getting religion,” “Remission of
sins,” “Salvation from sin,” “Justification,” etc.; and they will tell you that
“It was brought about by the baptism of the Holy Ghost;” or at least they will
insist that “It was by the operation of the Holy Ghost.” Hence the importance of
knowing what a change of heart is, that we may know when we have it, if not how
it was brought about. We have often seen persons, as truly penitent as they were
capable of being, who were still praying for a change of heart, while their
hearts were wilted into perfect submission to the will of God as far as they
knew it. Did they not love God, and fear Him with all the powers of the mind?
Yes. Then if their hearts were changed they must cease to love and fear God, and
might love the devil and his service. Did they not believe in Jesus Christ as
the Son of God and the Saviour of sinners? Yes; if not, they would not have gone
to the mourner’s bench, for it was to obtain salvation through Him that they
went there. Change their hearts from this, and it is bound to land them in
in­fidelity or unbelief, for this is the opposite of belief in Jesus. Is he not
heartily sorry for sins? Then change his heart, and he is not sorry. Is he not
willing and determined to forsake them? Then change his heart, and he is
determined to practice them. Does he not love the company and society of the
people of God? Then change his heart, and he loves the company and associa­tion
of the vicious and wicked. But you ask why was he not pardoned if his heart was
submissive to the will of God? Simply because he had not complied with the
conditions upon which God had offered him pardon. And the failure, upon his
part, was not because of any perversity of heart in him, but because his
instructors had failed to teach him what those conditions are. For want of
proper instructions, he must go home with his head bowed down as a bulrush, and
continue to pray for a change of heart through long weeks, months, years, or
perhaps through life, because he can not work himself up to a sufficient degree
of excitement to believe his heart changed in some supernatural way. This is the
literal meaning of it. And what is the result? If he is of Calvinistic
persuasions, he may conclude that he is not one of the elect, and in an effort
to drown his emotions he may go back into the practice of wickedness, and
perhaps become tenfold worse than before; or he may plunge into the dark pool of
infidelity, and conclude that there is no truth in any thing. We very recently
had a conversation with a very intelli­gent infidel manufactured just in this
way. When a man’s affections are won from sin to holiness, a love of Satan to
God, and all the purposes of his heart are submissive to the will of God as far
as he knows it, he has all the change of heart that God requires of him prior to
obedience. And we pro­pose, now, to examine a few passages of Scripture to see
how this change is produced, to which we invite the very careful atten­tion of
those who would understand the subject: “And on this manner did Absalom to all
Israel that came to the king for judg­ment: so Absalom stole the hearts of the
men of Israel.” 2 Samuel 15:6. How did Absalom steal the hearts of the people?
Go back a few verses, and you will find that he placed himself by the gate, and
when any one who had a controversy came to pre­sent his grievance to the king,
he would say to him: “Thy mat­ters are good and right, but there is no man
deputed of the king to hear thee. Oh, that I were made judge in the land, that
every man that hath any suit or cause might come unto me, and I would do him
justice. And it was so, that when any man came nigh to him to do him obeisance,
he put forth his hand and took him and kissed him.” Thus it was that he stole
their hearts; that is, he won their affections. Hence, the term heart is here
used to indicate the affections of the mind: , and not the heart itself; and
thus we see what is meant by a change of heart. The affections of the people
were won from the king and to Absalom; and it was done by making them believe
that the king was indifferent to their interests, and that Absalom was their
friend, and thus their faith changed their hearts. What a vast cloud is removed
from the subject by taking this view of it! From this stand-point we can see a
beauty and fit­ness in the language of Peter to his brethren, when he said:
“Men, and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us,
that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the Gospel, and believe.
Holy God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy
Ghost, even as he did unto us; and put no difference between us and them,
pur­ifying their hearts by faith.” Acts 15:7-9. Thus we see that, though God
gave the Gentiles the Holy Ghost, it was not to pu­rify their hearts, for He did
this work by faith. And as He put no difference between the Gentiles and Jews in
this respect, it follows that He purified the hearts of the Jews by faith. Then
let us go to Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost, when and where the hearts of
three thousand were purified in one day, and see if we can find how it was done.
And first we premise by saying that it was not done by the Holy Ghost, for Jesus
said they [the world] could not receive it, and it was poured out upon the
dis­ciples before the multitude came together. When the apostles were filled
with it, and under its influence began to speak forth in different languages,
the wonderful works of God, the people assembled, with hearts full of
bitterness, to hear what was being said. They believed Jesus an impostor, and
that they did right in putting Him to death; and that the apostles were a
drunken rabble. Thus we see that their wicked feelings were the result of
improper faith, and to change their feelings it was necessary to correct their
faith, which produced the feelings. And as faith is dependent upon testimony, it
was necessary, in order to correct their faith, to present such testimony as
would convince them that Jesus was not an impostor, as they had believed, but
was what He professed to be—the Son of God. Hence Peter began to instruct them
by telling them that the apostles were not drunk, as they supposed, and that God
had raised up that same Jesus whom they had wickedly slain, and made Him both
Lord and Christ; and that He had shed forth what they then saw and heard. And as
with many other words he taught and exhorted them, it may be that he called
their attention to the fact that Jesus was once happy in heaven, in company with
God and an­gels, while they were without hope and without God in the world,
destined to misery and woe; that to avert their punish­ment and secure their
salvation, He left the realms of bliss and came to the world a stranger and
pilgrim, without a place where­on to lay His head. That while He had come on a
mission of love for them, and mercy to them, they had ungratefully perse­cuted
and slain Him; that to increase and protract His sufferings, they had compelled
Him to bear His own cross up the rugged steeps of Calvary, until from fatigue
and exhaustion, He sunk be­- neath its weight; that to intensify the infamy with
which they intended to load down His memory, they compelled Him to die between
two thieves; that to mock His pretensions as King, they had put on Him a purple
robe, and encircled His head with a crown of thorns, then buffeted Him, spat
upon Him, and hailed Him in derision as King of the Jews; that they had
suspended Him upon nails driven through His tender hands to the cross, and, when
in the midst of His agony He asked them for drink, they gave Him vinegar mingled
with gall. And while suffering all this for them, He loved them still—yes, He
even loved the man that drove the nails through His hands, and prayed, “Father,
forgive them; they know not what they do.” “See, from His head, His hands, His
feet, Sorrow and love flow mingled down; Did e’er such love and sorrow meet, Or
thorns compose so rich a crown? Were the whole realm of nature mine, That were a
present far to small; Love so amazing, so divine, Demands my soul, my life, my
all.” When they heard these things they were pierced in their hearts. And is it
surprising that they were? Ah! would it not have been surprising beyond measure
had they not been deeply affected by the scenes that had been made to pass
afresh before them on that occasion? They then knew how to appreciate the
testimony that God had borne to the divine character of His Son, through the
convulsions that took place in the laws of nature when He expired upon the
cross. They had felt the earth trem­ble beneath their unhallowed feet, until the
rocks about them had been shaken to atoms, and the veil of their sacred temple,
that had stood for ages, had been rent in twain from top to bot­tom. The king of
day, for the first time since God had placed him in the firmament, refused to
give his light, and the world was enveloped in darkness, while all nature was
clad in the habil­iments of mourning because the Son of God was dead. Why all
this? “God so loved the world that He gave His only-begotten Son, that whosoever
believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” “He left His
radiant throne on high, Left the bright realms of bliss, And came to earth to
bleed and die— Was ever love like this? Oh! for this love let rocks and hills
Their lasting silence break, And all harmonious human tongues Their Saviour’s
praises speak.” Reader, have you no place in your heart’s deepest affections for
a Saviour like this? But we are wandering from the point before us. The
testimony was believed with all the heart, and by it their enmity was subdued.
They saw their lost and ruined condition, and hence felt their need of a
Saviour. Their law had been: “He that sheddeth man’s blood by man shall his
blood be shed.” Seeing no means of escape, in deep anguish of soul they cry out:
“Men and brethren, what shall we do?” We can scarcely forbear quoting the
answer, but it must bide its time. How simple the process! They had improper
views of the Saviour when they killed Him; but the statements made by Peter, and
the miraculous confirmation of them by the Holy Spirit, convinced them that they
had been mistaken, and thus corrected their faith, and dif­ferent faith produced
different feelings and actions. Surely, this is clear enough. We have said that
the testimony was believed with all the heart. When the eunuch demanded baptism
of Philip, he an­swered: “If thou believes” with all thy heart thou mayest.”
Acts 8:37. There is a depth of meaning in this expression that we fear is not
comprehended by all. The word all implies that there may be such a thing as a
part of the whole; and when Philip said, “If thou believes” with all thy heart,”
he certainly left us to infer that there is such a thing as believing without
engaging all the powers of the heart. Hence there may be a sort of passive
assent of the mind to the propositions of the Bible that falls very far short of
that faith which works by love and purifies the heart. When a scribe once asked
the Saviour for the first command­ment, Jesus said: “Thou shalt love the Lord
thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and
with all thy strength.” Mark 12:30. The same thought is here intensi­- fied by
repeating it in different forms of speech, so as to forcibly impress us with the
fact that God intends to engage the whole powers of the heart; and the faith
which falls below this is worth nothing to any one. Hence says David: “I will
praise thee, O Lord, with my whole heart.” Psalms 9 : l. Our faith must be
suffi­ciently strong to subjugate the lusts, appetites, and passions—in a word,
the whole man to the will of the Lord, and fill the heart with love. It must
enable us to appreciate our dependence upon God, and feel the need of a Saviour,
and put our trust in Him. It must enable us to rise above all the influences of
earth, and disregard what friends, relatives, or the world may say of us, and
feel, in the great deep of our hearts, to say, “Speak, Lord, thy servant will
hear; command, and he will obey.” “Through floods and flames, if Jesus lead,
I’ll follow where He goes; Hinder me not, shall be my cry, Though earth and hell
oppose.” If heaven is worth any thing it is worth every thing; and he who stops
to reason with himself about what it will cost him, or the sacrifices he will
have to make to obey God, or the conve­niences and inconveniences attending the
requirements which God has made of him, is not in a fit frame of mind to obey
God acceptably in anything, and need not attempt it until he can bring himself
more fully into subjection to His will. But we are told that God has to purify
or change the heart before faith, so as to enable us to believe, and the
language of the prophet is invoked to prove this position: “A new heart also
will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away
the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you a heart of flesh.”
Ezekiel 36:26. And again: “I will give them one heart, and I will put a new
spirit within you; and I will take the stony heart out of their flesh, and I
will give them a heart of flesh: that they may walk in my statutes, and keep
mine ordinances, and do them: and they shall be my people, and I will be their
God.” Ezekiel 11:19-20. If these quotations prove that God, by His Spirit,
purifies and renews the heart, and until He does this we can not believe and
obey Him, and He never does it, will He send us to hell for an impurity of heart
which He alone could remove? With this in­terpretation of these quotations
before us, let us try another: “Cast away from you all your transgressions,
whereby ye have transgressed, and make you a new heart and a new spirit; for why
will ye die, O house of Israel? For I have no pleasure in the death of him that
dieth, saith the Lord God; wherefore turn yourselves and live ye.” Ezekiel
18:31-32. Now what is to be done with these quotations? They are all from the
same proph­et, inspired by the same God. Does God contradict Himself? It
certainly will be conceded that the phrase “stony heart” was used to indicate
that hardness of heart which the Jews had pro­duced in themselves by indulgence
in crime, the consequences of which they had keenly felt in the numerous
disasters which had befallen them. It will be conceded, also, that the phrase
“heart of flesh” was intended to indicate that subdued state of mind in which
God proposed to again receive them into His favor. As man is a creature subject
to be influenced by motive, God, through the prophet, in the same chapter,
recounts their afflic­tions and wickedness as follows: “When the house of Israel
dwelt in their own land, they defiled it by their own way, and by their
doings.... Wherefore, I poured my fury upon them for the blood that they had
shed upon the land, and for their idols wherewith they had polluted it: and I
scattered them among the heathen, and they were dispersed through the countries:
accord­ing to their way and according to their doings I judged them.” Ezekiel
36:17-19. Then, after presenting their sufferings and their wickedness, He
proposes to take them from among the heathens, cleanse them from their idolatry,
restore to them their country, and be to them a God. Were not these high
incentives to reformation? And can we not see great similarity in the pro­cess
by which their hearts were proposed to be changed, and the process by which the
hearts of the Pentecostians were changed? In both cases the wickedness of the
parties and its dire conse­quences were exhibited, and a plan of reconciliation
proposed, embracing the grandest motives of which the mind can conceive, to
induce acceptance. The arrangement of the terms in both cases was the work of
God; the acceptance in one case was to be, and in the other case was, the work
of man; and thus, in one sense, God changes the heart, while in the other, and
more com­mon signification of the terms, man does it himself. There are other
passages we might notice, but they will be examined in another department of our
work. What faith does not do, or the doctrine of justification by faith alone,
will receive attention when we come to consider objections to the design of
baptism.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 11: GPS-10-REPENTANCE
========================================================================

CHAPTER X.

REPENTANCE.

We have arrived at a proper stand-point from which to consid­er the subject of
repentance, and to it we invite the reader’s at­tention for the present. Its
importance is admitted by all reli­gious parties and teachers of our times. When
John came to prepare a people for the reception of the Messiah, though he came
to the Jews who had long been the recognized people of God, he found them
steeped in wickedness; hence he said: “Re­pent ye, for the kingdom of heaven is
at hand.” Matthew 3:2. When John was cast into prison and his ministry ended,
“Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at
hand.” Matthew 4:17. When Jesus sent the twelve apostles to the lost sheep of
the house of Israel, “they went out and preached that men should repent.” Mark
6:12. Jesus said to those who came to Him, “Except ye repent ye shall all
likewise perish.” Luke 13:3; Luke 13:5. When He gave the final commission to His
apostles He said that “repentance and remission of sins should be preached in
his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.” Luke 24:47. When the
apostles began to operate under this authority, they commanded believers to
“repent and be baptized . . . in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of
sins.” Acts 2:38. When the disciples were convinced that salva­tion was not
confined to the Jews, they “glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the
Gentiles granted repentance unto life.” Acts 11:18. Then, as repentance is so
important a condition in the gospel plan of salvation, it is important that we
know what it is, that we may know when we have obeyed the divine mandate. We
find that the word repent occurs in our common English Bible forty-two times;
repented occurs thirty times; repentance twenty-six times; repenteth five times;
and repentest, repenting, and repentings one time each—in all, one hundred and
six times. Repent is used with reference to God sixteen times, and with
reference to man twenty-six times. It is used to indicate sorrow eleven times, a
change of mind or purpose fourteen times, and includes the idea of reformation
of life eighteen times. Repented is used with reference to God thirteen times,
and with reference to man seventeen times. It is used to indicate sorrow twelve
times, a change of mind eight times, and includes a change of life or
reformation ten times. Repentance is used with reference to God twice, and with
reference to man twenty-four times. It is used to indicate sorrow twice, a
change of pur­pose once, and extends to reformation of life twenty-three times.
Repenteth is used with reference to God three times, and with reference to man
twice. Twice it indicates sorrow, once a change of mind, and twice includes a
change or reformation of life. Repenting and repentest are each used once with
reference to God to indicate a change of purpose. Repentings is once used with
reference to God to indicate sorrow. With reference to God the word is sometimes
used in a negative sense; as, “God is not a man that he should repent” (Numbers
23:19); The Lord hath sworn and will not repent.” Psalms 110:4; Hebrews 7:21.
Sometimes it is used with reference to God affirmatively; as, “It repented the
Lord that he had made man on the earth;” “It re­penteth me that I have made
them.” Genesis 6:6-7. At other times it is used with reference to God
conditionally; as, “If that nation against whom I have pronounced turn from
their vile, I will repent of the evil I thought to do unto them.... If it do
evil in my sight, that it obey not my voice, then I will repent of the good
wherewith I said I would benefit them.” Jer. xvii): 8, 10. Again, it is
sometimes used in petition or supplication to God; as, “Turn from thy fierce
wrath, and repent of this evil against thy people.” Exodus 32:12. In all the
forms in which the word is used it refers to God thirty-seven times, and with
reference to man sixty-nine times. It is used to indicate sorrow or regret
twenty-eight times, a change of mind or will twenty-five times, and a change of
mind resulting in reformation of life fifty-three times. We are not concerned or
interested in the use of the term as applied to God; its application to man is
that which more di­rectly concerns us, and to it we will confine our
examination. When used in the New Testament as a command to the alien in order
to the remission of sins, it always indicates such a change of mind as produces
a change or reformation of life under circumstances warranting the conclusion
that sorrow for the past would or had preceded it. When so used it is invariably
a translation of the Greek word metanoio; and when used to indicate sorrow or
regret it is always from metamelomai—a dif­ferent word, though improperly
rendered the same in English. Had these words been properly translated we think
it likely that much of the confusion on the subject of repentance would have
been prevented. Regret is certainly a much more fitting repre­sentative of
metamelomai than repentance, and why it has not been so translated is more than
we can tell. A striking example of the difference in the meaning of the word
repent when derived from these different Greek words will be found in 2
Corinthians 7:8-10 : “For though I made you sorry with a letter, I do not repent
[metamelomai, regret], though I did re­pent [metamelomen, regret], for I
perceive that the same epistle hath made you sorry, though it were but for a
season. Now I rejoice, not that ye were made sorry, but that ye sorrowed to
re­pentance [metanoian, reformation]: for ye were made sorry after a godly
manner, that ye might receive damage by us in nothing; for godly sorrow worketh
repentance [metanoian, re­formation] to salvation not to be repented
[metameleton, regret­ted].” Surely, nothing could be more apparent than the
differ­ence in the use which Paul makes of these two Greek words, though both
rendered repent in the common version. Paul wrote the Corinthians a letter which
made them sorry, and he re­gretted it, but he ceased to regret it when he saw
that their sorrow worked in them repentance: i.e., such a change of mind as
culminated in their reformation. The words repentance, in the commission, Luke
24:47, and repent, as used by Peter, Acts 2:38; Acts 2:3 : l9, are from the
Greek metanoio, and not from metamelomai, and hence means more than sorrow for
past sins. We say more, because that change of mind which we call repentance
always implies that sorrow for the past has preceded it. When the Jews at
Jerusalem, on the day of Pentecost, heard Peter’s preaching, and by it were
convinced that they had truly crucified and slain the Son of God; they were
pierced in their hearts, and cried out, “Men and brethren, what shall we do?”
Acts 2:37. Can we conclude that the hearts of those who asked this soul-stirring
question were not filled with sorrow for the sins from which they desired
salvation? Yet they were commanded to repent. But it may be said that the sorrow
which they had was not godly sorrow, and this is the reason why it was not
repentance. Their sorrow was the product of their faith, and their faith was
produced by Peter’s preaching, which was dictated by the Holy Spirit, sent that
day from heaven, by Him who sat at God’s right hand. Surely, if this was not
godly sorrow, then there can be no such thing con­nected with conversion. But is
godly sorrow repentance? Paul did not so think. He says: “Now I rejoice, not
that ye were made sorry, but that ye sorrowed to repentance, for ye were made
sorry after a godly manner, that ye might receive damage by us in nothing. For
godly sorrow worketh repentance unto salvation not to be repented of; but the
sorrow of the world worketh death.” 2 Corinthians 7:9-10. Here we learn that
godly sorrow pre­cedes repentance, but certainly is not repentance. Godly sorrow
is produced by respect for God and His violated law, and pro­duces a change of
mind which induces reformation or change of life; while the sorrow of the world
may be produced by the fact that the party has been detected in crime—is
subjected to the frowns of men or the punishment inflicted by human laws—
perchance because his schemes have proven unprofitable and have resulted in loss
to him. Such is the sorrow of the world, and makes no man better, but ends in
death The repentance contemplated in the commission, and required by Peter of
those to whom he spake, began where they gladly received his words, with a fixed
purpose to reform their lives in accordance there­with, and it was preceded by
deep sorrow for the wrongs they had done. But we have a definition of repentance
incidentally given us in the Scriptures which will make the matter, if possible,
more plain. Jesus on one occasion said: “The men of Nineveh shall rise in
judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it, be­cause they repented at
the preaching of Jonas; and, behold, a greater than Jonas is here.” Matthew
12:41. Jesus here says that the men of Nineveh repented at the preaching of
Jonas; if, there­fore, we can learn what the Ninevites did, we can thence learn
what Jesus meant by repentance. “God saw their works, that they turned from
their evil way; and God repented of the evil that he had said that he would do
unto them, and he did it not.” Jonah 3:10. Then, the change of mind which
resulted in turn­ing the Ninevites from their evil ways constituted their
repent­ance. The determination to reform must be such as will lead the party to
a reparation of injuries done to others, as far as may be in his power to make
restitution. In vain may any one tell me that he repents slandering me while he
refused to correct his false statements concerning me, or that he repents
stealing my horse while he continues to ride him without my consent. A
cir­cumstance recorded on page 256, Ch. Syst., which, whether real or imaginary,
so aptly illustrates our view of this subject, that we feel constrained to
transcribe it: “Peccator wounded the reputation of his neighbor Hermis, and on
another occasion defrauded him of ten pounds. Some of the neighborhood were
apprised that he had done both. Peccator was converted under the preaching of
Paulinus, and, on giving in a relation of his sorrow for his sins, spoke of the
depth of his convictions and of his abhorrence of his transgressions. He was
received into the congregation and sat down with the faithful to commemorate the
great sin-offering. Hermis and his neighbors were witnesses of all this. They
saw that Peccator was penitent and much reformed in his behavior, but they could
not believe him sincere because he had made no restitution. They regarded him
either as a hypocrite or self-deceived, be­cause, having it in his power, he
repaid not the ten pounds, nor once contradicted the slanders he had propagated.
Peccator, however, felt little enjoyment in his profession, and soon fell back
into his former habits. He became again penitent, and, on examining the grounds
of his falling off, discovered that he had never cordially turned away from his
sins. Overwhelmed in sor­row for the past, he resolved on giving himself up to
the Lord, and, reflecting on his past life, set about the work of reformation in
earnest. He called on Hermis, paid him his ten pounds, and the interest for
every day he had kept it back, went to all the persons to whom he had slandered
him, told them what injustice he had done him, and begged them, if they had told
it to any other persons, to contradict it. Several other persons whom he had
wronged in his dealings with them, he also visited, and fully redressed all
these wrongs against his neighbors. He also confessed them to the Lord, and
asked Him to forgive him. Peccator was then restored to the church, and, better
still, he en­joyed a peace of mind and confidence in God which was a con­tinual
feast. His example, moreover, did more to enlarge the con­gregation at the
cross-roads than did the preaching of Paulinus in a whole year. This was
unequivocally sincere repentance.” Dr. Adam Clarke, in his commentary on
Genesis, says: “No man should expect mercy at the hand of God, who, having
wronged his neighbor, refuses, when he has it in his power, to make restitution.
Were he to weep tears of blood, both the jus­tice and mercy of God would shut
out his prayers if he make not his neighbor amends for the injury he has done
him.” This principle seems to have ever characterized God’s deal­ings with men.
In the Jewish law it is said: “When a man or a woman shall commit any sin that
men commit, or do a trespass against the Lord, and that person be guilty, then
they shall con­fess their sin which they have done; and he shall recompense his
trespass with the principal thereof, and add unto it the fifth part thereof, and
give it unto him against 1whom he hath trespassed. But if the man have no
kinsman to recompense the trespass unto, let the trespass be recompensed unto
the Lord, even to the priest.” Numbers 5:6-8. Now, it will be seen that, during
the exist­ence of this law, a trespass against a man was regarded as a tres­pass
against God, the Giver of the law forbidding the trespass; and it was not only
necessary to recompense to the party ag­grieved, but it was necessary to add a
fifth part to it. And if he could not find the party to whom recompense was due,
he should make it to his kindred if he had any; and if there were none, then it
was required to be made to the Lord through the priest. There was no escape from
making restitution. See also Leviticus 6:1-7. Indeed, it is difficult to
conceive it possible for the heart of a man to be wholly subjugated to the will
of the Lord and he not feel a desire to restore any thing unjustly taken from
any one. If his pretensions be real he will make restitution if in his power to
do so. We do not mean that all this must be consum­mated before remission of
sins and adoption into the family of God can take place; but we insist that the
disposition or purpose of heart must be present before the party is in a fit
frame of mind to further obey God in anything. And if the purpose thus formed is
abandoned and not carried out, “it had been better for them not to have known
the way of righteousness, than after they have known it to turn from the holy
commandment delivered unto them.” 2 Peter 2:21. Zaccheus said: “If I have taken
any thing from any man by false accusation, I restore him fourfold. And Jesus
said, This day is salvation come to this house.” Luke 19:8-9. Thus we see that
the principle of restitution met the approval of Jesus, even to the extent of
fourfold. Once more: Jesus once said to a distinguished lawyer: “Thou shalt love
thy neighbor as thyself.” Matthew 22:39. If we do this, will we not do by our
neighbor as we do by ourselves? As the golden precept which crowned the rich
casket of jewels con­tained in the sermon on the mount, it is said: “Whatsoever
ye would that men should do to you, do you even so to them.” Matthew 7:12. Do we
desire that others withhold from us that which they have wrongfully taken from
us? Or do we not rather desire them to restore to us that which is our own? If
so, then we are bound to make that restitution to others which, under like
circumstances, we would have them make to us. True, this is a strait and narrow
path, and few there be who walk therein; but it is nevertheless “the law and the
prophets.” He who would come to God must come with a clean breast; hence “let us
draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts
sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water.”
Hebrews 10:22. We come now to look for the order or place of repentance in the
scheme of salvation presented in the gospel. From the fact that repentance is
mentioned before faith, in a few places in the New Testament, many have
concluded that men must repent be­fore they exercise faith. We will very briefly
examine these scrip­tures, that we may see whether or not they prove the
doctrine in question. : “Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into
Gali­lee preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, and saying, The time is
fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the
gospel.” Mark 1:14-15. These persons were not required to believe the same
gospel that was to be preached to every creature alluded to in the commission
given after the res­urrection of Jesus, but they were simply to believe in the
good news that the kingdom of God was at hand. This was the gos­pel which Jesus
preached to them. They were Jews who had previous faith in God whose laws they
had violated; hence for this they were required to repent and then believe in
the coming: reign of Messiah. In like manner Paul preached to the Ephe­sians
“repentance toward God and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.” Acts 20:21. Their
repentance was toward God, in whom they believed before the Messiahship of Jesus
was pro­claimed to them. Hence toward Him their repentance was direct­ed. There
is still another passage worthy of note in this connec­tion: “John came to you
in the way of righteousness, and ye believed him not; but the publicans and
harlots believed him: and you, when you had seen it, repented not afterward,
that ye might believe him.” Matthew 21:32. Here we not only have the word
re­pentance before faith, but expressive of that which was neces­sary to faith;
but it is from metamelomai, indicating regret, and not from the word indicative
of that change of mind which is truly repentance. It was the pride of the
self-righteous Phari­sees that kept them from believing the proofs and accepting
the ministry of John. When they saw the publicans and harlots act­ing more
consistently in submitting to His teaching, as they be­lieved in God by whom
John was sent, they should have regret­ted that these outcasts outstripped them
in obedience to the ser­vant of the God in whom they believed; and had they been
filled with such regret, it would have prepared them for faith in the glad
tidings proclaimed by John. Having seen that the strongest proofs relied on do
not sup­port the theory, it may be well to see whether the interpretation given
to these scriptures by the advocates of the theory be not contradicted by other
scriptures the import of which we can not mistake. Paul says: “Whatsoever is not
of faith is sin.” Romans 14:23. If repentance precedes faith, it can not be of
faith, and is therefore sin. Again: “Without faith it is impossible to please
him, for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a
rewarder of them that diligently seek him.” Hebrews 11:6. If repentance precedes
faith, it is without faith, and hence can not be pleasing to God. Surely, then,
there must be error in the theory. Finally: The advocates of this doctrine
associate repent­ance with prayer, generally, at the mourner’s bench. Now, if
these prayers, connected with repentance, are before faith, they can not be in
faith. James says: “Let him ask in faith, nothing wavering, for he that wavereth
is like a wave of the sea, driven with the wind and tossed; let not that man
think that he shall re­ceive any thing of the Lord.” James 1:6-7. Will God hear
and an­swer these prayers made in connection with repentance (so called) before
faith? James says: “Let not that man think that he shall receive any thing of
the Lord.” If there be truth in Holy Writ, a prayer made before faith will not
be answered. Perhaps it may be well to examine the history of a few actual cases
of repentance, and see whether it preceded or succeeded faith. We have seen that
Jesus himself said that the Ninevites repented at the preaching of Jonah; let us
see whether or not faith in Jonah’s preaching preceded their repentance: “And
Jonah began to enter into the city a day’s journey, and he cried and said, Yet
forty days and Nineveh shall be overthrown.” Jonah 3:4. Here is the preaching;
what was the first effect of it? “So the people believed God.” Here is their
faith, the first thing. What next? “They proclaimed a fast, and put on
sackcloth, from the greatest of them even to the least of them. For word came
unto the king of Nineveh, and he arose from his throne, and he laid his robe
from him, and covered himself with sack­cloth, and sat in ashes. And he caused
it to be proclaimed and published through Nineveh, by the decree of the king and
his nobles, saying, Let neither man nor beast, herd nor flock, taste any thing:
let them not feed, nor drink water: but let man and beast be covered with
sackcloth, and cry mightily unto God; yea, let them turn, every one, from his
evil way, and from the vio­lence that is in their hands. Who can tell if God
will turn and repent, and turn away from his fierce anger, that we perish not?
And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil ways.” Jonah 3:5-10.
Here is their repentance. Who can not see the order of events? First, Jonah
preached the message which God gave him to say to them. Second, The people
be­lieved God. Third, They turned from their evil way. On the day of Pentecost
the order was similar. Peter preached, the peo­ple heard, believed, were cut to
the heart, asked what to do, were commanded to repent and be baptized. In the
narrative already twice quoted from Paul, 2 Corinthians 7:8-10, he wrote them a
letter; they believed it—were made sorry by it—they sorrowed in a godly manner,
and their godly sorrow worked repentance. It will be admitted that repentance is
produced in some way by some cause. If it precedes faith, faith can not be the
cause of it, and we would be pleased to learn what does produce it. Do you admit
that a belief with all the heart in God, Jesus, heaven, hell, apostles,
prophets, and all things written and spoken by inspiration, precedes and causes
repentance? then will you please give us a minute description of the faith that
follows re­pentance—what it is, and how it comes. We acknowledge the want of
light along here. We are not very well prepared to un­derstand how we are to
repent for transgressing the laws of a king in whom we have no faith. To us the
doctrine seems not only contrary to the order of the Bible, but at war with
every principle of reason and common sense. But we may be told that repentance
is the direct gift of God. The distinguished Watson says: “But if repentance be
taken in the second sense, and this is certainly the light in which true
re­pentance is exhibited in the Scriptures, then it is forgotten that such is
the corrupt state of man that he is incapable of penitence of this kind. This
follows from that view of human depravity which we have already established from
the Scriptures, and which we need not repeat. In conformity with this view of
the entire corruptness of man’s nature, therefore repentance is said to be the
gift of Christ, who, in consequence of being exalted to be a Prince and a
Saviour, gives repentance as well as remission of sins—a gift quite superfluous
if to repent truly were in the power of man and independent of Christ. To
suppose man to be capa­ble of a repentance which is the result of genuine
principle is to assume human nature to be what it is not.” Watson’s Institutes,
vol. ii, pp. 98, 99. It seems to us that the dogma of hereditary depravity is
the Pandora’s box from which have sprung most, if not all, the errors which
distract the religious world. This doctrine once received, and every thing else
is tried by it. Hence man can not repent because the total depravity of his
nature renders him incapable of it; and though God has commanded him to repent,
and told him plainly that he shall perish if he does not repent, yet He must
give him repentance before he can repent!! Suppose God never gives the man
repentance, and per consequence the man never repents, what then? Will God damn
him for His own ne­glect? Surely not. We know it is said: “Him hath God exalted
with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give re­pentance to
Israel, and forgiveness of sins.” Acts 5:31. Again: “Then hath God also to the
Gentiles granted repentance unto life.” Acts xi : 18. Are these passages
sufficient to prove that man is incapable of repenting? God gives us bread, but
we have to work and make it, nevertheless. So God gives us repentance by placing
mo­tives before us to induce it; hence Paul asks: “Despises” thou the riches of
his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of
God leadeth thee to repentance?” Romans 2:4. God has manifested His love for man
in the gift of His Son, through whom salvation is offered on certain conditions,
among which repentance holds a prominent place. He has re­vealed Himself to man
in all the loveliness of His true character. The joys and bliss of heaven are
set forth in a revelation adapted to his comprehension, and thus the goodness of
God leads man to repentance; hence Paul says: “The servant of the Lord must not
strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient; in meekness
instructing those that oppose themselves; if God per­adventure will give them
repentance to the acknowledging of the truth; and that they may recover
themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his
will.” 2 Timothy 2:24-26. Why should the servant of the Lord manifest such
pa­tience, and so meekly instruct the opposers, if God gives them repentance
directly? Does not this case clearly show that God gives men repentance by a
system of means calculated to pro­duce it? He gives man faith by giving him
testimony calculated to produce it, and will damn him if he does not believe it.
He gives man bread by giving him the means with which to make it, but unless he
uses the means he will starve for food. So God gives man repentance by causing
repentance and remission of sins to be preached among all nations in the name of
His Son, yet he who does not repent will surely perish. Then let no man wait for
God to give him repentance directly, until he is willing to sit, with folded
arms, and wait for God to give him bread in the same way.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 12: 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.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 13: GPS-12-BAPTISM
========================================================================

CHAPTER XII.

BAPTISM.

The subject of baptism has engaged the attention of many of the wisest heads,
and employed the tongues and pens of many of the ablest speakers and writers
that have blessed the world by their labors since the days of the Apostles. In
the examination of a subject upon which there has beer’ so much spoken and
written, it will not be expected that we shall be able to present a single
thought that has not been presented in some shape by some one who has preceded
us. If there is a subject connected with man’s salvation that has been
exhausted, surely this one has. We have read every thing that has come in our
way on the subject, and have profited especially by the writings of Camp­bell,
Carson, Conant, Booth, Gale, Hinton, Bailey, and Stuart, whose works we have by
us at this writing; but we will write just as though nothing had ever been
written on the subject be­fore, presenting every thing we may deem important to
a thor­ough examination of the subject in our own way, without regard to the
source from which we learned it, whether from the Bible or the writings of men
tried by the Bible. If we speak not as the oracles of God speak, then prove all
things and hold fast that which is good First, then, we inquire:

WHAT IS BAPTISM?

When Jesus commanded his disciples to teach baptizing them, did He mean any
thing? if so, what? It is scarcely necessary to say to the reader that the words
baptist, baptism, baptize, baptized, and baptizing are all Greek words
anglicized in termination to satisfy the demands of English eu­phony, and
transferred (not translated ) to our version of the sa­cred Scriptures; hence,
if we would comprehend the subject, we must learn correctly the meanng of these
words, not as defined by authors whose works are made to reflect the faith of
the party to which they belong, but we must get at their import at the time the
Saviour and the inspired speakers and writers employed them. The word baptisma,
rendered baptism, occurs in the New Testament twenty-two times. The word
baptismos occurs four times, three times rendered washing and once baptism.
Baptistees occurs fourteen times connected with John, and is rendered baptist.
Baptidzo occurs eighty times, seventy-eight times rendered baptize, baptized,
etc., and one time each wash and washing. This family of words is derived from
bapto, and each derivative partakes of the primary import of this word. It
occurs five times in the New Testament, and embapto once. Matthew 26:23, Mark
14:20, Luke 16:24, John 18:26 (twice) and Revelation 19:13. This word is never
used to indicate baptism, and hence is not transferred but translated every
time; hence you will find it dip, dippeth, dipped. Language has no law that is
better established than that derivative words inherit the radi­cal form and
primary meaning of the words from which they are derived. This being so, and the
primary meaning of bapto being dip, does it not follow that its derivative
baptidzo must be ren­dered dip, immerse, or by some word equivalent thereto? If
bap­tism may be performed by sprinkling or pouring, is it not strange that we
never have baptidzo, the word used to indicate it, ren­dered sprinkle or pour?
These words often occur in the sacred Scriptures, but never from the word
baptidzo. Sprinkle is al­ways from its own representative raino, and pour from
cheo. While the primary meaning of bapto, and, per consequence, of its
derivative baptidzo, is to dip, immerse, overwhelm, the meaning of sprinkle is
to scatter in drops, and pour to turn out in a stream. As well might we expect
purely English parentage to produce a progeny of baboons and monkeys as for
baptidzo, or any other word derived from bapto, to mean sprinklor of pour.
Worcester, in his unabridged Dictionary, first defines the Greek word baptismos
“a dipping,” and then proceeds to define the same word (less two letters) as an
English word thus: “Act of baptizing, a Christian rite or sacrament, symbolical
of initia­tion into the church and consecration to a pure life; performed by
immersion, ablution, or sprinkling, and accompanied with a form of words.” Now,
how we to reconcile his definition of bap­tismos, “a dipping,” with his
definition of baptism, “performed by immersion, ablution, or sprinkling?” The
former is the primi­tive meaning of the Greek when Jesus used it to indicate His
will, the latter is the modern abuse of the term defined in accom­modation to
present usage. The Greek baptidzo he defines “to dip or merge,” and then defines
baptize “to administer baptism to; to immerse in water, or to sprinkle with
water, in token of ini­tiation into the Christian church; to christen.” Here
again we see that the word employed by the Lord means to dip or merge, while its
modernized equivalent means to immerse or sprinkle. Webster, in his unabridged
Dictionary, defines “baptisma baptismos, from baptidzein, to baptize, from
baptein, to dip in water.” Then he defines baptism as from these: “The act of
baptizing, the application of water to a person, as a sacrament or religious
ceremony, by which he is initiated into the visible church of Christ. This is
usually performed by sprinkling or im­mersion.” When defining the Greek it means
to dip, but in these days it is usually performed by sprinkling or immersion!
Can dipping be done by sprinkling? We introduce these authors, not for the
purpose of objecting to them, for they were bound to define words as used when
they wrote, but we introduce them, first, to show the marked differ­ence between
the Greek words employed by inspiration and the modern abuse of them; and,
secondly, that we may have the benefit of their authority in showing that the
Greek, from which we have the words in controversy, means to dip or immerse. Had
there been any such meanings as sprinkle and pour in the Greek, surely they
would have found them, and the definitions they give to the anglicized
equivalents show that had they found them they would have given them. Ours is a
living, growing, and, therefore, a changing language, and the import of adopted
words is as liable to be changed by usage as native English words. Surely, it
would have astonished the Greek writers of eighteen hundred years ago to have
found a definition to bap­tisma, like those given to baptism by Webster and
Worcester, saying, “it may be performed by immersion, ablution, or sprin­kling.”
But let us examine the works of those whose peculiar business it is to define
Greek words: 1. PICKERING defines baptidzo “to dip, immerse, submerge, plunge,
sink, overwhelm; to steep, to soak, to wet, to wash one’s self, or bathe.” 2.
GROVES: “Baptidzo (from bapto, to dip), to dip, immerse, immerge, plunge; to
wash, cleanse, purify.” Mr. Groves and many others show that baptidzo comes from
bapto, to dip; hence, however numerous the meanings of bapto, baptidzo inherits
only the primary meaning dip, in accordance with the law already laid down. 3.
ROBINSON: “Baptidzo—to immerse, to sink; for example, spoken of ships, galleys,
etc. In the New Testament, to wash, to cleanse by washing; to wash one’s self,
to bathe, perform ablu­tion,” etc. Mr. Robinson was a Presbyterian and gives the
primary meaning of the word baptidzo to immerse, and then gives the meanings
wash, cleanse, etc., from the New Testament, from such passages as do not speak
of baptism, and where the word is translated, as Mark 7:4, Luke 11:38. 4.
LIDDELL and Scott: “Baptidzo—to dip in or under water; of ships, to sink or
disable them. Pass., to be drenched. 2. 2. Metahp., soaked in wine, over head
and ears in debt; being drowned with questions or getting into deep water. To
draw wine by dipping the cup in the bowl. 3. To baptize. Mid., to dip oneself;
to get oneself baptized. [Latest edition].

“Baptismos—a dipping in water, ablution.

“Baptistas—one that dips, a baptizer, the Baptist, N.T.”

In the first American edition of Liddell and Scott’s lexicon to pour upon was in
the definition of baptidzo, but this was ex­punged from subsequent editions. In
a discussion at Flat Creek, our opponent read these defini­tions from his
edition of Liddell and Scott, remarking that this work had been tampered with by
immersionists until it is diffi­cult to tell when we have the real definitions
of the authors— that it is likely an edition will be presented not having pour
upon in its definition of baptidzo. When asked who was the ed­itor of his
edition, he said, “Drisler.” Drisler is the editor of our edition, and, as far
as we are informed, is the only American edi­tor who has ever published Liddell
and Scott. So it is certain that the same editor had control of the work when
pour upon was in the definition, and when it came out; and could such a
definition have been verified by examples it would doubtless have been retained.
As it could not be sustained and had to come out, it is quite clear that
sectarianism put it there and would have kept it there if any such meaning
belonged to the word. 5. DONNEGAN: “Baptidzo—to immerse repeatedly into a
liq­uid, to submerge; to soak thoroughly, to saturate, hence to drench with
wine. Metaphorically, to confound totally; to dip in a vessel and draw. Passive,
to be immersed.” Some lexicographers regard the termination “zo” as a
fre­quentative, indicating a repetition of the act; hence they define baptidzo
“to dip repeatedly.” But Moses Stuart, a justly cele­brated Presbyterian critic,
in his work on baptism, has clearly shown this to be an error. Indeed, those who
oppose us can not base an objection on this hypothesis, for then would they have
to repeat their sprinkling as often as we our immersion. 6. SCHREVELLIUS, whose
definitions are given in Latin, defines baptidzo, “baptizo, mergo, abluo, lavo;”
which we translate, I baptize, I immerse, I cleanse, I wash. The foregoing
definitions we have taken directly from the original works of the authors
quoted. The definitions following we collate from debates where they were
presented in presence of opponents competent to have exposed any want of
fidelity to the works from which they were taken. That they are correct we have
no doubt. 7. SCAPULA: “Baptidzo—to dip, to immerse; also, to submerge or
overwhelm, to wash, to cleanse.”

8. STEPHANUS: “Bapto and baptidzo—to dip or immerse, as we dip things for the
purpose of dyeing them, or immerge them in water.”

9. ROBERTSON: “Baptidzo—to immerse, to wash.” 10. PASOR: “Bapto et baptidzo—to
dip, immerse, to dye, be­cause it is done by immersing. It differs from dunai,
which means to sink to the bottom and to be thoroughly submerged.”
“Metaphorically, in Matthew, afflictions are compared to a flood of waters, in
which they seem to be immersed who are ov­erwhelmed with the miseries and
misfortunes of life, yet only so overwhelmed as to emerge again.” 11. PARKHURST:
Baptidzo—to immerse in or wash with water, in token of purification.”
“Figuratively, to be immersed or plunged into a flood or sea, as it were of
grievous afflictions and suffering.” 12. BRETSCHNEIDER: Baptidzo—properly, often
to dip, often to wash; to wash, to cleanse; in the middle voice, I wash or
cleanse myself. An entire immersion belongs to the nature of baptism. This is
the meaning of the word; for in baptidzo is contained the idea of a complete
immersion under water; at least so is baptisma in the New Testament. In the New
Testament baptidzo is not used unless concerning the sacred and solemn
submersion, which the Jews used.”

“Baptisma—immersion, submersion. In the New Testament it is used only concerning
the sacred submersion, which the Fa­thers call baptism.”

13. SUIDAS: “Baptidzo—to sink, to plunge, immerse, wet, wash, cleanse, purify.”
14. GREENFIELD: “Baptidzo means to immerse, immerge, sub­merge, sink.” In New
Testament, “to wash, perform ablution, cleanse; to immerse, baptize, and perform
the rite of baptism.” 15. BASS: “Baptidzo—to dip, immerse, plunge in water; to
bathe one’s self; to be immersed in sufferings or afflictions.” 16. DR. JOHN
JONES: Baptidzo— I plunge, I plunge in water, dip, baptize, bury, overwhelm.”
17. WAHL: “Baptidzo (from bapto—(o immerse; more fre­quently, to immerse in N.
T. ) To immerse ( always in Josephus, Ant. IX, 10, 2, etc. Polyb. etc.).
Properly and truly concerning sacred immersion.” 18. HEDERICUS: “Baptidzo—I
plunge, immerse, overwhelm in water, I cleanse, wash, I baptize, in a sacred
sense. Baptisma— immersion, dipping, baptism. Baptistees—one who immerses, who
washes; one who baptizes; a baptizer. 19. EWING: “Baptidzo—in its primary and
radical sense, I cover with water or some other fluid, in whatever manner this
is done, whether by immersion or effusion, wholly or partially, per­manently, or
for a moment; and in the passive voice, I am cov­ered with water or some other
fluid, in some manner or other. Hence, the word is used in several different
senses, referring ei­ther mediately or immediately to the primary idea. It is
used to denote, First: I plunge or sink completely under water. Second: I cover
partially with water, I wet. Third: I overwhelm or cover with water by rushing,
flowing, or pouring upon. And in the passive voice, I am overwhelmed or covered
with water in that mode. Fourth: I drench or impregnate with liquor by effusion.
Fifth: I oppress or overwhelm, in a metaphorical sense, by bring­ing afflictions
or distresses upon. Sixth: I wash, in general, with­out specifying the mode.
Seventh: I wash for the special purpose of symbolical, ritual, or ceremonial
purification. Eighth: I ad­minister the ordinance of Christian baptism; I
baptize. 20. Vossus: “Baptidzo—to baptize, signifies to plunge. It certainly,
therefore, signifies more than epi polazin, which is to swim lightly on top, and
less than dunein, which is to sink to the bottom so as to be destroyed.” 21.
TROMMIUS: “Baptidzo—to baptize, to immerse, to dip.” 22. BAGSTER: “Baptidzo—to
dip, to immerse, to cleanse, or purify by washing, to administer the rite of
baptism, to baptize.

“Baptisma—immersion, baptism, ordinance of baptism.

“Baptismos—an act of dipping or immersing.”

23. SOPHOCLES: “Baptidzo—to dip, to immerse; sink, to be drowned (as the effect
of sinking), to sink. Trop., to afflict; soaked in liquor; to be drunk,
intoxicated.” 24. LEIGH: “Baptidzo—the native and proper signification of
baptidzo, is to dip in water, or to plunge under water.” 25. RICHARDSON:
“Baptidzo—to dip or merge in water, to sink, to plunge or immerse.” 26.
SCHOTTGENTUS: Baptidzo, from bapto—properly, to plunge, to immerse, to cleanse,
to wash.” 27. CASTEL.: ”Baptidzo—to bathe, baptize, immerse.” 28. CONSTANTINE:
Baptismos—baptism, the act of dyeing; that is, of plunging. 29. MINHERT:
“Baptidzo—to baptize, properly, indeed, it sig­nifies to immerse, to plunge, to
dip in water. But because it is common to plunge or dip a thing to wash it,
hence it signifies also to wash, to wash away.

“Baptisma—immersion, dipping into, washing, washing away; properly, and
according to its etymology, it denotes that washing that is done by immersion.”

30. THAYER: “Baptidzo—1 Prop. to dip repeatedly, to im­merge, submerge . . . 2.
to cleanse by dipping or submerging, to wash, to make clean with water . . . to
wash one’s self, bathe. Met. overwhelm. Baptisma—N.T. immersion, submersion. 31.
SUICER: “Baptidzo—properly denotes an immersion or dipping into.” 32. ANTHON:
Dr. Anthon, though not a lexicographer, as a scholar has no superior in America.
He says: “The primary meaning of the word (baptidzo) is dip or immerse, and its
sec­ondary meanings, if it ever had any, all refer to the same leading idea.
Sprinkling, pouring, etc., are entirely out of the question.” 33. STOKIUS:
Stokius defines in Latin, and is supposed to give some comfort to those who
practice effusion and aspersion. The plan of his work is somewhat different from
other lexicographers, as indicated in the title page, which we give, as follows:
“Clavis of Christian Stokius, Professor in Public Academy at Jena; Open­ing the
way to the sacred tongue of the New Testament; exhibit­ing, in convenient order,
first, the general and then the special meanings of words; assisting especially
the studies (or efforts) as well of tyros as of the cultivators of homiletics
and exegesis; and then supplying the place of concordances with an index of
words. Fourth edition, enlarged and improved.” By this it will be seen that he
gives, first, the general and then the specific meanings. Hence he defines
baptidzo “to wash, to baptize,” and then proceeds to define the word
specifically as follows: “Generally, and by force of the word, it obtains the
no­tion of a dipping and an immersion. Second: Specifically and properly, it is
to immerse or to dip into water. Figuratively, by metalepsis, it is to wash, to
cleanse, because a thing is accus­tomed to be dipped or immersed in water that
it may be washed or cleansed; although washing or cleansing can and is
accus­tomed to be done by sprinkling water.” [Thus we see how it is that
baptidzo comes to mean wash, because things are accus­tomed to be dipped that
they may be washed.]

“Baptisma—baptism: 1. Generally, and by force of its origin, it denotes
immersion or dipping. 2. Specifically, properly it de­notes the immersion or
dipping of a thing into water that it may be cleansed or washed; hence, it is
transferred to designating the first sacrament of the New Testament, which they
call [the sac­rament] of initiation—namely, baptism, in which those to be
baptized were formerly immersed into water; though at this day the water is only
sprinkled upon them, that they may be cleansed from the pollutions of sin,
obtain the remission of it, and be received into the covenant of grace as heirs
of eternal life. 3. By metaphor, it signifies the miraculous effusion of the
Holy Spirit upon the apostles and other believers, not only on account of the
abundance of the gifts of the Holy Spirit, just as formerly water was abundantly
poured upon those baptized, or they were immersed deep into the water, but also
on account of the efficacy and virtue of the Holy Spirit, which, like living
water, refreshes in heart, cleanses from filth, and purifies.”

Thus we have given a perfectly literal translation of the Latin of Stokius, made
directly from his original work, that the reader may have the full benefit of
it. He shows clearly that baptidzo primarily means to dip or immerse, and that
it means to wash only because things are accustomed to be dipped that they may
be washed. Nor is this all; he most clearly shows that the custom of the present
day is a departure from the original practice. As to when, how, and by whom this
departure from primitive practice was introduced we will see at the proper time.
He also shows that persons were baptized, in early times, that they might be
cleansed from the pollutions of sin and obtain the remission of it. Will the
reader remember this when we come to examine the design of baptism? 34.
SCHLEUSNER: “Baptidzo—properly, I immerse, and I dip (intingo), I sink into the
water. From bapto, and corresponds to the Hebrew tabal;2 Kings 5:14, in the
Alexandrian version; to tabang, in the writings of Symmachus, Psalmody 68: 5, in
anony­mous Psalms 9:6. But it is never used in this signification in the New
Testament, but is frequently thus used in Greek writers. ___ Now, because a
thing is accustomed to be immersed, or dipped in water, that it may be washed,
hence it marks (or de­notes) I cleanse, I wash, I purge with water; thus it is
used in Mark 7:4. ___ Jesus did not wash himself before dinner. Luke 11:38.
“Metaphorically, as in Latin, I wet, or I soak, I give and sup­ply largely and
copiously, I pour forth abundantly; e.g.,Matthew 3:11. ’He will baptize you in
the Holy Spirit and fire.’ “It can be proved that baptidzesthei, in many places,
signi­fies, not only to be washed, but also that one wash himself.

“Baptisma—baptism; a verbal noun from the passive parti­ciple of bebaptisma, of
the verb baptidzo, (1) properly, immer­sion, dipping into water, a washing.
Hence, it is transferred to the sacred rite which, par excellence, is called
baptism, in which for­merly those to be baptized were plunged into water that
they might be bound to the true divine religion. Thus it is used con­cerning the
baptism which John the Baptist administered by di­vine command (Matthew 3:7,
Luke 7:29), which, par excellence, is called the baptism of repentance, because
he bound men to a willing obedience to God and an emendation of their spirits.
Here, truly, it should be observed that the expression ’the bap­tism of John’
has sometimes a wider signification, and by synec­doche it signifies the whole
function, institution, and doctrine of John the Baptist.° 4 0 By metaphor, the
heaviest afflictions and calamities were endured on account of religion, in
which those who sustained them were as if they were submerged, which for­merly
were not improperly called a baptism in blood.

“Baptismos—a washing, cleansing, purification.”

As Schleusner’s Lexicon, like that of Stokius, is in possession of but very few,
and is not published in America making it al­most impossible to purchase it
without an order to London, we have given a literal translation, made directly
from the Latin of his work. And as his language is most cruelly perverted, and
those who have not the lexicon are imposed upon by those who are willing to
support a favorite dogma at the expense of truth, we have given all he has said
which we regard at all calculated to throw any light on the subject. His
definition of baptidzo is quoted thus: “Properly to immerse or dip, to plunge
into water, from bapto…but in this sense it never occurs in the New Testa­ment.”
See Louisville Debate, page 487. It was also thus used in debate with us at Flat
Creek. By leaving out the words to which the author refers when he says “in this
sense it never oc­curs in the New Testament,” he is made to say that baptidzo
never occurs in the sense of immerse, dip, or plunge into water, in the New
Testament. By reference to his definition it will be seen that he says in the
sense of tabang it is never used in the New Testament. Tabang means to sink, to
be sunk, immersed, as in mire or a pit; and the examples referred to are cases
where baptidzo is used in this sense, without any reference to emersion from
that into which the immersion occurred. The author’s defi­nition of the noun
baptisma ( which was left out in the debates referred to), shows that because it
does mean immerse, dipping, etc., it is transferred to the sacred rite which,
par excellence, is called baptism, in which those formerly to be baptized were
plunged into water. Thus Schleusner was made to say just the opposite to what he
did say. Certainly the whole weight of his authority is in favor of immersion as
baptism. Thus we have the definition of baptidzo from thirty-four lexi­cons,
most if not all of which were made by Pedobaptists, and with great unanimity
they give dip, immerse, or some equivalent word as its primary meaning. Surely,
if authority can settle the meaning of a word, the settled meaning of baptidzo
is to dip or immerse. But we have the testimony of other profound scholars who
have incidentally defined the word baptidzo when writing on other subjects. At
the risk of wearying our readers we will hear them also: 1. MICHAELIS: To
baptize, to immerse, to bathe. 2. SCHAAF: “To bathe one’s self, to bathe, to
dip, immerse in water, baptize.” 3. GUIDO FABRICUS: “To baptize, dip, bathe.” 4.
BUXTORF: “To baptize, dip, bathe one’s self.” 5. SCHINDLER: “To baptize, dip,
bathe, immerse in water.” 6. PASCHAL AUSCHER: To baptize, to wash by plunging in
water.” 7. MEKITAR VARTABED: The same as Auscher. 8. ENCYCLOPEDIA AMERICANA:
Baptism, that is, dipping, im­mersion, from the Greek word baptidzo.” 9.
EDINBURGH ENCYCLOPEDIA: In the times of the apostles the act was very simple.
The person was dipped in water.” 10. KITTO’S ENCYCLOPEDIA: The whole person was
immersed in water.” 11. ALSTEDIUS: “Baptidzein signifies only to immerse, and
not to wash, except by consequence.” 12. WILSON: “Baptize, to dip in water, or
plunge one into water.” 13. DR. WILLIAM YOUNG: To dip all over, to wash, to
bap­tize.” 14. BAILEY: “Baptism, in strictness of speech, is that kind of
ablution or washing which consists in dipping, and, when applied to the
Christian institution, it was used by the early Chris­tians in no other way than
that of dipping, as the learned Grotius and Casaubon observe.” 15. BUTTERWORTH
renders baptidzo “to dip, immerse, or plunge.” Bliss’ Let. p. 18. 16. JOHN ASH’S
Dictionary, London, 1776, renders baptize “to dip, plunge, to overwhelm, to
administer baptism.” 17. BRANDE’S ENCYCLOPEDIA of Science, Literature, and Art,
article Baptism: “Bapto—1 dip. Baptism was originally adminis­tered by
immersion. At present sprinkling is generally substi­tuted for dipping—at least
in northern climates.” 18. BEZA: “Christ commanded us to be baptized, by which
word it is certain immersion is signified. To be baptized in water signifies no
other than to be immersed in water, which is the external ceremony of baptism.”
19. ALTINGIUS: “Baptism is immersion when the whole body is immersed, but the
term baptism is never used concerning as­persion.” 20. BISHOP BASSUET: To
baptize signifies to plunge, as is granted by all the world.” 21. HOSP1NIANUS:
“Christ commanded us to be baptized, by which word it is certain immersion is
signified.” 22. GURTLERUS: “To baptize, among the Greeks, is undoubt­edly to
immerse, to dip; and baptism is immersion, dipping. The thing commanded by our
Lord is baptism, immersion in water.” 23. BUDDEUS: “The words baptizein and
baptismos are not to be interpreted of aspersion, but always of immersion.” 24.
VENEMA: “The word baptizein, to baptize, is nowhere used in the Scripture for
sprinkling.” 25. PROFESSOR FRITSCHI: Baptism was performed, not by sprinkling,
but by immersion; this is evident not only from the nature of the word, but from
Romans 6:4.” 26. PROF. PORSON: “The Baptists have the advantage of us; baptism
signifies a total immersion.” 27. CATTENBURGH: In baptism the whole body is
ordered to be immersed.” 28. KECKERMANUS: “We can not deny that the first
institution of baptism consisted in immersion, and not sprinkling.” 29.
STOURDZA, a native Greek: “The verb baptizo has only one acceptation. It
literally and perpetually signifies to plunge. Baptism and immersion, therefore,
are identical; and to say baptism by aspersion is as if one should say immersion
by aspersion, or utter any other contradiction of the same nature.” 30.
JEREMIAH, the Greek Patriarch: “The ancients were not accustomed to sprinkle the
candidate, but to immerse him.” 31. DANIEL ROGERS: “That the minister is to dip
in water, the word denotes it. None of old were wont to be sprinkled.” 32.
BISHOP JEREMY TAYLOR: The custom of the ancient churches was not sprinkling, but
immersion—in pursuance of the sense of the word in the commandment and the
example of our blessed Saviour.” 33. DR. GEO. CAMPBELL: “The word baptizein,
both in sacred authors and in classical, signifies to dip, to plunge, to
immerse, and was rendered by Tertullian, the oldest of the Latin fathers,
tingere, the term used for dyeing cloth, which was by immersion. It is always
construed suitably to this meaning.” 34. DRS. STORR AND FLATT’S THEOLOGY: The
disciples of our Lord could understand his command in no other manner than as
enjoining immersion. Under these circumstances, it is certainly to be lamented
that Luther was not able to accomplish his wish with regard to the introduction
of immersion in baptism, as he had done in the restoration of the wine in the
eucharist.” 35. LONDON QUARTERLY REVIEW: There can be no question that the
original form of baptism—the very meaning of the word —was a complete immersion
in the deep baptismal waters, and that, for at least four centuries, any other
form was either un­known or else regarded as exceptional, almost a monstrous
case.” 36. CURCELLIUS: “Baptism was performed by plunging the whole body into
water, and not by sprinkling a few drops, as is now the practice. Nor did the
disciples that were sent out by Christ administer baptism afterwards in any
other way.” 37. MARTIN LUTHER: “The term baptism is a Greek word; it may be
rendered into Latin by mersio—when we immerse any thing in water, that it may be
entirely covered with water. And though this custom be quite abolished among the
generality (for neither do they entirely dip children, but only sprinkle them
with a little water), nevertheless they ought to be wholly im­mersed, and
immediately to be drawn out again, for the etymol­ogy of the word seems to
require it.” 38. KNAPP’S THEOLOGY: “Baptisma, from baptizein, which properly
signifies to dip in, to wash by immersion.” 39. DR. BLOOMFIELD, on Mark 1:9 :
“The sense of ’was bap­tized in’ is ’was dipped or plunged into.’ He underwent
the rite of baptism by being plunged into the water.” 40. VETRINGA: “The act of
baptizing is the immersion of be­lievers in water. This expresses the force of
the word. Thus also it was performed by Christ and the apostles.” 41. PROF.
MOSES STUART: Bapto and baptizo mean to dip, plunge, or immerse into any thing
liquid. All lexicographers and critics of any note are agreed in this.” 42.
CALVIN: “The word baptize signifies to immerse, and the rite of immersion was
practiced by the ancient church.” 43. WITSIUS: “It can not be denied that the
native significa­tion of the words baptein and baptizein is to plunge, to dip.”
44. ZANCHIUS: “The proper signification of baptize is to im­merse, plunge under,
overwhelm in water.” 45. DR. CHALMERS: “The original meaning of the word
bap­tism is immersion, and, though we regard it as a point of indif­ference
whether the ordinance so named be performed in this way or by sprinkling, yet we
doubt not that the prevalent style of administration in the apostles’ days was
by an actual sub­merging of the whole body under water.” 46. SMITH’S DICTIONARY
OF THE BIBLE: Baptisma, baptism (the word baptismos occurs only four times, viz:
Mark 7:4; Mark 7:8, Hebrews 6:2; Hebrews 9:10). The verb baptidzein (from
baptein, to dip) is the rendering of the Hebrew by the LXX, in 2 Kings 5:14. The
Latin fathers render baptidzein by tingere, mergere, and mergi­tare. By the
Greek fathers the word baptidzein is often used, frequently figuratively, for to
immerse or overwhelm with sleep, sorrow, sin, etc. Hence baptisma properly and
literally means immersion.” 47. PICTET: “They immerse the whole body in water in
order that the baptized might be counted a child of the covenant. Now, John (the
Baptist) administered the rite among the Jews in the manner above described, and
the same rite was used by Christ.” 48. SALMASIUS: “Baptism is immersion, and was
administered in former times according to the force and meaning of the word.” R.
Fuller, p. 20. “Baptism signifies immersion, not as­persion, nor did the
ancients baptize any but by dipping.’, Witsius’ Works, vol. III, pp. 390, 391.
49. AUGUSTI: “The word baptism, according to etymology and usage, signifies to
immerse, submerge, etc., and the choice of the expression betrays an age in
which the latter custom of sprinkling had not been introduced.” 50. BRENNER: The
word corresponds in signification with the German taufen, to sink in the deep.”
51. PAULLUS: “The word baptize signifies in Greek sometimes to immerse,
sometimes to submerge.” 52. SCHOLZ: “Baptism consists in the immersion of the
whole body in water.” 53. IKENIUS: “The Greek word baptismos denotes the
immer­sion of a person or a thing into something.” 54. CASAUBON: “To baptize is
to immerse.” Fuller, p. 72. “This was the rite of baptizing that persons were
plunged into the water, which the very word baptizein, to baptize, sufficiently
declares.” Judson p. 11. 55. CHRISTOPHULUS, a Greek: “We follow the examples of
the apostles, who immersed the candidate under the water.” 56. RIDGELEY: “The
original and natural signification of the word baptize imports to dip.” 57.
LIMBORCH: “Baptism consists in washing or rather im­mersing the whole body in
water, as was customary in primitive times.” 58. SIR JON FLOYER: “Immersion is
no circumstance but the very act of baptism.” 59. POOLE’S CONTINUATORS: “To be
baptized is to be dipped in water; metaphorically, to be plunged in
afflictions.” 60. VALESIUS, in his edition of Eusebius’ Eccl. Hist., speaking of
the pouring of water all over Novatian while he was sick says: “Moreover, since
baptism properly signifies immersion, such perfusion (pouring over) could hardly
be called baptism.” 61. COLEMAN: “The term baptism is derived from the Greek
word bapto, from which term is formed baptizo, with its deriva­tives baptismos
and baptisma, baptism. The primary significa­tion of the original is to dip, to
plunge, immerse. The obvious import of the noun is immersion.” 62. EDINBURGH
REVIEWERS: They tell me ( says Carson ) that it was unnecessary to bring forward
any of the examples to prove that the word signifies to dip, that I might have
commenced with this as a fixed point universally admitted.” 63. WETSTENIUS: “To
baptize is to plunge, to dip. The body, or part of the body being under water,
is said to be baptized.” 64. MELANCTHON: “Baptism is an entire action; to wit: a
dipping and a pronouncing the words I baptize,” etc. 65. ISAAC BARROW: “The
action is baptizing or immersing in water.” 66. BURMANNUS: “Baptismos and
baptisma, if you consider the etymology, properly signifies immersion.” 67.
RICHARD BENTLY: Baptismos—baptism, dipping. 68. BECKMANUS: “Baptism, according
to the force of its ety­mology, is immersion and washing or dipping.” 69.
BUCANUS: “Baptism, that is, immersion, and by conse­quence washing. Baptistery,
a vat or large vessel of wood or stone in which we are immersed for the sake of
washing,. Bap­tist, one that immerses or dips.” 70. OTTO VON GERLACH: “The Greek
word (baptizo) prop­erly signifies dip. Baptism was performed in the first times
of Christianity by immersion in water.” The foregoing quotations are mostly from
Bailey’s Manual, where he gives references to the works from which they are
taken, many of which we have examined and know that they are correct. Added to
the lexicographers quoted, they make one hundred and four scholars who say, one
and all, that the word used by the Lord to indicate the act required by Him of
those who would become obedient to Sis will, primarily and literally means to
dip or immerse. He who will not be satisfied with this testimony would not
likely be satisfied by the presentation of much more that might be adduced. We
propose next to examine the use of the term by those who lived before, during,
and subsequent to the time when Christ and the apostles used it. Carson, Stuart,
and Conant have given us perhaps every known occurrence of the word in the whole
range of Greek literature. Dr. Conant, in his “BAPTIZEIN,” has given two hundred
and thirty-six examples of its use, of which he says: “The examples of the
common meaning and use of the word in Sections I and II, are from every period
of Greek literature in which the word occurs. They include all that have been
given by lexicographers, and by those who have writ­ten professedly on this
subject; and these, with the examples added from my own reading, exhaust the use
of this word in Greek literature. “The quotations have been copied, in every
instance, by my­self or under my own eye, from the page, chapter, or section
re­ferred to. Special pains have been taken to make these refer­ences as
definite and clear as possible, that any passage may be easily found; the
author’s name being given, the name of the treatise and its divisions (if any
are made), and the volume and page of the edition in most common use, or of the
one accessible to me.” We have not room to give our readers the benefit of all
the examples given by Dr. Conant, but we will give a sufficient num­ber to
indicate the import of the term at the time it was used by the authors of the
New Testament. We give the number at­tached to each example in Dr. Conant’s
work, by which they may be found by any one who may choose to look for them. We
do not follow the numerical order of the Doctor, because we wish to present such
examples as will give the use of the word at a sufficient period before the days
of the Saviour, and coming down through His time to a sufficiently late period
to give its use at the time He employed it.

EXAMPLE.

PINDAR, born 522 before Christ, Pythic Odes, II, 79, 80 ( 144­147). Comparing
himself to a cork of a fisher’s net, floating at the top, while the other parts
of the fishing tackle are doing ser­vice in the depth below, he says: “For, as
when the rest of the tackle is toiling deep in the sea, 1, as a cork above the
net, am undipped (unbaptized) in the brine.”

EXAMPLE 1.

POLYBIUS, born 205 before Christ, History, book i, chap. 51, 6. In his account
of the sea fight at Drepanum, between the Ro­mans and Carthagenians, describing
the advantages of the latter in their choice of a POSITION, and in the superior
structure and more skillful management of their vessels, he says: “For, if any
were hard pressed by the enemy, they retreated safely, on account of their fast
sailing, into the open space; and then, with reversed course, now sailing round
and now attacking in flank the more advanced of the pursuers, while turning and
embarrassed on account of the weight of the ships and the un­skillfulness of the
crews, they made continued assaults and SUBMERGED ( BAPTIZED ) many of the
vessels.

EXAMPLE 2.

The same work, book viii, ch. 8, 4. Describing the operations of the engines
which Archimedes constructed for the defense of Syracuse when besieged by the
Romans, and with which he lifted the prows of the besieging vessels out of the
water, so that they stood erect on the stern, and then let them fall, he says:
“Which being done, some the vessels fell on their sides, and some were
overturned, but most of them, when the prow was let £all from on high, being
SUBMERGED (BAPTIZED), became filled with sea-water and with confusion.”

EXAMPLE 3.

The same history, book xxxiv, ch. 3, 7. In his description of the manner of
taking the sword-fish (with an iron-headed spear or harpoon), he says: “And even
if the spear fall into the sea, it is not lost, for it is compacted of both oak
and pine, so that when the oaken part is IMMERSED (BAPTIZED) by the weight, the
rest is buoyed up, and is easily recovered.”

EXAMPLE 4.

The same work, book iii, ch. 72, 4. Speaking of the passage of the Roman army,
under the consul Tiberius, through the river Tebia, which had been swollen by
heavy rains, he says: “They passed through with difficulty, the foot soldiers
IM­MERSED ( BAPTIZED ) as far as to the breast.”

EXAMPLE 5.

AESOPIC FABLES; fable of the mule, who, finding that he light­ened his load of
salt by Lying down in the water, repeated the experiment when loaded with
sponges and wool. “One of the salt-bearing mules, rushing into a river,
acciden­tally slipped down, and rising up lightened (the salt ’becoming
dissolved), he perceived the cause anti remembered it; so that always, when
passing through the river, he purposely lowered down and IMMERSED ( BAPTIZED )
the pannier. Of uncertain date (related in Plut. Moral., Skill of Water and Land
Animals, xvi ).

EXAMPLE 6.

AESOPIC FABLES; writer and date unknown; fable of the Man and the Fox: “A
certain man, having a grudge against a fox for some mischief done by her, after
getting her into his power con­trived a long time how to punish her, and DIPPING
(BAPTIZING) tow in oil, he bound it to her tail and set fire to it.”

EXAMPLE 7.

HOMERIC ALLEGORIES, ch. 9; ( B. C., uncertain how long). The writer explains the
grounds of the allegory (as he regards it) of Neptune freeing Mars from Vulcan
thus: “Since the mass of iron drawn red hot from the furnace is PLUNGED
(BAPTIZED) in water; and the fiery glow, by its own nature quenched with water,
ceases.”

EXAMPLE 8.

STRABO, born about 60 years B. C., Geography, book xii, ch. 2, 4. Speaking of
the underground channel through which the waters of the Pyramus (a river of
Cilicia in Asia Minor) forced their way, he says: “And to one who hurls down a
dart from above into the channel, the force of the water makes so much
resistance that it is hardly IMMERSED (BAPTIZED).

EXAMPLE 9.

The same work, book vi, ch. 2, 9: “And around Acragos Agrigentum in Sicily: are
marsh lakes, having the taste indeed of sea-water, but a different nature; for
even those who can not swim are not IMMERSED (BAPTIZED ) floating like pieces of
wood.

EXAMPLE 10.

The same work, book xiv, ch. 3, 9. Speaking of the march of Alexander’s army
along the narrow beach (flooded in stormy weather) between the mountain called
Climax and the Pam­philian Sea, he says: “Alexander happening to be there at the
stormy season, and accustomed to trust for the most part to fortune, set forward
be­fore the swell subsided, and they marched the whole day in water, IMMERSED
(BAPTIZED) as far as to the waist.

EXAMPLE 11.

The same work, book xiv, ch. 2, 42. Speaking of the asphalt in the lake
Lirbanus, which floats on the surface on account of the greater specific gravity
of the water, he says: “Then floating at the top on account of the nature of the
water, by virtue of which we said there is no need of being a swimmer, and he
who enters in is not IMMERSED (BAPTIZED), but is lifted out.”

EXAMPLE 12.

STRABO, born about the year 60 B.C., Geography, book xii, ch. 5, sec. 4.
Speaking of the lake Tatta, in Phrygia (which he calls a natural salt pit), he
says: “The water solidifies so readily around every thing that is IM­MERSED (
BAPTIZED ) into it, that they draw up salt crowns when they let down a circle of
rushes.”

EXAMPLE 13.

DIODORUS wrote his history about 60-30 B.C., Historical Library, book xvi, ch.
80. In his account of Timoleon’s defeat of the Carthagenian army on the bank of
the river Crimissus, in Sicily, many of the fugitives perishing in the stream,
swollen by a violent storm, he says: “The river, rushing down with the current,
increased in vio­lence, SUBMERGED (BAPTIZED) many, and destroyed them
at­tempting to swim through with their armor.”

EXAMPLE 14.

The same work, book 1, ch. 36. Describing the effects of the rapid rise of water
during the annual inundation of the Nile, he says: “Most of the wild land
animals are surrounded by the stream and perish, being SUBMERGED (BAPTIZED) but
some, escaping to the high grounds, are saved.”

EXAMPLE 15.

JOSEPHUS, born A.D. 37, Jewish Antiquities, book xv, ch. 3, 3. Describing the
murder of the boy Aristobulus, who (by Herod’s command ) was drowned by his
companions in a swimming-bath, says: Continually pressing down and IMMERSING
(BAPTIZING) him while swimming, as if in sport, they did not desist till they
had entirely suffocated him.”

EXAMPLE 16.

The same writer, Jewish Wars, book 1, ch. 22, 2, relating to the same
occurrence, says: “And there, according to command, being IMMERSED (BAP­TIZED)
by the Gauls in a swimming-bath, he dies.”

EXAMPLE 17.

The same writer, Jewish Wars, book iii, ch. 8, 5: “As I also account a pilot
most cowardly, who, through dread of a storm, before the blast came, voluntarily
SUBMERGED (BAP­TIZED) the vessel.

EXAMPLE 18.

The same writer, Jewish Wars, book iii, ch. 9, 3. Describing the condition of
the vessels in the port of Joppa, during a storm, he says: “And many [of the
vessels] struggling against the opposing swell toward the open sea (for they
feared the shore, being rocky, and the enemies upon it), the billows, rising
high above, SUBMERGED ( BAPTIZED )

EXAMPLE 19.

The same writer, Antiquities of the Jews. book ix, ch. 10, 2. In his narrative
of Jonah’s flight, and of the events that followed, he says: The ship being just
about to be SUBMERGED (BAPTIZED).

EXAMPLE 20.

The same writer, Life of Himself, sec. 3, says: For our vessel having been
SUBMERGED ( BAPTIZED ) in the midst of the Adriatic, being about six hundred in
number, we swam through the whole night.”

EXAMPLE 21.

PLUTARCH, born A.D. 50, Life of Theseus, xxiv, quotes the fol­lowing oracle of
the Sybil, respecting the city of Athens: A bladder, thou mayest be IMMERSED (
BAPTIZED ), but it is not possible for thee to sink.”

EXAMPLE 22.

The same writer, Life of Alexander, [xvii. Describing a sea­son of revelry in
the army of Alexander the Great, when return­ing from his eastern conquests, he
says: “Thou wouldest not have seen a buckler, or a helmet, or a pike, but the
soldiers, along the whole way, DIPPING (BAPTIZING) with cups, and horns, and
goblets, from great wine-jars and mix­ing-bowls, were drinking to one another.”

EXAMPLE 23.

The same writer, on Superstition, iii. The superstitious man, consulting the
jugglers on his frightful dreams, is told: Call the old Expiatrix, and PLUNGE (
BAPTIZE ) thyself into the sea, and spend a day in sitting on the ground.”

EXAMPLE 24.

The same writer, Gryllus, vii. He says of Agamemnon: Then bravely PLUNGING (
BAPTIZING ) himself into the lake Capais, that there he might extinguish his
love and be freed; from desire.”

EXAMPLE 24.

LUCIEN, born about 135 A.D., Timon or the Man-hater, 44. Among the resolves for
the direction of his future life (to testify his hatred of mankind) is the
following: “And if the winter’s torrent were bearing one away, and he with
outstretched hands were imploring help, to thrust even him headlong, IMMERSING
(BAPTIZING) so that he should not be able to come up again.”

EXAMPLE 25.

The same writer, True History, book ii, 4. In this satire on the love of the
marvelous, he pleasantly describes men walking on the sea ( having cork feet ),
and says: “We wondered, therefore, when we saw them not IMMERSED ( BAPTIZED ),
but standing above the waves and traveling on with­out fear.”

EXAMPLE 26.

DION CASSIUS, born A.D. 155, Roman History, book xxxvii, ch. 58. In the
description here given of the effects of a violent storm of wind, he says: “So
that very many trees were upturned by the roots, and many houses were thrown
down; the ships which were in the Tiber, and Lying at anchor by the city and at
its mouth, were SUBMERGED ( BAPTIZED ), and the wooden bridge was destroyed.

EXAMPLE 27.

The same work, book xii, ch. 42. Describing the defeat of Curio by Juba, king of
Numidia (at the siege of Utica, in Af­rica), and the fate of the fugitives, many
losing their lives in their eager haste to get aboard of their vessels, and
others by ov­erloading and sinking them, he says: “And many of them who had fled
perished; some thrown down by the jostling in getting on board the vessels, and
others SUBMERGED ( BAPTIZED ) in the vessels themselves by their own weight.”

EXAMPLE 28.

PORPHYRY, born A.D. 233, Concerning the Styx. Describing the Lake of Probation,
in India, and the use made of it by the Brahmins for testing the guilt or
innocence of persons accused of crime, he says: “The depth is as far as to the
knees; . . . and when the ac­cused comes to it, if he is guiltless he goes
through without fear, having the water as far as to the knees; but if guilty,
after pro­ceeding a little way he is IMMERSED (BAPTIZED) unto the head.

EXAMPLE 29.

GREGORY, A.D. 240, Panegyric on Origen, xiv. Describing him as an experienced
and skillful guide through the mazes of philosophical speculations, he says: “He
himself would remain on high in safety, and, stretching out a hand to others,
save them as if drawing up persons SUB-MERGED­ (BAPTIZED) .

EXAMPLE 30.

ACHILLES TATIUS, A.D. 450, Story of Clitophon and Leucippe, book iii, ch. 1. The
vessel being thrown on her beam ends in a storm, the narrator says: “We all,
therefore, shifted our position to the more elevated parts of the ship, in order
that we might lighten that part of the ship that was IMMERSED (BAPTIZED).

EXAMPLE 31.

The same writer (1bidem). “But suddenly the wind shifts to another quarter of
the ship, and the vessel is almost IMMERGED ( BAPTIZED ) .

EXAMPLE 32.

ACHILLES TATIUS, A.D. 450, Story of Clitophon and Leucippe, book ii, ch. 14:
“And there is a fountain of gold there. They PLUNGE ( BAPTIZED ) into the water,
therefore, a pole smeared with pitch, and open the barriers of the stream. And
the pole is to the gold what the hook is to the fish, for it catches it; and the
pitch is a bait for the prey.” Many other examples might be given, but these are
deemed sufficient to show that baptidzo, at the time the Saviour and the writers
of the New Testament used it, primarily meant to dip or immerse. It is admitted
that classic Greek writers often em­ployed the word in a metaphorical sense, but
we are seeking for its primary and literal meaning, as used in the New
Testament. The examples given cover a period of nearly a thousand years,
embracing the time when the Lord and the apostles lived. Josephus was born A.D.
37, and hence lived and wrote contem­poraneously with the apostles. He was a
native Jew and wrote in the Greek language, and certainly understood the word as
used by his people. As a scholar he was inferior to no man of his day. He says:
“Now, my father Matthias was not only emi­nent on account of his nobility, but
had a higher commendation on account of his righteousness, and was in great
reputation in Jerusalem, the greatest city we have. I was myself brought up with
my brother, whose name was Matthias, for he was my own brother, by both father
and mother; and I made mighty profi­ciency in the improvements of my learning,
and appeared to have both a great memory and understanding. Moreover, when I was
a child, and about fourteen years of age, I was com­mended by all for the love I
had to learning; on which account the high-priests and principal men of the city
then came fre­quently to me together, in order to know my opinion about the
accurate understanding of points of the law,” etc. Again: Ant., book xx, ch. xi,
sec 3, p. 139, he says: “I am so bold as to say, now I have so completely
perfected the work I proposed to myself to do, that no other person whether he
were a Jew or a foreigner, had he ever so great an inclination to it, could so
accurately deliver these accounts to the Greeks as is done in these books. For
those of my own nation freely acknowledge that I far exceed them in the learning
belonging to the Jew. I have also taken a great deal of pains to obtain the
learning of the Greeks, and understand the elements of the Greek language,
although I have so long accustomed myself to speak our own tongue that I can not
pronounce Greek with suf­ficient exactness,” etc. Although these extracts were
written by Josephus himself, yet the literary world awards him all the ability
claimed in them, as the following paragraph will show: “JOSEPHUS, FLAVIUS, a
celebrated Jewish historian, was born at Jerusalem 37 A.D. He was of both royal
and sacerdotal lin­eage, being descended, on the mother’s side, from the line of
Asmonean princes, while his father, Matthias, officiated as a priest in the
first of the twenty-four courses. The careful education he received developed
his brilliant faculties at an unusually early period, and his acquirements both
in Hebrew and Greek litera­ture—the two principal branches of his studies—soon
drew public attention upon him.” Chambers’s Encyclopedia. Josephus used the word
baptidzo, in some of its forms, four teen times, several examples of which we
have given, and surely he knew the meaning his people attached to it; and had
they used it in a sense different from him, it is likely it would have been
mentioned by him somewhere. It is sometimes said that he used the word in the
sense of drowning, but this is manifestly an error. The boy Aristobulus, of whom
he speaks, was indeed drowned, but we know the fact, because it is so stated,
and not because of any such meaning in the word baptidzo. Many persons admit
that the word baptidzo in classic Greek means to dip or immerse, but they insist
that it has a different meaning in the New Testament. The reader will remember
that the seventy authors already quoted defined the word in its scrip­tural
application, and they say it means immerse when used to indicate baptism; and
the examples given from the classics show that with the Greek classic writers it
meant the same thing. Moses Stuart says: “That the Greek fathers and the Latin
ones who were familiar with the Greek understood the usual import of the word
baptidzo would hardly seem to be capable of a de­nial. That they might be
confirmed in their view of the import of this word, by common usage among the
Greek classic authors, we have seen in the first part of this
dissertation.”—Stuart on Baptism, p. 154. How could the fathers be confirmed in
the fact that baptidzo meant immerse by classic usage, if their use of it
differed from its use among the classics? Mr. Hughey, a distin­guished Methodist
debater, of great learning and research, in his debate with President Braden, p.
81, says: “I will show by exam­ples from the classics that the classical usage
agrees with the Hel­lenistic and patristic usage of the word.’, After giving
some ex­amples of its use, on page 82, he says: “These examples show, by the
usage of the word, that classical usage agrees exactly with the scriptural usage
and also the usage of the fathers.” When summing up his argument, on page 157,
he says: “I showed by a number of examples from the classics that classical
usage agrees with Scripture and patristic usage.” Thus we have his testimony, in
three different places, that the classic usage of bap­tidzo differs not from
scriptural and patristic usage. Such is his testimony, though different from
some of his brethren. Dr. H. A. W. Meyer, in his Manual on the Gospels of Mark
and Luke, says: “The expression in Mark 7:4, is not to be un­derstood of the
washing of hands (as interpreted by Lightfoot and Wetstein), but of the
immersing—which the word always means in the classics and in the New Testament.”
Bailey’s Man­ual, p. 294. Thus, with Dr. Meyer, it means the same in both
places. Dr. George Campbell says: “The word baptidzein, both in sa­cred authors
and classical, signifies to dip, to plunge, to im­merse.” Campbell on Baptism,
p. 142. Dr. George Campbell, as a scholar and biblical critic, had no superior
in his time, and he unites his testimony with the others given, and still others
which might be given, in proving that baptidzo means to dip or immerse in both
sacred and classic usage. It is true, as shown by Schluesner, that the Greek
classic writers sometimes used the word to indicate sinking without regard to
emersion, while in the Scriptures it is used in the sense of dip, as in 2 Kings
5:14, which includes the idea of emersion. Hence says Paul: “Buried with him in
baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him.” Colossians 2:12. But this is
rather a difference in application than in primary im­port. Immersion is the
leading idea in the classics as well as in the Scriptures. But were we to admit
a difference in the pri­mary import of the word, unless it be shown to mean
sprinkle and pour in the New Testament, the admission could not serve sprinklers
any purpose. This is the point which they must prove. That dip, immerse, or some
equivalent word, is necessary to express the primary meaning of baptidzo, is
admitted by all; but it is insisted that wash, wet, stain, dye, etc., are
figurative mean­ings; and, as washing, wetting, staining, and dyeing may be done
by pouring or sprinkling, therefore baptism may be performed in either of these
ways. Wash, wet, stain, dye, etc., can not be real meanings, but are purely
metonymical—that is, they are effects of the true or real meaning of the word.
No two meanings can be given to the same word which are antagonistic to each
other. Stains are removed by washing, and, therefore, the same word can not
literally mean both wash and stain. Washing may be the effect of immersing in
clean water, while staining and dyeing may be done by immersing in impure or
coloring fluids; hence these opposite meanings can not be otherwise than
metonymical—that is, they are effects pro­duced by the real meaning, dipping or
immersing. All these fig­urative meanings, so-called, may be the effect of
immersion, but they can not all be the effect of sprinkling or pouring, for
wash­ing and dyeing are not done in either of these ways. Sprinkling a few drops
of water on a filthy garment would not be likely to wash it well, nor would
pouring a little water on one end of a garment be very apt to wash or cleanse
the balance of it. And if it were a coloring fluid it would not be a good
process by which to dye a whole web to sprinkle or pour a little of the fluid on
one end of it. But does the word baptidzo ever mean to color or dye? We beg the
attention of the reader to the following very appropriate remarks of Dr. Carson
on this subject. He says: “The word BAPTO, from which is formed BAPTIDZO,
signi­fies, primarily, to dip; and, as a secondary meaning, obviously derived
from the primary, it denotes to dye. Every occurrence of the word may be reduced
to one or other of these accepta­tions.” Carson on Baptism, p. 18. On page 19 he
says: “There is a very obvious difference in the use of the words, and a
difference that materially affects the point at issue. This difference is, BAPTO
IS NEVER USED TO DENOTE THE ORDINANCE OF BAPTISM, AND BAPTIDZO NEVER SIGNIFIES
TO DYE. But the derivative is formed to modify the primary only, and in all the
Greek language, I assert that an instance is not to be found in which it has the
secondary meaning of the primitive word. If this assertion is not correct, it
will be easy for learned men to produce an example in contradiction. That bapto
is never applied to the ordinance of baptism any one can verify who is able to
look into the passages of the Greek Testament where the ordinance is spoken of.
Now, if this observation is just, it overturns all those speculations that
explain the word, as applied to baptism, by an allusion to dyeing; for the
primitive word that has this secondary meaning is not applied to the ordinance,
and the derivative word, which is appointed to ex­press it, has not the
secondary signification of dyeing. Bapto has two meanings; baptidzo in the whole
history of the Greek lan­guage has but one. It not only signifies to dip or
immerse, but it never has any other meaning. Each of these words has its
spe­cific province, into which the other can not enter, while there is a common
province in which either of them may serve. Either of them may signify to dip
generally, but the primitive can not specifically express that ordinance to
which the derivative has been appropriated, and the derivative can not signify
to dye, which is a part of the province of the primitive. The difference is
precise and important.” While we think it likely that Dr. Carson’s language is
rather strong in some respects, he shows most conclusively that bap­tidzo can
not mean to dye. Indeed, we have no faith in the transmission of secondary or
metonymical meanings from primi­tive to derivative words. They inherit the
primary but not for­eign meanings of the words from which they came. But as Dr.
Carson was an immersionist it may be well to hear from those who practiced
effusion and aspersion. Dr. Moses Stuart says: “I have already intimated that
baptidzo is distinguished from bapto in its meaning. I now andadd that it is
not, like the latter word, used to designate the idea of coloring or dyeing;
while in some other respects it seems, in classical use, to be nearly or quite
synonymous with bapto. In the New Testament, however, there is one other marked
distinction between the use of these verbs. Baptidzo and its derivatives are
exclusively employed when the rite of baptism is to be designated in any form
what­ever, and in this case bapto seems to be purposely as well as ha­bitually
excluded.” Here we have a confirmation of Dr. Carson’s statement by one whose
authority will not be questioned by those who oppose us. If these authors are
worthy of credit, baptidzo does not mean to dye. But suppose that in this they
are mistaken, as im­mersion is admitted by all to be the primary meaning of the
word representing baptism, we wish to know why it is to give place to figurative
or metonymical meanings, such as wash, wet, stain, dye, etc.? All philological
laws require preference to be given to the primary meaning of words, unless good
reason be shown for its removal. We submit the following rules for the use and
interpretation of words, arranged by Moses Stuart, of Andover, aided by Edward
Robinson, author of Robinson’s Greek Lexicon, Robinson’s Gesenius’ Hebrew
Lexicon, etc. 1. “To every word in Scripture there is unquestionably as­signed
some idea or notion, otherwise words are useless, and have no more signification
than the inarticulate sounds of ani­mals.” Ernesti, p. 7. 2. “The literal
meaning of words is the sense that is so con­nected with them as to be
spontaneously presented to the mind as soon as the sound of the word is heard,
and that is first in order. The literal sense does not differ from the sense of
the let­ter.” Ibid. 3. “A particular meaning being attached to a word can no
more be changed or denied than any historical event whatever. All men in their
daily conversation and writings attach but one sense to a word, at the same time
and in the same passage, un­less they design to speak in enigmas. The sense of a
word can not be diverse or multifarious at the same time and in the same passage
or expression.” Ibid., p. 9. 4. “There can be no certainty at all in respect to
the interpre­tation of any passage, unless a kind of necessity compels us to
affix a particular sense to a word, which sense must be one, and unless there
are special reasons for a tropical meaning, it must be literal.” Ibid, p. 10. 5.
“The sense of words depends upon the ususloquendi.” Ibid., p. 13. 6. “Words are
proper and tropical, literal and figurative. First: A proper or literal word is
a definite name given to a certain thing. Originally, words were undoubtedly
used in their proper and literal sense. Second: Tropes or metaphorical words are
called by Aristotle strangers, foreigners. Ibid, p. 21. 7. “In no language can a
word have more than one literal meaning in the same place.” Ibid. By these rules
we see that a word can have but one meaning at the same time and in the same
place, and that the primary meaning must be given to words unless there be
special reasons for its removal. These rules come to us from the very fountain
of authority in America, and have existence in the nature of all language.
Having thus found that the primary meaning of bap­tidzo is to dip or immerse,
dare we set it aside and adopt a me­tonymical, metaphorical, or figurative
meaning, for no better rea­son than to save a favorite theory or to avoid going
into the water where the Lord commanded us to go? In the Septuagint Greek of the
Old Testament we have bap­tidzo as a translation of the Hebrew word taval, which
modern theologians insist means sprinkle or pour. Although this word is never
employed to indicate baptism, as baptidzo once a transla­tion of it, it may be
well for us to examine it briefly. In the He­brew Bible it is used fourteen
times, and is rendered by King James’ translators dip, every time; hence, we
have the unanimous testimony of the forty-seven distinguished scholars employed
by him in the translation of the Hebrew Bible, that this is the meaning of the
word. The following are the connections in which it occurs: Genesis 37:31 : “And
they took Joseph’s coat and killed a kid of the goats, and dipped the coat in
the blood.” Exodus 12:22 : “And ye shall take a bunch of hyssop and dip it in
the blood that is in the basin.” Leviticus 4:6 : “And the priest shall dip his
finger in the blood;” chap. 9: 9: “And the sons of Aaron brought the blood unto
him, and he dipped his finger in the blood;” chap. 14: 6: “And shall dip them
and the living bird in the blood of the bird that was killed;” verse 16: “And
the priest shall dip his finger in the oil;” verse 51: “And he shall take the
cedar wood and the hyssop, and the scarlet and the living bird and dip them in
the blood of the slain bird and in the running water.” Numbers 19:18 : “And a
clean person shall take hyssop and dip it in water.”

Deut. xxxiii : 24: “Let him dip his foot in oil.”

Joshua 3:15 : “The feet of the priests that bear the ark were dipped in the brim
of the water.”

Ruth ii : 14: “And dip thy morsel in the vinegar.”

1 Samuel 14:27 : “Wherefore he put forth the end of the rod that was in his hand
and dipped it in an honeycomb.” 2 Kings 5:14 : “And dipped himself seven times
in Jordan,” chap. 8: 15: “He took a thick cloth and dipped it in water.” In
Leviticus 9:9, we have dipped and poured in the same verse; dipped is from
taval, but poured is not. In Leviticus 14:16, we have dip and sprinkle in the
same verse; dip is from taval, sprinkle is not. Why is this? If taval means to
sprinkle and pour, why was it not used to express sprinkling and pouring even
when it was employed in the same verse? We have four Hebrew lexicons by us as we
write, which define the word as fol­lows: “Taval—to dip, to dip in, to immerse,
to dip or immerse one’s self. Ex. 2 Kings 5:14 : He went down and dipped himself
seven times in Jordan. ROBINSON s GESENIUS Heb. Lex., p. 364.

“Taval—1, to dip, immerse, plunge; 2, to tinge or dye with a certain color,
which is usually performed by dipping.” PARKHURST, page 255.

“Taval—1. He dipped; 2. He was dipped.” ROBERTSON’S He­brew Dictionary by
Joseph, page 111.

“Taval—dip, dip in, immerse, submerge.” STOKIUS, Vet. Test., vol. 1, p. 421.

“Taval—merge, immerse.” M. STUART, Chr. Bap., p. 119.

SCHUEUSNER incidentally defines taval in his definition of bap­tidzo thus: “to
immerse, dip, plunge into water; from bapto, and corresponds to the Hebrew
taval.” Besides these, we have in other works the following defini­tions of
taval, viz.:

1. By DAVIDSON: “Taval—1, to dip, to immerse; 2, to stain.”

2. BUXTORF: “Taval—to dip, to dip into, to submerge, to im­merse.” 3. DR.
KLEEBURG, a celebrated Jewish rabbi, of Louisville, Ky., answered certain
interrogatories propounded to him, thus: “1. What does taval mean? It means to
immerse, to dip. 2. Does it ever mean to sprinkle or pour? It never means to
sprin­kle or pour. 3. Did the Hebrews always immerse their prose­lytes? They
did. The whole body was entirely submerged. 4. Were the Jewish ablutions
immersions? [Before eating and prayer, and after rising in the morning they
washed; when they have become unclean they must immerse.” Louisville Debate,
p.652. Thus we see these authors concur in giving the import of taval to dip or
immerse; hence, as far as it throws any light upon baptidzo, it certainly does
not give any support to sprinkling or pouring. We next present the reader with a
table of versions of the New Testament, showing the several languages into which
it has been translated, when the translations were made, and the word
representing baptidzo in each of the languages, which we copy from Bailey’s
Manual, pages 121, 122, 123:

Version

SYRIAC:

Peshito, Philozenian,

ARABIC:

Polyglot, Propaganda, Sabat,

PERSIC,

ETHIOPIC, Amharic,

EGYPTIAN:

Coptic, Sahidic, Basmuric,

ARMENIAN,

SLAVONIC, Russian, Polish, Bohemian, Lithuanian, Livonian, Dorpat Esthonian
Gothic, German, Danish,

Date.

2d century,

6th century, 7th century ( ? )

1671,

1816,

1341,

4th century,

1822.

3d century,

2d century,

3d century,

5th century,

9th century,

1519,

1585, 1593,............

1660,

1685,

1727,

4th century,

1522,

1524,

Word amad, amad, amada, amada, amada, shustan and sbuzidan, tamaka, tamaka,
tomas. . . . . . . . . . . baptizo, mugurdel, krestiti, same root. daupjan,
taufen, dobe,

Meaning. immerse. mmerse. immerse. immerse. immerse. wash. immerse. immerse.
immerse. plunge. immerse. immerse. cross. cross. dip. dip. dip.

BAPTISM

Version

Swedish,

Dutch, etc.,

Icelandic,

ANGLO-SAXON,

ANGLO-SAXON,

LATIN: Of the early Fathers, Ante-Hieronymian,

Vulgate,

French,

Spanish,

Italian, English (Wickliffe),

Tindal,

Welsh,

Irish,

Gaelic,

Date.

1534,

1460,

1584,

8th century,

8th century,

2d century,

3d century,

4th century,

1535,

1556,

1562,

1380,

1526,

1567,

1602,

1650

Word. dopa, doopen, skira, dyppan, fullian, tingo, baptizo, baptizo, baptizer,
baptizer, baptizzan, wash, christen, baptize, baptize, bedyddio, baisdim,
baisdean,

Meaning dip. dip. cleanse. dip. cleanse. immerse. immerse. immerse. immerse.
immerse. immerse. immerse. bathe. bathe. bathe.

Here are thirty-eight versions of the New Testament, made at periods extending
from the latter part of the second century to 1822, none of which represent
baptism by a word indicating to sprinkle or pour, nineteen of which represent it
by a word mean­ing to immerse, six by a word meaning to dip, and one to plunge,
while others use words meaning to bathe and cleanse, which manifestly refer to
the same leading thought. But it is insisted that the Syriac word amad means to
pour or shed forth. In support of our table of versions we offer the fol­lowing
testimony as to the meaning of this word:

SCHAAF: “Amad—to bathe one’s self, to bathe, dip, immerse into water, baptize.”
Syriac Lex., Lyons, 1708.

MICHAELIS: “Amad—to bathe, baptize, immerse.” Syriac Lex., Gottingen, 1788.

GUIDO FABRICUS: “Amad—to baptize, dip, bathe.” Syro-Chal. Lex. accompanying
Antwerp Polyglot, Antwerp, 1592.

BUXTORF: “Amad—baptize, dip, bathe one’s self.” Chaldee and Syriac Lex., Basle,
1662.

BEZA: After remarking that baptidzo properly means to im­merse and never to
wash, except as a consequence of immersion, says: “Nor does this signification
of ’amad,’ which the Syrians use for ’baptize,’ differ at all from this.”
Appendix to Stewart on Baptism, p. 249.

ULEMAN: “Amad—to suffer one’s self to be dipped, to suffer one’s self to be
baptized. Amada—dipping, baptism.” Syriac Gram. with Sex. by Hutchinson, p. 359.
EPHRAIM CYRUS was a native Syrian, who lived in the fourth century; speaking of
Christ, says: “How wonderful is it that thy footsteps were planted on the
waters; that the great sea should subject itself to thy feet; and that yet, at a
small river, that same head of shine should be subject to be bowed down and
baptized in it.” Gotch’s Bible Questions, p. 130. These definitions and examples
of the meaning of amad are quite sufficient to sustain our table of versions as
to this word. But it is further insisted that the German taufen signifies to
sprinkle or pour. If this be so, our table needs correction at this point. Let
us see how this is: LUTHER says: “The Germans call baptism tauff, from depth,
which they call tie] in their language, as if it were proper those should be
deeply immersed who are baptized. And truly, if you consider what baptism
signifies you shall see the same thing re­quired.” Luther’s Works, vol. 1, p.
72, Wittenberg, 1582. HEINSIUS: “Taufen signifies, in a general sense, to plunge
into water (as a bomb dipped in pitch and rosin); in a more limited sense, to
immerse in water in a religious way.” German Dict., 4 vole., Hanover, 1822.
SMILTHENNER: “Taufen, in old German, taufian, from taufa, which signifies tiefe,
(i.e., deep), consequently it means to im­merse.” Etymol. Dict., 1834.
KALTSCHMIDT: “Taufen—to immerse (eintauchen) to conse­crate to Christianity, to
name.” Germ. Lex., Leipsic, 1834. SCHWENCK: “taufen—to immerse in water;
specially, to pur­ify with water for admission to the Christian church. Taufen
is the same as tauchen.” Etymol. Dict. 3d ea., 1838. GEMTHE: “Tauchen and taufen
were originally the same; the act expressed by taufen was performed by immersion
(unter­tauchen). At present the word taufen retains its proper
signifi­cation—overwhelm with water.” Gemthe’s Germ. Synonyms, 1838.

WIEGAND’S GERMAN SYNONYMS: Taufen—originally equiva­lent to untertauchen (to dip
under), signifies, in its religious use, to immerse in water.”

KNAPP’S THEOLOGY, vol. ii, p. 501, Andover edition, taufen is incidentally
defined. This great German scholar says: “Bap­tisma, from baptidzein, which
properly signifies to immerse, like the German taufen, to dip in, to wash by
immersion.” WEBSTER and WORCESTER each give taufen as the German synonym of dip.
Surely these authorities are sufficient to establish immersion or dipping as the
meaning of taufen, the German word repre­senting baptism. The Chaldee word tseva
is also brought into the service of sprinklers in modern times. GESENIUS defines
it thus: “To dip in, to immerse; hence to tinge, to dye.” Heb. and Chal. Lex.,
p. 891. M. STUART says: “The Syriac has a word like the Chaldee tseva . . .
which means to plunge, immerse.” Christ. Bap., p. 155. Thus it will be seen that
there is not much appearance of sprinkle or pour in it. Having viewed the word
baptidzo through the light of thir­ty-four lexicographers, seventy commentators
and critics, numer­ous examples of its use among the classics, and its
representa­tives in thirty-eight different versions, made at different times and
in different countries, and every-where found that its pri­mary import is to dip
or immerse, and that the laws of interpre­tation require us to retain the
primary meaning, unless good rea­son be found for its removal, we are now
prepared to open the New Testament and see what the Lord required of those
com­manded to be baptized. THE COMMISSION.

To the apostles Jesus said: “Go teach all nations, baptizing them into the name
of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” Matthew 28:19. Here, He
who was possessed of all authority in heaven and upon earth commanded his
apostles to do something, to which the obedient of all nations were bound to
submit. We have found a rule of interpretation say­ing: “To every word in
Scripture there is unquestionably as­signed some idea or notion, otherwise words
are useless, and have no more signification than the inarticulate sounds of
ani­mals.” What particular idea, notion, or thought is attached to the word
“baptizing’ in the commission given by the Lord? Did He employ the term in its
ordinary, current signification, or did He attach to it some figurative or
tropical meaning? If He used the word out of its current signification, and gave
no notice thereof, we see not how He expected to be understood by those who
heard Him. Unless a command is understood it can not be obeyed; hence, we see
not how persons are to submit to baptism when they know not what is required of
them. Therefore, as it was necessary that He should be understood in order to be
obeyed, we conclude He used the term baptizing in its ordinary or current
acceptation; and if so, He commanded the apostles to immerse the people, for we
have shown this to be the current meaning of the word used by Him. Indeed, if
the word means to sprinkle and to pour, it is difficult to see how the command
can be obeyed at all; for the command requires the people to be baptized and not
the water to be baptized upon the people. If sprinkling or pouring be the act
required, then it is the water or element used that is baptized, and not the
people; for it is cer­tainly water that is sprinkled or poured. We are aware
that Paul says: “When Moses had spoken every precept to all the people,
according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and
scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book and all the people.”
Hebrews 9:19. But we regard this as no valid objection to the POSITION we have
taken, for Paul’s language was evidently elliptical, as may be seen by
refer­ence to the historical account of what Moses did: “And he took the book of
the covenant and read in the audience of the people, and they said, All that the
Lord hath said will we do, and be obedient. And Moses took the blood and
sprinkled it on the people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant, which
the Lord hath made with you concerning all these words.” Exodus 24:7-8. Hence,
the ellipsis in Paul’s language being supplied, it means that Moses sprinkled
the blood upon the people. But we may be asked, is not the commission also
elliptical? Suppose it is; this will not affect our argument at all, as may be
seen by supplying the ellipsis: 1. Teach the people, sprinkling (water upon)
them. 2. Teach the people, pouring (water upon) them. 3. Teach the people,
immersing them (in water). Though the ellipsis be supplied, it changes not the
act indicated. The gov­ernment is not changed when the ellipsis is supplied as
to immersion, the object of the action expressed by the participle is the
people; hence they are immersed; but as to the act of sprin­kling and pouring
the government is entirely changed—the act expressed by the active participle
sprinkling takes effect upon the water, and the word people is governed by a
preposition. The same remark applies to pouring. The act expressed by it takes
effect upon the water or element poured, and the word people is governed by a
preposition. Then, when the word baptizing in the commission is made to mean
pour it is the water that is bap­tized, because it is the thing poured, and when
it is made to mean sprinkle it is the water that is baptized, because it is the
thing sprinkled; but when it means immersing, the command can be obeyed by the
people, for they may be immersed but can not be sprinkled or poured. But there
is another difficulty involved in the idea of substi­tuting sprinkling or
pouring for immersion. The verb sprinkle means to scatter in drops, and is
always followed by the material to be sprinkled, either expressed or understood.
We may sprin­kle blood, water, sand, or ashes on a man, but we can not sprin­kle
a man on any thing. We sometimes speak of sprinkling a man with water when we
mean to sprinkle water upon him, but the language is an outrage upon all
grammatical accuracy. If we say, we sprinkle a man with water, the language must
mean one of two things: first, that we sprinkle (that is, scatter in drops) both
the man and the water together, as we eat butter with our bread; or, second,
that the water is the instrument with which we sprinkle or scatter the man, as
we sprinkle water with a broom. In the first construction, the nouns man and
water are the objects of the action expressed by the verb sprinkle; and in the
second construction, the noun man is alone the object and water the
instrument—either of which involves a physical impos­sibility. The verb pour
means to turn out in a stream, and is followed by the thing poured, which must
be something fluid or com­posed of small particles. It is as much impossible to
pour a man as to sprinkle him. But those who practice sprinkling, pouring, and
immersion as baptism tell us that the only authority they have to baptize any
body is found in this verse: Matthew 28 : l9. (See Louisville Debate, p. 15.)
Then, when they sprinkle water upon any one as baptism they derive authority
from this verse; when they pour water upon any one as baptism they derive
authority from this verse; and when they immerse a man in water as baptism they
get their authority from this same verse, hence, the word baptiz­ing must mean
sprinkle, pour, and immerse in this one place, in clear violation of the rule of
interpretation, which says: “The sense of a word cannot be diverse or
multifarious at the same time and in the same passage or expression;” and again:
“In no language can a word have more than one literal meaning in the same
place.” Sprinkling, pouring, and immersion are three separate, distinct, and
specific acts, diverse from each other; hence they can not all be used as the
meaning of “baptizing” in this place. But it may be said that sprinkle and pour
are tropical meanings. This does not relieve the difficulty, for we have shown
that immersing is the literal import; hence, you can not give a literal and
tropical meaning to the same word in the same place. If you do, the word becomes
“multifarious” in violation of the laws of interpre­tation. Again: if
sprinkling, pouring, and immersing are all required to make up the full import
of the word indicating the command in this place, then no one has been baptized
in obedience to the command until he has submitted to all three of these
acts—that is, until he has had water sprinkled upon him, poured upon him, and
has been immersed in it. But if it be insisted that in this one place the word
authorizes one man to be immersed, another to have water sprinkled upon him, and
a third to have water poured upon him, and that each case is a baptism, it
follows that as they are different acts per­formed by different persons, each
being a baptism, they are not one but three baptisms, and Paul was mistaken when
he said that there is “one baptism;” for the phrase “one baptism” as much
implies that there is but one baptism as does the phrase “one God’’ imply that
there is but one God. Hence, we conclude that when the Lord said “go teach all
nations, baptizing them,” He intended one specific act, and not three different
acts. This one act is baptism—nothing else is. THE BAPTISM OF JESUS. We propose
now to examine an example of baptism furnished in the baptism of Jesus by John,
an account of which we have in Mark 1:9-10, as follows: “And it came to pass in
those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of John
in Jordan. And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens
opened, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon him.” Here we learn that
Jesus was baptized by John in Jordan, after which He came up out of the water.
For thus going into and coming out of the water there could have been neither
rea­son nor propriety had sprinkling or pouring water upon Him been the baptism
to which He submitted. It is true that in mod­ern times we hear of persons going
down into the water and having some of it poured or sprinkled upon them. This
seems to be an artifice on the part of the administrator to satisfy the
cred­ulous subject, if possible, without at all doing the thing com­manded.
Surely, none will dare say the Lord ever commanded such a procedure. But we are
told that apo, the Greek word here rendered out of, primarily means from, and
that nothing more was signified by it than that Jesus came up from the margin of
the water. If apo be the correct word in the original text—about which we will
see directly—is it not bound by the nature of the transaction, and by the
meaning of the other words related to it in this con­nection, to mean out of?
Mark tells us that John baptized Jesus in Jordan. Hence, if the baptism took
place in Jordan, must not the subject (Christ) come from within Jordan, or the
place where the baptism occurred? But we are told that the Greek word eis, here
rendered in, is sometimes rendered at, and may be so translated in this passage.
Hence, John simply baptized Jesus at Jordan. But the whole force of this
argument is based upon the primary meaning of apo; why, then, shall we not be
allowed to demand the primary meaning of eis? We grant that primary meanings are
to be pre­ferred unless good reason be given for another. We dare not adopt or
reject the meanings of words just as they may chance to favor or oppose our
peculiar views. The primary meaning of eis is into, and were it so rendered, the
connection would show that John baptized Jesus into Jordan. As Jordan was a
river, into the water of which Jesus was bap­tized, it is easy to see why He
came “up out of the water;” and although apo, as contended, may primarily mean
from, it is only from the place that eis put Him, and as this was into the
water, the necessity of the case demands, as our rules of interpretation allow,
a secondary meaning for apo, out of. Nor is there any thing in apo making it
unreasonable that from, in the passage, means from within the water. A man might
say, “I came from Nashville,” when in truth he came from the Maxwell House in
the very heart of the city. Pickering, in his Greek Lexicon, gives us an example
in which we see that apo means out of; as, From or out of Egypt. He further
says: “It is also used instead of the prepositions ek, epi, peri, and hupo; as,
Out of a hundred and twenty youths one only escaped;” thus showing us clearly
that apo may and does often mean out of. But some of the very best authorities
known have ek in place of apo in the original text, among whom we may mention
Tregelles, Tischendorf, Alford, Greene, Bengel, Lackman, and Meyer. When, in
connection with all this, we consider the additional fact that the multitudes
were being baptized by John in the river of Jordan, the conclusion that he was
immersed by John in Jor­dan is irresistible. If John did not baptize in the
river, he did not preach in the wilderness. Matthew 3:1. If Jesus was only
baptized at the Jordan, then He was only led by the Spirit at the wilderness,
for both are expressed by the same original word. We have no confidence in the
pictures exhibited by debaters in modern times, showing that John poured water
on the head of the Saviour. But there is a thought or two connected with them to
which we would solicit the attention of the reader. We have seen some ten or
twelve of these, each representing the scene in a different manner from the
others. No higher evidence than this is needed to prove them unfaithful in
delineation, for, as He was baptized but once, it is not possible that a dozen
modes were adopted. Some of them represent Him as standing up to the waist in
water, at least sufficiently deep to be immersed, while their criti­cisms upon
eis and apo have Him baptized at or near the margin of the stream, and not in
the water at all. Thus their own pic­tures contradict their criticisms. Truly,
“the legs of the lame are unequal.” But it is said that “John baptized the
people with water,” and hence applied the water to the subject and not the
subject to the water. And, by way of illustration, they give us examples like
the following: “I shave with a razor,” “I write with a pen,” etc. As an offset
to these examples we might give the following: “The tanner tans his leather with
ooze,” “The lady colors her web with dye,” etc. Surely, it will not be insisted
that the tanner makes his leather by sprinkling a little ooze upon it, or that
the lady colors her web by sprinkling a few drops of her dye thereon. Hence, the
examples given by the objector can prove nothing. The original word from which
we have the word with in the connection, “I indeed baptize you with water” (
Matthew 3:11; Mark 1:8), is the Greek en, the primary meaning of which is in,
and which must be the meaning used, as our rules say, unless there is some
circumstance compelling some other. But so far from there being those compulsory
circumstances, the other words and circumstances compel the retention of the
primary meaning in. But we are told that en conveys the idea of instru­mentality
and must be rendered with if so, when John baptized the people (en) with the
river Jordan, we suppose he had rather an unwieldy instrument, to say the least
of it. But we are told that the fearfully impetuous current of the Jordan would
have rendered it impossible for John to have stood in it and baptized the
people. As the testimony of Lieut. Lynch is invoked upon this subject, it will
be well for us to hear what he says about it. On page 255 of his work titled the
“DEAD SEA AND THE JORDAN, he says: “At 9: 30; P.M. we arrived et ’El Meshra,’
the bathing place of the Christian pilgrims, after having been fifteen hours in
the boats. This ford is consecrated by tradition as the place where the
Israelites passed over with the ark of the covenant, and where our blessed
Saviour was baptized by John. Feeling that it would be desecration to moor the
boats at a place so sacred, we passed it, and with some difficulty found a
landing below. “My first act was to bathe in the consecrated stream, thank­ing
God first for the precious favor of being permitted to visit such a spot; and,
secondly, for his protecting care throughout our perilous passage….Tradition,
sustained by the geographical features of the country, makes this also the scene
of the baptism of the Redeemer. The mind of man, trammeled by sin. can not soar
in contemplation of so sublime an event. On that wondrous day, when the Deity,
veiled in flesh, descended the bank, all nature, hushed in awe, looked on, and
the impetuous river, in grateful homage, must have stayed its course, and gently
raved the body of its Lord.” Thus it will be seen that Lieut. Lynch did not
think it impossible for the body of the Lord to have been gently raved by the
waters of the Jordan. In describing a visit by a company of pilgrims to the
Jordan, he says: “The party which had disturbed us was the advanced guard of the
great body of the pilgrims. At 5, just at the dawn of day, the last made its
appearance. coming over the crest of a high ridge, in one tumultuous anal eager
throng. In all the wild haste of a disorderly rout, Copts and Russians, Poles,
Armenians, Greeks and Syrians, from all parts of Asia, from Europe, from Africa,
and from far distant America, on they came; men, women, and children, of every
age and hue, and in every variety of costume; talking, screaming, shouting, in
almost every known language under the sun. Mounted as variously as those who had
preceded them, many of the women and children were suspended in baskets or
confined in cages; and, with their eyes strained toward the river, heedless of
all intervening obstacles, they hurried eagerly forward, and dismounting in
haste and disrobing with precipitation, rushed down the bank and threw
themselves into the stream. They seemed to be absorbed by one impulsive feeling,
and perfectly regardless of the observations of others. Each one plunged
himself, or was dipped by another, three times below the surface, in honor of
the Trinity; and then filled a bottle or some other utensil from the river. The
bathing-dress of many of the pilgrims was a white gown with a black cross upon
it. Most of them, as soon as they dressed, cut branches either of the agnus
castus or willow, and, dipping them in the consecrated stream, bore them away as
memorials of their visit. “In an hour they began to disappear, and in less than
three hours the trodden surface of the lately crowded bank reflected no human
shadow. The pageant disappeared as rapidly as it had approached, and left to us
once more the silence and the soli- of the wilderness. It was like a dream. An
immense crown of human beings—said to be 8,000, but I thought not so many—had
passed and repassed before our tents and left not a vestige behind them. Every
one bathed, a few Franks excepted, the greater number in a quiet and reverential
manner, but some, I am sorry to say, displayed an ill-timed levity.” Pages 261,
262. This needs no comment. We leave it with the single remark, that where so
many in so short a time could bathe themselves without difficulty, surely John
the Baptist could have no difficulty in baptizing those who came to him. Rev. D.
A. Randall visited the Jordan at the time of harvest, when it “overfloweth his
banks all the time.” In consequence of the falling rains and melting snows of
the far distant mountains of Herman, it was near its greatest depth, yet he and
his comrades enjoyed the pleasure of a bath in its waters. Handwriting of God,
Part ii, p. 233. The river Jordan, like all other streams, has its rapids and
its eddies, in the latter of which there are doubtless numerous places in which
it would be safe to immerse. It is a little remarkable to what extremes the
opponents of immersion will go in their zeal to show the impossibility of
performing this act in the Jordan. Heretofore, some have contended that
immersion could not have been the act, because this river is so small that “a
man might step across it, or arrest its current with his foot,” but since the
observations of Lynch, Randall, and others have been published, it suddenly
becomes so impetuous and deep as to make it impossible for John to have immersed
the people in it. Before leaving this part of the subject we deduce another
argument in favor of immersion from John’s clothing: “John had his raiment of
camel’s hair and a leathern girdle about his loins,” Matthew 3:4; Mark 1:6. Why
was he thus clad? I suppose it means something or it would not have been
recorded. Some suppose that the coarse hair-cloth with which he was clad used as
the best protection against the water. Certain it is that leathern girdles were
then and now are used to strengthen the loins under physical exertion. We can
see propriety in this girdle to sustain him while immersing the vast crowds
baptized by him, but none whatever if he only sprinkled water upon them. Surely,
his loins needed no support for such labor as this, since the most fashionably
clad may now administer the rite without physical effort or damage to silks or
satins. As a further evidence that John practiced immersion we find he “was
baptizing in Aenon, near to Salem, because there was much water there.” John
3:23. Why should he have gone there to sprinkle or pour a few drops of water
upon the people? This could not have required much water. We suppose a single
gallon would be quite sufficient for a modern preacher for a whole day. But we
are told that much water was necessary to supply the people and their animals
with drink while attending his preaching. Then the passage should read, “John
was holding a meeting at Aenon, near Salem, because there was much water there.”
Would not this have been much more appropriate? But, on the contrary, “he came
into all the country about the Jordan preaching the baptism of repentance for
the remission of sins.” Luke 3:3. Thus we see that John preached every-where,
but when he went to baptize he went where there was much water. It is reasonable
to suppose that quite as many people attended his preaching in the country as
witnessed his baptism at Aenon, yet much water is not mentioned as an
accommodation for those who attended his preaching, but is given as a reason for
his “baptizing at Aenon.” For a beautiful description of the waters of Aenon and
their adaptation to the purposes for which John selected them, see Barclay’s
“City of the Great King,” pp. 559-562. CONVERTIBLE TERMS. We now pass to the
examination of a law of translation found in the convertibility of terms, which
may be stated substantially in the following words: “When the correct meaning of
a word, in a given place, is substituted for the word, it must make sense, and
harmonize with the other words m construction with the word for which the
substitution is made.” This rule lies at the foundation of all translation and
must obtain, though in some instances, from force of habit, the euphony may seem
somewhat impaired. Be it further observed that the demands of the rule are not
that every meaning a word may have will make sense every-where it occurs, but
the correct meaning of a word in a given place must make sense in that place. By
this rule we will try the meaning of the word baptize in a few passages, and see
whether or not it may mean sprinkle or pour—remembering, in the meantime, that
sprinkle means to scatter in drops, and pour means to turn out in a stream. Let
us now read the passages and submit these definitions to the rule stated: “Then
went out to him Jerusalem and all Judea, and all the region round about Jordan,
and were sprinkled (scattered in drops) of him in Jordan, confessing their sins.
But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his sprinkling
(scattering in drops) he said unto them,” etc. Matthew 3:5-7. Were the people
scattered in drops by John in Jordan? “He that believeth and is sprinkled
(scattered in drops) shall be saved.” Mark 16:13. “Repent and be sprinkled
(scattered in drops) every one of you.” Acts 2:38. “When they believed Philip
preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ,
they were sprinkled (scattered in drops), both men and women.” Acts 8:12. These
scriptures need only to be read— no comment is necessary to show that sprinkle
will not bear the test. Will pour do any better? We will try it. “Then went out
to him Jerusalem and all Judea, and all the region round about Jordan, and were
poured (turned out in a stream) of him in Jordan.” “He that believeth and is
poured ( fumed out in a stream) shall be saved.” “Repent and be poured (turned
out in a stream ) every one of you.” “When they believed Philip preaching the
things concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were
poured ( turned out in a stream), both men and women.” Thus we see that the
sense is as completely destroyed by substituting pour as by sprinkle. Now, let
us subject immersion to the same ordeal; if it will do no better, away with it.
“Then went out to him Jerusalem and all Judea, and all the region round about
Jordan, and were immersed of him in Jordan, confessing their sins.” “But when he
saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his immersion, he said unto
them,” etc. “He that believeth and is immersed shall be saved.” “Repent and be
immersed every one of you.” ’When they believed Philip preaching the things
concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were immersed,
both men and women.” Thus we might try every place in the New Testament where
the word occurs, and the result would be the same. A man may be immersed in
water, blood, oil, grief, suffering, debt, etc., but sprinkled or poured he can
not be, and live. As the Holy Spirit was shed forth on the day of Pentecost,
when the apostles were baptized with it, it is sometimes insisted that this is
the meaning of baptize. Then let us try it. “Go teach all nations, shedding them
forth in the name,” etc. Matthew 28:19. “And they went down into the water, both
Philip and the eunuch, and he shed him forth.”Acts 8:38. Will this do? Once
more: At the house of Cornelius “the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the
word.” Acts 10:44. It is therefore insisted that fell on is the meaning of the
word baptize, and indicates the manner in which it should be performed. Then we
will try this also. “Go teach all nations, falling on them in the name of the
Father,” etc. “And they went down into the water, both Philip and the eunuch,
and he fell on him.” We will not offer a word of comment to make these
definitions more ridiculously absurd than they are in their own native
deformity. These illustrations clearly show that the lexicons and critics were
right in giving immerse as the primary and literal meaning of baptidzo, as used
in the New Testament. Hence the conclusion that John immersed Jesus and the
multitudes who demanded baptism of him, in the waters of Jordan and Aenon, is
irresistible. To the reader, then, we say, “go thou and do likewise.” THE BIRTH
OF WATER.

We deduce another argument in favor of immersion from the language of Jesus to
Nicodemus, as follows: “Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he can
not enter into the kingdom of God.” John 3:5. The language “born again” is to be
understood figuratively, of course; but the figure is based upon the real or
natural birth, and as a figure must, in some sense, resemble the fact upon which
it is based, so a birth of water must, in some sense, resem­ble a natural birth.
Natural birth contemplates delivery, so when a man is born of water, he must be
delivered from or come forth out of it. As he can not be delivered from or come
forth out of that in which he has never been, it follows that a man must be
placed in water before he can be delivered from or born of it. Hence, in order
to be born of water, a man must be immersed in it that he may emerge from it.
But what resemblance to a birth has sprinkling or pouring water upon any one?
Can a man be born of a substance less than himself? Such a thing is impossible
with every one save him who practices sprinkling or pouring water as baptism.
How a grown man or woman may be born of a drop or a spoonful of water is a
mystery which needs explanation. For a full examination of the New Birth the
reader is referred to the chapter on this subject, the object here being only to
examine it so far as it bears upon the action of baptism. That the words “born
of water” refer to baptism, see authorities quoted in argument based upon this
verse in the chapter on the Design of Baptism.

BAPTISM A BURIAL.

“Therefore, we are buried with him by baptism.” Romans 6:4. “Buried with him in
baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him.” Col. ii : 12. That these passages
refer to immersion is so manifestly plain that it seems almost an insult to
common sense to attempt an argument to show it. There are three things which,
though not all in the word, are implied in the idea of a burial. First, the
thing buried; second, the thing buried in; and, third, the act of burying. A
burial may differ as to the thing buried; it may be a seed, or it may be a man.
It may differ as to the thing buried in; it may be in earth, it may be in water,
but as to the act of burying there can be no difference; it must be a placing in
and covering up in every burial, whether it be a seed or a man, in the earth or
in water. Then, when a man has a few drops of water sprinkled on him, is he
buried? Surely not. When he has a small stream poured upon him, is he buried? He
is not. When he is immersed in water, is he buried? Most certainly he is. We
have shown that baptism means immersion; hence, when Paul said he and his
brethren had been buried with Christ by baptism, is it not clear that he spake
of that burial which was effected by immersion? Lives there a man beneath the
sun, who has only had a few drops of water sparkled on him, who can approach the
mercy-seat of Christ, and, with his hand upon his heart, say “I have been buried
with Christ by baptism?” We think not. But we are told that Paul alluded to Holy
Spirit baptism. Suppose he did, does this bring any support to those who oppose
immersion? When they wish to make an argument in favor of pouring, they tell us
that the Holy Spirit was poured upon the Pentecostians; and as that was Holy
Spirit baptism, water baptism must be like it, and therefore must be pouring.
Spirit baptism and water baptism must be administered in the same way. Well,
then, if Paul spoke of Holy Spirit baptism, it was a burial, and if water
baptism be like it, it must also be a burial. Hence this passage proves baptism
to be immersion, whether he spoke of water or Spirit. If of water, the proof is
direct; if of Spirit, it is by analogy, our opponents being judges. But did Paul
allude to Holy Spirit baptism? In submitting to it his brethren obeyed from the
heart the form of doctrine delivered to them. See verse 17. Luke tells us that
Jesus commanded his disciples “that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but
wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me.” What
promise? ’’’For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with
the Holy Ghost not many days hence.” Acts 1:4-5. Promises may be enjoyed, but
can not be obeyed. We may obey commands, but can not obey promises. Then, as the
baptism of the Spirit was a promise, and as submission to the baptism of which
Paul spoke was obedience, it follows, clear as demonstration, that he spoke not
of spiritual baptism. Commentators and critics have, with great unanimity, in
all ages, decided that Romans 6:4, and Colossians 2:12, refer to immersion in
water. At the risk of being tedious we will collate a few extracts, which will
serve to show the decision of the learned on this subject: 1. JUSTIN MARTYR,
born A.D. 140: We represent our Lord’s suffering by baptism in a pool.” Adkins,
p. 127. 2. CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA, A.D. 200: You were led to a bath as Christ was
conveyed to the sepulcher, and were thrice immersed, to signify Christ’s three
days’ burial.” Adkins, p. 127. 3. ATHANASIUS, Bishop of Alexandria, A.D. 328:
“To immerse a child three times in a pool or bath, and to emerse him; this shows
the death and resurrection of Christ on the third day.” Stuart, p. 148, Conant,
Ex. 188. 4. GREGORY NYSSEN, A.D. 328: Coming into water, the kindred element of
earth, we hide ourselves in it as the Saviour did in the earth.” Stuart, p. 147.
“Let us, therefore, be buried with Christ in baptism, that we may also rise with
him; let us go down with him, that we also may be exalted with him.” Conant, Ex.
188. 5. AMBROSE, A.D. 340: “You were asked, ’Dost thou believe in GOD ALMIGHTY?’
Thou saidst, ’1 believe,’ and thus thou west immerged (mersisti); that is, thou
west buried.” Stuart, p. 147. 6. CHRYSOSTOM, A.D. 347: “To be baptized and to
submerge, then to emerge, as a symbol of descent to the grave and of ascent from
it. And therefore Paul calls baptism a burial when he says: ’We are therefore
buried with him by baptism into death.’“ Westlake, ch. 3. Stuart, p. 147. 7.
APOSTOLICAL CONSTITUTIONS, written in the fourth century: “Immersion denotes
dying with him (Christ); emersion a resurrection with Christ.” Stuart, p. 148.
8. Cyril, Bishop of Jerusalem, A.D. 350: “Thou, going down into the water, and
in a manner buried in the waters, as he in the rock, art raised again, walking
in newness of life.” Conant, Ex. 176. “Ye professed the saving profession and
sunk down thrice into the water, and again came up, and thereby a symbol
shadowing forth the burial of Christ.” Conant, Ex. 178. 9. BASIL THE GREAT,
Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, A.D. 370: “By three immersions we represent
the death of Christ—the bodies of those that are baptized are buried in water.”
Conant, Ex. 181. 10. FOURTH COUNCIL OF TOLEDO, Song of Solomon 5 : The immersion
in water is, as it were, the descent into the grave, and the emersion from the
water the resurrection.” Adkins, p. 128. 11. PHOTIUS: “The three immersions and
emersions of baptism signify death and the resurrection.” Stuart, p. 148. 12.
GELASIUS: “The three immersions and emersions of baptism signify death and the
resurrection.” Adkins, p. 129. 13. GREGORY: “The three immersions and emersions
of baptism signify death and the resurrection.” Ut supra. 14. PELAGIUS: “The
three immersions and emersions of baptism signify death and the resurrection.”
Ut supra. 15. ARCHBISHOP CRANMER: The dipping into water cloth betoken that the
old Adam, with all his sin and evil lusts, ought to be drowned and killed by
daily contrition and repentance.” Westlake, ch. 3. 16. SCUDDER: “Baptism cloth
lively represent the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, together with
your crucifying the affections and lusts: being dead and buried with him unto
sin, and rising with him to newness of life and to hope of glory.” Westlake, ch.
3. 17. PICTETUS: “That immersion into and emersion out of the water, as
practiced by the ancients, signify the death of the old and the resurrection of
the new.” Ut supra. 18. NICHOLSON, Bishop of Gloucester, Expos. of Ch.
Catechism: “The ancient manner of baptizing and putting the person baptized
under the water and then taking him out again, did well set forth these two
acts: the first his dying, the second his rising again. In our baptism, by a
kind of analogy or resemblance, while our bodies are under the water we may be
said to be buried with him.” Ut supra. 19. DR. MANTON, Chaplain to the King of
England: “The putting the baptized person into the water denoteth and
proclaimeth the burial of Christ, and we, by submitting to it, are dead are
buried; so that it signifieth Christ’s death for sin and our death unto sin.” Ut
supra. 20. AUGUSTINE: “That thrice repeated submersion expresses a resemblance
of the Lord’s burial.” Ut supra. 21. BENGELLIUS, Professor of Theology at
Denkendorf, Germany, in 1713: “He that is baptized puts on Christ, the second
Adam; he is baptized, I say, into a whole Christ, and therefore into his death;
and it is like as if that very moment Christ suffered, died, and was buried for
such a man, and such a man suffered, died, and was buried with Christ.”
Westlake, ch. 3. 22. DR. GOODWIN, member of the Westminster assembly: “There is
a further representation therein of Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection, in
the baptized’s being first buried under water and then rising out of it.
Therefore, it is said we are buried with him in baptism.” Ut supra. 23.
DODDRIDGE’S Family Expositor on Romans 6:4 : “Buried with him in baptism. It
seems to me the part of candor to confess that here is an illusion to the manner
of baptizing by immersion.” 24. WHITBY’S Commentary on the New Testament—Note on
Romans 6:4 : “It being so expressly declared here (Romans 6:4, and Colossians
2:12) that we are buried with Christ in baptism by being buried under water, and
the argument to oblige us to a conformity to his death being taken hence, and
this immersion being religiously observed by all Christians for thirteen
centuries, and approved by our church, and the change of it into sprinkling,
even without any allowance from the Author of this institution, or any license
from any council of the church, being that which the Romanist still urges to
justify his refusal of the cup to the laity, it were to be wished that this
custom might be of general use, and aspersion only permitted, as of old, in
cases of the clinic or present danger of death.” Pengilly, p. 47. 25. WELLS’
Illus. Bible on Romans 6:4 : “St. Paul here alludes to immersion or dipping the
whole body under water in baptism.” Pengilly, 46. 26. ADAM CLARKE, Com. on
Romans 6:4 : “When he [the person to be baptized] came up out of the water, he
seemed to have a resurrection to life. He was, therefore, supposed to throw off
his old Gentile state, as he threw off his clothes, and to assume a new
character, as the baptized generally put on new or fresh garments.” 27. JOHN
EDWARDS: “The immersion into the water was thought to signify the death of
Christ, and their coming out his rising again, and did no less represent their
own resurrection.” Pengilly, p. 49. 29. EDINBURGH REVIEWERS: “We have rarely
met, for example, a more weak and fanciful piece of reasoning than that by which
Mr. Ewing would persuade us that there is no allusion to the mode by immersion
in the expression ’buried with him in baptism.’ This point ought to be frankly
admitted and indeed can not be denied with any show of reason.;” lb., p. 47. 30.
BLOOMFIELD’S GREEK TESTAMENT, note on Romans 6:4 : “By which the rite of
immersion in the baptismal water and egress from it were used as a symbol of
breaking off all connection with the present sinful life and giving one’s self
to a new and pure one. We have been thus buried in the waters of baptism. There
is a plain allusion to the ancient custom of baptism by im­mersion, on which
(says Bloomfield) see 31 SUICER’S Eccl. in V. cited in confession. 32. BINGHAM’s
Antiquities of the Chr. Ch.: “Immersion uni­versally prevailed, since all the
ancients thought that burying under water did more lively represent the death,
burial, and res­urrection of Christ.” Bloomfield also cites to the same effect
Bishops Sherlock and Warburton. 33. SAURIN’S SERMONS, vol. iii, p. 17: 6: “Paul
says we are bur­ied with Christ by baptism into death; that is, the ceremony of
wholly immersing us in water when we were baptized signified that we died to
sin, and that of rising again from our immersion signified that we would no more
return to those disorderly prac­tices in which we lived before our conversion to
Christianity.” Benedict’s History, p. 179. 34. ARCHBISHOP LEIGHTON: We are
buried with him, the dipping into the waters representing our dying with Christ,
and the return thence our rising with him.” Works, p. 277. 35. MATHIES’
Biblical, Historical, and Dogmatical Exposition of Baptism, which obtained a
prize in the University of Berlin, says: “Paul, as we have seen (Romans 6:4),
has in his mind only the rite of immersing and emerging; and in the apostolic
church, in order that a communion with the death of Christ may be sig­nified the
whole body of the person to be baptized was im­mersed in the water or river, and
then, in order that a connection with the resurrection of Christ might be
indicated, the body again emerged or raised out of the ureter. That this rite
has been changed is indeed a calamity, for it is placed before the eyes most
aptly the symbolical meaning of baptism.” Dr. I. Chase, on Bap., pp. 50, 51. 36.
ROSENMULLER, Professor of Theology at Leipsic, says: “Immersion in the water of
baptism and coming forth out of it was a symbol of a person’s renouncing his
former life, and, on the contrary, of beginning a new one. The learned have
rightly reminded us, that, on account of this emblematical meaning of baptism,
the rite of immersion ought to have been retained in the Christian church.” 1.
Chase on Bap., p. 49. 37. JASPIS, in his Latin version of the Epistles, says:
“Paul in this place (Romans 6:4) alludes to the custom then usual of im­mersing
the whole body, which immersion resembled the laying of a man in a sepulcher.”
Ut supra, p. 49. 38. TURRETIN: “For as in baptism, when performed in the
primitive manner, by immersion and emersion, descending into the water and again
going out of it, of which descent and ascent we have an example in the eunuch,
in Acts 8:38-39. Yea, and what is more, as by this rite, when persons are
immersed in water they are overwhelmed, and as it were buried, and in a manner
hurled together with Christ; and again they emerge, seems to be raised out of a
grave, and are said to be risen again with Christ.” Frey on Baptism, p. 186. 39.
THEOPHYLACT, a Greek commentator on Colossians 2:12 : “Bap­tism typifies by
immersion the death, by emersion the resurrec­tion of Christ.” Adkins, p. 128.
40. LEO, bishop of Rome, Decret. 9: “Trine immersion repre­sents the three days’
burial of Christ.” Ut supra. 41. THEOBUCK, on Romans 6:4 : “In order to
understand the fig­urative use of baptism we must bear in mind the well-known
fact that the candidate in the primitive church was immersed in water and raised
out of it again.” Ut supra, p. 130. 42. WINER, in his Manuscript Letters on
Christian Antiqui­ties, says: “In the apostolic age baptism was immersion, as
its symbolical explanation shows.” Ut supra. 43. PROF. LANG. on Infant Baptism,
1834: “As Christ died, so we die (to sin) with him in baptism. The body is as it
were buried under water, is dead with Christ; the plunging under water
represents death, and rising out of it the resurrection to a new life. A more
striking symbol could not be chosen.” Ut supra. 44. DR. JORTIN’S Sermons. Of the
baptized he says: “He that descended into the water and stooped or laid down in
it—this represents death and the grave. His ascending out of the water under
which he had been hidden represents the resurrection of Christ for our
justification, and the new life and second birth of the baptized person, who was
thenceforward to live to God and to do good works.” Frey on Bap., pp. 128,129.
45. SUPERVILLE, Pastor of the French Protestant Church at Rotterdam, says: “You
know that in ancient times baptism was administered by immersion, so that the
person who was bap­tized, being entirely plunged into the ureter, appeared for a
mo­ment as one dead and buried; after which, emerging from the water, he seemed
as one rising from the dead. Hence the lan­guage of the apostle in Romans 6:4,
Colossians 2:12,” Ut supra. 48. BURMANNUS, Synop. Theol.: “Immersion was used by
the Jews, the apostles, and the primitive church, especially in warm countries.
To this, various forms of speaking used by the apos­tles refer: Romans 6:4,
Colossians 2:12, etc.” Frey, p. 132. 46. PETER MARTYR: As Christ by baptism hath
drawn us into his death and burial, so he hath drawn us out into life. This
cloth the dipping into the waters and the issuing forth again sig­nify when we
are baptized.” Westlake, ch. iii. 47. ALBERT BARNES: It is altogether probable
that the apos­tle in this place had allusion to the custom of baptizing by
im­mersion.” Note on Romans 6:4. 48. ESTIUS: “Immersion, in a more expressive
manner, repre­sents the death, burial, and resurrection of our Lord and of us.”
Frey, p. 150. 49. BRAUNUS, in his Doctrina Federum: “By baptism we are plunged
under water, and, as it were, buried; but we do not con­tinue in a state of
death, for we immediately rise again from thence, to signify that we, through
the merits of Christ, and with Christ, mortify the old man, are buried with
Christ, and with him arise to newness of life.” Haynes’ Bap. Cyclopedia, p. 78.
50. DR. BOYS’ Works: “The dipping, in holy baptism, has three parts: the putting
into the water, the continuance in the water, and the coming out of the water.
The putting into the water cloth ratify the mortification of sin by the power of
Christ’s death, as Paul in Romans 6:4.” Ut supra, p. 99. 51. RHEINHARD’S Ethics:
“In sprinkling, the symbolical mean­ing of the ordinance is wholly lost.”
Hinton’s History, Bap., p. 52. 52. BISHOP BURNETT’S Expos. of the Thirty-nine
Articles, pp. 374, 375: “They (the primitive ministers of the gospel) led them
into the water, and with no other garments but what might cover nature. They
first laid them down in the water, as a man is buried in a grave, and then they
said the words ’I baptize thee in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.’
Then they raised them up again, and clean garments were put on them, from whence
came the phrases of being baptized into Christ’s death, of our being buried with
him by baptism into death, being baptized into Christ’s death, of our being
risen with Christ, and of our putting on Christ, putting off the old man and
putting on the new man.” 53. CARDINAL CAJETAN: We are buried with him by
bap­tism into death.’ By our burying he declares our death from the ceremony of
baptism: because he who is baptized is put under the water, and by this bears a
likeness of him that was buried, who is put under the earth. Now, because none
are buried by dead men, from this very thing we are buried in baptism, we are
assimilated to Christ when he was buried. Christ ascended out of the water,
therefore he was baptized by John, not by sprinkling or pouring water upon him,
but by immersion.” Booth’s Ped. Ex. 54. DR. CAVE’S Primitive Christianity: “As
in immersion there are, in a manner, three several acts, the putting a person
into the water, his abiding there for a little time, and rising again; so by
these were represented Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection, and in
conformity “hereunto our dying unto sin, the destruction of its power, and our
resurrection to a new course of life. By the persons being put into water was
lively represented the put­ting off the body of the sins of the flesh, and being
washed from the filth and pollution of them,” etc. Booth’s Ped. Ex. 55. BISHOP
DAVENANT, of Salisbury, Eng., 1641, Exposition of Colossians 2:12 : “In baptism,
the burial of the body of sin, or of the old Adam, is represented when the
person to be baptized is put down into the water, as a resurrection when he is
brought out of it.” Haynes’ Bap. Cyclopedia, p. 186. 60. JOHN FELT, Bishop of
Oxford, in his Paraphrase and An­notations on St. Paul’s Epistles, Romans 6:4 :
“The primitive fash­ion of immersion under the water representing our death, and
elevation out of it our resurrection, our regeneration.” let supra, pp. 246,
247. 61. DR. QUENSTEDT (Lutheran): “Immersion is similar to a burial, emersion,
to a resurrection.” Wiberg, p. 83. 62. CH. STARK: “The apostle has reference to
the then pre­vailing custom, according to which the candidate was entirely
immersed in water, and after he had been left under a little while, was again
taken up out of it. Baptism, consequently, does not only contain the image and
power of the death of Christ, but of his burial; so that, as the Lord, by his
burial, has done away with the curse that lay upon him, we also might be
partak­ers of his burial when we were laid down under the water as in a grave
and covered with it.” Wiberg, p. 113. 63. LOCKE: “We did own some kind of a
death by being bur­ied under the water—even so we, being raised from our typical
death and burial in baptism, should lead a new sort of life.” Campbell and Rice,
p. 235. 64. DR. G. C. KNAPP: “The image is here taken from bap­tized persons as
they were immerged (buried) and as they emerged (rose again); so it was
understood by Chrysostom.” Theol., vol. ii, p. 525. 65. MACKNIGHT: “In baptism,
the baptized person is buried under water, as one put to death with Christ on
account of sin, in order that they may be strongly impressed with a sense of the
malignity of sin and excited to hate it as the greatest of evils.” On Epist.,
vol. 1, p. 259. “Christ submitted to be baptized, that is, to be buried under
the water by John, and to be raised out of it again, as an em­blem of his future
death and resurrection. In like manner the baptism of believers is emblematical
of his own death, burial, and resurrection.” On Romans 6:4. 66. JOHN WESLEY:
“Buried with him—alluding to the ancient manner of baptizing by immersion.”
Notes on Rom. vi.: 4; vol. 2: 12. 67. GEORGE WHITFIELD: It is certain that, in
the words of our text, Romans 6:4, there is an allusion to the manner of
baptiz­ing, which was immersion.” Pengilly, p. 47. 68. DR. WALL: “St. Paul does
twice, in an allusive way of speaking, call baptism a burial.” Defense of Hist.
of Infant Bap., 131. 68. ARCHBISHOP TILLOTSON: “Anciently, those who were
bap­tized were immersed and buried in the water, to represent their death to
sin, and then did rise up out of the water, to signify their entrance upon the
new life; and to these customs the apos­tle alludes in Romans 6:4.” Pengilly, p.
46. 69. ARCHBISHOP SEEKER: “Burying, as it were, the person in the water and
raising him out again, without question, was an­ciently the more usual method,
on account of which St. Paul speaks of baptism as representing the death,
burial, and resurrec­tion of Christ, and what is grounded on them—our being dead
and buried to sin, and our rising again to walk in newness of life.” Pengilly,
p. 46. 70. SAMUEL CLARKE: We are buried with Christ by baptism, etc. In the
primitive times the manner of baptizing was by im­mersion, or dipping the whole
body into water. And this man­ner of doing it was a very significant emblem of
the dying and rising again referred to by St. Paul in the above mentioned
simil­itude.” Ibid. 71. BURKITT’S Notes on the New Testament. On Romans 6:4 :
“The apostle alludes, no doubt, to the ancient manner and way of baptizing
persons in those hot countries, which was by immer­sion or putting them under
the water for a time, and raising them up again out of the water, which rite had
also a mystical signification, representing the burial of our old man, sin in
us, and our resurrection to newness of life.” 72. OLSHAUSEN’S Commentary on
Romans 6:4 : “In this passage we are by no means to refer the baptism merely to
their own resolutions, or see in it merely a figure in which the one-half of the
ancient baptismal rite—the submersion merely prefigures the death and burial of
the old man—the second half the emersion, the resurrection of the new man.” 73.
CONYBEARE AND HOWSON s Life and Epist. of St. Paul: “Baptism was immersion, the
convert being plunged beneath the surface of the water to represent his death to
sin, and then raised from this momentary burial to represent his resurrection to
a life of righteousness.” Also on Romans 6:4 : “This passage cannot be
understood unless it is borne in mind that the primitive baptism was by
immersion.” 74. DR. HAMMOND on Rom. vi : 4: It is a thing that every Christian
knows, that the immersion in baptism refers to the death of Christ; the putting
of the person into the water denotes and proclaims the death and burial of
Christ.” Haynes’ Last Reply to Cook and Towne, p. 107. 75. BISHOP HOADLEY: “If
baptism had been then performed as it is now among us, we should never so much
as heard of this form of expression, of dying and rising again in this rite.”
Ibid. 76. DR. STORR AND FLATT’S Biblical Theol., Andover, 1826: “The disciples
of our Lord could understand his command in no other manner than as enjoining
immersion; and that they ac­tually did understand it so is proved partly by
those passages of Scripture which evidently allude to immersion: Acts 8:36,
Romans 6:4.” Ut supra. 77. MARTIN LUTHER: “Baptism is a sign of both death and
res­urrection. Being moved by this reason, I would have those who are to be
baptized to be altogether dipped into the water, as the word cloth express and
the mystery cloth signify.” Ut supra, pp. 109, 110. 78. DR. R. NEWTON, on Romans
6:4 : “Baptism was usually per­formed by immersion or dipping the whole body
under the water, to represent the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ
together.” Slack’s Reasons for Becoming a Bap., p. 56. 79. RICHARD BAXTER: It is
commonly confessed by us of the Anabaptists, as our commentators declare, that
in the apostles’ times the baptized were dipped over-head in the water, and that
this signified their profession both of the believing the burial and
resurrection of Christ, and of their own present renouncing of the world and
flesh, or of dying to sin and living to Christ, or rising again to newness of
life, or being buried and risen again with Christ, as the apostle expoundeth in
the fore cited texts.” Westlake, ch. v. 80. BISHOP SMITH: “Buried in baptism—all
continue to ren­der the fact as early ascertained far more reconcilable with
Scripture than any contrary theory can be. If any one practice of the early
churches is clearly ascertained, it is immersion.” Bliss’ Letters, p. 24. 81.
WESTMINSTER ASSEMBLY OF DIVINES, Annotations on Romans 6:4 : “’Buried with him
in baptism.’ In this phrase the apostle seemeth to allude to the ancient manner
of baptism, which was to dip the parties baptized, and as it were bury them
under water.” Judson, p. 24. 82. WILLIAM TYNDALE: “The plunging into the water
signi­fieth that we die and are buried with Christ, as concerning the old life
of sin, which is in Adam; and the pulling out again signifieth that we rise
again with Christ in a new life.” Westlake, p. 5. 83. DR. CHALMERS on Romans 6:4
: “In the act of descending under the water of baptism, to have resigned an old
life, and in the act of ascending, to emerge into a second or new life—along the
course of which it is our part to maintain a strenuous avoid­ance of sin.” 84.
GROTIUS: “Buried with him by baptism. Not only the word baptism, but the very
form of it, intimates this. For an im­mersion of the whole body in water so that
it is no longer be­held, bears an image of that burial which is given to the
dead. So Colossians 2:12. There was in baptism, as administered in former times,
an image both of a burial and of a resurrection, which in respect of Christ was
external, in regard to Christians internal.” Rom. vi : 4. Booth on Pedobaptism,
abridged by Bryant, p. 52. 85. CHURCH OF ENGLAND: As we be buried with Christ by
our baptism into death, so let us daily die to sin, mortifying and killing the
evil motions thereof. And as Christ was raised up from death by the glory of the
Father, so let us rise to a new life and walk continually therein.” Homily of
the Resurrection, Booth. pp. 52, 53. 86. WOLFIUS: “Immersion into water, in
former times, and a short continuance under the water, practiced by the ancient
church, afford the representation of a burial in baptism.” Curae, adRomans 6:4.
87. BISHOP PEARCE: “It seems to have been a metaphor taken from the custom of
those days in baptizing, for the person bap­tized went down under the water and
was ( as it were) buried under it. Hence St. Paul says, in Romans 6:4, and
Colossians 2:12, that they were buried with Christ by baptism.” Ibid, p. 68. 88,
89. BISHOP SHERLOCK and BISHOP WARBURTON are cited to the same effect in
Bloomfield on Romans 6:4 : and still others might be given, but surely the
reader is ready to say with us, these are enough. This list is mostly made up of
those who practiced sprinkling and pouring, and surely were not influenced by
any disposition to favor immersion, but when speaking as scholars and critics
were compelled to testify to the truth, whether for or against their practice.
The reader will please ob­serve that some of them lived early in the second
century; and we have taken some from every period in the history of the church
from then until now, thus showing that, almost with one voice, the learned of
all ages and countries testify that this pas­sage refers to the ancient custom
of baptizing by immersion. Surely, nothing but a cause reduced to desperation
would de­mand of its advocates a departure from a meaning so plainly taught by
all these authorities floating (as it were) upon the very surface of this
passage.

BAPTISM A WASHING

“Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our
hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience and our bod­ies washed with pure
water.” Hebrews 10:22. That the apostle here alludes to baptism is very
generally ad­mitted. He had been reasoning on the subject of the Jewish
priesthood and the process of consecration connected with it, a partial account
of which we have as follows: “Thus shalt Aaron come into the holy place: with a
young bullock for a sin-offering, and a ram for a burnt-offering. He shall put
on the holy linen coat, and he shall have the linen breeches upon his flesh, and
shall be girded with a linen girdle, and with the linen mitre shall he be
attired: these are holy garments; therefore shall he wash his flesh, and so put
them on.” Leviticus 16:3-4. Under the Christian dispensation every Christian is
regarded as a priest. Speaking of his brethren, Peter said: ’Ye also, as lively
stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up
spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.” 1 Peter 2:5. Again,
verse 9, he says: “Ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood.” As
Christians are priests, we can see a pe­culiar fitness in Paul’s allusion to the
washing of a Jewish priest in the ceremony of his consecration, illustrative of
the washing of a Christian in the ceremony of his consecration. That it did not
consist in the application of a small quantity of water to the face may be seen
in the fact that the same general term flesh is used to indicate the extent of
the washing, that is used to indi­cate the parts on which the priestly garments
were worn. That the Jews understood the phrase wash the flesh in the sense of
bathing the whole body may be seen in the washing of Naaman. “Elisha sent a
messenger unto him, saying, Go wash in Jordan seven times, and thy flesh shall
come again to thee, and thou shalt be clean…Then went he down, and dipped
himself seven times in Jordan, according to the saying of the man of God; and
his flesh came again like unto the flesh of a little child, and he was clean.” 2
Kings 5:10-14. Here we see that Naaman was commanded to WASH himself seven times
in Jordan; and, guided by those who are presumed to have understood what was
meant, he DIPPED himself. That he correctly obeyed the command is evident from
the fact that he dipped himself according to the saying of the man of God, and
God recognized his act by curing him of his leprosy. This case throws a flood of
light upon all the Jewish washings, and clearly shows what they did when they
washed themselves, or any thing else, in accordance with their law. The word
dipped, which expresses the act performed by Naaman, is from the He­brew word
taval, which the seventy Jews who translated the He­brew Scriptures into Greek
rendered baptidzo, the very word which the Lord subsequently employed to
indicate baptism. Then, as King James’ translators gave us dip as the English
equivalent of taval, and the Jewish translators gave us baptidzo as its Greek
representative, it follows that, in the judgment of the seventy scholars who
made the Septuagint, and the forty-seven who made the common version, baptidzo
in Greek and dip in English are synonymous. And since things which are equal to
the same thing are equal to each other, it follows that baptidzo in Greek and
dip in English, being equal to taval in Hebrew, are equal to each other, hence
dip is demonstrably the proper trans­lation of baptidzo. In confirmation of our
POSITION on Hebrews 10:22, we quote Bloomfield as follows: “This is not an
admonition to corporeal purity, but the expression turns wholly on a comparison
with the legal rite of washing for purification; and there is an allusion to
baptism, as also in the foregoing expression we have a parallel with a Jewish
rite. The Jews (to use the words of Prof. Stuart) were sprinkled with blood in
order that they might be purified, so as to have access to God—Christians are
internally sprinkled; i.e., purified by the blood of Jesus. The Jews were washed
with water in order to be ceremonially purified, so as to come before
God—Christians have been washed by the purifying water of baptism.” The reader
will observe that in this quotation we have not only the authority of Dr.
Bloomfield, but also that of Prof. Stuart, approvingly quoted by him. But Paul
speaks of the body as washed in pure water. We are a little curious to know how
it is that a drop of water applied to the head can be regarded as a washing of
the body. The Greek word lelumenoi here used indicates a washing of the whole
body, while nipsosthai is used to indicate a partial wash­ing, as the hands or
feet. ( See Macknight on this verse. ) It oc­curs to us that had the Lord
intended a topical application of water in baptism He would have designated the
part to which it should be applied. Surely, this was not a matter unworthy of
note, for in matters perhaps less significant the parts involved are
spe­cifically named. When God instituted circumcision in the family of Abraham.
He specifically named the part to be excised. When a man was slain by unknown
hands among the Jews, the elders of the city next to him were to “wash their
hands aver the heifer that is beheaded in the valley.” Deut. xxi : 6. When Jesus
washed the disciples’ feet, the parts washed are specifically men­tioned. John
13:5. When Aaron and his sons were going to enter the tabernacle, they had to
wash their hands and their feet.Exodus 40:31. In the consecration of a Jewish
priest, there were applications to be made to the head, the tip of the right
ear, the thumb of the right hand, and the great toe of the right foot, and each
part is specifically designated. Then, if it were important to thus designate
specifically and plainly each part to which an application was to be made in the
examples given, it was not less important that the part to be wet in the act of
baptism should have been designated with at least equal precision. Why should
not Paul have mentioned this part, in place of the body, which he said was
washed in pure water? We respectfully suggest that there is quite as much
Scriptural authority for baptizing the hand or foot as there is for baptizing
the head, and we may justly demand by what law of Christ or by what example of
the apostles is any one authorized to apply water to the face or the head rather
than to the hands, the feet, or any other part of the body?

BAPTISM OF THE EUNUCH.

“And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water; and the eunuch
said, See, here is water; what cloth hinder me to be baptized? And Philip 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. And he commanded the chariot to
stand still; and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch;
and he baptized him. And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of
the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more; and he went on his
way rejoicing.” Acts 8:36-39. We call the reader’s attention to the progressive
steps in the foregoing narrative and to the force of the several prepositions
used. First, while on their journey, they came unto a certain water. This brings
them to or at the water. Secondly, they went down into the water where the
baptism took place. Thirdly, they come up out of the water. All this is
perfectly ra­tional if immersion was the act performed, but worse than use­less
if sprinkling or pouring was what was done. If the phrase come unto a certain
water brought them to or at it, it follows that, if the phrase they went down
into the water moved them at all, it must have carried them beyond its margin,
hence a prepo­sition indicating motion, into, was used to indicate the thought.
We have into from the Greek word eis, which primarily means motion toward or
into, and is; therefore, correctly rendered in the passage before us. Out of is
from ek, the primary meaning of which is, not from, but out of, just as here
rendered; and when construed with water, as it is here, it must mean literally
out of the water; hence eis must have taken them just as far into the water as
ek brought them out of it. If this language does not show that they really and
literally went down into and came up out of the water, then we submit that it is
beyond the power of language to express or embody the thought. No more
appro­priate language could have been used. We have already seen that the rules
of translation require the primary meanings of words to be retained unless good
reasons be shown for their removal. Therefore, if we substitute the sec­ondary
meanings of eis and ek in the passage under considera­tion for into and out of,
their primary meanings, there must be a better reason shown for it than the
salvation of a favorite theory or the support of an unscriptural practice. But
as it is said that eis in this passage should be rendered at or near to, it may
be well to examine a few passages where the word occurs. “It is better for thee
to enter (eis) into life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or two
feet to be cast (eis) into everlasting fire.” “And if shine eye offend thee,
pluck it out, and cast it from thee: it is better for thee to enter (eis) into
life with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast (eis) into hellfire.”
Matthew 18:8-9. Here are four examples of eis in this quotation, which might be
as correctly rendered at as in Acts 8:38 : thus, enter at life—cast at
everlasting fire, etc. Again: “Depart from me, ye cursed (eis) into everlast­ing
fire, prepared for the devil and his angels.” Matt. ....’’. It would rejoice the
hearts of many if eis in this place could be ren­dered at or near by. Verse 46:
“And these shall go away (eis) into everlasting punishment: but the righteous
(eis) into life eternal.” Matthew 25:46. While the translation of eis by at in
the verse might bring joy to the wicked, it would destroy the hopes and
happiness of the righteous. Numerous examples might be given, but these are
deemed sufficient to show the absurdity of translating eis otherwise than by
into, its primary meaning, in passages similar to the one under consideration.
But Prof. Stuart says “that if the phrase ’they both went down into the water’
is meant to designate the action of plung­ing or being immersed into the water,
as a part of the rite of baptism, then was Philip baptized as well as the
eunuch; for the sacred writer says that BOTH went into the water. Here, then,
must have been a rebaptizing of Philip, and, what is at least sin­gular, he must
have baptized himself as well as the eunuch.” Stuart on Bap., p. 97. Here is a
false issue made over a most ridiculous quibble by a truly great man; and we may
well ask whether truth ever de­mands of its advocates a resort to such support?
We insist that the very fact of such transcendent ability as Prof. Stuart
pos­sessed being reduced to such straits is evidence that he had a hard cause to
defend. He knew well that the act of baptism was not expressed by the phrase
“they both went down into the water,” but was expressed by the phrase “he
baptized him.” All that is claimed for the language they both went down into the
water, where the baptizing was done, and afterward came up out of the water is
that it expresses acts wholly incompatible with the notion that baptism was
sprinkling or pouring, but per­fectly harmonious with the idea that Philip
immersed the eunuch. Why was it necessary that Philip and the eunuch should have
gone down into the water, or to have even got out of the chariot at all? When he
commanded the chariot to stand still, why did he not order the driver to bring a
pitcher, bowl, or cup of water with which to baptize the nobleman? Surely, any
one traveling in such style, and so far as was this nobleman, might well be
presumed to have such vessels. Nor will it do to presume them unworthy of
mention had they been employed in connection with the sacred rite, for when
Jesus washed the disciples’ feet the basin that contained the water, and the
towel wherewith he was girded were both thought worthy of their not­ice and are
therefore recorded. Was the use of such implements of any more importance
connected with the washing of feet, than a bowl, pitcher, or cup would have been
in connection with baptism, had any such thing been employed? Is it not a little
remarkable that we have no account of Peter, James, John, or Philip’s taking a
little water from any such vessel for the purpose of baptizing any one, since
for the want of any such facility they were compelled sometimes to leave the
house at midnight in order to perform this rite? Not only so, but we find them
going where there was much water—baptizing in a river—going down into and coming
up out of the water, none of which is more worthy of note than would have been a
bowl or pitcher had it been employed. But it is insisted that, as the eunuch was
reading the 53d chapter of Isaiah when Philip approached him, it is likely he
had previously read the 52d chapter, the 15th verse of which says, “So shall he
sprinkle many nations,” and as Philip preached Jesus as the party referred to,
when he came to the water the eunuch concluded that there was a suitable place
for him to be sprin­kled, as one of a nation referred to. We have the word
sprinkle in Isaiah 52 : l5, from the Hebrew word nazah, which Gesenius thus
defines: “To leap, to spring, to exult, to leap for joy; when applied to
liquids, to spirit, to spatter, to be sprinkled.” The reader will please note
the fact that the word nazah only means to be sprinkled in the passive form, and
only then when it refers to liquids; and as in Isaiah it refers to nations and
not liquids, this meaning will not apply. Hence, we must adopt one of the first
meanings, and these are all expressive of joy or rejoicing. A distinguished
scholar renders this verse: “So shall many na­tions exult on account of him.”
Bail. Man’l, p. 271. Perhaps the thought would be correctly expressed thus:
“Many nations shall rejoice at his coming.” Dr. BARNES, the celebrated
Presbyterian commentator, says: “It may be remarked that whichever of the above
senses is assigned, it furnishes no argument for the practice of sprinkling in
baptism. It refers to the fact of his purify­ing or cleansing the nations, and
not to the ordinance of Chris­tian baptism; nor should it be used as an argument
in reference to the mode in which that should be administered.” Com. on Isa.
lii. 15.

BAPTISM OF THE JAILER.

“And when they had laid many stripes upon them, they cast them into prison,
charging the jailor to keep them safely. Who, having received such a charge,
thrust them into the inner prison, and made their feet fast in the stocks. And
at midnight Paul and Silas prayed, and sang praises unto God: and the prisoners
heard them. And suddenly there was a great earthquake, so that the foundations
of the prison were shaken; and immediately all the doors were opened, and every
one’s bands were loosed. And the keeper of the prison awaking out of his sleep,
and seeing the prison doors open, he drew out his sword, and would have killed
himself, supposing that the prisoners had been fled. But Paul cried with a loud
voice, saying, Do thyself no harm; for we are all here. Then he called for a
light, and sprang in, and came trembling, and fell down before Paul and Silas;
and brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And they said,
Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house. And
they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house. And
he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was
baptized, he and all his, straightway. And when he had brought them into his
house, he set meat before them, and rejoiced, be­lieving in God with all his
house.” Acts 16:23-34. It is insisted by those who oppose immersion that the
jailer was baptized in the house at or after midnight, and hence was baptized by
sprinkling or pouring. We frankly admit that, should we find, on examination, he
was baptized in the house, it would raise a presumption in favor of their
hypothesis, but, still, it would not be conclusive, for persons are often now
and might then have been immersed in the house. On the other hand, should we
find that he left the house, at the time indicated, in order to be baptized, it
must raise a strong presumption in favor of immersion. Let us, then, very
carefully examine as to how this was. “Who, having received such a charge,
thrust them into the inner prison, and made their feet fast in the stocks.” Here
we find that Paul and Silas were lodged in the inner prison. Let us watch them
closely, and see how and when they leave and whither they go. “Then he [the
jailer] called for a light, and sprang in, and came trembling and fell down
before Paul and Silas, and brought them out.” Out where? “And they spake unto
him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house.” Here we learn that
the jailer had brought them from the inner prison into his house where the
preaching was done. “And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed
their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway.” Remember that the
preaching took place in the house, then the jailer took them to a place where
there was water enough to wash their stripes and to baptize him and all his. Was
this in the house? Surely not. For in the next verse we are informed that “when
he had brought them into his house, he set meat be­fore them.” How could it be
said that they were brought into the house after baptism if they had not left
the house to be bap­tized? Seeing, then, that they were not baptized in the
house, but left it in the night to be baptized, we claim the benefit of a strong
presumption in favor of immersion—for surely no one would now think of leaving
the house, at such an hour of the night, to sprinkle or pour a few drops of
water on any one in lieu of baptism. But we are told that, in the morning Paul
and Silas refused to leave the prison, and it is unlikely they would have left
it the night before as it would have been dissembling in them to do so. We beg
the objector to remember that it was one thing to leave the prison in company
with their keeper in the discharge of sa­cred duty and return in ample time to
be ready to meet the charges which had been preferred against them, and quite
an­other thing to leave the prison and the city privately, without a trial or an
honorable acquittal, thus furnishing their enemies with a pretext for saying
they had fled from justice. They had given abundant evidence of the fact that
they did not wish to escape, by not leaving the prison when the doors were
opened and their bands loosed; and as he had saved the jailer from a violent
death at his own hands, it is reasonable to suppose that his confidence in them
was such as allowed no fears of efforts on their part to escape. All things
considered, we are driven to the only probable so­lution of the matter—which is,
that they left the house and went to where there was water in which to be
immersed and were im­mersed. In commenting on a phrase in the writings of Justin
Martyr [They are led out by us to a place where there is water], Prof. Stuart
says: “I am persuaded that this passage, as a whole, most naturally refers to
immersion; for why, on any other ground, should the convert who is to be
initiated go out to the place where there IS water? There could be no need of
this if mere sprinkling, or partial effusion only, was customary in the time of
Justin.” Stuart on Baptism, p. 144. Now, if the fact that going to a place where
there was water to baptize, in the days of Justin, was evidence of immersion,
why is not the same fact evidence that the jailer was immersed, espe­cially when
we remember that he went at or after midnight? If Prof. Stuart’s conclusion was
a reasonable deduction from the language of Justin ( and we think it certainly
was), why does he not come to a like conclusion as to the baptism of the jailer?
Yea, why should we not come to a like conclusion in a case sur­rounded by
similar circumstances? That he did leave the house to be baptized is as certain
as the language of Holy Writ can make any thing, yet Prof. Stuart gives the
baptism of the jailer as one of three cases where immersion was not the act
performed. As to whether or not he is consistent the reader will judge for
himself. THE BAPTISM OF PAUL.

“Arise and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the
Lord.” Acts 22:16. It would have been wholly unnecessary that Paul should arise
to have water sprinkled or poured on him, but indispensa­ble to his being
immersed, as he could not go to a place suited to immersion without arising,
while water could just as easily have been sprinkled or poured upon him Lying,
sitting, or in any other POSITION, as standing, without the necessity of
arising. Hence, the fact that he was told to arise raises a presumption that he
was immersed; and this presumption is made a certainty by his own declaration
that he was “buried with Christ by baptism.”Romans 6:4.

BAPTISM OF THE ISRAELITES.

“Moreover, brethren, I would not have you ignorant how that all our fathers were
under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; and were all baptized unto
Moses in the cloud and in the sea.” 1 Corinthians 10:1-2. That the baptism of
the Israelites unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea, was in some sense typical
of our baptism into Christ, is very. generally admitted. As we will have
occasion to introduce proof of this when we come to look for the design of
baptism, we will not introduce it here. In what sense are we to understand
baptism in this passage? In a literal or figurative sense? If in a literal
sense, the baptism consisted in specific action, as we have seen that the word
pri­marily and literally indicates specific action. Was there specific action in
this baptism? If so, what was it? The Israelites were not dipped in the cloud
and in the sea, nor were they sprinkled or poured in the cloud and in the sea.
Hence, the specific act of dipping, sprinkling, or pouring was in this baptism.
Therefore, we conclude the baptism was figura­tive, not literal. As figures are
based upon facts, and must re­semble them, we may expect this figurative baptism
in some sense to resemble the literal one. The word baptidzo is some­times used
metonymically; that is, the result reached by the spe­cific action indicated by
the term is put for the act itself. In such cases the result must be such as to
resemble that produced by the specific act. The specific act indicated by
baptidzo being dipping or immersion, the result must always be such as to
resemble that produced by dipping or immersion—namely, over­whelming or burial.
These things premised, we are now pre­pared to read an account of this baptism
recorded in Exodus 14:15-31, the sixteenth verse of which says to Moses: “Lift
thou up thy rod and stretch out shine hand over the sea, and divide it: and the
children of Israel shall go on dry ground through the midst of the sea.” Again,
verses 19-22: “And the angel of God which went before the camp of Israel,
removed and went behind them; and the pillar of the cloud went from before their
face, and stood behind them: And it came between the camp of the Egyptians and
the camp of Israel; and it was a cloud and dark­ness to them, but it gave light
by night to these: so that the one came not near the other all the night. And
Moses stretched out his hand over the sea; and the Lord caused the sea to go
back by a strong east wind all that night, and made the sea dry land, and the
waters were divided. And the children of Israel went into the midst of the sea
upon the dry ground, and the wa­ters were a wall unto them on their right hand
and on their left.” Thus we see what Paul meant when he said they were under the
cloud and passed through the sea. And as he understood bap­tism to be a burial
(Romans 6:4; Colossians 2:12), it is not strange that he should call the passage
of the Israelites through the sea and under the cloud a baptism, for truly they
were buried, the sea being a wall on their right hand and on their left, and the
cloud over and behind them. But we are told that the Israelites were baptized by
spray blown from the sea in their passage. When we remember that the hosts of
Israel numbered six hundred thousand men, besides women and children, and that
they all passed through the sea in a single night, taking every thing possessed
by them, it will be seen that an opening several miles in width must have been
re­quired for their passage; and as a wind could blow spray but in one
direction, and as it would fall much thicker and heavier on the side next its
source, it must have deluged those on one side in order to have reached those of
the other side at all, and yet we are told that all passed on dry ground. But,
worse still, the sacred historian tells us that “the waters were gathered
together, the floods stood upright as an heap, and the depths were con­gealed in
the heart of the sea.” Exodus 15:8. Now, it occurs to us that such a wind as
would have blown congealed water, in spray, upon the Israelites would have blown
them to the prom­ised land before the time, or lifted them over the sea without
passing through it at all. But is said that the Psalmist comes to the aid of the
objector, saying: “The clouds poured out water.” Psalm Ixxvii: 17. But it will
be observed that clouds, in the plural, poured out water, while it was a cloud,
in the singular, which covered the Israelites, and was a cloud of fire and not
of water. But the Psalmist is again quoted: “The earth shook, the heavens also
dropped at the presence of God: even Sinai itself was moved with the presence of
God, the God of Israel. Thou, O God, didst send a plentiful rain, whereby thou
didst confirm shine inheritance.” Psalm Ixviii: 8, 9. Truly, this quotation
speaks of rain, but it was that which fell on the Israelites when at the base of
Sinai, and not when passing through the sea. If we would have David’s
description of their delivery and how they obtained water to drink, we have it
briefly stated in the following words: “He divided the sea, and caused them to
pass through: and he made the waters to stand as an heap: in the day-time also,
he led them with a cloud, and all the night with a light of fire: he crave the
rocks in the wilderness, and gave them drink as out of the great depths; he
brought streams also out of the rock, and caused waters to run down like
rivers.” Ps. Ixxviii: 13-16. Thus we see that David confirms rather than
conflicts with the statement of Paul and Moses. MOSES STUART says: “They went
through the sea on dry ground. Yet they were baptized in the cloud and in the
sea. The reason and ground of such an expression must be, so far as I can
discern, a surrounding of the Israelites on differ­ent sides by the cloud and by
the sea, although neither the cloud nor the sea touched them. It is, therefore,
a kind of figurative mode of expression, derived from the idea that baptizing is
sur­rounding with a fluid. But whether this be by immersion, affus­ion,
suffusion, or washing, would not seem to be decided. The suggestion has
sometimes been made that the Israelites were sprinkled by the cloud and by the
sea, and this was the baptism which Paul meant to designate. But the cloud on
this occasion was not a cloud of rain; nor do we find any intimation that the
waters of the Red Sea sprinkled the children of Israel at this time. So much is
true, viz: that they were not immersed. Yet, as the language must evidently be
figurative in some good de­gree, and not literal, I do not see how, on the
whole, we can make less of it than to suppose that it has a tacit reference to
the idea of surrounding in some way or other.” Stuart on Baptism, p. 113. This
is a candid admission from one writing confessedly in the interest of sprinkling
and pouring. Indeed, it is just the truth. No one ever supposed that the
Israelites were immersed or dipped, but they were surrounded by the cloud and
sea, sug­gestive of Paul’s idea that baptism is a burial.

BAPTISM OF SUFFERING.

“But Jesus answered and said, Ye know not what ye ask. Are ye able to drink of
the cup that I shall drink of, and to be bap­tized with the baptism that I am
baptized with? They say unto him, We are able. And he saith unto them, Ye shall
drink in-. deed of my cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized
with.” Matt. xx : 22, 23. “But Jesus said unto them, Ye know not what ye ask;
can ye drink of the cup that I drink of? and be baptized with the bap­tism that
I am baptized with? And they said unto him, We can. And Jesus said unto them, Ye
shall indeed drink of the cup that I drink of, and with the baptism that I am
baptized with shall ye be baptized.” Mark 10:38-39. “But I have a baptism to be
baptized with: and how am I straitened till it be accomplished!” Luke 12:50.
Upon these passages eminent critics have written as follows: WITSIUS: “Immersion
into water is to be considered as exhi­biting the dreadful abyss of divine
justice, in which Christ for our sins was for a time, as it were, absorbed; as
in David, his type, he complains (Psalms 69:2), ’1 am come into deep waters
where the floods overflow me.’“ Bailey’s Manual, p. 232. DODDRIDGE S FAMILY
EXPOSITOR: “Are ye able to drink the bit­ter cup of which I am about to drink so
deep, and be baptized with the baptism, and plunged into that sea of sufferings
with which I am shortly to be baptized, and, as it were, overwhelmed for a time?
I have indeed a most dreadful baptism to be bap­tized with; and I know that I
shall shortly be bathed, as it were, in blood, and plunged in the most
overwhelming distress.” HERVEY: “He was baptized with the baptism of his
sufferings, hashed in blood, and plunged in death.” Bailey’s Manual, p. 235. SIR
H. TRELAWNEY: “Here, I must acknowledge, our Baptist brethren have the
advantage; for our Redeemer’s sufferings must not be compared to a few drops of
water sprinkled on the face, for he was plunged into distress and environed with
sorrows.” Ibid. BLOOMFIELD’S GREEK TEST: This metaphor of immersion in water, as
expressive of being overwhelmed by affliction, is fre­quent, both in the
Scriptures and in classical writers.” Vol. 1, p. 97. WESLEY’S NOTES, p. 123:
“Our Lord was filled with sufferings within, and covered with them without.”
PROF. STUART: “I have a baptism to be baptized with—that is, I am about to be
overwhelmed with sufferings, and I am greatly distressed with the prospect of
them.” “Can ye indeed take upon you to undergo, patiently and sub­missively,
sufferings like mine—sufferings of an overwhelming and dreadful nature?” Stuart
on Baptism, p. 72. The awful sufferings of Jesus may well be called a baptism,
for truly he was overwhelmed in them. Will the reader follow Him to the garden
of Gethsemane, and see Him, as it were, sweating great drops of blood, and say
that such agony was in anticipation of a little sprinkle of suffering? Shall we
enter the judgment had of Pilate and see him clothed with a mock robe and crown
of thorns, and still say this was a little sprinkle of in­sult and injury? Shall
we stand upon the summit of Calvary and see the rusty nails sent hissing through
His quivering flesh as He is made fast to the cross, and say this is yet only a
sprinkle of suffering? Shall we stand by the cross on which he is suspended for
three long hours, suffering all the horrors of a malefactor’s death, derided by
enemies, forsaken by friends, and for a time even forsaken by His God, and still
say this is all a mere sprinkle of sufferings? Is not such a thought monstrously
impious? Yet it is involved in the idea that sprinkling or pouring is baptism.
We will not dignify it by a further examination in connection with the
sufferings of our blessed Lord.

ARGUMENTS FOR SPRINKLING AND POURING CONSIDERED.

“I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is
mightier than 1, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with
the Holy Ghost and with fire.” Matthew 3:11. This was a prophetic declaration
made by John the Baptist; and before we proceed to look for its fulfill­ment it
may be well for us to remark that the preposition with, which occurs three times
in this passage’ is from the Greek prep­osition en, the primary meaning of which
is in, and should be so rendered here, unless good reasons, which we are not
able to see, be shown for its removal. Thus translated, the passage reads: “I
indeed baptize you in water…he shall baptize you in the Holy Ghost and in fire.”
On the day of Pentecost this re­markable prediction was fulfilled as to the
baptism in the Holy Spirit, an account of which we have as follows: “And when
the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place.
And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it
filled all the house where they were sitting. And there appeared unto them
cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them. And they were all
filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit
gave them utterance.” Acts 2:14. As we have else­where remarked, there was here
an absolute impact of the human spirit and the Holy Spirit. They being filled
with the Spirit, it follows that their spirits were overwhelmed or im­mersed in
the Holy Spirit. But was this a baptism of the Holy Ghost? On a subsequent
occasion Peter said: “As I began to speak [at the house of Cornelius] the Holy
Ghost fell on them as on us at the beginning. Then remembered I the word of the
Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with [in] water; but ye shall be
baptized with [in] the Holy Ghost.” Acts 11:15-16. This shows that the baptism
in the Holy Spirit was fulfilled on the day of Pentecost, and at the house of
Cornelius. But we are told that, as the Spirit was poured out on the day of
Pentecost, that the pouring was the baptism. If this is true, it was the Sp rit
that was poured, and consequently it was the Spirit that was baptized and not
the people. That this is a figurative use of the term baptidzo is very
gen­erally admitted by the learned. In Dr. ROBINSON’S Greek Lexi­con of the New
Testament, p. 126, he says: “Metaphorically, and in direct allusion to the
sacred Ate, baptize en pneumati hagio kai puri—to baptize in the Holy Ghost and
in fire, to overwhelm, richly furnish with all spiritual gifts, or overwhelm
with fire un­quenchable. Matthew 3:11, etc.” CYRIL, Bishop of Jerusalem, A. D.
350, says: “As he who is plunged in the water and baptized in encompassed by the
water on every side, so they that are baptized by the Holy Spirit are also
wholly covered over.” Bailey’s Manual, p. 222. Substantially the same, Stuart on
Bap., p. 148. PROF. STUART on Baptism, p. 74, says: The basis of this usage is
very plainly to be found in the designation by baptidzo of the idea of
overwhelming—i.e., of surrounding on all sides with a fluid.” GURTLERUS:
“Baptism in the Holy Spirit is immersion into the pure waters of the Holy
Spirit, or a rich and abundant communi­cation of his gifts. For he on whom the
Holy Spirit is poured out is, as it were, immersed unto him.” Campbell and Rice
De­bate, p. 222. BISHOP REYNOLDS: “The Spirit, under the gospel, is compared to
water, and that not a little measure, to sprinkle or bedew, but to BAPT1ZE the
faithful in (Matthew 3 : ll; Acts 1:5), and that not in a font or vessel, which
grows less and less, but in a spring or living water.” Ut supra. IKENIUS: “The
Greek word baptismos denotes the immersion of a thing or person into something.
Here, also (Matthew 3:11, compared with Luke 3:16), the baptism of fire, or that
which is performed in fire, must signify, according to the same simplicity of
the letter, an immission or immersion into fire—and this the rather, because
here, to baptize in the Spirit and in fire are not only connected but also
opposed to being baptized in water.” Ibid. LE CLERC: “He shall baptize you in
the Holy Spirit. As I plunge you in water, he shall plunge you, so to speak, in
the Holy Spirit.” Ibid. CASAUBON: “To baptize is to immerse—and in this sense
the apostles are truly said to be baptized; for the house in which this was done
was filled with the Holy Ghost, so that the apostles seemed to be plunged into
it as into a fish-pool.” Ut supra. GROTIUS: “To be baptized here is not be
slightly sprinkled, but to have the Holy Spirit abundantly poured upon them.”
Ibid. MR. LEIGH: “Baptized—that is, drown you all over, dip you into the ocean
of his grace; opposite to the sprinkling which was in the law.” Ut supra. ARCH’P
TILLOTSON “It (the sound from heaven, Acts 2) filled all the house. This is that
which our Saviour calls baptizing with the Holy Ghost. So that they who sat in
the house were, as it were, immersed in the Holy Ghost, as they who were buried
with water were overwhelmed and covered all over with water, which is the proper
notion of baptism.” Ibid. BISHOP HOPKINS: “Those that are baptized with the
Spirit are, as it were, plunged into that heavenly flame whose searching en­ergy
devours all their dross, tin, and base alloy.” Ut supra. MR. H. DODWELL: “The
words of our Saviour were made good, Ye shall be baptized (plunged or covered)
with the Holy Spirit, as John baptized with water without it.” Ibid.
THEOPHYLACT, commenting on the baptism of the Holy Spirit, says: “That is, he
shall inundate you abundantly with the gifts of the Spirit.” Bailey’s Manual, p.
223. These authors all concur in the fact that the word baptidzo, when applied
to the Holy Spirit, indicates an overwhelming in Spirit, drawn from the result
reached by the primary meaning of the word, hence the overwhelming was the
baptism, and not the outpouring. And if the spiritual or inner man was baptized
in the Holy Spirit, as they were all filled with the Holy Spirit, we may well
see why this was called a baptism or overwhelming of the human spirit in the
Holy Spirit.

BAPTISM OF THE ALTAR.

“And he put the wood in order, and cut the bullock in pieces, and laid him on
the wood, and said, Fill four barrels with water, and pour it on the
burnt-sacrifice, and on the wood. And he said, Do it a second time. And they did
it the second time. And he said, Do it the third time. And they did it the third
time. And the water ran round about the altar; and he filled the trench also
with water.” 1 Kings 18:33-35. Origen, one of the most learned of the Greek
fathers, was born A.D. 185, and probably wrote about the middle of the third
century. He incidentally alludes to the baptism of the altar, wood, etc., by
Elijah; and as the water was poured on the altar, the opponents of immersion
insist that the pouring was what Or­igen called the baptism. If so, we again
insist that he made an improper use of the term baptidzo, his great learning to
the con­trary notwithstanding; for, as the water was poured and not the altar or
wood, it follows that the water was baptized upon the altar and the latter not
baptized at all. Certainly, it was the complete saturation or overwhelming of
the altar to which he al­luded as a baptism, for he was, as before stated, one
of the most learned of the Greeks, and as such knew well that baptidzo never
meant to pour. What he understood baptism to be may be learned from his own
words, as follows: “They are rightly baptized who are washed unto salvation. He
that is baptized unto salvation receives the water and the Holy Spirit; such
bap­tism as is accompanied with crucifying the flesh and rising again to newness
of life is the approved baptism.” Orchard’s Hist., vol. 1, p. 35. But if the
pouring constituted the baptism to which Origen re­ferred, there must have been
as many baptisms as there were pourings, hence he could not have spoken of a
baptism, for there were twelve barrels of water used, and each one would have
constituted a pouring, therefore there must have been twelve baptisms. But we
are told that there were no barrels in those days, and that Elijah only used
twelve leathern bottles of water, a quantity wholly insufficient to have
saturated or overwhelmed the altar. Such persons should take heed lest they
deprive the prophet of the benefit of the trial between himself and the prophets
of Baal, for the very object he had in applying the water was to so com­pletely
inundate the altar as to forbid the supposition or possi­bility of fire being
concealed beneath it. We come next to an examination of the bathing of Judith in
or at the fountain in the valley of Bethulia. This case, recorded in the
apochryphal books of the Bible, is no part of the inspired volume, and therefore
has no just claim to our consideration, but as the advocates of sprinkling
always introduce it, as drowning men catch at straws, we will therefore examine
it. “Then Holofernes commanded his guard that they should not stay her: thus she
abode in the camp three days, and went out in the night into the valley of
Bethulia, and washed herself in a fountain of water by the camp.” Jdt 12:7. Some
copies have at the fountain in place of in the fountain. Hence it is insisted
that she sprinkled a little water upon herself as a mere cere­monial cleansing,
but we have quoted the above from Bagster’s large family edition, which is one
of the most authentic copies known. DR. CONANT says: “One of the oldest Greek
manuscripts (No. 58), and the two oldest versions (the Syriac and Latin), read
immersed (baptized) herself in the fountain of water (omitting in the camp).
According to the common Greek text, this was done at the fountain to which she
went, because she had there the means of immersing herself. Any other use of
water for purifi­cation could have been made in her tent.” Baptizien, p. 85.
Surely, this is a rational conclusion. Why should she, like the Philippian
jailer, have left her tent after midnight and gone out into the valley to
sprinkle a few drops of water upon her person? The fact that she did go at such
an hour proves that she went in obedience to the Jewish law that required her to
bathe her whole person. We have another case in the apocryphal writings
suggested in the following words: “He that washeth himself after the touching of
a dead body, if he touch it again, what availeth his washing?” Sir 34:25. We
need not say to the Bible reader that any one who had touched a dead body was
regarded as unclean, and that the law required him to wash his clothes and bathe
himself in water that he might be clean at even. See Numbers 19:19. Let it not
be said that this bathing was a mere sprinkling, for they were re­quired both to
sprinkle and bathe, and both are specifically named in the same verse. Hence,
all that is meant by baptizing from a dead body is that they baptized from the
ceremonial uncleanness contracted by contact with a dead body. A similar form of
expression is found in Hebrews 10:22, where we are said to be sprinkled from an
evil conscience and the body washed in pure water. We next come to examine the
baptism of cups, pots, brazen vessels, and tables, recorded Mark 7:4, as
follows: “And when they come from the market, except they wash, they eat not.
And many other things there be which they have received to hold, as the washing
of cups, and pots, brazen vessels, and of tables.” Although these washings had
nothing to do with the baptism commanded by the Lord, yet, as the word wash is
the translation of baptidzo, they are relied upon as expressive of its meaning.
By reference to the Jewish law it will be seen that the washings here referred
to were more than mere sprinkling. In Leviticus 6:28, it is said: “The brazen
pot shall be scoured and rinsed in water” —not a little water simply sprinkled
upon it, but scoured and rinsed in water. As a brazen pot was one of the
articles men­tioned in Mark, it is fair to conclude that the other articles were
cleansed as it was. But again, the law says: “Upon whatsoever any of them, when
they are dead, cloth fall, it shall be unclean; whether it be any vessel of
wood, or raiment, or skin, or sack, whatsoever ves­sel it be wherein any work is
done, it must be put into water; and it shall be unclean until the even, so it
shall be cleansed.”Leviticus 11:32. This puts the whole matter beyond the reach
of cavil; they were to be put into water, and any thing short of this would have
been an insult to the Giver of the law. Hence, the word baptidzo in Mark 7:4,
should be rendered dip or im­merse, according to its primary import; and
Macknight, in his Harmony of the Gospels, so renders it. THOMAS SHELDON GREEN,
of London, in an improved ver­sion of the Greek Text, has this verse and a
translation of it, by himself, as follows: “And coming from the market-place,
they do not eat unless they dip themselves, and there are many other matters
which they have received to hold, dipping of cups, and jars, and brazen vessels,
and couches,” etc. On this verse BEZA remarks: “Christ commanded us to be
baptized; by which word it is certain immersion is signified; bap­tizesthai in
this place is more than niptein, because that seems to respect the whole body,
this only the hands.” “DR. H. A. W. MEYER, in his Manual on the Gospels of Mark
and Luke, says: ’The expression in Mark 7:4, is not to be understood of the
washing of the hands (as interpreted by Light­foot and Wetstein, but of the
immersing which the word al­ways means in the classics and the New Testament;
that is here, according to the context, the taking of a bath. So Luke 11:38.
Having come from the market, where among a crowd of men, they might have come in
contact with unclean persons, they eat not without having first bathed
themselves. The representation proceeds after the manner of a climax: before
eating they always observe the washing of hands, but (employ) the bath when they
come from the market and wish to take food.’“ Louisville De­bate, p. 563.
“VATABULUS, professor of Hebrew in Paris, says of Mark 7:4 : ’They washed
themselves all over.’ GROTIUS, the great German writer, says: ’They cleansed
themselves more carefully from defilement contracted at the market, to wit: not
only by washing hands, but by immersing their bodies.’“ Braden and Hughey
Debate, p. 45. The Sinaitic and Vatican manuscripts give us beds or couches in
place of tables in the common version. Hence, it is insisted that baptism must
have been a sprinkling, as beds could not have been immersed—basing their
argument, of course, upon the assumption that beds then were such as are now
used. They forget, however, that Jesus commanded persons to take up their beds
and walk. See Matthew 9:6; Mark 2:9-11; John 6:11-12. “CALMET says: ’The word
bed is in many cases calculated to mislead the reader and perplex him. The beds
in the East are very different from those used in this part of the world. They
are often nothing more than a cloth or quilt folded double.’“ Braden and Hughey
Debate, p. 46. Though not always so, it is evident that the beds of those times
were often composed of a light fabric which could be con­veniently spread down
or taken up, folded and carried along at pleasure. MAIMONIDES, a Jewish rabbi,
learned in the ceremonial law and traditions of the elders, says: “Wherever, in
the law, wash­ing of the flesh or clothes is mentioned, it means nothing else
than dipping the whole body in a laver; for if a man dips himself all over
except the tips of his little finger, he is still in his un­cleanness. In a
laver which held forty sacks (one hundred gal­lons) of water, every defiled man
dips himself, except a proflu­nious man, and in it they dip all unclean vessels.
A bed that is wholly defiled, if he dip it part by part, is pure. If he dip the
bed in a pool, although its feet are plunged in the thick clay of the bottom, it
is clean.” Ibid. p. 45. Maimonides was one of the greatest lights in the Jewish
church, and lived about the twelfth century, when the baptismal controversy was
not so rife as now, and surely had no motive to misrepresent the fact. But we
are told that some versions have sprinkle in place of wash, in Mark 7:4. This is
true, but we deny that it is a trans­lation of baptidzo, here or elsewhere.
SCELEUSNER says that some manuscripts have rantizonti in place of baptizonti, in
Mark 7:4; hence any translator having such a manuscript before him must
necessarily have sprinkle in his version. Although we thus account for the
appearance of sprinkle in some versions, we have no idea that rantizonti is the
correct word for the text, because we have seen that the wash­ings referred to
were immersions. One other text, we believe, exhausts the proof of those who
practice sprinkling for baptism, and, like the one just considered, it has no
allusion to baptism whatever. It is found in Luke 11:38, as follows: “And when
the Pharisee saw it, he marveled that he had not first washed before dinner,”
etc. GREEN, of London, translates this verse thus: “And as he spake, a Pharisee
asked him to dine with him, and he went in and lay down. But the Pharisee
wondered that he had not dipped before dinner.” Twofold New Testament, p. 131.
We have already seen that this rendering is in harmony with the Jewish law. When
any one went out where he was liable to come in contact with such things as
would render him unclean, he must bathe his flesh in water as though he were
really un­clean. Hence, this can not be taken as evidence sufficient to jus­tify
the conclusion that the washing referred to was not an im­mersion. We have
abundantly shown that baptidzo means to immerse or dip; hence, wherever it
occurs we are bound to presume that the act indicated was dipping or immersing
as long as there re­mains a possibility that this was the act performed. A mere
pos­sibility that it may have been done otherwise is not sufficient to overturn
the settled meaning of the word.

HISTORY OF BAPTISM.

We have now passed over and examined every scripture re­lied upon to prove
sprinkling or pouring as baptism, and have not found a single passage where the
word baptidzo occurs in the New Testament, where it may not justly be translated
dip or immerse. And it is not a little remarkable that more importance is
attached to the word in places where it has DO reference to bap­tism, as
commanded by the Lord, than in those places where He used it to express the act
He required of His followers, or in places where any inspired apostle employed
it with reference to the act enjoined by Him. Mark 7:4, and Luke 11:38, are
re­garded by them as of more importance than even the commis­sion itself; and
yet these passages have no reference to Christian baptism. No scholar has ever
been found willing to hazard his reputation by pointing out a single place in
the Mew Testament where the word baptidzo refers to the rite in question, and
say­ing that it means sprinkle or pour and should be so rendered in that place,
or who has ever been able to point to a single clear example of sprinkling or
pouring for baptism. We now pass to the history of baptism, and we will begin
with the writings of those who lived contemporaneously with the apostles, and
see if we can learn how the primitive Chris­tians obeyed the command of the Lord
in baptism. HERMAS lived in the days of the apostles and wrote before John wrote
his gospel. See Wall’s History of Infant Baptism, vol. 1, pp. 52-56. He says:
“For before any one receives the name of the Son of God he is liable to death,
but when he re­ceives that seal he is delivered from death and is assigned to
life. Now, that seal is water, into which persons go down liable to death, but
come out of it assigned to life.” Ut supra, p. 51. Here, we see, they went down
into and came up out of the water. BARNABAS was the companion of Paul. He says:
“For these words imply, Blessed are they who, placing their trust in the Cross,
have gone down into the water…This meaneth that we, indeed, descend into the
water full of sins and defile­ment, but come up, bearing fruit in our heart,
having the fear of God and trust in Jesus in our spirit.” Apostolic Fathers, p.
121. JUSTIN MARTYR was a Christian, and put to death for his faith in Jesus
Christ. He was born A.D. 114, and wrote about A.D. 150. He says: “Then we bring
them to some place where there is water, and they are regenerated by the same
way of regenera­tion by which we were regenerated: for they are washed with
water in the name of God, the Father and Lord of all things, and of our Saviour
Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit. For Christ says: Unless ye be regenerated,
ye can not enter into the king­dom of heaven.” Wall’s Hist. Inf. Bap., p. 68.
Why should they have been taken to a place where there was water, to be
“regenerated” ( or, more properly, born again ) ? There is nothing in sprinkling
or pouring resembling a birth or which could have created a necessity for going
to a place where there was water in order to be born again. MOSHEIM, in speaking
of the first century, says: “The sacra­ment of baptism was administered in this
century without the public assemblies, in places appointed and prepared for that
purpose, and was performed by an immersion of the whole body in the baptismal
font.” Maclaine’s Mosheim’s Church Hist., Vol. 1, p. 49. Of the second century
he says: “The persons that were to be baptized, after they had repeated the
Creed, confessed and re­nounced their sins, and particularly the devil and his
pompous al­lurements, were immersed under water, and received into Christ’s
kingdom by a solemn invocation of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, according to the
express command of our blessed Lord.” Ibid., p. 69. This not only shows that the
parties were immersed under water, but that it was done according to the
ex­press command of our blessed Lord.” Of the fourth century the same author
says: “Baptismal fonts were now erected in the porch of each church, for the
more commodious administration of that initiating sacrament.” Ibid., p. 121. We
are not here told expressly how baptism was admin­istered in the fourth century,
but surely it would have been un­necessary to erect fonts in connection with
churches in order to practice sprinkling or pouring. Mosheim is one of the most
reliable ecclesiastical historians we have, and practiced sprinkling and pouring
himself. It is not to be presumed, therefore, that he would misrepresent the
facts of history in favor of immersion. NEANDER, another church historian, says:
“In respect to the form of baptism, it was in conformity with the original
institu­tion and the original import of the symbol, performed by immer­sion, as
a sign of entire baptism into the Holy Sp rit, of being entirely penetrated by
the same. It was only the sick, where the exigency required it, that any
exception was made, and in this case baptism was administered by sprinkling.
Many supersti­tious persons, clinging to the outward form, imagined that such
baptism by sprinkling was not fully valid, and hence they distin­guished those
who had been so baptized by denominating them the clinici.’’ Neander’s Church
History, by Torry, Vol. 1, p. 310. Neander is a voluminous and reliable author,
and as the church of which he was a member practiced sprinkling, it is
reasonable to suppose that he did also, and most likely gave unwilling
testi­mony to the facts of history against his own practice. DR. WALL, the
Pedobaptist historian, says: ’Their general and ordinary way was to baptize by
immersion, or dipping the person, whether it were an infant or grown man or
woman, into the water. This is so plain and clear by an infinite number of
passages, that, as one can not but pity the weak endeavors of such pedobaptists
as would maintain the negative of it, so also we ought to disown and show a
dislike of the profane scoffs which some people give to the English
anti-pedobaptists merely for their use of dipping. It is one thing to maintain
that that circumstance is not absolutely necessary to the essence of bap­tism,
and another to go about to represent it as ridiculous and foolish, or as
shameful and indecent, when it was, in all proba­bility, the way by which our
blessed Saviour, and for certain was the most usual and ordinary way by which
the ancient Chris­tians did receive their baptism. I shall not stay to produce
the particular proofs of this. Many of the quotations which I brought for other
purposes, and shall bring, do evince it. It is a great want of prudence as well
as of honesty to refuse to grant to an adversary what is certainly true and may
be proved so. It creates a jealousy of all the rest that one says. “Before the
Christian religion was so far encouraged as to have churches built for its
service, they baptized in any river, pond, etc. So Tertullian says: ’It is all
one whether one be washed in the sea or in a pond, in a fountain or in a river,
in standing or in running water; nor is there any difference be­tween those that
John baptized in Jordan and those that Peter baptized in the river Tiber.’ But
when they came to have churches, one part of the church, or place nigh the
church, called the baptistery, was employed to this use, and had a cis­tern,
font, or pond large enough for several at once to go into the water; divided
into two parts by a partition, one for the men and the other for the women, for
the ordinary baptisms.” Wall’s Hist. Inf. Bap., Vol. ii, pp. 384, 385. As Wall
here refers to examples previously given as evidence of the correctness of his
conclusions, it may not be amiss to give the reader the benefit of a few of them
recorded in the first vol­ume of his work. On the language of Justin Martyr,
which we have already quoted, he marks as follows: “I bring it because it is the
most ancient account of the way of baptizing, next the Scripture, and shows the
plain and simple manner of administering it. The Christians of these times had
lived, many of them at least in the apostles’ days.” Vol. 1, p. 69. CLEMENT, of
Alexandria, says: “If any one be by trade a fish­erman, he will do well to think
of an apostle and the children taken out of the water.” Again, the same author
says: “If there be engraved in a seal ring the picture of a fisherman [or
rather, as Clement’s own words are, if a fisherman will have an engrav­ing on
his seal], let him think of St. Peter, whom Christ made a fisher of men; and of
the children, which, when baptized, are drawn out of a laver of water as out of
a fish-pool.” Ibid., p. 86. These quotations from Clement show that after the
introduction of infant baptism, even they were immersed, being drawn out of a
laver of water as out of a fish-pool. There was rather a novel question mooted
before the Council of Neocaesarea, in the year 314 A.D., with regard to which
Dr. Wall remarks as follows: “So much is plain, that some about that time and
place had put this question: Whether a woman with child, that had a mind to
become a Christian and be baptized, might conveniently receive baptism during
her going with child, or must stay till she was delivered? And it is agreed
likewise that the reason of the doubt was, because when she was im­mersed into
the water, the child in her womb did seem to some to be baptized with her, and
consequently they were apt to argue that that child must not be baptized, or
would not need to be baptized, afterward for itself. This any one will conclude
from the words of the council, which are these.” (Here follow the words of the
council. ) Ibid, Vol. 1, p. 151. It strikes us that such a question would never
have arisen with reference to the offspring of a mother who had had only a few
drops of water sprinkled upon her head. Other examples might be cited, but these
are sufficient to justify Wall in the conclusion to which he came. PROF. STUART
says: “Tertullian, who died in A.D. 220, is the most ample witness of all the
early writers. In his works is an essay in defense of Christian baptism, which
had been assailed by some of the heretics of his time. Passing by the multitude
of expressions which speak of the importance of being cleansed by water, being
born in the water, etc., I quote only such as are di­rectly to the point.” He
then proceeds to quote Tertullian as follows: “In aquam de missus, let down into
the water—i.e., im­mersed—and inter pauca verba tinctus—i.e., dipped between the
utterance of a few words. …There is, then, no difference whether any one is
washed in a pool, river, fountain, lake, or channel, alveus (canal), nor is
there any difference of conse­quence between those whom John immersed (tinxit)
in the Jor­dan or Peter in the Tiber….Not that we obtain the Holy Spirit in
aquis [i.e., in the baptismal water], but being cleansed in the water we are
prepared for the Holy Spirit. …After­wards, going out from the ablution or bath,
we are anointed. …Thence we are thrice immersed (ter mergitamur), answer­ing,
i.e., fulfilling somewhat more than the Lord has decreed in the gospel.” On
these quotations from Tertullian Prof. Stuart re­marks: “I do not see how any
doubt can well remain, that in Tertullian’s time the practice of the African
church, to say the least, as to the mode of baptism, must have been that of
trine immersion.” Stuart on Bap., pp. 144-46. “But enough. ’It is,’ says
Augusti, ’a thing made out,’ viz., the ancient practice of immersion. So,
indeed, all the writers who had thoroughly investigated this subject conclude. I
know of no one usage of ancient times which seems to be more clearly made out. I
can not see how it is possible for any candid man who examines the subject to
deny this.” Ibid, p. 149. On page 152, Prof. Stuart quotes Augusti further:
“Thirteen hundred years was baptism generally and ordinarily performed by the
immer­sion of a man under water, and only in extraordinary cases was sprinkling
or effusion permitted. These latter methods of bap­tism were called in question
and even prohibited.” After quoting Chrysostom, Ambrose, Cyril, and Brenner to
show that in their times persons were baptized in a nude state, Prof. Stuart
says: “Still, say what we may concerning it in a moral point of view, the
argument to be deduced from it in respect to immersion is not at all diminished.
Nay, it is strength­ened. For if such a violation of decency was submitted to in
order that baptism might be performed as the church thought it should be, it
argues that baptizing by immersion was considered as a rite not to be dispensed
with.” Ibid, p. 151. After quite an array of testimony concerning the ancient
practice, Prof. Stuart gives his conclusions in the following words: “We have
collected facts enough to authorize us now to come to the following general
conclusion, respecting the practice of the Christian church in general, with
regard to the mode of baptism, viz: that from the earliest ages of which we have
any account, subsequent to the apostolic age, and downward for sev­eral
centuries, the churches did generally practice baptism by immersion, perhaps by
immersion of the whole person; and that the only exceptions to this mode which
were usually allowed were in cases of urgent sickness or other cases of
immediate and imminent danger, where immersion could not be practiced. It may
also be mentioned here, that aspersion and affusion, which had in particular
cases been now and then practiced in primitive times, were gradually introduced.
These became at length, as we shall see hereafter, quite common, and in the
western church almost universal, sometime before the Reformation. In what
manner, then, did the churches of Christ, from a very early period, to say the
least, understand the word baptidzo in the New Testament? Plainly, they
construed it as meaning immersion. They sometimes even went so far as to forbid
any other method of administering the ordinance, cases of necessity and mercy
only excepted. If, then, we are left in doubt after a philological investigation
of baptidzo, how much it necessarily implies; if the circumstances which are
related as accompanying this rite, so far as the New Testament has given them,
leave us still in doubt; if we can not trace with any certainty the Jewish
proselyte baptism to a period as early as the baptism of John and Jesus, so as
to draw any inferences with probability from this, still we are left in no doubt
as to the more generally re­ceived usage of the Christian church down to a
period several centuries after the apostolic age. That the Greek fathers, and
the Latin ones who were familiar with the Greek, understood the usual import of
the word baptidzo, would hardly seem to be capable of a denial. That they might
be confirmed in their view of the import of this word by common usage among the
Greek classic authors, we have seen in the first part of this dissertation. For
myself, then, I cheerfully admit that baptidzo in the New Testament, when
applied to the rite of baptism, does in all probability involve the idea that
this rite was usually performed by immersion, but not always.” Ibid, p. 153,
154. Is it not strange that such a termination should follow such testimony and
admissions? After telling us that bapto and bap­tidzo mean to dip, plunge, or
immerge into any thing liquid, and that all lexicographers of any note are
agreed in this—that the churches of Christ, from a very early period, to say the
least, un­derstood the word baptidzo to mean immersion in the New
Tes­tament—that it could not be denied that those who so used it understood its
import—that aspersion and effusion were gradu­ally introduced—that he cheerfully
admitted that baptidzo in the New Testament, when applied to the rite of
baptism, in all probability involved the idea of immersion, he then closes with
“not always.” And he repeats, with emphasis, “I say usually and not always.” And
what are the examples to which he refers as exceptions? The reader shall have
the benefit of them. He says: “To say more than this, the tenor of some of the
narrations, particularly in Acts 10:47-48; Acts 16:32-33; Acts 2:41, seem to me
to forbid. I can not read these examples without the distinct con­viction that
immersion was not practiced on these occasions.” p. 154. Now, we confess ourself
wholly unable to see any thing in these examples calculated to overturn the
settled meaning of the word used to indicate the act required, and the
construction placed upon it in the New Testament by the primitive Christians
acknowledged competent to understand it, and the practice of the church from an
early period in harmony with these authori­ties. May we briefly examine the
exceptional cases to which he refers us? Acts 10:47-48, reads as follows: “Can
any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the
Holy Ghost as well as we? And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of
the Lord.” On this passage Prof. Stuart says: “Observe that the idea in this
case seems almost of neces­sity to be: Can any one forbid that water should be
brought in, and these persons baptized? He does not say: ’Can any one for­bid
the bath, or the river—i.e., the use of these, by which these persons should be
baptized; but the intimation seems to be that they were to be baptized on the
spot, and that water was to be brought in for that purpose.” Stuart on Bap., p.
110. Now, is it not strange that persons can see what is not said on one side
and be blind as to what is not said on the other? He says: “He does not say: Can
any one forbid the bath or the river?” No; nor does he say: Can any man forbid
that water should be brought in, and yet he can easily infer it. Candor com­pels
him to admit “that another meaning is not necessarily ex­cluded which would
accord with the practice of immersion.” In view of the admissions of Prof.
Stuart, as long as there remains a possibility that the command was obeyed as
commanded, we have no right to infer that something else was cane not indicated
by the command. The second example to which he refers, in Acts 16:34, we have
already examined, and we have seen that, according to rules of interpretation
given by Prof. Stuart himself, we are bound to presume that the jailer was
immersed. We refer the reader to the argument there presented without repeating
it here. His third example claims a brief notice at our hands. The passage
reads: “They that gladly received his word were bap­tized; and the same day
there were added unto them about three thousand souls.” Acts 2:41. On this
passage Prof. Stuart asks: “Where and how were they baptized? Was it in the
brooks or streams near Jerusalem? I can not find this to be probable. The feast
of Pentecost, being fifty days after the Pass­over (Leviticus 25:15), must fall
in the latter part of the month of May, and after the Jewish harvest. In
Palestine this is usually a time of drought, or at least of great scarcity of
rain.” Ibid., p. 108. How easy it is to imagine a thing just as we would have it
to be! Prof. Stuart was anxious to find some testimony favoring baptism by
aspersion or affusion, and hence he imagines that the Jewish harvest was at a
time of great scarcity of water in Jerusa­lem, and therefore those baptized
could not have been im­mersed. Joshua says: “Jordan overfloweth all his banks
all the time of harvest.” Joshua 3:15. Jordan was one of the chief rivers of
that country, and is only eighteen miles from the city of Jeru­salem by the
ordinary road of travel. At a time when Jordan was overflowing his banks we can
not easily imagine a great drought in Palestine. Josephus informs us that no
less than two million seven hundred thousand two hundred persons assembled in
Jerusalem to eat the feast of the annual passover. (Wars of the Jews, book vi,
ch. 9. ) Now, it occurs to us that a city which had water facilities for the
accommodation of such a number of persons could furnish water enough to baptize
them all in if nec­essary. “There were in Jerusalem the following pools:
Bethesda, twenty-two rods long and eight rods wide; Solomon’s pool, fif­teen
rods long and six rods wide; the pool of Siloam, fifty-three feet long and
eighteen feet wide, with a smaller pool; Old pool, twenty rods long and thirteen
rods wide; pool of Hezekiah, fif­teen rods long and nine rods wide; lower pool
of Gihon, thirty-six rods long and sixteen rods wide, now, in the days of the
apos­tles it covered over four acres.” Braden and Hughey Debate, p. 129. Here
were acres upon acres of water, besides numerous other sources of water of which
we have no names, and yet not water enough in which to immerse three thousand!!
But Prof. Stuart admits that they might have been immersed even in baths or
washing places. He says: “I do not say that this was impossi­ble for every one
acquainted with the Jewish rites must know that they made much use of ablutions,
and therefore they would provide many conveniences for them.” Stuart on Bap., p.
109. But we are told that the water was controlled by the enemies of the
disciples, and hence they would have objected to their using it for such
purpose. But Luke says they had “favor with all the people.” Acts 2:47. Why
should a people with whom God had given them favor forbid the use of the public
watering-places for the immersion of those converted by their preaching? After
making an argument based upon the supposition that there was not time enough for
the apostles to have baptized so many, Prof. Stuart says: “However, I concede
that there are some points here which are left undetermined, and which may serve
to aid those who differ from me in replying to these re­marks. It is true that
we do not know that baptism was per­formed by the apostles only nor that all the
three thousand were baptized before the going down of the sun. The work may have
extended into the evening, and so, many being engaged in it, and more time being
given, there was a possibility that the work in question should be performed
although immersion was prac­ticed.” Stuart on Bap., pp. 109, 110. Here he so
completely meets his own argument that we feel disposed to dismiss it just where
he left it—only asking the candid reader whether or not these three examples to
which Prof. Stuart refers us are sufficient to overturn the evidence furnished
by himself in favor of immer­sion? How are we to know what the Lord requires of
us in any matter only as we learn it from the words employed by Him to express
His will? We have seen a rule for the use of words given by Prof. Stuart
himself, which says: “To every word in Scripture there is unquestionably
assigned some idea or notion, otherwise words are useless and have no more
signification than the inarticulate sounds of animals.” Ernesti, p. 7. This
being so, when the Lord used the word baptdzo there was unques­tionably assigned
to it some idea or notion—what was it? Prof. Stuart says: “Bapto and baptidzo
mean to dip, plunge, or im­merge into any thing liquid. All lexicographers and
critics of any note are agreed in this.” Stuart on Baptism, p. 51. He gives us
numerous examples from the classics, showing that this statement is true as far
as they are authority. Then he quotes largely from the primitive fathers,
showing that they so understood the word baptidzo in the New Testament, and
ad­mits that they did understand its import. Finally, he shows by undoubted
historical testimony that the church practiced immer­sion only as baptism, from
its organization on, for many centuries; then seeks to overturn it all by
referring us to three cases in the New Testament which seem to teach otherwise;
and yet, when he comes to examine them, his candor compels him to admit that
they are not conclusive, and that even these may have been immersed. It is but
just to Prof. Stuart to say that there is no higher authority in all the ranks
of orthodoxy than he; yet with all his learning he was compelled to bring to the
support of sprinkling and pouring mere possibilities, which he seeks to make
probabilities by ridiculous quibbles unworthy of notice but for the fact that
they emanate from a man whose fame, though starting at Andover, is not confined
to America.

HISTORY OF SPRINKLING.

Having seen that primitive Christians practiced immersion only as baptism, we
come now to inquire for the origin of sprin­kling and pouring. The first case
known to us is that of Nova­tian, in the year 251 A.D., an allusion to which we
have, given by Wall, as follows: “Novatian was by one party of the clergy and
people of Rome chosen bishop of that church, in a schismatical way, and in
opposition to Cornelius, who had been chosen by the major part and was already
ordained. Cornelius does, in a letter to Fabius, bishop of Antioch, vindicate
his right, and shows that Novatian came not canonically to his orders of
priesthood; much less was he capable of being chosen bishop; for that all the
clergy and a great many of the laity were against his being or­dained presbyter,
because it was not lawful (they said) for any one that had been baptized in his
bed in time of sickness, as he had been, to be admitted to any office of the
clergy.” Wall, Inf. Bap., Vol. ii, pp. 385, 388. Mosheim, in his Historical
Commentaries, p. 62, Vol. 1, gives us the history of the baptism of Novatian. He
says: “He was seized with a threatening disease and was baptized in his bed,
when apparently about to die.” He recovered from his sickness and was
subsequently made a presbyter in the church by Bishop Fabian, contrary to the
whole body of priests and of a large part of the church. The author says: “It
was altogether irregular and contrary to ecclesiastical rules, to admit a man to
the priestly office who had been baptized in bed—that is, who had been merely
sprinkled, and had not been wholly immersed in water, in the ancient method. For
by many, and especially the Roman Christians, the baptism of clinici (so they
called those who, lest they should die out of the church, were baptized on a
sick bed) was accounted less perfect, and indeed less valid, and not suffi­cient
for the attainment of salvation.” Louisville Debate, pp. 439, 440. The reader
will please observe that the objection made to the ordination of Novatian was
that he had been merely sprinkled (in the language of the author), and not
wholly immersed in water, in the ancient method, thus showing clearly that
immer­sion was the ancient method. From this time sprinkling and pouring as
baptism seem to have been practiced, but only upon persons dangerously ill. Much
discussion of its validity ensued, until about eighty years afterward the
question was laid before the Neocaesarean Council, the twelfth canon of which
is: “He that is baptized when he is sick ought not to be made a priest (for his
coming to the faith is not voluntary, but from necessity), unless his diligence
and faith do afterward prove commendable, or the scarcity of men fit for the
office requires it.” Wall’s Hist., Vol. u, pp. 383, 387. On the validity of this
baptism Bishop Cyprian remarks: “The breast of the believer is washed, the soul
of the man is cleansed by the merits of faith. In the sacraments of salvation,
where necessity compels and God gives his permission, the di­vine thing, though
outwardly abridged, bestows all that implies on the faithful.” Neander’s Church
History, vol. i, p. 310. Observe here, that while Cyprian held that clinic
baptism se­cured the blessings implied in the rite, he acknowledges it to be an
outward abridgment of the divine thing. Who has a right to abridge divine
things? “The first general law for sprinkling was obtained in the fol­lowing
manner: Pope Stephen II, being driven from Rome by Adolphus, king of the
Lombards, in 753, fled to Pepin, who a short time before had usurped the crown
of France. Whilst he remained there, the monks of Cressy, in Brittany, consulted
him whether, in case of necessity, baptism poured on the head of the infant
would be lawful. Stephen replied that it would. But though the truth of this
fact be allowed—which, however, some Catholics deny—yet pouring or sprinkling
was admitted only in cases of necessity. It was not till the year 1311 that the
legisla­ture, in a council held in Ravenna, declared immersion or sprin­kling to
be indifferent. In Scotland, however, sprinkling was never practiced in ordinary
cases, till after the Reformation (about the middle of the sixteenth century).
From Scotland it made its way into England, in the reign of Elizabeth, but was
not authorized in the Established Church.” Edinburgh Encyclo­pedia, article
Baptism. It has been insisted that sprinkling or pouring was first prac­ticed in
cold countries, but Dr. Wall says: “By history it appears that the cold climate
held the custom of dipping as long as any; for England, which is one of the
coldest, was one of the latest that admitted this alteration of the ordinary
way. Vasquez having said that it was the old custom both in the East and the
West to baptize both grown persons and infants that were in health by immersion,
and that it plainly appears by the words of St. Gregory that the custom
continued so to be in his time. … I will here endeavor to trace the times when
it begun to be left off in the several countries in the West, meaning still, in
the case of infants that were in health, and in the public bap­tism; for in the
case of sickly or weak infants, there was always, in all countries, an allowance
of effusion or sprinkling, to be given in haste, and in the house, or any other
place. “France seems to have been the first country in the world where baptism
by effusion was used ordinarily to persons in health, and in the public way of
administering it. … “It came more and more into request in that country till, in
Bonaventure’s time, it was become, as appears by his words last quoted, as very
ordinary practice; and though he says some other churches did then so use it,
yet he names none but France. “The synod of Angiers, 1275, speaks of dipping or
pouring as indifferently used, and blames some ignorant priests for that they
dip or pour the water but once, and instructs them that the gen­eral custom of
the church is to dip thrice or pour on water three times. ... From France it
spread (but not till a good while after) into Italy, Germany, Spain, etc., and,
last of all, into Eng­land....In England there seem to have been some priests so
early as the year 816 that attempted to bring in the use of baptism by effusion
in the public administration, for Spellman recites a canon of a council in that
year: ’Let the priests know that when they administer holy baptism they must not
pour the water on the head of the infants, but they must always be dipped in the
font.’“ Wall’s Hist., Vol. ii, pp. 392-396. On page 397, Dr. Wall quotes
Wickliffe thus: “And the church has ordained that in case of necessity any
person that is fidel [or that is himself baptized] may give baptism, etc. Nor is
it material whether they be dipped,” etc. By this quotation from Wickliffe it
will be seen that the church ordained the departure from the ancient custom by
mak­ing it immaterial whether the subject was dipped, etc. On page 398, Dr. Wall
says: “From the time of King Edward, Mr. Walker (who has taken the most pains in
tracing this mat­ter) derives the beginning of the alteration of the general
cus­tom. He says that ’dipping was at this time the more usual, but sprinkling
was sometimes used, which, within the time of half a century [meaning from 1550
to 1600], prevailed to be the more general (as it is now almost the only) way of
baptizing.’ “ We call the reader’s special attention to the beginning of the
alteration of the general custom. We might quote numerous other extracts from
Dr. Wall, showing that the primitive practice was dipping or immersion, and that
the church through her councils, popes, and bishops has assumed the right to
change it, but the amount of testimony we wish to present from other sources
forbids further quotations from him. DR. KENDRICK, Archbishop of the Catholic
Church in Balti­more, says: “When religion had consummated her triumphs over
paganism in the various countries o£ Europe, the custom of Christians baptizing
children being universal, ages passed away almost without an instance of the
baptism of adults. Hence the necessity of receding from the mode ok immersion
became still more frequent, since the tender infant oftentimes could not be
immersed without peril to its life. The cases thus multiplying, the more solemn
method fell gradually into disuse, until it was in most places entirely
superseded. “Another cause contributed to favor effusion: A class of fe­males
formerly existed in the church, under the name of deacon­esses, who, among other
exercises of piety, instructed and pre­pared for baptism the catechumens of
their sex, and performed some of the ceremonies preparatory to its
administration. This class of females having ceased, from a variety of causes,
it be­came expedient to abstain from the immersion of females.” Kendrick on
Baptism, pp. 172, 173. And on page 174 he says: “The change of discipline which
has taken place in regard to baptism should not surprise us; for, although the
church is but the dispenser of the sacraments which her divine spouse
insti­tuted, she rightfully exercises a discretionary power as to the manner of
their administration. She can not change their sub­stance.” Again, on same page:
“The church wisely sanctioned that which, although less solemn, is equally
effectual. The power of binding and loosing which she received from Christ
warrants this exercise of governing wisdom, that, the difference of times and
places being considered, condensation may be used with re­gard to the mode of
administering the sacraments without dan­ger to their integrity.” DR. JOHNSON
said: “As to giving the bread to the laity, they may think that, in what is
merely ritual, deviations from the primitive mode may be admitted on the ground
of convenience; and I think they are as well warranted to make this alteration
as we are to substitute SPRINKLING in the room of ANCIENT BAPTISM. Campbell,
Debate with Rice, p. 173. MR. BONNER says: “Baptism by immersion was undoubtedly
the apostolic practice, and was never dispensed with by the church, except in
cases of sickness, or when a sufficient quantity of water could not be had. In
both these cases baptism by as­persion or sprinkling was allowed, but in no
other.” Booth on Baptism, p. 176. CHAMIERUS: “Immersion of the whole body was
used from the beginning, which expresses the force of the word BAPTIZO: whence
John baptized in the river. It was afterward changed into sprinkling, though it
is uncertain when or by whom it commenced.” Ibid, p. 192. BISHOP STILLINGFLEET’S
Rites and Customs of the English Church: “Rites and customs apostolical are
altered; therefore men do not think that apostolical practice cloth bind, for if
it did, there could be no alteration of things agreeable “hereunto. Now, let any
one consider but these few particulars, and judge how far the pleaders for a
divine right of apostolical practice do look upon themselves as bound now to
observe them.” Ut supra. DEYLINGIUS: “It is manifest, that while the apostles
lived the ordinance of baptism was administered, not out of a vessel or a
baptistery, which are the marks of later times, but out of rivers and pools, and
that not by sprinkling but by immersion. ...So long as the apostles lived, as
many believe, immersion only was used, to which afterward, perhaps, they added a
kind of pour­ing.” Ibid, p. 194. HEIDEGGERUS: “Plunging or immersion was most
commonly used by John the Baptist and by the apostles. ... It is of no
importance whether baptism be performed by immersion into water, as of old, in
the warm Eastern countries, and even at this day, or by sprinkling, which was
afterward introduced in colder climates.” Ut supra. EDWARD LEIGH: “The ceremony
used in baptism is either dip­ping or sprinkling; dipping is the more ancient.
At first they went down into the rivers; afterward they were dipped in fonts.
... Zanchius and Mr. Perkins prefer (in persons of age, and in hot countries,
where it may be safe) the ceremony of immersion under water, as holding more
analogy to that of Paul (Romans 6:4).” Ut supra. HORNBEKIUS: “In the Eastern
churches baptism was more an­ciently administered by immersing the whole body in
water. Afterward, first in the Western churches, on account of the cold­ness of
the countries, bathing being less in use than in the East, and the tender age of
those that were baptized, dipping or sprin­kling was admitted.” Booth, Abridged,
pp. 100, 101. GROTIUS: “The custom of pouring or sprinkling seems to have
prevailed in favor of those that were dangerously ill, and were desirous of
giving up themselves to Christ—whom others call clinics. See the Epistle of
Cyprian to Magnus.” Ibid., p. 101. E. SPANHEMIUS: “In these northern and colder
countries, out of regard to the tender age of infants, we use aspersion in the
place of immersion, which, of old, was usually practiced, either in open rivers
or in private baptisteries and vessels filled with water.” Ut supra. BISHOP
BURNET: “The danger of dipping, in cold climates, may be a very good reason for
changing the form of baptism to sprinkling.” Ut supra. DR. TOWERSON: “The first
mention we find of aspersion in the baptism of the elder sort was in the case of
the clinici, or men who received baptism upon their sick beds; and that baptism
is represented by St. Cyprian as legitimate, upon the account of necessity that
compelled it, and the presumption there was of God’s gracious acceptation
thereof because of it. By which means the lawfulness of any other baptism than
by immersion will be found to be in the necessity there may sometimes be of
another manner of administering it.” Ibid., pp. 101, 102. SIR JOHN FLOYER: “The
Church of Rome hath drawn short compendiums of both sacraments. In the eucharist
they use only the wafer, and instead of immersion they introduced asper­sion.”
Ibid, p. 102. SCHLEUSNER, in defining baptisma, says: “Properly, immer­sion,
dipping into water, a washing; hence, it is transferred to the sacred rite
which, par excellence, is called baptism, in which formerly those to be baptized
were plunged into water.” New Testament Lexicon. STOKIUS, in defining baptisma,
says: “Specifically, properly it denotes the immersion or dipping of a thing
into water that it may be cleansed or washed; hence it is transferred to
designat­ing the first sacrament of the New Testament, which they call the
sacrament of initiation—namely, baptism, in which those to be baptized were
formerly immersed into water, though at this day the water is only sprinkled
upon them.” New Testament Lexicon. Formerly they were immersed, now they have
water only sprinkled on them. How came the change? DR. R. WITHAM: “The word
baptism signifies a washing, par­ticularly when it is done by immersion, or by
dipping, or plung­ing a thing under water, which was formerly the ordinary way
of administering the sacrament of baptism. But the church, which can not change
the least article of the Christian faith, is not so tied up in matters of
discipline and ceremonies. Not only the Catholic Church, but also the pretended
reformed churches, have altered this primitive custom in giving the sacrament of
baptism, and now allow of baptism by pouring or sprinkling water on the person
baptized.” Booth, Abridged, pp. 102,103. MOSES STUART: “It will be seen from all
this, that Christians began somewhat early to deflect from the ancient practice
of im­mersion.” Stuart on Chr. Bap., p. 175. In debate with J. S. Sweeney, Dr.
J. B. Logan, an eminent Cumberland Presbyterian debater, said: “The church
claimed the right to change the mode but not the ordinance itself, and in that I
agree with the church and can cheerfully admit it.” Sweeney and Logan Debate, p.
72. We have already quoted from Prof. Stewart “that aspersion and effusion,
which had now and then been practiced in particu­lar cases in primitive times,
were gradually introduced.” The fact that they were gradually introduced shows
that they came not from the Lord. He says that these became at length quite
common in the Western church, but “the mode of baptism by immersion the Oriental
church has always continued to preserve, even down to the present time.” Stuart
on Bap., p. 151. DEYLINGIUS says: “The Greeks retain the rite of immersion to
his day, as JEREMIAH, the Patriarch of Constantinople, declares.” Booth on
Baptism, Abridged, p. 93. BUDDEUS: “That the Greeks defend immersion is
manifest, and has been frequently observed by learned men, which LUDOL­PHUS
informs us is the practice of the Ethiopians.” Ut supra. VENEMA: “In pronouncing
the baptismal form of words, the Greeks used the third person saying, ’Let the
servant of Christ be baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of
the Holy Spirit,’ and immerse the whole man in water.” Ut supra. Other
authorities might be given, but these are deemed suffi­cient to show that, while
the Western or Roman Catholic Church gradually introduced the practice of
aspersion and effusion until they became common by the time of the Reformation,
the Orien­tal or Greek Church has continued faithful to the commands of the Lord
and still practices only immersion as baptism. As the Greeks are presumed to
better understand the Greek language than others unaccustomed to speak it, the
fact that they have al­ways understood baptidzo to mean immersion, and have
prac­ticed accordingly, is an item of no small importance in arriving at a
knowledge of what the Lord required as baptism. If any people may be presumed to
know the import of the word used by the Lord it is certainly those by whom the
Greek language has been always spoken. If they have not understood their na­tive
tongue, who has understood it? PROF. STUART quotes Calvin, thus: “It is of no
consequence at all whether the person baptized is totally immersed, or whether
he is merely sprinkled by an effusion of water. This should be a matter of
choice to the churches in different regions, although the word baptize signifies
to immerse, and the rite of immersion was practiced by the ancient church;” and
then says “To this opin­ion I do most fully and heartily subscribe.” Stuart on
Bap., pp. 156, 157. Thus we see that, after conceding immersion to be the
mean­ing of the word used by the Lord to indicate His will, and that immersion
was the practice of the ancient church, these two great lights in the ranks of
orthodoxy think it a matter of indifference, and should be left to the choice of
the church; hence, the church may decide whether the people shall obey the Lord
or not. Kind reader, which will you obey? “If the Lord be God, serve him; if
Baal, serve him.” But what are the reasons given by Prof. Stuart for the
conclu­sion to which he comes? “1. The rite in question is merely exter­nal.”
Suppose it is, is that any reason why it should not be obeyed? Jewish
circumcision was “outward in the flesh” (Romans 2:28), yet God said: “The
uncircumcised man-child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that
soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.” Genesis
17:14. Does any one believe that God would have excused a Jew from cir­cumcision
or have justified him in changing the act to some­thing else upon the ground
that the rite was merely external? To obey is better than sacrifice, and to
hearken than the fat of rams. Prof. Stuart argues the right of the church to
change the act of baptism at great length with all the plausibility of an
ingen­ious sophist, but we have room only for a few short extracts, which we
give as follow: “Must I show that we are not at lib­erty, without being justly
exposed to the accusation of gross de­parture from Christianity, to depart from
the modes and forms of the apostolic church in any respect? I have shown that
all the churches on earth do depart from these, in their celebration of the
Lord’s Supper, and yet without any apprehension of being guilty of an
impropriety, much less of being justly chargeable with the spirit of
disobedience and revolt. ... But what is the case in respect to baptism? Will
nothing but the letter do here? So you may think and reason, but are you not
en­tirely inconsistent with yourself? ... Mere externals must be things of
particular time and place. Dress does not make the man. One dress may be more
convenient or more decorous than another, but neither the one nor the other is
an essential part of the person. So the common feeling of men has decided about
most of the external matters pertaining to religion the world over. They have
always been modified by time and place, by manners and customs, and they always
will be. ... Accord­ingly, long before the light of the Reformation began to
dawn upon the churches, the Roman Catholics themselves were gradu­ally adopting
the method of baptism by sprinkling or effusion, notwithstanding their
superstitious and excessive devotedness to the usages of the ancient church. ...
All this serves to illus­trate how there sprang up, in the bosom of a church
superstitiously devoted to ancient rites and forms, a conviction that the mode
of baptism was one of the adiaphora of religion— i.e., something unessential to
the rite itself, and which might be modified by time and place, without any
encroachment upon the command itself to baptize. Gradually did this conviction
increase until the whole Roman Catholic Church, that of Milan only excepted,
admit it. By far the greater part of the Protestant world have also acceded to
the same views. Even the English Episcopal Church and the Lutheran Church, both
zealous in times past for what they supposed to be apostolic and really ancient
usage, have had no difficulty in adopting modes of baptism quite different from
that of immersion.” Stuart on Baptism, pp. 169-172. Thus we see that Prof.
Stuart thinks that the church may change the forms and usages of worship just as
a man may change his dress to suit time and place. He shows us, with an air of
seeming pleasure, that the Roman Catholic Church had gradually left her
devotedness to the usages of the ancient church and adopted sprinkling and
pouring, and that the Protestant churches had followed her example. Daniel
prophesied of a power that should “speak great swelling words against the Most
High, and think to change times and laws; and they shall be given into his hand
until a time and times and the dividing of time; but the judgment shall sit, and
they shall take his dominion to consume and to destroy it unto the end.” Daniel
7:25-26. Does not the power assigned by Prof. Stuart to the church resemble that
claimed by the government spoken of by Daniel? Though he seemed to triumph for a
time, judgment came upon him in the end. Let us learn a lesson here, and seek
not to change laws and times which God has arranged in accordance with His own
will. “Let no man deceive you by any means; for that day shall not come, except
there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of
perdition; who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or
that is worshiped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, showing
himself that he is God.” 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4. The Pope of Rome has gone on
from one act of usurpation to another, changed the act of baptism in accordance
with his views of propriety, and has, finally, had himself proclaimed
infallible, thus sitting in the temple of God and seeking to show himself that
he is God. But Daniel said a day of judgment would come that would break the
power of the usurper, and we feel encouraged to hope that the day of his power
is fast drawing to a close. Will Protestant parties continue to cling to the
changes which he has made for them in the divine law? “Why call ye me Lord,
Lord, and do not the things which I say?” Luke 6:46. “If ye love me, keep my
commandments.” John 14:15.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 14: GPS-13-WHO SHOULD BE BAPTIZED
========================================================================

CHAPTER XIII.

WHO SHOULD BE BAPTIZED? When Jesus commanded the apostles to “Teach all nations,
baptizing them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy
Spirit,” Matthew 28:19, there was an implied obligation upon those to whom they
were sent, to submit to be baptized by them. Upon whom did this obligation rest?
These may and should be baptized; none others may, unless other authority be
shown for it. That penitent, believing adults should be baptized is admitted by
all parties; we need not, therefore, stop to offer proof of what no one denies.
But it is insisted that he who has submitted to the divine injunction himself,
should also have his infant children baptized, and thus brought into the church
with him. This we respectfully deny; hence the onus of proof rests upon him who
so affirms. Our first duty, therefore, is to examine the proofs presented by
him, and if these be found satisfactory and conclusive, our duty is clear
without further investigation; for we may be assured that the Bible, faithfully
translated and construed, will nowhere contradict that which is clearly taught
in it. We know of but three ways by which the practice of infant baptism could
be taught in the Divine Volume, First: By the express command of the Lord, or
some one speaking by inspiration. Second: By example; i.e., where the Lord or
some inspired man, baptized infants, or where it was done in his presence, by
his consent or approval. Third: By a passage of Scripture from which the baptism
of infants is a necessary inference. A merely possible inference is not
sufficient, for while a thing is only possibly true, it is still possible for it
to be false. We believe it is very generally admitted that there is no express
command for, or example of, infant baptism recorded in the Bible, hence
inferential proof is all we may expect from those who advocate the practice. It
may be well to see hour this is, for a concession so important, from those who
advocate the practice in question, will greatly diminish the area of our
investigation. We will hear what they say on the subject. 1. DR. MOSES STUART
says: On the subject of infant baptism I have said nothing. The present occasion
did not call for it; and I have no wish or intention to enter into the
controversy respecting it. I have only to say, that I believe in both the
propriety and expediency of the rite thus administered, and therefore accede to
it ex animo. Commands, or plain and certain examples, in the New Testament
relative to it, I do not find. Nor, with my views of it do I need them.” Stuart
on Baptism, pp. 189, 190. 2. BISHOP BURNET: ’There is no express precept or rule
given in the New Testament for the baptism of infants.” Expos. of 39 Articles,
in Booth Abridged, p. 116. 3. DR. WALL: “Among all the persons that are recorded
as baptized by the apostles, there is no express mention of any infant. There is
no express mention of any children baptized by them.” Hist. Inf. Bap. in Booth
Abridged, p. 116. 4. LUTHER: “It can not be proved by the sacred Scriptures that
infant baptism was instituted by Christ, or began by the first Christians after
the apostles.” Ut supra. 5. BAXTER: “I know of no one word in Scripture, that
giveth us the least intimation that every man was baptized without the
profession of a saving faith, or that giveth the least encouragement to baptize
any upon another’s faith.” Ut supra. 6. WILLS: “Christ did many things that were
not recorded, and so did the apostles; whereof this was one, for aught we know,
the baptizing of infants. Calvin, in his fourth book of Institutes, Chap. xvi,
confesseth, that it is nowhere expressly mentioned by the Evangelists, that any
one child was by the apostles baptized. To the same purpose are Stophilus,
Melancthon, Turinglius quoted.” Inf. Bap. Asserted in Booth Abridged, p. 117. 7.
PALMER: “There is nothing in the words of the institution, nor in any after
accounts of the administration of this rite, respecting the baptism of infants;
there is not a single precept for, nor example of, this practice, through the
whole New Testament.” Ut supra. 8. LIMBORCH: “There is no express command for it
in Scripture, nay, all those passages wherein baptism is commanded do
immediately relate to adult persons, since they are ordered to be instructed,
and faith is prerequisite as a necessary qualification, which are peculiar to
adults alone. There is no instance that can be produced, from whence it may
indisputably be inferred that any child was baptized by the apostles. The
necessity of Pedobaptism was never asserted by any council before that of
Carthage, held in the year four hundred and eighteen.” Ut supra. 9. ERASMUS:
“Paul does not seem (in Romans 5:14), to treat about infants. It was not yet the
custom for infants to be baptized.” Annotations on Rom. in Booth Abridged’ p.
118. 10. T. BOSTON: “It is plain that he [Peter, in Ads 2: 38] requires their
repentance antecedently to baptism, as necessary to qualify them for the right
and due reception thereof. And there is no example of baptism recorded in the
Scriptures, when any were baptized, but such as appeared to have a saving
interest in Christ.” Ut supra. 11. BISHOP SANDERSON: “The baptism of infants,
and the sprinkling of water in baptism, instead of immersing the whole body,
must be exterminated from the church—according to their principle; i.e., that
nothing can be lawfully performed, much less required, in the affairs of
religion, which is not either commanded by God in the Scripture, or at least
recommended by a laudable example.” Ut. supra. 12. CELLARIUS: “Infant baptism is
neither commanded in the sacred Scripture, nor is confirmed by apostolic
examples.” Ut supra. 13. DR. KNAPP: “There is, therefore, no express command for
infant baptism found in the New Testament, as Morris (p. 215, S. 12) justly
concedes. Infant baptism has been often defended on a very unsatisfactory a
priori grounds, e.g., necessity of it has been contended for, in order that
children may obtain by it the faith which is necessary to salvation, etc. It is
sufficient to show; (1) That infant baptism was not forbidden by Christ, and is
not opposed to his will, and the principles of his religion, but entirely suited
to both; (2) That it was probably practiced even in the apostolic church; (3)
That it is not without advantages.” Lectures on Christian Theology, p. 494. 14.
We may close this testimony by the declarations of Henry Ward Beecher, who is
quoted in the Louisville Debate, page 173, as saying: That he had no authority
from the Bible. This was published in The Christian Union by Mr. Beecher for the
baptism of infants, and that he wanted none; that he had better authority for it
than if even the Bible commanded it; that he had tried it, and knew from actual
experience that it was a good thing; he had the same divine authority for it
that he had for making an ox-yoke—it worked well—and, therefore, it was from
God.” The foregoing list might be extended much further; but these quotations
are deemed sufficient to warrant us in regarding it as a fact, conceded that
there is no divine command, nor apostolic precedent for the baptism of infants.
It is insisted that the writers of the New Testament were all Pedobaptists; if
so, is not such profound reticence on the subject a little remarkable, to say
the least of it? They record the baptism of vast numbers of believers, just as
though infant baptism had then never been heard of; and Luke tells us that when
the Samaritans “Believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of
God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.” Acts
8:12. Is it not strange that he should be so specific as to mention the baptism
of men and women, and say nothing about the multitudes of dear little children
that were baptized? Their baptism could not have been a matter of less
importance than that of the men and women, if indeed they were baptized at all.
Would any of our Pedobaptist friends imitate Luke’s example were they now
writing the narrative? Would they not likely say “They were baptized, men,
women, and children?” They are specifically mentioned in matters not less worthy
of note. When the covenant of circumcision was instituted in the family of
Abraham the Lord said: “He that is eight days old shall be circumcised among
you, every male child in your generations, he that is born in thy house, or
bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed.” Genesis 17:12.
Here is a rite applicable to infants, and we find that even the age of the child
to be circumcised is specifically given. Numerous examples can be found recorded
where this rite was performed according to the law. “Abraham circumcised his son
Isaac, being eight days old, as God had commanded him.” Genesis 21:4. “And when
eight days were accomplished for the circumcising of the child, his name was
called Jesus, which was so named of the angel before he was conceived in the
womb.” Luke 2:21. Is it not a little strange, if baptism was made obliga­tory on
children, that we can not as easily find examples of it as of circumcision! When
Pharaoh issued his decree for the de­struction of the Hebrew children, he said:
“When ye do the office of a midwife to the Hebrew women, and see them upon the
stools, if it be a son, then ye shall kill him.” Exodus 2:16. When Herod
determined upon the destruction of the infant Saviour, he “Sent forth, and slew
all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two
years old and under.” Matthew 2:16. When Jesus miraculously fed the multitudes,
the children are not forgotten in the narrative. “They that had eaten were about
five thousand men, beside women and chil­dren.” Matthew 14:21. Nor are they
omitted in the record of the second occurrence. “They that did eat were four
thousand men, beside women and children.”Matthew 15:38. When infants were
brought to the master that they might receive His heavenly ben­ediction, He
said: “Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me; for of such
is the kingdom of heaven.” Matthew 19:14. This account is preserved in the
records of Mark and Luke also. When Paul and company bade a final adieu to the
disciples at the city of Tyre, the historian informs us that “they all brought
us on our way, with wives and children, till we were out of the city: and we
kneeled down on the shore, and prayed.” Acts 21:5. Thus we see that infants were
deemed worthy of mention in all matters with which they were in any way
connected; even in cases where they did nothing but to satisfy the demands of
hun­ger, or were brought out of a city in company with those who were parting
with a friend; where no doctrine is involved, no duty enforced, no dispute
settled; yet we are asked to believe that they were baptized in obedience to the
command of the Lord Jesus, by inspired men, and no record of the fact; when such
a record would have prevented bitter contention and strife; much labor in
preaching and writing; and would have secured the performance of a duty now
bound to be neglected by many millions of devoted followers of the Master for
want of the knowledge which such a record would have furnished. Luke says:
“Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of
those things which are most surely believed among us, even as they delivered
them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the
word; it seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things
from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,
that thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been
instructed.” Luke 1:14. Again he says: “The former treatise have I made, O
Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and to teach.” Acts 1:1. The sum
of these quotations is that Luke had a perfect understand­ing of all things
which Jesus did and taught; and that he wrote in order that Theophilus might
know the certainty of the whole matter as believed among the disciples.
Certainly, then, we may justly conclude that no important matter was omitted
which had not been perfectly taught by some one else. Hence, as he says not a
word about infant baptism we may feel tolerably sure that it was not taught or
practiced by Jesus, nor believed among the disciples with whom he associated.
When he tells us that “Saul made havoc of the church, entering into every house,
and haling men and women, committed them to prison” (Acts 8:3), we may justly
conclude that infants escaped the fierceness of his wrath, otherwise they would
have been mentioned as well as men and women. We are strengthened in this
conclusion by the fact already seen that it was his custom to mention them where
they were connected with the matter recorded. Then as he speaks of the baptism
of multitudes of believers, at different times and places, and under different
circumstances, even men­tioning men and women, and yet says nothing of the
baptism of a single infant, we conclude that none were baptized, or he would
have mentioned the fact somewhere; especially when he must have known that what
he was writing would not only fur­nish an interesting history of past events,
but would constitute a rule of action for the government of God’s people as long
as time should endure. Paul told Timothy that “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 : l6, 17. The Scriptures can not be
profitable for the doctrine of infant bap­tism, for its advocates admit that
they say nothing about it. If infant baptism be a duty, the Scriptures furnish
no reproof for those who neglect it. If it be a crime to oppose infant baptism,
the Scriptures furnish no correction for the error. If infant bap­tism be right,
the Scriptures furnish no instruction to those whose duty it is to perform it.
If the Scriptures are profitable for doc­trine, reproof, correction, and
instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, as they say
nothing about infant baptism, it follows that the man of God may attain to
perfection without it. If the Scriptures not only furnish, but thoroughly
furnish the man of God not only to some, but to all good works, as they are
confessedly silent on the subject of infant baptism, it follows that it is not a
good work, otherwise the man of God would be thoroughly furnished with
instruction concerning the baptism of infants. While considering the conceded
fact that the Scriptures say nothing about the baptism of infants, we will hear
another apos­tle on this subject. Peter says: “Grace and peace be multiplied
unto you through the knowledge of God, and of Jesus our Lord, according as his
divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain, unto life and
godliness, through the knowledge of him who hath called us to glory and virtue.”
2 Peter 1:2-3. Here is a clear intimation that God has given us all things,
through the knowledge of His Son revealed in the gospel, which pertain to life
and godliness. And as He has given us nothing on the sub­ject of infant baptism,
we conclude that it neither pertains to life nor godliness. We are commanded to
do all: “Whatsoever we do, in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord
Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by him.” Colossians 3 : l7. We
under­stand this passage to teach that we are to do all things done at all by
the authority of the Lord Jesus. How, then, can a man, standing in the presence
of God, with his hand lifted toward heaven, say, “In the name or by the
authority of the Lord Jesus, I baptize this child,” when he acknowledges that
the Word of the Lord furnishes neither command nor example for what he is doing?
Could Prof. Stuart baptize a child in the name or by the authority of the Lord
Jesus after saying: “Commands, or plain and certain examples, in the New
Testament relative to it, I do not find?” Surely, he could not adopt the maxim
of the justly celebrated Chillingworth, that THE BIBLE ONLY IS THE RELIGION OF
PROTESTANTS. If this maxim is worthy of all acceptation, well may we ask, in the
language of Ambrose, ’Who shall speak where Scripture is silent?” Dare we
baptize an infant in the name of the Lord Jesus if He has not appointed it? When
Peter commanded the Pentecostians to be baptized, he did it in the “name of
Jesus Christ.” Acts 2:38. He also commanded the Gentiles at the house of
Cornelius, “to be baptized in the name of the Lord.” Acts 10:48. And surely,
such examples are worthy of our imitation; if so, there is an implied
prohibition of adminis­tering this sacred rite in any other name or by any other
author­ity. Surely, then, if Dr. Beecher was right when he said, in sub­stance,
that he had no higher authority for baptizing an infant than for making an
ox-yoke, it had better be left undone. God will not condemn us in the great day
of judgment for a failure to do that which He has nowhere commanded; but there
may be danger in performing a thing in the sacred name of His Son for which we
can not find authority in the Book by which we are to be judged. The Lord said
that the way of holiness should be so plain that “the wayfaring men, though
fools, shall not err therein.” Isaiah 35:8. Hence, when Jesus sent chosen men to
proclaim the gospel of peace and the approach of the kingdom of heaven, their
mission was not confined to the wealthy who had been reared in opulence and
learned in all the literature of the age in which they lived, but “the poor had
the gospel preached to them.” Matthew 11:5. Yet we are asked to believe that
these un­educated poor were to learn the duty of baptizing their children from
oral instructions which not once mentioned it, and in a country where they never
once saw an example of it. And after the New Testament was written, the
primitive Christians are ex­pected to take a copy of it and learn the duty of
baptizing their children from a record which furnishes not a command for it or
an example of it. Nay, these unlettered fishermen, mechanics, and plowmen are
expected to arrive at a knowledge of their duty from a careful examination of
the covenants which God made with Abraham, and by identifying them with the New
Covenant dedicated with the blood of Jesus. Those who lived later might also
study the Talmud, and familiarize themselves with the writ­ings of Maimonides
and other Jewish rabbis and doctors of the law, from whom to learn that the
children of proselytes were baptized along with their parents, and infer there
from that the Lord condescended to borrow the baptism of infants from those who
believed Him an impostor and worthy of death. Nor must they stop here, but they
must study the writings of Moses until familiar with the antiquated rite of
circumcision; and, notwith­standing the many marks of dissimilarity, infer that
baptism came in its room, and as male children were circumcised under the law,
therefore males and females must be baptized under the gospel of the Son of God.
Such are some of the sources from which the unlettered poor are expected to
learn the duty of bap­tizing their children; and we next propose to examine them
and see whether or not they furnish just grounds for even inferring infant
baptism, though it were possible for all to understand them. And, first, it is
assumed that God has had but one church on the earth, and that it has existed at
least since the days of Abra­ham; that the church now is the same church that
then was; and that infants were members of the church then, and having never
been put out, are members of it now; that all members of the church should be
baptized—ergo, infants, being members, should be baptized. We believe this is a
fair statement of the argument, but be­fore we enter upon an examination of its
merits we would re­spectfully call attention to a want of consistency in the
pleadings of those who advocate it. The argument is based upon the as­sumption
that infants are members of the church, and as such should be baptized; yet they
tell us that they should be bap­tized in order to bring them into the church. In
the ministration of baptism to infants the Methodist Discipline instructs the
ad­ministrator to say: “Dearly beloved, forasmuch as all men are conceived and
born in sin, and that our Saviour Christ saith, Ex­cept a man be born of water
and of the Spirit, he can not enter into the kingdom of God, I beseech you to
call upon God the Father, through our Lord Jesus Christ, that of his bounteous
mercy he will grant to this child that which by nature he can not have; that he
may be baptized with water and the Holy Ghost, and received into Christ’s holy
church, and be made a lively member of the same.” Please observe that the
minister instructs the congregation to pray that the child to be baptized may be
received into the church and made a lively member of it. Then he leads them in
the following prayer: “Almighty and everlasting God, who of thy great mercy
didst save Noah and his family in the ark from per­ishing by water; and also
didst safely lead the children of Israel, thy people, through the Red Sea,
figuring thereby thy holy bap­tism: we beseech thee, for shine infinite mercies,
that thou wilt look upon this child: wash him, and sanctify him with the Holy
Ghost; that he, being delivered from thy wrath, may be received into the ark of
Christ’s church.” Methodist Discipline, pp. 159, 160. What can this mean?
Clearly, it means nothing less than that the child is baptized to introduce it
into the church, and yet the very foundation of the argument stated is that it
must be baptized because IN the church already. Mr. Henry, in his Treatise on
Baptism, p. 40, says: “The gos­pel contains not only a doctrine but a covenant;
and by bap­tism we are brought into that covenant.” And again: “Baptism is an
ordinance of Christ, whereby the person baptized is sol­emnly admitted a member
of the visible church.” ibid, p. 66. Then page 79, he says: “Baptism is a seal
of the covenant of grace, and therefore belongs to those who ARE IN that
covenant (at least by profession), and to NONE OTHER. The infants of be­lieving
parents ARE IN covenant with God, and therefore have a right to the initiating
seal of that covenant.” Again, page 66, he says: “Baptism is an ordinance of the
visible church, and per­tains, therefore, to those who are visible members of
the church. Their covenant right and their church membership entitle them to
baptism. Baptism cloth not give the title, but recognizes it.” Other quotations
might be given, but these are deemed suffi­cient to show the want of consistency
on the subject referred to. The argument is as changeable as the colors of a
chameleon. At one time parents are admonished to dedicate their children to God
in baptism, and bring them into covenant and church rela­tion with them; and we
are severely reprimanded for denying the dear children the privilege of entering
the church with their parents by baptism; and anon the order is reversed, and
the little babes are in the church—in covenant relation with God with their
parents, and for this very reason should be baptized. Thus it is that infants
must be baptized because not in the church to bring them in; and they must be
baptized because they are in it and entitled to its ordinances as members of it.
But if all children of believing parents are born members of the church, and on
that account are entitled to baptism, then we would be pleased to know what
church they enter by baptism, and what means their so-called reception into the
church when they are grown and make a profession of religion? First: We are told
that infants of believing parents are born members of the church, and should be
baptized because they are in it. Second: “Baptism is for the solemn admission of
the party bap­tized into the church.” What church? Third: They grow up to mature
years, attend a protracted meeting, make a profession of religion; the doors are
opened for the reception of members, and they join the church. What church? Is
there one church into which they enter at birth, another into which they enter
by bap­tism, and still another into which they enter by formal reception after
“getting religion?” In a previous chapter, we have seen that there is one
church, and only one. Are we to understand that the infant was born a member of
it and subsequently re-en­tered the church of which it was born a member? If so,
did it forfeit its previous membership in some way so as to make other
admissions necessary? If it did, we would be pleased to know how, and when, or
at what age the forfeiture was effected, and whether or not the church formally
declared non-fellowship with it. Again: If there be blessings conferred upon
infants by bap­tism, why are they restricted to the children of believing
par­ents? Are the children of unbelievers to be made responsible for the sins of
their parents so as to deprive them of gospel privi­leges which belong to and
are enjoyed by others of their age? Where is the authority for such
discrimination? If one infant may be baptized, surely all others may. Indeed, we
have ob­served quite a disposition to a change of position here in modern times.
Formerly, debaters were willing to affirm that the chil­dren of believing
parents were proper subjects of baptism; now they can not be induced to make
such a discrimination, but will affirm only the general proposition that infants
are proper sub­jects. We are rather pleased at this. If infant baptism be a
blessing, let all have the benefit of it. But does not such shifting of ground
show that there is nothing taught in the gospel in favor it? It occurs to us
that if the practice were clearly taught it would be understood, and there would
be no need of changing theories concerning it. Once more: If infants enter the
church either by birth or baptism, why are they not fit subjects for and
admitted to the Lord’s table? Surely, if they are members of the church, they
should be entitled to all the privileges of full membership. Then, why not give
them the bread and wine, as emblems of the body and blood of the Lord, which
belong to all who are mem­bers of the body of which He is the head? Do you tell
me that they can not partake of these emblems discerning the Lord’s body? Then,
for this very reason they are not competent for membership in the church where
such a duty is enjoined upon them. We know of no reason why they should not be
admitted to the Lord’s table, which would not apply to their membership in the
church with at least equal force. Does the gospel contain any special reason why
they should be excused, as members of the church, from participation in the
Lord’s Supper? If not, are they not entitled to it? Nay, are they not bound to
eat if mem­bers at all? No member of the church can be debarred from the
emblematic body and blood of the Lord unless he has made himself unworthy by the
commission of crime, such as infants are incapable of committing. Then, we
insist that those who re­gard infants as members of the church should give them
the bread and wine to which all members are entitled, or show the law excusing
them. Finally, as infants come into the church, according to the the­ory,
without faith or repentance, it is not easy for us to see how such graces may be
demanded of them in mature years. If they may enter the church without faith or
repentance, surely they could remain members without them; why should they be
treated as aliens or rebels for a want of faith or repentance in adult age, when
they entered the church and lived in it for years without either? Indeed, no
such qualifications were at all neces­sary to membership in the Jewish church;
and if the church now is but a continuance of the same church which existed
then, why should they be required now? No faith, change of heart, repent­ance,
purity of life, or holiness was essential to membership in the Jewish churches.
Every species of crime was perpetrated by those who lived and died in that
church. If the same church ex­ists now, and infants are in it because such were
in it then, why may not adults be in it without faith, repentance, or any thing
spiritual, seeing such were in it then. Persons were born mem­bers of the church
then and continued in it until death, however wicked they may have lived; why
not now? But suppose they are not born members of the church, but enter it by
baptism, the same results must follow. Many thousands of those who are baptized
in infancy become wicked, and remain through life as wicked as men ever get to
be, even never making any pretense of Christianity in any way; hence’ if they
entered the church when baptized, they live and die in it, for we never hear of
any such being excluded from the church because they become wicked; and
therefore the church is as full of depravity and wickedness as is the dominion
of Satan. There is no visible line of separation between the world and the
church. Those in the church are just as wicked as those out of it, for we have
never been able to see any difference in the ungodly who were bap­tized in
infancy and those who were not. Nor is this the worst; if infants must be
baptized because infants were in the Jewish church, then the wickedest man
living may be baptized for a similar reason. We suppose there is not a worse man
alive than lived in the Jewish church, and if infants may be baptized be­cause
infants were in that church, we see not why all other classes similar to those
in that church may not be baptized. Will the advocates of the theory accept the
results of their logic, and baptize every wicked man, because such were in the
Jewish church? If not, the argument based upon infant membership must be
abandoned. In a previous chapter we attempted to show that the church now in
existence was organized in Jerusalem on the day of Pen­tecost; we need not,
therefore, further examine this subject here, but we may call attention to some
facts, not presented there, showing that it can not be the same organization
which existed in the days of Abraham, or in the days of Moses. The Church of
Christ differs from the so-called Jewish church in the fact that it was based
upon another covenant. There were two classes of promises made by God to
Abraham. One pertained to the flesh and temporal interests, and the other to
matters spiritual. God said, “I am the Almighty God: walk before me, and be thou
per­fect. And I will make my covenant between me and thee, and will multiply
thee exceedingly. And Abram fell on his face: and God talked with him, saying,
As for me, behold, my covenant is with thee, and thou shalt be a father of many
nations. Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram, but thy name shall be
Abraham; for a father of many nations have I made thee. And I will make thee
exceeding fruitful, and I will make nations of thee, and kings shall come out of
thee. And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after
thee in their generations, for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee
and to thy seed after thee. And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after
thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an
everlasting possession; and I will be their God. And God said unto Abraham, Thou
shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee in their
generations. This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and
thy seed after thee: Every man child among you shall be circumcised. And ye
shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the
covenant between me and you.” Genesis 17 : l-11. In this covenant God promises
Abraham a numerous fleshly offspring and the land of Canaan, as a permanent
inheritance, and instituted circumcision as a token of the covenant thus made.
This covenant was renewed with Isaac, Jacob, and Moses, and upon it the Jewish
church or commonwealth was organized. That the covenant of circumcision was
incorporated into the law of Moses may be seen by the language of the Savior,
saying, “If a man on the Sabbath day receive circumcision, that the law of Moses
should not be broken.” John 7:23. That the covenant made with Abraham, and
renewed with Isaac and Jacob, was re­newed with Moses, is shown by the language
of Moses himself. He says, “Keep therefore the words of this covenant, and do
them, that ye may prosper in all that ye do. Ye stand this day all of you before
the Lord your God; your captains of your tribes, your elders, and your officers,
with all the men of Israel. Your little ones, your wives, and thy stranger that
is in thy camp, from the hewer of thy wood unto the drawer of thy water: That
thou shouldest enter into covenant with the Lord thy God, and into his oath,
which the Lord thy God maketh with thee this day: That he may establish thee
to-day for a people unto himself, and that he may be unto thee a God, as he hath
said unto thee, and as he hath sworn unto thy fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and
to Jacob.” Deuteronomy 29:9-13. Thus we clearly identify the covenant concerning
Abraham’s fleshly descendants, the land of Canaan, and the right of circumcision
with the covenant made with Moses; and Paul says Jesus “Blotted out the
handwriting of ordi­nances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and
took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross.” Colossians 2:14. But there was
another class of promises spiritual in their na­ture. When Abraham offered his
son, as commanded of God, “And the Angel of the Lord called unto Abraham out of
heaven the second time, and said, By myself have I sworn, saith the Lord, for
because thou hast done this thing, and hast not with­held thy son, shine only
son, that in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy
seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore;
and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies; and in thy seed shall all
the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice.” Genesis
22:15-18. Now let it be carefully observed that this promise was based upon the
express ground of Abra­ham’s obedience in offering Isaac. “Because thou hast
done this thing,” “Because thou hast obeyed my voice.” And Paul quotes the
language of this promise as fulfilled in Jesus Christ. He says: “Now to Abraham
and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but
as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.” Galatians 3 : l6. That these
different sets of promises constituted at least a plurality of covenants, may be
seen in the language of Paul concerning the Gentiles before the coming of
Christ. He says: “At that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the
commonwealth of Israel, and stran­gers from the covenants of promise.” Ephesians
2:12. Here is a dear intimation that the promises made to Abraham constituted
more than one covenant. Upon the promise made at the offer­ing of Isaac was
based the new and better covenant, established upon better promises (Hebrews
8:6), which was predicted by the Lord through his prophet, as follows: “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: not according to the covenant that I made
with their fa­thers, in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out
of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was a husband
unto them, saith the Lord: but this shall be the covenant that I will make with
the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord: I will put my law in their
inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they
shall be my people. And they shall teach no more every man his neighbor, and
every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for they shall all know me, from
the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord: for I will forgive
their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.” Jeremiah 31:31-34. That
this new covenant was that of which Christ became the mediator is evident from
the fact that Paul quotes the lan­guage as an argument to show that the old
covenant had given place to the new. He says, “But now hath he obtained a more
excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant,
which was established upon better promises. For if that first covenant had been
faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. For finding
fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will
make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: not
according to the covenant that I made with their fathers, in the day when I took
them by the hand to dead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued
not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord. For this is the
covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the
Lord: I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts; and I
will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people: and they shall not
teach every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord:
for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest. For I will be merciful to
their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniqui­ties will I remember no
more. In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that
which decayeth and wax­eth old is ready to vanish away.” Hebrews 8:6-13. We
would respectfully call the reader’s attention to several important thoughts
presented in the foregoing quotation. The Lord said He would make a new
covenant, hence it was not an old one, made prior to the time He used the
language quoted Paul gives us several reasons why this new covenant was
neces­sary, and he mentions several important points in which it differs from
the old covenant. First: Those to whom the first covenant was given broke
it—continued not in it, and hence God ceased to regard them. Second: The first
was a faculty covenant, hence it became necessary to have a better covenant,
established upon better promises, the provisions of which were not according to
the old one. Third: The laws of the old covenant were engraver on stone; those
of the new were to be written in the hearts of the people. Fourth: The subjects
of the old covenant became such by natural birth, or were purchased with money,
and hence could not know the Lord until taught by such as had reached mature
years; the subjects of the new covenant have to be born again to enter the
kingdom based upon it, and hence have to be all taught to know the Lord before
they believe in Him, and be­come subjects of His government; this being so,
there are no in­fants among them, because they can not know the Lord, or have
his laws written in their hearts. Fifth: Under the old covenant those who
violated its laws died without mercy under two or three witnesses (Hebrews
10:28); under the new covenant God is merciful to the unrighteousness of its
subjects. Sixth: Under the old covenant, sins were pardoned only a year at a
time. “For in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every
year. For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take
away sins.” Hebrews 10:3-4. Under the new covenant, one of its chief
excellencies is that sins once pardoned are re­membered no more. As this
position is fiercely assailed by some, and doubted by others, it may be well for
us to give it more than a passing no­tice. If the sins pardoned under the old
covenant were forever pardoned, why was it necessary that this should be
mentioned as one of the superior provisions of the new covenant? Wherein is it a
better covenant in this respect than the old? Was Paul mis­taken when he said:
“It is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sin?”
Surely the blood of these sacrifices did take them away if they were forever
pardoned by them. Paul says: “How much more shall the blood of Christ, who
through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your
conscience from dead works to serve the living God? And for this cause he is the
mediator of the new testa­ment, that by means of death, for the redemption of
the trans­gressions that were under the first testament, they which are called
might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.” Hebrews 9:14-15. Why was it
necessary that Jesus should die for the re­demption of the transgressions which
were under the first testa­ment if they were forever pardoned by the offerings
made ac­cording to its provisions? If we at all comprehend the language of Paul,
he meant to teach that Jesus died for the redemption of the transgressions
committed under the first testament, that those who were called by it might
receive the eternal inheritance promised them. All the offerings made under the
law looked to, and were perfected by, the death of Jesus Christ. “He taketh away
the first, that he may establish the second. By the which will we are sanctified
through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. And every priest
standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which
can never take away sins; but this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for
sins forever, sat down on the right hand of God; from henceforth expecting till
his enemies be made his footstool. For by one of­fering he hath perfected
forever them that are sanctified. Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to
us: for after that he had said before, This is the covenant that I will make
with them after those days, saith the Lord: I will put my laws into their
hearts, and in their minds will I write them; and their sins and iniquities will
I remember no more. Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering
for sin.” Hebrews 10:9-18. Thus we see that the apostle argues this question at
great length, to show this as one of the great points of superiority in the new
covenant over the old; and it seems to us that it could not have been made more
plain. Then, as it is a new and better covenant, established upon better
promises, why should any one want to get back under the old and faulty covenant,
which has been taken out of the way to make room for a better one? But we are
told that it was the law given by Moses when the Jews were delivered from
Egyptian bondage which was the old covenant which was taken out of the way, and
not the covenant made with Abraham. We have seen that the covenant made with
Abraham was renewed with Isaac, Jacob, and Moses (see Deuteronomy 29:9-13); and
we have seen that even circumcision be­longed to the law of Moses. (See John
7:23.) Surely this was given to Abraham (Genesis 17:9-14); and we suppose no
one, un­less a Jew, will contend that it has not been taken out of the way;
hence it is unsafe to affirm that a convenant has not been taken out of the way
because it was given to Abraham. But it does not matter what covenant it was
that was taken out of the way; the one of which Christ is mediator is the one
which con­cerns us, and it is the new covenant; and the prophecy concern­ing it
was made long after, not before the time when the Lord delivered the Jews from
Egyptian bondage. Long after that time the Lord said, Behold the days come, (not
have passed), when I will make a new covenant (not have made a covenant long
years ago); hence it could not have been a covenant made with Abraham, or with
any one else prior to the time God made this declaration by Jeremiah; and it was
to be made with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah—houses which had
no existence in the days of Abraham, nor until long years after­ward. How, then,
could it refer to a covenant made with him? But the Jewish church was only half
as large as the Christian church. While that was confined to the Jews, this is
for every creature among all nations who will accept its blessings on the terms
proposed. Here, too, is another striking evidence that the new and better
covenant, of which Christ is the mediator, was based upon the promise of God to
Abraham at the offering of Isaac. “In thy seed shall all the nations of the
earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice.” Genesis 22:18. As long as
the Jewish church existed, the Gentiles were refused the privi­leges of it. Paul
says: “Wherefore remember that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who
are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh
made by hands; that at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the
commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the cove­nants of promise, having no
hope, and without God in the world: but now, in Christ Jesus, ye who sometime
were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. For he is our peace, who hath
made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;
having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained
in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace; and
that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the
enmity thereby.” Ephesians 2:11-16. Here we find that the law, which stood as a
middle wall between Jews and Gentiles for ages, and had kept the latter from any
participation in the worship of God with the former, was taken out of the way,
by the death of Christ, and one new man or church was made of both Jews and
Gentiles, who participated in its privi­leges upon terms of perfect equality. It
is agreed by all parties that the phrase new man here simply means a new church.
Under the the old dispensation the Gentiles were without Christ, aliens from the
Jewish commonwealth, and strangers from the covenants of promise; but, under the
new covenant, they enter into, and are members of the one church composed of all
na­tions, to whom the gospel is preached, and for whom Jesus died. Observe it is
not an enlarged church, ar. improved church, or a renewed church, but a NEW
church, hence we see not how it can be the same old church which existed in the
days of Abraham and Moses. Jesus says: “No man puttteth a piece of new cloth
unto an old garment; for that which is put in to fill it up taketh away from the
garment, and the rent is made worse. Neither do men put new wine into old
bottles: else the bottles break, and the wine runneth out, and the bottles
perish: but they put new wine into new bottles, and both are preserved.” Matthew
9:16-17; Mark 2:22; Luke 5:36-38. Now it occurs to us that those who seek to
retain the old Jewish church are doing just the thing which the Lord here
condemned. They seek to enlarge it so as to include the Gentiles, leaving off
its ceremonies, carnal ordi­nances, and festivals: and fill up the rents with
infant baptism and other human traditions, and thus patch up the old garment
with a little Christianity and a good supply of the command­ments of men, and
make a worse system than Judaism itself. If the church of Christ or kingdom of
God is the same church which existed in the days of Abraham and Moses, why did
those who had been brought up in the Jewish church have still to enter the
church established by the authority of the Lord? When Nicodemus recognized the
divine character and mission of Jesus, he expected, doubtless, that, as a
descendant of Abraham, he would be recognized as a ruler in the kingdom or
church of God; but all his claims based upon Jewish birth were met with the
solemn announcement that, “Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he
can not enter into the kingdom of God.” John 3:5. It is not strange that such a
declaration should have astonished him, for he had the same notion of the
continuance of the Jewish church which Pedobaptists seem to have now. As they
view it could he not reply, “I have been in the church all my life, and am now a
ruler of the Jews—a master of Israel, and you speak to ME of having yet to enter
the church or kingdom into which I was born!” Still he is met with the cool
reply: “Mar­vel not that I said unto thee, ye must be born again.” Verse 7. Was
not this equivalent to saying: “I know you were born into the Jewish church, but
My kingdom or church is a very dif­ferent organization. No spiritual
qualifications were necessary to membership in that church, but a birth of flesh
only, or even purchase with money was sufficient. My church is designed to make
men holy; hence, purity of heart and submission to My will are the means of
entrance; and, therefore, I tell you that, though a member of the Jewish church,
of however great dis­tinction, you must be born of water and of the Spirit, or
into My kingdom or church you can not enter.” Could language more clearly teach
that the Jewish church was not the church which Jesus came to establish? On
another occasion Jesus said: “Among those that are born of women there is not a
greater prophet than John the Baptist: but he that is least in the kingdom of
God is greater than he.” Luke 7:28. Though John was born of Jewish parentage,
and filled with the Holy Spirit from birth (Luke 1 : l5), a prophet, sent of God
(John 1:6), than whom there was not a greater, yet he that was least in the
kingdom vvas greater than he. He lived and died out of the kingdom or church for
which he prepared materials, because he died before it was established; but had
the Jewish church been the one for which he prepared material, there would have
been none greater than he in it, for there was none greater born of women, and
he was born in it. When the Pharisees and Sadducees came to John, demanding
baptism of him, he said: “Think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to
our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up
children unto Abraham.” Matthew 3:9. Does not this language imply that these
Pharisees and Saddu­cees had set up peculiar claims on account of Abrahamic
de­scent? And truly their claims would have been just, had the theory under
consideration been true. If the Jewish and Chris­tian churches were the same,
and persons are to be baptized be­cause in the church, surely they were in the
Jewish church; were born members of it, and would have been entitled to baptism
as such. Was it not, therefore, cruel in John to thus rebuke them; even cruel as
we when we refuse to baptize infants because in the church? On one occasion
Jesus said to the disciples: “Ex­cept ye be converted, and become as little
children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.” Matthew 18:3. Though
the disciples of the Lord were selected from those prepared by John whose
ministry was confined to the “lost sheep of the house of Is­rael,” yet at the
time Jesus used the language quoted they were not in the kingdom or church which
Jesus came to establish, for the very good reason that it did not then exist.
But with what propriety could Jesus have used such language had the Jewish
church, in which they had lived all their lives, been the kingdom referred to?
“Except ye become converted ye shall not enter a kingdom or church in which you
have been all your lives.” My blessed Lord never talked such nonsense. Other
examples might be given, but these are deemed sufficient to show that those who
were born and raised in the Jewish church, had nevertheless to enter the church
of God or die out of it; and this fact is conclu­sive proof that they can not be
identical. Similar in some re­spects they were, but identical they can not be.
But they are both called the church. Yes, but this proves not their identity,
for different things are often called by the same name. How many different
organizations are there now claim­ing to be the church? Joshua was called Jesus,
so was Christ; yet they were not the same person. Joshua was called a Priest, so
was Aaron, yet they were not the same person. Baalam was called a prophet, so
were Elisha, Isaiah, John, Jesus, and man others, but still they were not
identical; so Stephen speaks of the church in the wilderness, and Paul speaks of
the church of Go. at Corinth, yet this proves not that they spake of the same
organization. The Greek word ekilessa, from which we have the word church, means
called out; hence, as God called the Jew out of bondage and separated them from
the Egyptians, the: were called the church in the wilderness; but they were not
the church in our sense of this word. While there were some good people among
them, yet, in the main, they were wicked, ungrateful, and idolatrous, lacking
all the elements of character’ which should characterize the spiritual church of
God. The word assembly, in Acts 19:34, is from the same word, ekklesia, rendered
church, and is used to designate a rabble that would have taken Paul’s life.
Hence, the mere occurrence of the word can not identify the same church. The
word ekklesia is vari­ously rendered church, congregation, assembly, etc.; and
we can only learn whether it is applied to a lawless mob, a political as­sembly,
or a religious organization, from the context. Why, then, should the application
of this word to the Jewish nation prove it to the church of God? Surely it can
not. But we are referred to the olive-tree, which is claimed to have been a
figure of the Jewish church, into which the Gentiles were engrafted; hence it is
but the same church under both dis­pensations. As this is an important argument,
let us somewhat carefully examine it. Paul says: “For if the first-fruit be
holy, the lump is also holy, . . . And if some of the branches be broken off,
and thou, being a wild olive-tree, wert grafted in among them, and with them
partakes” of the root and fatness of the olive-tree; boast not against the
branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee. Thou
will say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be grafted in. Well;
be­cause of unbelief they were broken off; and thou standest by faith. Be not
highminded, but fear; for if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest
he spare not thee. Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them
which fell severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his
goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off. And they also, if they abide not
still in unbelief, shall be grafted in: for God is able to graft them in again.
For if thou wert cut out of the olive-tree which is wild by nature, and wert
graffed contrary to na­ture into a good olive-tree; how much more shall these,
which be the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive-tree?” Romans
11:16-24. In the first place, we remark that this passage says not a word about
when the good olive-tree began, whether in the days of Abraham or on the day of
Pentecost. In the next place, the natural and unnatural branches were supported
by the root, and alike had to be grafted in. In the next place, those broken off
were broken off for unbelief and those who stood, stood by faith. Infants can
not exercise faith, nor is it probable that they are re­jected for unbelief;
hence, it can not apply to them in any sense. And if this good olive-tree
represents the church, it is certain that it can not represent the Jewish
church, because its branches stood by faith and were rejected for unbelief.
Infants were in the Jewish church, hence the olive-tree could not represent it.
The root, which gave support to all the members or branches, represents Christ.
Isaiah says: “And in that day there shall be a root of Jesse, which shall stand
for an ensign of the people; to it shall the Gentiles seek.” Isaiah 11:10. Paul
quotes this language in this same letter to the Romans as fulfilled in Christ.
He says: “Isais saith, There shall be a root of Jesse, and he that shall rise to
reign over the Gentiles; in him shall the Gentiles trust.” Romans 15:12. The
same thought is presented in the figure of the vine and its branches. Jesus
says: “I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman. Every branch in me
that beareth not fruit he taketh away: and every branch that beareth fruit, he
purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit. Now ye are clean through the
word which I have spoken unto you. Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch can
not bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye
abide in me. I am the vine, ye are the branches.” John 15:1-5. Jesus, as the
promised seed of Abraham in whom all nations were to be blessed, was the root of
the good olive-tree or church established on the day of Pente­cost among the
Jews or natural descendants of Abraham, who very soon went back into Judaism and
rejected the Messiah, and were thus broken off for their unbelief, and the
Gentiles were brought in, and to-day stand by faith, but the Jews are not yet
grafted in again, because they abide still in unbelief. But as all the members
stand by faith, or fall by unbelief, infants are en­tirely out of the question.
It can not embrace them. But we are referred to the language of James: “After
this I will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I
will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up.” Acts 15:16. It is
assumed that the tabernacle of David here means the Jewish church. But what may
we not prove by assumption? Isaiah says: “And in mercy shall the throne be
established: and he shall sit upon it in truth in the tabernacle of David,
judging, and seek­ing judgment, and hasting righteousness.” Isaiah 16:5. The
throne of David was long unoccupied by any descendant of his, and it was
predicted that that throne should be re-established in his family. Hence says
Peter: “Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath
to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh he would raise up
Christ to sit on his throne.” Acts 2:30. Thus the tabernacle of David was simply
the family of David, from which Christ was raised up to sit upon his
throne—Christ was the fruit of his loins, ac­cording to the flesh. It had no
allusion to such a thing as the church of David. Did David have a church? Mr.
Robinson, a celebrated Pedobaptist Lexicographer, in defining the Greek word
from which we have the word tabernacle in the above quo­tation, says:
“Metaphorically, for the family’ or royal line of David, fallen into weakness
and decay.” Louisville Debate, p. 78. It occurs to us that if the Jewish church
and the Christian church are the same, the Jews’ religion and the Christian
religion are the same. Paul was zealous in the Jews’ religion while per­secuting
Christians. He says: “My manner of life from my youth, which was at the first
among mine own nation at Jerusa­lem, knew all the Jews; which knew me from the
beginning, if they would testify, that after the straitest sect of our religion
I lived a Pharisee.” Acts 26:4-5. And again: “For ye have heard of my
conversation in time past in the Jews’ religion, how that beyond measure I
persecuted the church of God, and wasted it: and profited in the Jews’ religion
above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the
traditions of my fathers.” Galatians 1:13-14. Once more: “I per­secuted the
church of God.” 1 Corinthians 15:9. From these quota­tions it is evident that
the Jewish and Christian religions differed very widely. While Paul was a rigid
adherent to the Jewish reli­gion, he was a most fanatical persecutor of the
Christian reli­gion. Nor will it change the argument to admit that he was
mis­taken in his views of Christianity, for had he been imbued with the spirit
of the Christian religion he could not have given en­couragement to the murder
of Stephen, and the persecution of Christians, even granting them to have been
wicked as he re­garded them. The spirit which characterized him as a Jew, is not
the spirit of Christianity at all. And while at this point, we would refer the
reader to the sermon on the mount, where he may find a most wonderful and
striking contrast in the principles of the Jewish and Christian religions. While
one was a system of retaliation, sensuality, and revenge, the other is a system
of love, mercy, good for evil, and self-denial. Can fruits so very different be
the product of the same religion in the same church? Can the same fountain send
forth bitter water and sweet? Surely no two organizations could be more
different; and yet in­fant baptism derives its chief support from their supposed
iden­tity. But we propose to show that there was no such thing as in­fant
membership in the church in the days of the apostles. Paul says: “Those members
of the body which seem to be more feeble are necessary.” 1 Corinthians 12:22.
Are infants the more feeble mem­bers? If so, for what are they necessary? “That
the members should have the same care one for another.” Verse 25. What care has
an infant for any one as a member of the church of God? “And whether one member
suffer, all the members suffer with it; or one member be honored, all the
members rejoice with it.” Verse 26. All the members sympathize with each other
in time of distress; and rejoice in times of honor with the hon­ored ones. They
rejoice with them that rejoice, and weep with them that weep. Infants can not do
this, and as all did do it, there could have been no infants among them. We are
aware that the word all must sometimes be understood in a limited sense, but we
are not sure that it may be so understood here. The language seems to
individualize the whole body. When one member suffers all the members suffer
with it. When one member rejoices all rejoice. When Ananias and Sapphira were
put to death, it is said that “Great fear came upon all the church.” Acts 5:11.
Were the lit­tle infants alarmed lest some great calamity should come upon the
church? If not, none were in the church at that time, for such was the feeling
of the church— allthe church. When the difficulty arose concerning circumcision,
and Paul and Barnabas placed the matter before the church at Jerusalem, it
pleased “the apostles and elders, with the WHOLE CHURCH, to send chosen men of
their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas.” Acts 15:22. We know that
the church may do things without every member engaging in the work, but in such
cases it could not be said that it pleased the WHOLE church. When it is said
that the WHOLE church did a thing, we are in­clined to think that every member,
great and small, engaged in it. Infants could not take part in such a settlement
as the one referred to, and as the whole church did take part in, and sanc­tion
what was done, it follows that there were no infants in the church. Paul gives
us an instructive lesson on this subject: He says: “From whom the 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.” Ephesians 4:16. Here
we learn that the great business of the church is to edify itself and convert
sinners, that it may increase the number of the saved in the body. And in order
to do this, every joint must supply some assistance, that the whole body be
engaged in the work. The apostle declares that there must be an effectual
work­ing in the measure of every part. W e not only have the whole body here
engaged, but every part is effectually working. Can infants effectually work for
the salvation of men and the edifica­tion of the church? If not, they have no
place in it. Peter says: “Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual
house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, accepta­ble to God
by Jesus Christ.” 1 Peter 2:5. The church is not made of dead, inactive
material, but of active, lively members who can work in God’s building. They are
spiritual priests, whose business it is to offer spiritual sacrifices—not mere
lumps of flesh, without any spirituality connected with them. Can in­fants be
thus actively engaged as lively stones in this great spiri­tual temple? If not,
they have no place in it. There is no func­tion belonging to the body which they
can perform, unless it be to weep with them that weep. They do not know the
Lord, and hence can not make spiritual sacrifices to Him, and therefore, have no
place in the church of God on the earth. We come now to examine the argument
based upon the as­sumption that baptism came in the room of circumcision, and as
infants were circumcised in the Jewish church they must now be baptized. Though
in former days this was regarded as the chief argument supporting the practice,
it has become about obsolete. Watson, in his “Institutes,” makes it his
strongest argument, and so did Rice, Hughey, and other debaters; yet Mr. Ditzler
says they were all wrong—that baptism did not come in the room of circumcision,
and that the argument drawn from that source must be abandoned. He, though the
recognized champion in Pedobaptist ranks, makes no argument based upon that
hypothe­sis in support of his practice. Is not this significant? When a practice
is to be supported for a time from one stand-point, and when driven from it,
positions are shifted, and the same practice supported from other
considerations, equally doubtful, we are inclined to regard it as of doubtful
authority, and hard to de­fend, to say the least of it. But why shall we consume
time in the examination of an ob­solete argument? Because it still has a place
in the standard works and text-books of the various parties who practice infant
baptism, and some may still be inclined to regard it as impor­tant, for long
cherished arguments are usually abandoned reluc­tantly. But as this argument has
its root in the doctrine of the identity of the Jewish and Christian churches,
it necessarily falls with that theory. We will, however, present some additional
ar­guments, designed to show that baptism did not come in the room of
circumcision. 1. Circumcision was confined to the Jews, and those pur­chased
with money by them; baptism is for all nations. 2. Circumcision was to be
performed on native Jews at eight days old; baptism is for any age capable of
believing the gospel. 3. Circumcision was confined to males only; baptism is for
men and women. If baptism came in the room of circumcision, why baptize females?
4. Circumcision applied to those bought with money; bap­tism has no such
application. No Christian man thinks of bap­tizing a servant, simply because of
purchase; but why not, if baptism came in the room of circumcision? 5. No faith
was required as a qualification for circumcision; but believers only are
baptized. When the eunuch demanded baptism of Philip, the answer was: “If thou
believes” with all thy heart, thou mayest,” clearly implying that if he did not
believe he should not be baptized. 6. Circumcision was not an initiatory
ordinance, but was for such as were already members of the Jewish family; and if
not circumcised he was to be cut off from his people. Genesis 17:14. Baptism,
properly administered, admits or introduces the subject into the kingdom of God
(John 3:5); therefore, baptism did not come in the room of circumcision. 7.
Circumcision showed a man to be a Jew; baptism shows a man to be neither a Jew
nor a Gentile, but a Christian only. 8. Baptism is administered in the name of
the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Circumcision was not thus administered. 9.
Baptism is administered to show the burial and resurrec­tion of Christ.
Circumcision was not administered for this pur­pose, because these events had
not transpired when it was insti­tuted, nor for many hundred years afterward.
10. Circumcision placed a man under obligations to do the whole law; baptism
frees us from bondage, and puts no one under the law of Moses; hence it came not
in the room of cir­cumcision. 11. Baptism is administered for the remission of
sins (Acts 2:38 ); circumcision had no such object. 12. Baptism is for the
answer of a good conscience ( 1 Peter 3:21); circumcision had nothing to do with
the conscience, but pertained wholly to the flesh. 13. Those baptized went on
their way rejoicing (Acts 8:39;Acts 16:34); we imagine that those who were
circumcised were usu­ally taken away crying. Therefore they were not much alike.
14. Circumcision was obedience to the law of Moses (John 7:23); baptism is
obedience to the gospel of Jesus Christ. 15. No one can be a scriptural subject
of baptism who is not first taught the gospel; but many were circumcised before
they were old enough to be taught any thing. 16. The gift of the Holy Spirit was
promised to those bap­tized on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:38); this gift was
never promised to any for being circumcised, or, as following it. This list of
distinctions might be extended much further, but these are enough to show, to
every reflecting mind, that there is not a shadow of resemblance in baptism to
circumcision, and that one came not in the room of the other. But there arose a
difficulty in the church in the days of the apostles concerning cir­cumcision,
which it seems to us would have been a good time to have settled this whole
question. “Certain men which came down from Judea taught the brethren, and said,
Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye can not 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. 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 elders came together for to consider of this matter.” Acts
15:1-6. Had the apostles only thought of the fact that circumcision had given
place to baptism, which had taken its place, they would have answered something
after the follow­ing style: “Brethren, there need be no difficulty about
circumci­sion, for baptism has come in its place, and hence you need only now be
baptized, and have your children baptized, in place of having them circumcised,
as under the law.” Would not such an answer have been most natural under the
circumstances? Did they so answer? Peter said: “Why tempt ye God, to put a yoke
upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to
bear?” Verse 10. But he said not a word about baptism in room of circumcision.
After due deliberation these inspired teachers wrote an answer as follows: “The
apostle, and elders, and brethren, send greeting unto the brethren which are of
the Gentiles in Antioch, and Syria, and Cilicia: Forasmuch as we have heard,
that certain which went out from us have trou­bled you with words, subverting
your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law; to whom we gave no
such com­mandment; it seemed good to us, being assembled with one ac­cord, to
send chosen men unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul. ... For it seemed
good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these
necessary things: that ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood,
and from things strangled, and from fornication; from which if ye keep
yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.” Verses 23-29. Now, be it observed
that this letter was written by the apostles and elders, from the church at
Jerusalem, who had duly considered the question of circumcision, and it was
approved by the Holy Spirit; and yet it contains not a word about baptism coming
in the room of circumcision; and circumcision was the very thing about which the
difficulty arose! Would a Pedobaptist council now write thus? Would they not
more probably write something after the following style: “Brethren, you need not
now be circumcised, for baptism has taken its place. If you, therefore, have
your children baptized and abstain from circumcision, you shall do well?” Paul
labors this question at great length in his letter to the Galatians, who were
inclined to go back to the law. He says: “Stand fast therefore in the liberty
wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of
bondage. 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.
Whosoever of you are justified by the law, ye are fallen from grace. For we
through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteous­ ness by faith; for in Jesus
Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but faith
which worketh by love.” Galatians 5:14. Is it not strange that, while Paul was
making this argument to keep his brethren from being circumcised, he never once
thought of the fact that baptism came in the room of cir­cumcision? Had he
informed them of this fact it would have settled the question forever. But he
could think of every other argument except this, the most important of all. He
told them it was a yoke of bondage, from which to keep themselves free; that if
circumcised they would have to keep the whole law; that they would lose all
their hopes of salvation through Christ; that they would fall from grace; that
in Christ circumcision could not avail them any thing; all this, but never once
said, “Brethren, you need not be circumcised, for baptism has taken its place.”
Why did he not think of it? Will the reader think of it? But we insist that
baptism did not come in the room of cir­cumcision from another consideration:
both were in force, under the same covenant, among the same people, at the same
time. We have seen that circumcision was instituted in the family of Abraham for
the Jewish nation, and that the covenant to which it belonged was not taken out
of the way until the death of Christ; hence it was in force up to the time of
His death. John’s ministry was confined to the Jews, and ended before Christ
began to preach. See Matthew 4:12-17. Then, John’s ministry began and ended
during the existence of the covenant of circum­cision; and his baptism and
Jewish circumcision were both bind­ing among the same people at the same
time—with this differ­ence only: infants were circumcised at eight days old;
those only were baptized who had sinned and were willing to confess and forsake
their sins. As circumcision and John’s baptism were both in force at the same
time, under the same covenant among the same people, how could one be in the
place of the other? Again: If baptism came in the room of circumcision, why was
it necessary for Jews who had been circumcised to still be bap­tized? We have
stated that John’s ministry was confined to the Jews who had been circumcised,
and yet he baptized vast num­bers of them. The Pharisees were the straitest sect
of the Jews, and were so zealous for the law of circumcision that they even
wanted to bind it upon Gentiles after conversion to Christianity, and yet the
“Pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel of God against themselves, being not
baptized of him.” Luke 7:30. It may be that they made their objection to John’s
baptism because they had been circumcised; we suppose not; but whether they did
or did not, one thing is certain; namely, it was the counsel of God that they
should be baptized notwithstanding their circum­cision. On the day of Pentecost
the gospel was preached to Jews, who were commanded to repent and be baptized in
the name of Jesus Christ, and three thousand of them were baptized, though, as
Jews, they had all been circumcised. And Paul was a Pharisee, brought up at the
feet of Gamaliel, and taught accord­ing to the perfect manner of the law
touching which he was blameless; yet, under special instructions from the Lord,
Ananias commanded him to “be baptized and wash away his sins.” Acts 22:16. Might
he not have expostulated with the man of God thus: “Sir, I am a Jew, and have
been circumcised; and as bap­tism came in the room of circumcision, however,
important it may be to a Gentile, it can not be obligatory on me, as I have
complied with the rite in the room of which it came, and for which it is a
substitute? Why should I submit to the substitute, having received the
original?” Surely, such a plea would have been in harmony with the theory. But,
as no such plea was made by any Jew, but every one of them converted to the
faith of the gospel had to be baptized notwithstanding his circumcision, we
conclude that circumcision passed away with the old cove­nant, of which it was a
part, and that baptism has no connec­tion with it whatever. Indeed, as
circumcision belonged to the old covenant which has passed away, baptism can not
be in the place of circumcision, for it has no place. The covenant in which it
had a place being gone, it would be quite as sensible to speak of a man having a
place in a house which had been burned to ashes. A place in the house he may
have had when it was a house, but when it ceased to exist he could no longer
have a place in it. So, when the covenant to which circumcision be­longed passed
away its place passed away, and it is idle to talk of any thing coming in and
filling its place. It has no place only in Jewish history. But it is said that
circumcision was a seal of the Jewish cove­nant, and that baptism is the seal of
the new covenant, hence one is in the place of the other—i.e., baptism sustains
the same I relationship to the new covenant which circumcision sustained to, the
old. Well, let us examine this theory. And, first, the reader will note the fact
that this argument—or, rather, theory—aban­dons the whole doctrine of church
identity based upon an iden­tity of the covenants. Waving this, however, we will
examine the theory upon its merits. God said: “And ye shall circumcise the flesh
of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you.”
Genesis 17:11. Here we find circumcision called a token, but not a seal of the
covenant. Paul says Abra­ham “received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the
righteous­ness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised; that he might
be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised.” Romans
4 : ll. Here circumcision was a seal of the righteousness of Abraham’s faith,
not a seal of the covenant. And circumcision was to Abraham what it was to no
other Jew. It was a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had be­fore
he was circumcised. How much faith could a Jewish infant have before it was
eight days old? Of course, none at all; and hence, circumcision could not seal
the righteousness of the faith of those who had no faith. But is baptism the
seal of the new covenant? If so, where is the scripture which proves or teaches
it? As to the covenant it­self, it came nearer being sealed by the blood of
Jesus Christ than by baptism; and the subjects are sealed by the Holy Spirit.
Paul says: “In whom ye also trusted after that ye heard the word of truth, the
gospel of your salvation; in whom also, after that ye believed, ye were sealed
with the Holy Spirit of promise.” Ephesians 1:13. And again: “Grieve not the
Holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption.” Ephesians
4:30. Thus we see that persons converted to God under the new covenant are
sealed with the Holy Spirit, and not by baptism; nor is it even once called the
seal, or a seal in all the book of God. Hence, if any thing sustains the same
relation to the new covenant which circumcision did to the old, as taught by
Pedobaptists, it is the Holy Spirit. Thus, were we to grant that circumcision
was the seal of the Jewish covenant—or, rather, were it true— it would only be
another evidence that baptism did not come in its place, for baptism is not a
seal, nor is it anywhere called one. It comes much nearer performing, under the
new cove­nant, the office which the natural birth did to a Jew under the old.
Natural birth introduced a Jew into the Jewish common­wealth, or so-called
church, and. a birth of water and Spirit in­troduces men and women into the
kingdom or church of God Hence, there is some analogy between the natural birth
of a Jew and the new birth which makes a man a child of God or a Chris­tian, but
none whatever between baptism and Jewish circumci­sion. But suppose we admit,
for a moment, that circumcision was the seal of the Jewish covenant, and that it
is still in force, the seal being changed to baptism, then it follows that every
Jew who is baptized is twice sealed in the same covenant—once with the sign of
circumcision and once in baptism. Hence, if circum­cision and baptism may be,
and were administered to the same subject under the same covenant, why will not
Pedobaptists re­baptize those who become dissatisfied with a baptism received in
infancy? If the same persons may be twice sealed in the same covenant—once by
circumcision, and again by baptism after it became a substitute for the former,
then we see not why others may not be twice sealed by baptism upon the same
prin­ciple. If they may receive the original and then the substitute, why not
twice receive the substitute? Those who can, may ex­plain; we can not. We close
our examination of the covenants with Paul’s alle­gory. He says: “Tell me, ye
that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law? For it is written, that
Abraham had two sons, the one by a bond-maid and the other by a free woman. But
he that was of the bond-woman was born after the flesh; but he of the free woman
was by promise; which things are- an alle­gory; for these are the two covenants;
for this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is
and is in bondage with her children, but Jerusalem which is above is free, which
is the mother of us all. For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest
not; break forth and cry, thou that tra­vaileth not: for the desolate hath many
more children than she which hath a husband. Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are
the children of promise. But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted
him that was born after the Spirit, even as it is now. Nevertheless what saith
the scripture? Cast out the bond­woman and her son: for the son of the
bond-woman shall not be heir with the son of the free woman. So, then, brethren,
we are not children of the bond-woman, but of the free.” Galatians 4:21-31. In
this allegory, Abraham’s bond-woman Hagar represents the covenant made at Sinai,
and his lawful wife Sarah represents the new covenant, of which Jesus Christ is
the mediator. Each of these women had a son by Abraham. Hagar’s son was born
after the flesh, Sarah’s son Isaac was given her by promise when she was past
age. The question arose whether the child of the bond-woman should inherit
Abraham’s estate equal with the son of the free. God decided that he should not
be heir with the son of the free woman, and ordered the bond-woman and her son
to be cast out. Paul uses this circumstance to illustrate the two covenants. As
the Sinaitic covenant required no spiritual qualifications for membership but a
birth of flesh only, it was fitly represented by the woman whose son was born
according to the flesh, and was rejected. But as the new covenant required
spiritual qualifications for membership, and conferred spiritual blessings upon
the subjects of it through Christ, it was fitly represented by the lawful wife,
whose son Isaac was the child of promise and the seed of Abraham, from whom
Christ the mediator of the new covenant should come. And Paul says we, as Isaac
was, are the children of promise; not children of the bond-woman, but of the
free. As the free woman represented the new covenant and we are children of the
free woman, it follows that we are children of the new covenant represented by
the free woman, whose children we are. And as God com­manded to cast out the
bond-woman and her son, which represented the old covenant and its membership,
it follows that no one can inherit the spiritual privileges of the new covenant
as a subject of the one which has waxed old and been cast out with its
membership. Nor will it do to assume that this bond-woman simply repre­sented
the covenant made at Sinai, but did not include the cove­nant made with Abraham,
for we have already seen that the cov­enant made with Abraham was renewed with
Isaac, Jacob, and Moses (See Deuteronomy 29 : l9); and even the covenant of
circumci­sion originally given to Abraham was incorporate in and became part of
the law of Moses. Jesus says: “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 7:23. Then, as
circum­cision, which Pedobaptists tell us was the seal of the Abrahamic
covenant, became part of the law of Moses or covenant made at Sinai, surely the
covenant did also, for the seal would not have been transferred without the
covenant to which it belonged. Then, as these were merged into the covenant made
at Sinai, which was represented by the bond-woman and her son who were cast out,
it follows that that covenant and the Jewish church based upon it, with its
membership, are gone, forever gone. “So, then, brethren, we are not children of
the bond­woman, but of the free,” thank God. We come now to examine the argument
based upon Jewish proselyte baptism. It is assumed that the Jews, from the days
of Jacob until now, have baptized female proselytes, and both bap­tized and
circumcised male proselytes; and when they bap­tized parents they also baptized
their children. The theory appears to be somewhat inconsistent, to say the least
of it. Both circumcision and baptism practiced at the same time, among the same
people, upon the same subjects, under the same covenant, and yet one came in the
room of the other! Really, if both were in existence from the days of Jacob
until the coming of the Messiah, it would seem that if He did any thing with
them He rather consolidated them than substituted one for the other. Among the
Jews, it seems that each is in its own place for if both were practiced under
the old covenant, each had a place; and as both are practiced now, we suppose
they have not changed places yet. But as Pedobaptists admit that circumcision
has passed away, but contend that baptism has taken its place, we feel a little
curious to know what place it filled under the old covenant when circumcision
was in its own place. If baptism is the seal under the new covenant, what office
did it fill in the old covenant when circumcision was the seal? Leaving those
who advocate the theories to harmonize them at their leisure, we pro­pose to
examine the testimony concerning the baptism of Jewish proselytes, and see
whether or not it was practiced from the days of Jacob, or even before the days
of John the Baptist. And we will first hear what eminent Pedobaptists, who have
given the subject a careful and thorough examination, say about: 1. “Part of
John’s office consisted in baptizing an external rite, then in a particular
manner appointed of God, and not used before.” Venema, in Booth Abridged, p.
161. 2. When speaking of John the Baptist and his ministry, Ger­hardus asks:
“Who would have embraced that new and hitherto unusual ceremony, baptism,
without sufficient previous informa­tion.” Gerhardus, in Booth Abridged, p. 161.
3. “Why, then, baptizest thou? Hence, it appears the Jews were not ignorant that
there should be some alteration in the rites of religion under the Messiah,
which they might easily learn from Jer. xxxi. John most pertinently answers,
professing that he was not the author, but only the administrator, of this new
rite.” Beza, in Booth Abridged, p. 161. 4. “The baptism of proselytes, in our
opinion, seems to have been received by the Jews after the time of John the
Baptist, being very much influenced by his authority, and greatly admir­ing him.
Certainly, it can not be proved by any substantial tes­timony, that it was in
use among the Jews before the time of John.” Deylingius, in Booth, p. 162. 5.
“In fine, we are destitute of any early testimony to the practice of proselyte
baptism antecedently to the Christian era. The original institution of admitting
Jews to the covenant, and strangers to the same, prescribed no other rite than
that of cir­cumcision. No account of any other is found in the Old Testa­ment;
none in the Apocrypha, New Testament, Targums of On­kelos, Jonathan, Joseph the
Blind, or in the work of any other Targumist, excepting Pseudo-Jonathan, whose
work belongs to the seventh or eighth centuries. No evidence is found in Philo,
Josephus, or any of the earlier Christian writers. How could an allusion to such
a rite have escaped them all if it were as com­mon and as much required by usage
as circumcision?” Stuart on Baptism, p. 140. Again he says: “Be this as it may,
or be the origin of prose­lyte baptism as it may, I can not see that there is
any adequate evidence for believing that it existed contemporarily with the
baptism of John and of Jesus. But what has all this to do with the question,
What was the ancient mode of baptism? Much; for it is on all hands conceded
that, so far as the testimony of the Rabbis can decide such a point, the baptism
of proselytes among the Jews was by immersion. It is, therefore, a matter of no
little interest, so far as our question is concerned, to inquire whether
Christian baptism had its origin from the proselyte bap­tism of the Jews. This
we have done, and have come to this re­sult, viz.: that there is no certainty
that such was the case, but that the probability, on the ground of evidence, is
strong against it.” Ibid, p. 142. 6. “But independently of its supposed
scriptural sanction, an attempt has been made to prove this usage in the
apostolic age, upon the alleged fact that the Jews then baptized proselytes from
heathenism. Now, this alleged fact of the baptism of pros­elytes is very
uncertain, and, even if admitted, would by no means establish the apostolic
usage of infant baptism. The bap­tism of proselytes is first mentioned in the
Mishna, a collection of Jewish traditions, completed in the third century [A.D.
219]; and the usage there mentioned (baptism of adults and in­fants ) might have
been derived, directly or indirectly, from Christians.” Dr. Blunt, in Louisville
Debate, p. 105 With regard to the silence of Josephus on the subject, Dr. Blunt
very justly remarks: “But whether this supposed Jewish usage existed at all
(among Jews or Christians) in the apostolic age is uncertain. It is not
mentioned by Josephus, even when we might fairly expect that it would have been
recorded—as when he relates that the Idumeans were received among the Jewish
people by circumcision, without mentioning baptism. Were the usage undoubted, it
would only have been an unautho­rized addition to the scriptural command, since
it was by cir­cumcision only that proselytes were to be added ta the Jewish
Church. Exodus 12:48.” Ut supra. On this subject Prof. Stuart says: “Nay, there
is one passage in Josephus which seems to afford strong ground of suspicion that
the rite in question was unknown at a period not long ante­cedent to the time of
the apostles. This author is relating the history of John Hyrcanus, high priest
and king of the Jews, a zealous Pharisee, and one who, according to Josephus,
was fa­vored with divine revelations. He says that Hyrcanus took cer­tain cities
from the Idumeans; ’And he commanded, after subdu­ing all the Idumeans, that
they should remain in their country if they would circumcise themselves and
conform to the Jewish customs. Then they, through love of their country,
underwent circumcision, and submitted to other modes of living which were
Jewish; and from that time they became Jews.’ Ant. 13: 9, 1.” Stuart on Baptism,
p. 129. Now, is it not a little strange that Josephus should mention the
circumcision of persons who became Jews, and say not one word about their
baptism, when, if the Jews both circumcised and baptized their proselytes, they
must have baptized these very persons which he speaks of being circumcised? But
we are not done with the testimony of Dr. Blunt yet. He says: “It is, however,
very unlikely that the Jews would adopt the usage of baptism from the
Christians; and the Mishna being founded on previous collections reaching to the
apostolic age, there is just a probability that at the time of our Lord and His
apostles the Jewish custom prevailed of baptizing proselytes and their children.
Even admitting this, yet before this custom can be alleged in proof or
confirmation of apostolic usage, it must be proved that the Jewish custom was
adopted by our Lord and His apostles; but of this neither the Scriptures nor the
early fathers offered any proof whatever. Besides, it should be considered that
the baptism of proselytes widely differs in theory from the Christian doctrine
of baptism. The convert to Judaism was baptized, and all his family then born;
but if he had chil­dren born afterward, they were not baptized, the previous
bap­tism of their parents being deemed sufficient.” Blunt, in Louis­ville
Debate, p. 105. Thus testify Pedobaptists themselves on the whole question of
Jewish proselyte baptism; and so far from tracing it back to the days of Jacob,
it goes back to sometime in the third century, when even the church, to say
nothing of Judaism, was full of heresy and corruption. From that time it has
been practiced as claimed by Pedobaptists, but all behind that is doubt and
specu­lation. But Dr. Robinson says: “Purifications of proselytes indeed there
were, but there never was any such ceremony as baptism in practice before the
time of John. If such a rite had existed, the regular priests, and not John,
would have administered it, and there would have been no need of a new and
extraordinary appointment from heaven to give being to an old established
custom; nor would it have been decent for John, or any other man, to treat
native Jews—especially Jesus, who had no pagan­ism to put away—as pagan
proselytes were treated. This unin­teresting subject hath produced voluminous
disputes, which may be fairly cut short by demanding at the outset substantial
proof of the fact that the Jews baptized proselytes before the time of
John—which can never be done.” Robinson, in Louisville De­bate, p. 104. Again,
the same author says: “The modest Dr. Benson was pleased to and that he wished
to see all these difficulties cleared up, and that he could not answer all that
Dr. Wall and Mr. Emlyn had said in support of proselyte baptism; but, with all
possible deference to this most excellent critic, it may be truly said he hash,
by stating his difficulties, fully answered both these writers; for what they
call proselyte baptism was not baptism, and if there was no institution of such
a washing as they call baptism in the Old Testament, and no mention of such a
thing in the Apocrypha, or in Josephus, or in Philo, what, at this age of the
world, signify the conjectures of a Lightfoot, and a Wall, or even an Emlyn?” On
the subject of Jewish washings, which some have been in­clined to call baptism,
he says: “A fact it is, beyond all contra­diction, that this same proselyte
washing, which learned men have thought fit to call baptism, is no baptism at
all, but, as Dr. Benson truly says, a very different thing, and that in which
in­fants could have no share. It was a person’s washing himself, and not the
dipping of one person by another.” Robinson, in Louisville Debate, p. 104. We
could well afford to rest the argument with the authors quoted, but at the risk
of being tedious we will offer a few thoughts for the consideration of the
reader not suggested in the foregoing quotations. These authors concede that the
Bible furnishes not a trace of authority for the baptism of proselytes by the
Jews, nor any ac­count of a single example of it. Surely, then, divine authority
can not be claimed for it; hence, it can furnish no authority for the baptism of
infants, though we were to grant that it had been practiced from the days of
Adam. If the practice began with man, without divine sanction, how can it
furnish authority for any thing? Are we to conclude that the Lord borrowed the
idea of baptism from the unauthorized practice of men when He sent John to
baptize the people? When Jesus asked the people whether the baptism of John was
from heaven or of men, they might have promptly answered that it was of men if
it had come from the unauthorized practice of men. And it dare not be as­sumed
that God authorized the practice. Let him that so as­sumes produce the passage
of Holy Writ that proves it. God in­stituted circumcision, and we can find an
account of it, and a rec­ord of cases under the law; why can we not do the same
as to the baptism of Jewish proselytes? When a stranger would keep the passover
among the Jews, God gave the law for it. “When a stranger shall sojourn with
thee, and will keep the passover to the Lord, let all his males be circumcised,
and then let him come near and keep it, and he shall be as one that is born in
the land; for no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof. One law shall be to him
that is home-born, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you.” Exodus
12:48-49. Is it not strange that the Lord did not say: “Let all his males be
circumcised, and his males and fe­males be baptized, and then let him come near
and keep it?” Surely, it would have been a good time to make the suggestion. But
it is not contended that native Jews were to be baptized, but only proselytes;
and here the Lord says one law shall be to him that is home-born, and unto the
stranger; hence, as the home-born were only circumcised, it follows that nothing
more was re­quired of strangers, at least to prepare for eating the passover,
and we suppose when any one could eat the passover he was in full fellowship. We
regard this as settling the question as far as authority is concerned. But if
further proof be desirable, it may be found in the official title of John THE
Baptist. If others had been baptizing since the days of Jacob, why call John the
Baptist? A baptist he might have been, but THE Baptist he could not have been,
for the Jewish priests would have been baptists as well as John. Indeed, it
would not have required a special appointment from God to authorize John to do
that which any Jewish priest could do, and had been doing, for ages. Is it not a
little strange that the Lord should give a commis­sion to the apostles to
baptize the nations, and yet leave those who are to submit to it to eliminate
their duty from Jewish tal­muds and targums in place of from His law? On this
subject we wish to give the reader the benefit of a paragraph from the
illus­trious Booth. He says: “If, therefore, we obtain the useful in­telligence
about it, so as to help us in settling who are the sub­jects of our Sovereign’s
appointment, it must be by having re­course to the Jewish synagogue. Now, is it
not far more proba­ble that Christ intended his own commission for the
observance of baptism as the only law of administration, and the practice of His
apostles as the only example for His people to follow, than that He should leave
either its mode or subjects to be learned from the traditions of an apostate
people, or the records of their admired but impious talmuds? Can it be imagined
that our Lord should appoint baptism for all his disciples; that He should give
them a body of doctrine and a Code of law in the New Testament; and, after all,
tacitly refer them to the writings of His enemies; those writings which are the
register of their own pride, and madness, and shame; writings, too, of which
perhaps a great majority of Christians never heard, nor had in their power to
read, in order to learn whom He intended to be baptized?” Booth Abridged, p.
166. All the premises considered, it is quite apparent that there was no such
thing as the baptism of Jewish proselytes until long after the introduction of
Christianity, from which the practice was borrowed by the Jews. If any one
thinks he can find an ex­ample of Jewish proselyte baptism earlier than two
hundred years after John began to baptize, let him name the case, tell who he
was, where it was done, and by whom. All this we can do as to John’s baptism and
Christian baptism from their intro­duction; why may it not be done with
reference to the baptism of Jewish proselytes, if indeed they were baptized at
all? As neither command nor example can be produced antedating Christianity, we
conclude there was no such practice, and dis­miss the subject with the question,
upon which the reader may reflect at his leisure, whether it is more likely that
the Lord bor­rowed the idea of baptism from an unauthorized Jewish custom, or
whether the Jews borrowed the practice from John and primi­tive Christians? We
congratulate the reader upon his escape from Jewish cov­enants, talmuds,
targums, and antiquated rites and ceremonies, and take much pleasure in
introducing him to the New Testa­ment, where we may at least find the word
baptism, baptize, baptist, or some word akin to the subject under examination.
Baptism is confessedly a New Testament ordinance, and why we should go to Jewish
commands, talmuds, targums, any where and every where save the New Testament, to
examine a question of purely New Testament origin, is, to say the least, a
little strange. As we are in the negative of the question, we must go where
others lead; but if the practice of infant baptism were clearly taught in the
New Testament, it is likely we should be spared the trouble of looking for it
elsewhere. As John was the first to baptize the people, it may be well to see
whether or not he baptized any infants. The record says: “Then went out to him
Jerusalem, and all Judea, and all the re­gion round about Jordan, and were
baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins.” Matthew 3:5-6. “John did
baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the
remis­sion of sins. And there went out unto him all the land of Judea, and they
of Jerusalem, and were all baptized of him in the river of Jordan, confessing
their sins.” Mark 1:4-5. “And he came into all the country about Jordan,
preaching the baptism of re­pentance for the remission of sins.” Luke 3:3. These
quotations are deemed sufficient to give us a pretty clear view of John’s
baptism, so far as the present inquiry is con­cerned. They show us, with great
clearness, that John’s baptism was for the remission of sins; infants have no
sins to be remitted, hence it was not for them. Nor could it have been the guilt
of original sin, for the removal of which John baptized the people —i.e., the
dear babes, for then it must have been, not for the remission of sins, but for
the remission of a sin—Adam’s sin. And the scriptures quoted show that the
people were all baptized by John in Jordan, confessing THEIR sins, not Adam’s
sin; hence, it was for the remission of the sins of the people that they were
baptized. Again: These persons were not only baptized for the remission of sins,
but they confessed their sins. This infants could not do, hence there were no
infants baptized by John. Paul says: “John verily baptized with the baptism of
repentance, saying unto the people that they should believe on him which should
come after him; that is, on Christ Jesus.” Acts 19:4. Thus we see that faith in
a coming Saviour was enjoined by John upon those he baptized. Infants could not
have appreciated such preaching or exercised such faith’ therefore they were not
subjects of John’s ministry. Finally: John preached the baptism of repentance;
that is, it was a baptism which belonged to and grew out of repentance; infants
can not repent, therefore the baptism of repentance was not for them. Collating
these items then, we find that John preached—the people heard, believed,
repented, confessed their sins, and were baptized by John for the remission of
them. Infants were not competent to do these things, hence they were not the
subjects of John’s preaching or baptism. We come now to an examination of the
commission given by the Lord, a record of which we have by Matthew in the
follow­ing words: “All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth go ye,
therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and
of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; teaching them to observe all things
whatsoever I have com­manded you.” Matthew 28:18-20. This is truly an important
text and well deserves our most se­rious consideration. John’s mission was
confined to the Jews, and so was that of the twelve and the seventy prior to the
death of Jesus; now He claims all authority in heaven and on earth and for the
first time authorizes the baptism of the Gentiles. His language, then, must be
regarded as the organic law of this divine institution, and not as a merely
incidental allusion to the subject. It not only furnishes authority for
baptizing all nations, but gives the only formula contained in Holy Writ in
which the sacred rite is to be administered. The word teach occurs twice in the
passage, and is from different Greek words, a circum­stance which has given rise
to much speculation on the subject to very little profit. It is insisted that
mathetusate, rendered teach­ing, means to make disciples; and suppose it does.
What is a disciple? A student, or learner; and could there be such a thing as a
student without teaching? Where there is a student there must be something to
study. Hence, the obvious import of the passage is, teach first the elementary
principles of the gospel, so that the people may believe in Jesus as the Son of
God and Sa­viour of man; then baptize them into the sacred names of Father, Son,
and Holy Spirit; then further teach them how to live the Christian life. Mr.
Baxter says: “Go disciple me all nations, baptizing them. As for those who say
they are discipled by baptizing, and not before baptizing, they speak not the
sense of that text, or that which is true or rational, if they mean it
absolutely as so spoken; else why should one be baptized more than another? This
is not a mere occasional or historical mention of baptism, but it is the very
commission of Christ to His apostles for preaching and bap­tizing, and purposely
expresseth their several works in their sev­eral places and order. Their first
task is, by teaching to make disciples, which are by Mark called believers. The
second work is, to baptize them, whereto is annexed the promise of their
sal­vation. The third work is to teach them all other things which are afterward
to be learned in the school of Christ. To condemn this order is to renounce all
rules of order, for where can we ex­pect to find it if not here?” Booth
Abridged, p. 202. BRUGONSIS says: “Christ commanded first to teach the nations
that are strangers to God and the truth; afterward, when they have submitted to
the truth, to teach them those precepts and rules of life which are worthy of
God and the truth. The order here observed, says Jerome, is excellent. He
commands the apostles first to teach all nations; then to dip them with the
sac­rament of faith; and then to show them how they should behave themselves
after their faith and baptism. Before baptism, they are to be taught the truth
of the gospel, especially matters of faith; after baptism, they are to be
instructed in the Christian morals, and what concerns their practice.” Booth
Abridged, pp. 203, 204. These statements made by Pedobaptists we will regard as
so obviously correct that further comment is unnecessary; we will regard this as
the settled meaning of the text and make our de­ductions accordingly. It is
claimed that, as infants compose a part of all nations, they are included in the
command to “teach and baptize all nations.” Will those who make the argument
stand by the same rule throughout? The veriest infidel that lives is a part of
all na­tions—should he be baptized for that reason? Idiots belong to all
nations—should they therefore be baptized? If infants should be baptized because
they are a part of all nations, then there is not an atheist or an infidel which
may not be baptized for the same reason. The phrase all nations often occurs in
the Scriptures, where only a class is embraced in it. The word ethne, rendered
nations, occurs about eighty times in the New Testament, where the context
clearly shows that infants are not included. There are no less than eight such
passages in Mat­thew’s gospel. We will give a few New Testament examples. “Ye
shall be hated of all nations.” Matthew 24:9. “This gospel of the kingdom shall
be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations.” Ver. 14. “My house
shall be called of all na­tions the house of prayer.” Mark 11:17. “Made known to
all na­tions for the obedience of faith.” Romans 16:26. “Babylon is fallen, is
fallen, that great city, because she made all nations drink of the wine of her
fornication.” Revelation 14:8. “All nations shall come and worship before thee.”
Revelation 15:4. “By thy sor­ceries were all nations deceived.” Revelation
18:23. Similar exam­ples may be found in the Old Testament. “I will gather all
na­tions against Jerusalem to battle.” Zechariah 14:2. Surely, we are not to
understand by this that all the infants, idiots, and old women of all nations
were to enter the army of Titus to fight against Jerusalem. These quotations
need only be carefully read to see that in every instance infants were excluded,
though the phrase all nations was used; then why should the same words
necessarily include them in the commission? We think they are just as clearly
excluded by the context as they are in either of the texts quoted above. “Go
teach all nations, baptizing them.” Infants nor idiots are subjects of gospel
address, and can not be taught the gospel; hence, if the Lord required the
apostles to teach such the gospel, He simply required of them an impossibil­ity.
But worse still: If infants are included in the commission, then it follows that
they must all be lost. Mark records the commis­sion thus: “Go ye into all the
world, and preach the gospel to every creature; he that believeth and is
baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.” Mark 16:16.
Infants can not believe the gospel; hence, if the commission in­cludes them,
they must all be damned. The language of Mark is even more comprehensive than
that of Matthew. He says teach all nations; Mark says go into all the world and
preach the gos­pel to every creature. Surely, then, if the phrase all nations
in­cludes infants, then every creature in all the world would none the less
include them; and if so, they can not believe; and as those who believe not must
be damned, we see no chance for the salvation of one of them according to the
Pedobaptist argument based on the commission. Again: The language of the
commission makes faith a neces­sary antecedent to baptism. Teach the nations,
baptizing them —he that believeth and is baptized. Here the inference is clear
that unbelievers are not to be baptized; nay, a want of faith is sufficient to
bar any one from the sacred rite; infants can not be­lieve, and therefore can
not be scripturally baptized under this commission. More of this directly. But
we are now ready to make a little advance in the argu­ment. Having seen that the
commission does not authorize in­fant baptism, we respectfully suggest that it
very clearly forbids the practice. When God gave specific directions for doing
any thing, it was a clear violation of law to do it otherwise. When God
commanded Noah to build an ark of gopher wood (Genesis 6:14), it clearly implied
a prohibition to make it of cedar wood; and had he made it of cedar, it would
have been as clear a viola­tion of God’s law as though he had not made it at
all. When God commanded Moses to make a serpent of brass, and put it upon a pole
in the midst of the camps of Israel (Numbers 21:9), it implied a prohibition to
hang up a brazen pot in the camp. When God commanded a Jew to kill a red heifer,
he dare not kill a black one, because it would have been a clear violation of
the law. When God commanded a Jew to offer a ewe lamb of the first year, he dare
not offer a male or an old sheep. When God commanded the apostles to teach the
nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, He
clearly implied that they were not to baptize into other names; and were any one
to baptize into the names of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, he would be regarded as
an impious violator of God’s holy law. Then, when the Lord told the apostles to
teach all na­tions, baptizing them, the taught, the language as clearly implied
that they were to baptize none others, as did the command to build the ark of
gopher wood imply that he was not to make it of cedar wood. Hence, it is just as
clear a violation of the com­mission to baptize an untaught infant as though the
Lord had expressly forbidden it. That we are correct in our interpretation of
the commission, may be further seen by an examination of the various baptisms
recorded in the Acts. That the Lord made faith an indispensa­ble antecedent to
baptism is confirmed by the fact that no case can be shown where any were
baptized without it. Believers and believers ONLY were baptized by divine
authority. With this thought specially before us, let us examine every case on
rec­ord, and see whether or not we can find an exception. And as we proceed we
may note any evidence, of any kind, of the bap­tism of any infant by divine
authority, if any such there be. 1. The first baptism which occurred under the
commission just examined was the Pentecostian converts. Peter preached the
gospel to the people; thousands heard, understood, and be­lieved it; were cut to
their hearts, and anxiously inquired what to do. Peter told them to repent and
be baptized. He would not have addressed infants thus, for they could not
repent; nor will it do to assume that some were infants, for the command says
every one of you. As many as gladly received his word were baptized; no more,
not another one This is clearly the im­port of the language, as many as gladly
received his word. Infants can not so receive the word, hence none were
baptized. That faith preceded their baptism is evident from the fact that they
were pricked in their hearts. This was a result of their faith in what Peter had
preached. Infants would have heard Peter any length of time with perfect
indifference, because they could not have understood him. 2. The second case of
baptism recorded was at Samaria, where Philip preached the gospel to the people,
and “when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of
God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized’ both men and women.” Acts
8:12. When they believed Philip they were baptized, not until then. Hence,
Philip understood faith to be antecedent to baptism, and none but men and women
were baptized. 3. “Then Simon himself believed also, and when he was bap­tized
he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which
were done.” Ver. 13. In Simon’s case, the same order is observed—preaching,
hearing, faith, then bap­tism, but not until then. Is not this in harmony with
the com­mission? Preach the gospel; he that believeth and is baptized shall be
saved. Preaching, hearing, faith, then baptism is the order ordained of the
Lord, and as this order can not apply to infants, it follows that baptism was
not intended for them. 4. But we have another example of baptism in this
chapter. We find that Philip preached the gospel to a distinguished Ethiopian
nobleman, who understood and believed it, and de­manded baptism, saying: “See,
here is water; what cloth hinder me to be baptized? And Philip 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 8:36-37. This case most clearly shows
that no one was allowed to be baptized who did not believe with the heart in
Jesus Christ as the Son of God. When this man demanded baptism, he was told that
if he be­lieved he might be baptized, clearly implying that if he did not
believe he was not a fit subject for baptism. Who, then, has a right to improve
upon the work of Philip and baptize such as do not believe in Jesus Christ at
all? Are there two baptisms, one requiring faith to prepare the subject for it,
and another which may be administered without faith? Paul says there is one
Lord, one faith, and one baptism. 5. The next case recorded is that of Saul of
Tarsus, afterward called Paul, an account of which we have in the ninth and
twen­ty-second chapters of the Acts, which we need not stop .to exam­ine, as no
question important to our search can arise concerning it. 6. A case of much more
interest and importance to our in­quiry, is the introduction of the gospel to
the Gentiles at the house of Cornelius, recorded in the tenth chapter of the
Acts. Not to be tedious in unimportant details, it is sufficient to state that
Peter visited the house of Cornelius in Caesarea, and preached the gospel to him
and his friends who were there assem­bled. While he spake, the Holy Spirit fell
on them who heard the word, and they of the circumcision heard them speak with
tongues and magnify God. They were all old enough to talk, to say the least of
it. And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed
they him to tarry certain days. Who solicited Peter to tarry certain days? They
who had been baptized; nor is there any evidence that any one was baptized who
did not join in this solicitation. 7. The next case recorded is the baptism of
Lydia and her household, a record of which we have in Acts 16:15. The subject of
household baptisms has been one out of which more capital has been made by the
advocates of infant baptism than perhaps any thing else. It is assumed that
infants are in every family, and hence were baptized when and where there was a
household baptized. To prove that infants were baptized with Lydia’s household,
it must be proved. 1. That Lydia was a married woman, or at least had children;
2. That some of these children were infants; 3. That these infant children were
with her, though she lived in Thyatira and was then in the city of Philippi,
three hundred miles from her home. We grant that it is possible that Lydia was a
married woman; but what are the probabilities of the case? As she was three
hundred miles from home, on a mercantile mission, is it not likely that if she
had a husband he would have made the trip for her? or had she gone without him,
is it not likely that he would have taken care of the children at home without
burdening her with them? But is it likely that a husband composed a part of her
household? Surely not. As the husband is, in the New Testament, regarded as the
head of the family, the household would have been ascribed to him rather than to
her. Nor is it at all likely that the husband would not have been named in the
narrative by the historian had he been present, for the same writer did mention
both on other occasions where they were present. See Acts 5:1; Acts 18:2. And
there is a fair intimation by Lydia herself that she did not have a husband; at
least, if she had, that he was not with her. She says: “If ye have judged me to
be faithful to the Lord, come into my house and abide there.” Ver. 15. As a
modest Christian woman, it is not likely that she would have claimed the house
in presence of her husband; nor is it likely that she would have invited guests
into her house on the sole ground of HER fidelity to the Lord, and say nothing
of her husband had he been present. It was a delicate matter for her to invite
men into her house to remain with her in the absence of a husband, and, knowing
that good men would feel a delicacy in doing so, she put the invitation upon the
express ground of her fidelity to the Lord. Virtually, this was saying: “Though
I am a long ways from home, where you can know nothing of my character, and my
family is made up of such as are in my employment, yet if you have judged me to
be faithful to the Lord, come into my house and abide there.” The argument
prevailed, and she constrained us, says the apostle; and that her family was
composed of adults may be seen in the fact that after Paul and Silas had been
released from prison they “entered into the house of Lydia; and when they had
seen the brethren, they comforted them and departed.” Acts 16:40. Then, her
family was composed of such as were capable of being comforted by the apostles,
and there is not the slightest evidence that she even had a child there or at
home. But suppose we grant that she had infants, and that they were with her, it
would be no evidence that they were baptized, because they were not subjects of
gospel address, and hence were not baptized in flagrant violation of the law of
the Lord requiring faith before baptism. We have seen that the commission
required the gospel to be preached to every creature in all the world, and yet
it did not apply to infants, else they must all be damned. The import of it is,
preach the gospel to every creature of the classes embraced in the gospel. So,
when Lydia and her household were baptized, the clear inference is that, if
there were infants or idiots in her house, they were not subjects of baptism and
made no part of the household baptized. Nothing is more plainly apparent in the
Scriptures than that the word household, and even the phrase all the house, are
used in a limited sense— i.e., where a class of persons, and not every one in
the house, was included. It is said “the man Elkanah, and all his house, went up
to offer unto the Lord the yearly sacrifice and his vow.” Here it is expressly
stated that Elkanah and all his house went to offer sacrifice to the Lord. This
is strong language—all his house; but did every one go? “But Hannah went not up,
for she said unto her husband, I will not go up until the child be weaned, and
then I will bring him, that he may appear before the Lord, and there abide
forever. And Elkanah her husband said unto her, Do what seemeth thee good; tarry
until thou have weaned him.” 1 Samuel 1:21-23. From this quotation it is clear
that Elkanah’s wife and child did not go to offer the yearly sacrifice, though
it is said all his house went up. Then, were it granted that Lydia’s household
had infants in it, and it were said, not only that her household was baptized,
but that all of it was baptized, still it would only imply that all for whom
baptism was intended were baptized. Thus we see the utter impossibility of
proving infant baptism from household baptisms, even were every thing granted
that is claimed; but we have seen no evidence of an infant in Lydia’s household
to be baptized. 8. But we have an account of another family baptism in this
chapter. The jailer “was baptized, he and all his, straightway.” It is claimed
that this jailer had infants in his family, and, as he and all his were
baptized, his infants were baptized also. Is this POSITION warranted by the
proof? The record says: “They spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all
that were in his house.” Ver. 32. The gospel was preached to all that were in
his house. Why preach the gospel to senseless babes? But he and all his were
baptized. Yes; “And when he had brought them into his house, he set meat before
them, and rejoiced, be­lieving in God with all his house.” Ver. 34. Then the
same, all his house, that were baptized were capable of rejoicing and be­lieving
in God. We think such should be baptized; but we sub­mit to the unprejudiced
judgment of the reader whether infants are capable of doing what is here said to
have been done by the jailer and those baptized with him. Can they believe in
God? Can they rejoice in the privileges of the gospel? If not, then no infants
were among the baptized of this family. 9. “And many of the Corinthians hearing,
believed and were baptized.” Acts 18:8. Here the order is in perfect harmony
with the commission. The gospel was preached, the Corinthians hearing believed
it, and their faith prepared them for baptism, to which they submitted. Of
course, there were no infants bap­tized among them. 10. The twelve disciples
found at Ephesus by Paul had been baptized with the baptism of John after the
organization of the church on the day of Pentecost; hence, their faith was
defective. John preached that they should believe on a Saviour to come after
him, hence they were believing in a Saviour to come who had already come. Their
baptism was defective for these rea­sons: 1. It was not administered in the name
or by the authority of the Lord Jesus Christ; 2. It was not into the name of the
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, as the baptism then in force re­quired to be
administered; 3. John’s baptism had been su­perseded by another; hence, when
Apollos only knew John’s baptism, it was necessary that he be taught the way of
the Lord more perfectly—i.e., that John’s baptism had passed away and was not
then in force, and hence worthless to those who re­ceived it. When these
disciples heard these things, “they were baptized in the name of the Lord
Jesus.” Acts 19:5. We will not insult the reader by offering an argument to show
that there were no infants among these, and that faith preceded their bap­tism.
We believe we have now examined every case of baptism re­corded in the Acts.
There are a few inc dental allusions to other cases in the epistles which throw
no additional light on the sub­ject. Now, will the reader bring himself as near
the judgment of the great day as it is possible for mortals to come in this
life, and ask himself the question, “Is there a case of infant baptism re­corded
in all the Book of God? Have we been able to find one?” We have found where
believers were baptized by thou­sands. We have found where men and women were
baptized in great numbers, and in families, but nowhere is there a record of the
baptism of a single infant. Suppose a modern preacher had written the Acts of
the Apostles, and things had been then as now, we imagine the narrative would
have run about thus: “As many as gladly received his word were baptized, with
their chil­dren, and the same day there were added three thousand adults and as
many infants.” “They were baptized men, WOMEN, and CHILDREN.” “And he commanded
men, WOMEN, and CHIL­DREN to be baptized in the name of the Lord.” “And when she
and the infants of her household were baptized.” “And he took them the same hour
of the night and washed their stripes and was baptized, he and all his infant
children, straightway.” Recently, I read a scrap from a preacher’s journal of
several years ago, running thus: “Baptized 20 adults and 21 children.” “Sept. 3.
Sunday, I preached, and then baptized 21 adults and 3 infants.” “On the first
Sunday in this month I baptized 34 adults and their children—48 in all.” This
shows us what the record kept—or, rather, made—by Luke would have been had
infants been baptized them as they are now. On the contrary, we have found the
same order every-where. As faith comes by hearing, the gospel was first preached
that the people might hear, under­stand, and believe it. Jesus said: “He that
believeth and is bap­tized shall be saved;” hence, when they believed, if they
desired salvation, they were baptized, both men and women; but we may safely
affirm that no one without faith in Jesus Christ was ever baptized by divine
authority. Paul says: “Without faith it is impossible to please him.” Hebrews
11:6. Therefore, when any one is baptized who has no faith, such baptism can not
be pleas­ing to God. “That which is not of faith is sin.” Romans 14:23. Infants
can not exercise faith hence their baptism can not be of faith, and is,
therefore, sin. Hence, we conclude that an infant has never yet been baptized by
divine authority anywhere. Paul says Jesus gave Himself for the church, “that he
might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, that he
might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or
any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.” Ephesians
5:26-27. When would the church attain to this state of perfection if the
practice of infant baptism was universal, and baptism introduced infants into
the church? (And if its advocates could succeed in their efforts it would be
universal, and should be universal if right; if wrong’ it should not be at all.
) All distinction between the church and the world would be obliterated; nay,
there would, in this sense, be no world. All would be in the church, good and
bad. Drunkards, liars, mur­ders, infidels, atheists, and all other classes would
be in the church, having entered it by baptism in infancy; for none thus
introduced are ever excluded for crime unless they make a pro­fession of
religion in maturer years. Such a church as there would then be!!! Was this the
glorious church for which Jesus gave His life, that it might be without spot,
wrinkle, blemish, or any such thing? Is this the bride which He is coming to
receive, expecting her to be clad in robes of righteousness comparable to fine
linen, clean and white?Revelation 19:8. This theory perfected would make void
the commission of Jesus Christ. If infant baptism universally prevailed, there
would be no such thing as believer’s baptism. When Jesus says: “He that
believeth and is baptized shall be saved,” infant bap­tism comes along and takes
every subject from Him, leaving not one to grow old enough to believe the gospel
and be baptized. Nor is this all; Peter’s sermon on the day of Pentecost would
not apply to such a state of things. Were all baptized in infancy, no one in
mature years could be commanded to “repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus
Christ for the remission of sins.” Such a command could not apply to infants;
and as there would be no unbaptized men and women, there would be none to whom
such preaching could apply. Is it not clear, therefore, that the gospel plan of
salvation given by Jesus Christ and car­ried into operation by His inspired
apostles did not contemplate the baptism of infants? Baptism, says Peter, is
“the answer of a good conscience to­ward God.” 1 Peter 3:21. It was not to be a
mere fleshly wash­ing, but was intended to reach the conscience; but how can it
reach the conscience of an infant? It may satisfy the consciences of some
misguided parents; but the conscience of the infant sub­ject has nothing to do
with it; nor can it be in the least exercised thereby. One of the most
pernicious tendencies of the practice is that it prevents many thousands of
conscientious persons from intelligently obeying the Lord for themselves. They
are in­formed by their parents or others that they were baptized in in­fancy,
and they must be content with this statement. If they are more correctly taught
in after life, and desire to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the
remission of sins, they must abandon the church of their infancy or they can not
obtain the services of an administrator. Hence, nothing short of an aban­donment
of their entire system of theology can secure their emancipation from the
bondage of a practice unauthorized by inspired precept or example, even as
admitted by many wise and good men who practice it. We come now to notice the
argument which those who de­fend infant baptism base upon the history of the
practice; and we promise our readers the utmost brevity in its examination, for
we have already dignified the subject of this chapter with an undue portion of
our space. Indeed, we confess our inability to see the importance which those
who make the argument attach to it. Suppose it were true, and could be so proved
by well au­thenticated history, that infant baptism was practiced even in the
days of the apostles, unless it could be shown that it met their approval, it
would not authorize the practice. In Paul’s time he tells us that “the mystery
of iniquity cloth already work.” 2 Thessalonians 2:7. He also says: “I know
this, that after my depart­ing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not
sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking per­verse
things, to draw away disciples after them.” Acts 20:29-30. If, therefore,
innovations began to spring up even in the days of the apostles, and persons
then among the disciples, who had been blessed with the personal instruction of
the apostles, would, so soon after Paul’s death, teach perverse doctrine which
would draw disciples after them, is it surprising that infant baptism should be
introduced in two hundred years? That it did not have the sanction of
inspiration in any way, we have already shown by the admissions of as truly
great and good men as be­long to the Pedobaptist ranks; what, then, is gained by
proving, what no one denies, that it has been practiced from the days of Origen
until now? are we to practice every thing which came into the church in those
days? If so, we must go to anointing with oil—casting devils out of persons
before they are baptized —breathing on them in imitation of the
Saviour—consecrating the baptismal water—applying salt and spittle to the
tongue— giving honey and milk—anointing the eyes with clay—covering the head,
and numerous other things which came into the church about the time infant
baptism was introduced. They were practiced from about the close of the second
century, on for several hundred years, why not practice them now? Do you say
they were without divine authority? We grant it; but many of the wisest and best
men who have practiced infant baptism admit the same of it; why not discard them
all together; or prac­tice them all, and be at least consistent? We believe
Irenaus is the first witness whose testimony is introduced in support of the
practice He wrote about the year 190, and is quoted by Neander, vol. 1, p. 311.
As Neander was a Pedobaptist historian, we will give what he says on the subject
in connection with the quotation from Irenaus. He says: “Bap­tism was
administered at first only to adults, as men were accus­tomed to receive baptism
and faith as strictly connected. We have all reason for not deriving infant
baptism from apostolic in­stitution, and the recognition of it which followed
somewhat later, as an apostolical tradition, serves to confirm this hypothe­sis.
Irenaeus is the first church teacher in whom we find any al­lusion to infant
baptism, and in his mode of expressing himself on the subject, he leads us at
the same time to recognize its con­nection with the essence of the Christian
consciousness; he testi­fies of the profound Christian idea out of which infant
baptism arose, and which procured for it at length universal recognition.
Irenaus is wishing to show that Christ did not interrupt the progressive
development of that human nature which was to be sanctified by Him, but
sanctified it in accordance with its natural course of development and in all
its several stages. ’He came to redeem all by Himself; all who through Him are
regenerated to God; infants, little children, boys, young men and old. Hence, He
passed through every age, and for the infants He became an infant, sanctifying
the infants; among the little children He be­came a little child, sanctifying
those who belong to this age, and at the same time presenting to them an example
of piety, of well-doing, and of obedience; among the young men He became a young
man, that He might set them an example and sanctify them to the Lord.’ “ The
reader will observe that Neander says that Irenaeus is the first church teacher
in whom we find any allusion to infant baptism, and hence the practice can not
be traced further back than 190 A.D., even granting that Irenaus means baptism
by “regenerated to God.” Neander further testifies that baptism was administered
at first only to adults, as men were accustomed to conceive baptism and faith as
strictly connected. And why should they not be connected when Jesus so connected
them, saying: “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved;” and Philip
made faith an indispensable condition upon which he would baptize the eunuch—”If
thou believes” with all thy heart thou mayest?” But Neander further says: ’We
have all reason for not deriving infant baptism from apostolic institution.”
These are surely strong admissions coming from one whose prac­tice shows they
were not suggested by partisan feelings. Again he says: “But immediately after
Irena us, in the last years of the second century, Tertullian appears as a
zealous opponent of infant baptism; a proof that the practice had not as yet
come to be regarded as an apostolical institution; for otherwise he would hardly
have ventured to express himself so strongly against it.” Neander, vol. 1, p.
312. On the same page Neander quotes Tertullian as follows: “Let them come,
while they are growing up; let them come while they are learning, while they are
being taught to what it is they are coming; let them become Christians when they
are susceptible of the knowledge of Christ. What haste to procure the
forgiveness of sin for the age of in­nocence! We show more prudence in the
management of our worldly concerns, than we do in intrusting the divine treasure
to those who can not be entrusted with earthly property. Let them first learn to
feel their need of salvation, so it may appear that we have given to those that
wanted.” Dr. Wall has a slightly different translation of this paragraph, as
follows: “Therefore, let them come when they are grown up; let them come when
they understand; when they are instructed whither it is that they come; let them
be made Christians when they can know Christ. What need their guiltless age make
such haste to the forgiveness of sins? Men will proceed more warily in worldly
things; and he that should not have earthly goods committed to him, yet shall
have heavenly. Let them know how to desire this salvation, that you may appear
to have given to one that asketh.” Wall’s Hist. Infant Bap., vol. 1, p. 94.
Neander comments upon this paragraph from Tertullian as follows: “It seems, in
fact, according to the principles laid down by him, that he could not conceive
of any efficacy whatever re­siding in baptism, without the conscious
participation and indi­vidual faith of the person baptized; nor could he see any
danger accruing to the age of innocence from delaying it; although this view of
the matter was not logically consistent with his own view. “But when, now, on
the one hand, the doctrine of the corrup­tion and guilt cleaving to human nature
in consequence of the first transgression, was reduced to a more precise and
systematic form, and, on the other, from the want of duly distinguishing
be­tween what is outward and what is inward baptism ( the baptism by water and
the baptism by the Spirit), the error became more firmly established that
without external baptism no one could be delivered from that inherent guilt,
could be saved from the ever­lasting punishment that threatened him, or raised
to eternal life; and when the notion of a magical influence or charm connected
with the sacraments continually gained ground, the theory was finally evolved of
the unconditional necessity of infant baptism.” Neander, vol. 1, p. 313. Thus we
see when and how the theory of infant baptism was finally evolved. Infantile
depravity, or the guilt of original sin, was the foundation of it. The fathers
drank down the notion that infants inherited the guilt of Adam’s sin, and unless
this was washed away in baptism they were lost if they died in infancy; hence,
says Neander, was finally evolved the unconditional ne­cessity of infant
baptism. They must be damned for Adam’s sin unless baptized. Modern Pedobaptists
are unwilling to admit this, and seek to derive it from the identity of the
Jewish and Christian churches, as we have seen, and yet, strange enough, they
base an argument on the history of infant baptism which must develop the true
foundation of the practice and destroy every argument made in its support. But
is Neander correct in this statement? As he was a Pedobaptist himself, he could
have had no motive to misrepresent the facts; nevertheless, it may not be amiss
to see whether or not he had authority for what he said. Dr. Wall was one of the
most voluminous writers that has ever wielded a pen in defense of infant
baptism. He makes a quotation from Justin Martyr, on which he comments as
follows: “I recite this only to show that in these times, so very near the
apostles, they spoke of original sin affecting all mankind de­scended of Adam,
and understood that, besides the actual sins of each particular person, there is
in our nature itself, since the fall, something that needs redemption and
forgiveness by the merits of Christ. And that is ordinarily applied to every
particular per­son by baptism.” Wall, vol. 1, p. 64. When the fathers became
well settled in the doctrine of in­fantile depravity, they very naturally
desired a remedy for it, and, knowing that baptism was for the remission of
sins, they conceived the idea of baptizing infants for the removal of the guilt
of Adam’s sin in them. By the close of the second century it made its
appearance, and we have found Tertullian opposing it. In Origen’s day it was
more general, and we find him favoring it. He was born about 185 A.D. Allowing
him to have been fifty or sixty years old when he wrote, his writings would date
near the middle of the third cen­tury. We have not much confidence in the
authenticity of what is said to have been written by him, yet we will give some
of it to the reader, and he can estimate it for himself. Dr. Wall says: “The
Greek (which was the original) of all Origen’s works being lost, except a very
few, there remain only the Latin translations of them. And when these
translations were collected together, a great many spurious ones were added and
mixed with them and went under Origen’s name.” Wall’s History, vol. 1, p. 106.
Though Dr. Wall goes on to say that “critics quickly smelt them out and admitted
none for his but such as appeared to have been done into Latin either by St.
Hierome or Rufinus,” yet he says: “Rufinus altered or left out any thing which
he thought not orthodox, ... whereas now, in these translations of Rufinus, the
reader is uncertain (as Erasmus angrily says) whether he read Origen or
Rufinus.” Pp. 106-08. The following paragraph is a translation of Rufinus’ Latin
of Origen’s Greek by Wall: “Besides all this, let it be considered what is the
reason that, whereas the baptism of the church is given for the forgiveness of
sins, infants also are by the usage of the church baptized, when, if there were
nothing in infants that wanted forgiveness and mercy, the grace of baptism would
be needless to them.” Wall, vol. 1, p. 104 The following paragraph was
translated from Origen’s Greek into Latin by St. Hierome, and thence into
English by Wall, who exonerates Hierome from any want of fidelity to the
original of Origen: “Having occasion given in this place, I will mention a thing
that causes frequent inquiries among the brethren. Infants are baptized for the
forgiveness of sins. Of what sins? Or when have they sinned? Or how can any
reason of the laver in their case hold good, but according to that sense that we
men­tioned even now: none is free from pollution, though his life be but of the
length of one day upon the earth? And it is for that reason, because by the
sacrament of baptism the pollution of our birth is taken away, that infants are
baptized.” Wall, vol. i, pp. 104, 105. This comes to us from Origen through
Hierome and Wall, and must, therefore, be received as genuine. In it Origen
answers the inquiries of his brethren by plainly stating that it is because the
pollution of our birth * taken away by baptism that infants are baptized. But
there is another passage translated from Origen’s Greek by Rufinus, to which we
must give some attention: “For this also it was that the church had from the
apostles a tradition [or order] to give baptism even to infants. For they, to
whom the divine mysteries were committed, knew that there is in all per­sons the
natural pollution of sin which must be done away by water and the Spirit.” Wall,
vol. 1, p. 106. As this passage comes to us through Rufinus, an admitted
interpolator of Origen’s works, we can have no confidence in its purity; and
even Dr. Wall has given us some evidence of over­much zeal in his cause, by
placing in brackets the phrase “or order,” as though order was the synonym of
tradition, and thus seeking to make his author say that the church had an order
to give baptism to infants. Does tradition amount to an order? Let us see.
“Tradition is a very convenient word to excuse and retain those things that were
brought into religion without the authority of Scripture, by the ignorance of
the times and the tyr­anny of men.” Turettenus, in Booth Abridged, p. 273. “To
convince the world how early tradition might either vary or misrepresent
matters, let the tradition not only in, but before St. Irenaeus’ time,
concerning the observation of Easter be considered, which goes up as high as St.
Polycarps time. If, then, tradition failed so near its fountain, we may easily
judge what account we ought to make of it at so great a distance.” Bishop
Burnet, in Ibid. “Irenaeus, one of the first fathers, with this passage [John
8:57] supports the tradition, which he saith he had from some that had conversed
with St. John, that our Saviour lived to be fifty years old, which he contends
for. See what little credit is to be given to tradition.” Mr. Henry, in Ibid,
pp. 3, 4. “As to the Scripture, instead of making that the only rule of faith,
they [the Papists] have joined traditions with it; that is to say, the most
uncertain thing in the world, the most subject to impostures, and the most mixed
with human inventions and weaknesses, tradition is so far from being able to
serve for a rule that it ought itself to be corrected according to that maxim of
Jesus Christ, In the beginning it was not so. There is, therefore, nothing more
improper to be the rule of faith than that pre­tended tradition which is not
established upon any certain foun­dation, which serves for a pretense to
heretics, which is em­braced pro and con, which changes according as times and
places do, and by the favor of which they may defend the great­est absurdities
by merely saying that they are the traditions which the apostles transmitted
from their own mouths to their successors.” Mr. Claude, in Ibid, pp. 274, 275.
Thus, we see that, when contending against Papal usurpa­tion, Pedobaptists
regard tradition as “the most uncertain thing in the world”—serves as a pretext
for heretics, by the favor of which they may prove the greatest absurdities,
even that Jesus lived to be fifty years old; but when defending infant baptism,
and nothing better can be had, tradition does very well, and may be called an
order from the apostles to give baptism to infants! With reference to Origen’s
remark, Neander says: “Origen, in whose system infant baptism could readily find
its place, though not in the same connection as in the system of the North
African church, declares it to be an apostolical tradition; an expression, by
the way, which can not be regarded as of much weight in this age when the
inclination was so strong to trace every institution which was considered of
special importance to the apostles; and when so many walls of separation,
hindering the freedom of pros­pect, had already been set up between this and the
apostolic age.” Neander, vol. 1, p. 314. These quotations are deemed sufficient
to show what esti­mate is to be placed upon Wall’s substitution of the word
order for tradition in the quotation from Origen. He verifies the adage that
“drowning men will catch at straws.” As he has nothing better with which to
support his practice, we leave him in the enjoyment of his tradition, but insist
that he hold it as a tradition, not as an order. Having seen that the history of
infant baptism can not be traced further back than about the close of the second
century, we feel no disposition to pursue it into later periods, being con­tent
to know that it did not originate in the days of the apostles, or have their
sanction; this we have seen as surely as there is truth in the testimony of
those who practice it. The reader will please remember that we have found its
origin—not in the iden­tity of the Jewish and the Christian churches—not in
Jewish circumcision—not in Jewish proselyte baptism—not in the teaching of John
the Baptist, Christ, or the apostles—but in the absurd dogma of infantile
depravity, or the inherited guilt of Adam’s sin. So testifies Tertullian, so
testifies Origen, and all the primi­tive fathers who give testimony on the
subject. My distin­guished friend Mr. Ditzler says: “They all believed that
infants were depraved, as their writings show. ... They believed that baptism
was regeneration in the sense of washing away original sin; that infants were
depraved by original sin, and could not be saved without this washing away of
that sin; and, therefore, they baptized infants that they might be saved. Now,
the apostolic fathers speak in this manner, and refer to the baptism of
in­fants.” Louisville Debate, p. 163. This is a frank admission of what is
unquestionably true, limiting the words apostolic fathers to such as wrote after
the introduction of the practice. But we have later testimony than the so-called
apostolic fa­thers on this subject. In a work, titled DOCTRINAL TRACTS, page
251, we find the following paragraph in a treatise on baptism: “As to the
grounds of it: if infants are guilty of original sin, then they are proper
subjects of baptism; seeing, in the ordinary way, they can not be saved unless
this be washed away in bap­tism. It has been already proved that this original
stain cleaves to every child of man; and that hereby they are children of wrath
and liable to eternal damnation.” This work was pub­lished by Lane & Scott, New
York, 1850, BY ORDER OF THE GEN­ERAL CONFERENCE of the Methodist Church. Hence,
the above paragraph comes to us indorsed by the Methodist Church through her
General Conference only twenty-three years ago. And it clearly shows that infant
baptism, in the judgment of that organization, was based upon the doctrine of-
original sin, or in­herited guilt, by reason of which infants are children of
wrath and liable to eternal damnation; and in the ordinary way can not be saved
unless this original sin be washed away by baptism. This tract was published,
for about thirty years, by the Gen­eral Conference as the production of Mr.
Wesley’s pen, but Mr. Jackson, the biographer of Mr. Wesley, denies that he
wrote it. So far as the weight of its authority goes, it matters little whether
Mr. Wesley wrote it or not; it was written by some one of no ordinary power, as
the tract itself shows; and the fact that it was published by order of the
General Conference gives it more au­thority than it could derive from Mr. Wesley
or any other one man. But we do not regard Mr. Jackson’s denial as quite
suffi­cient to show that it was not written by Mr. Wesley. Of all writers known
to us, as a class, biographers are least reliable. It is a well known fact that
they ignore and often cover up the faults and exaggerate the virtues of their
heroes; and when we add to this the fact that Mr. Jackson’s partisan feelings
would incline him to mould Mr. Wesley’s teaching in accordance with his own
views and the interest of his church, we are inclined to accept his denial,
under the circumstances, with some degree of caution. What are the circumstances
connected with the publi­cation of this tract? In the advertisement following
the title page it is shown that a number of tracts had been published with the
Discipline for a time, but in 1812 the General Confer­ence ordered them left out
of the Discipline and published in a separate volume. Following this
announcement, it is said: “Sev­eral new tracts are included in this volume, and
Mr. Wesley’s Short Treatise on Baptism is substituted in the place of the
ex­tract from Mr. Edwards on that subject.” Here it is stated that the former
tract by Mr. Edwards was taken out and this one by Wesley was put in. Did those
who made this statement tell the truth, or were they mistaken in what they said?
On page 249, we find a footnote’ as follows: “That Mr. Wes­ley, as a clergyman
of the Church of England, was originally a high-churchman, in the fullest sense,
is well known. When he wrote this treatise, in the year 1756, he seems still to
have used some expressions in relation to the doctrine of baptismal
regen­eration, which we at this day should not prefer. Some such, in the
judgment of the reader, may perhaps be found under this second head. The last
sentence, however, contains a guarded corrective. It explains also the sense in
which we believe Mr. Wesley intended much of what goes before to be understood.”
As no name is attached to this note, we know not who wrote it, but we suppose it
was by the publishing committee. Be this as it may, it seems to have been
written by some one acquainted with the facts, for it even gives the date when
Mr. Wesley wrote the tract. This note, be it remembered, is attached to the
tract itself. The whole Methodist Conference, publishers, publishing committee,
and every body else connected with this tract, save Mr. Jackson, were mistaken
for thirty years or Mr. Wesley wrote it. No child ever resembled its father more
than does the style of this tract resemble the general style of Mr. Wesley’s
writings. But if those who practice infant baptism intend to repudiate the
doctrine that infants are in danger of being lost unless baptized, we trust they
will cease abusing us for opposing their baptism. If those who are unbaptized
are in no more danger than those baptized, why abuse us for seeking to prevent
that which can do no good? Surely, they do not wish to unjustly prejudice the
minds of the people against us by making much ado about nothing. If infants need
not baptism, why baptize them? We think they are good enough without baptism.
Jesus said: “Of such is the kingdom of heaven.” Not of such as they will be when
they are baptized, but of such as they are without bap­tism. But we are referred
to the baptism of the Israelites in the cloud and sea as a clear case of the
baptism of infants. Paul says: “All our fathers were under the cloud, and all
passed through the sea; and were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the
sea.” 1 Corinthians 10:1-2. . It is certain that infants were under the cloud
and passed through the sea, hence it is insisted that they were in the typical
baptism referred to by Paul, and should now be baptized to fill the antitype.
Does the fact that they were under the cloud and in the sea prove that they were
contemplated by Paul in the baptism referred to? If so, then the flocks and
herds of the Hebrews were included also, for it is just as certain that they
were under the cloud and in the sea as it is that the infants were there. Shall
we baptize our flocks there­fore, to fill the antitype? Why not? They were taken
along without their volition just as were the infants; hence, if these were
baptized, why not those? Paul says that those baptized “did all eat the same
spiritual meat; and did all drink the same spiritual drink; for they drank of
that spiritual Rock that fol­lowed them; and that Rock was Christ.” Verses 3, 4.
Thus we see that those contemplated by Paul were capable of receiving spiritual
instruction concerning Christ, which Paul calls spiritual meat and drink. Hence,
says he, “By faith they passed through the Red Sea as by dry land; which the
Egyptians essaying to do were drowned.” Hebrews 11:29. Is it not clear that Paul
did not contemplate infants; but alluded to such as could receive spiri­tual
instruction, and pass through by faith? Infant baptism was never heard of in
Paul’s day; hence, when he spake of baptized persons, either in type or
antitype, he contemplated only such as were legitimate subjects of the rite.
Suppose we try the commission by the same principle of in­terpretation applied
to the baptism of the Israelites. Jesus said: “Go ye into all the world, and
preach the gospel to every crea­ture.” Now, it is just as certain that infants
are creatures in the world, as it is that they were under the cloud and passed
through the sea—were they contemplated in the commission? If so, what next? “He
that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall
be damned.” Infants can not believe, therefore they must all be damned! Is any
one pre­pared to accept the conclusion? Surely not; yet it is fairly dedu­cible
from the commission by the same rules applied to the bap­tism of the Israelites
to prove infant baptism. Infants are not subjects of gospel address, and were
not contemplated in the commission, nor are they subjects of baptism; hence they
were not contemplated by Paul. Baptism is not a mere unmeaning ceremony, but a
solemn act of obedience to God. Gentle reader, have you intelligently sub­mitted
to His will in the act required of you? Jesus commanded the apostles to teach
the nations, baptizing them, the taught— clearly implying that they should
baptize none but the taught. We have seen that they, acting under this
commission, preached the gospel to the people, and when they believed it they
were baptized, both men and women. Intelligent, believing, penitent men and
women who desire salvation should be baptized into the sublime names of Father,
Son, and Holy Spirit. None others should be so baptized, for it would do them no
goo l; and should it unfortunately keep them from obeying God in mature years,
it would do them much harm. In vain may we attempt the wor­ship of God by
obeying the commandments of men. Be bap­tized yourself; you can not obey God for
your children; but you can bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the
Lord, and when they are old enough to understand the Lord’s will, you will have
the consolation of seeing them obey it for themselves.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 15: GPS-14-THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM
========================================================================

CHAPTER XIV.

THE DESIGN OF BAPTISM. The GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION is the grandest system of
harmony and order ever devised by God for man. There is a place for every thing,
and every thing should he in its place. We have found a place for faith, what it
is, how it comes, and what it does; a place for repentance, what it is, how it
is produced, and what it does; a place for the good confession, what it is, how
it is made, when it should be made, who should make it, and what it is made for;
a place for baptism, what it is, and who should sub­mit to it; and now it
remains for us to see what it is for, or to learn, if we can, the design of
it—what office, if any, it fills in the great system of salvation to which it
belongs. It is not to be presumed that the Lord required men and women to be
baptized into the awfully sublime names of the Father, and of the Son, and of
the Holy Spirit, without some im­portant design or end to be accomplished by it;
and when we take from baptism this design, it becomes an unmeaning pag­eant,
which may be attended to or neglected as the caprice of the clergy or the people
may determine. If a sick man waits until he get well before he takes the
medicine designed to cure him, it is scarcely necessary that he should then
trouble himself to take it at all. So if a man must wait until he be saved from
his sins, made a child of God and an heir of heaven, before he obeys the Lord,
we see not why he should still be baptized for the remission of sins already
pardoned. Hence, when we take from baptism its design, it matters little who is
baptized, how it is done, or whether it is done at all. That we may have
something tangible and definite before us, we affirm that BAPTISM IS FOR, OR IN
ORDER TO, THE REMISSION OF SINS. This is its design, as taught by Christ and
those who wrote the New Testament. Before offering the proof of this
affirma­tion, it may be well to get its import clearly before the mind of the
reader. We fully realize the importance of the proposition, and feel, therefore,
that we should well understand the import of the terms employed in its
construction. “Sin is the transgression of the law.” 1 John 3:4. Not a law, some
law, or any law, but the law. There are laws which, we suppose, it would be no
sin to violate; but sin is the transgres­sion of divine law, and whenever any
other law comes in conflict with this law, it is no crime, but may be a virtue
to violate it. That we be more plain, the wife is required to obey her hus­band,
but were the husband to command her to steal, we sup­pose she had better obey
God, who says “thou shalt not steal,” than the husband who says “you shall
steal.” “All unrighteous­ness is sin.” 1 John 5:19. There can be no enforcement
of law without a penalty for its violation, and this penalty must be suffered by
the guilty or it must be forgiven by the offended. By remission of sins, then,
we mean a release from the punishment due the violation of God’s law. The same
thought is expressed in different forms; as: “Remission of sins,” Matthew 26:28;
Acts 2:38. “Forgiveness of sins,” Acts 5:31; Acts 13:38; Acts 26:18. “Salvation
from sins,” Matthew 1:21. “Cleansing from sin,” 1 John 1:7. “Blotting out of
sin,” Ps. Ii: 1; Isaiah 43:25; Jeremiah 18:23. “Washing away sins,” Acts 22:16.
“Ceasing to remember sins,” Jeremiah 31:34; Hebrews 8:12; Hebrews 10:17. All
these, and others which we might give are but differ­ent ways of expressing the
same thought. A sin once committed can never be undone by any power, human or
divine. The pun­ishment may be commuted, suspended, or forgiven—undone it can
not be, but must remain in the history of past events as long as eternity
endures. How important, then, it is that we look well to the record we are
making; and how wonderfully kind, too, has been our Heavenly Father in providing
a plan of salva­tion by which we may escape the punishment justly due those who
violate His law! But while baptism is appointed of the Lord for the remission of
sins, the pardon granted is retrospective, only for the sins of the past; hence
says Paul: “Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is
in Christ Jesus, whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in
his blood, to de­clare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are
past.” Romans 3:24-25. But does any one suppose that baptism is for the
remission of all the sins of the party baptized, future as well as past? If not,
what means John Calvin by the following lan­guage: “Nor must it be supposed that
baptism is administered only for the time past, so that for sins into which we
fall after baptism it would be necessary to seek other new remedies of
ex­piation, in I know not what other sacraments, as if the virtue of baptism
were become obsolete. In consequence of this error, it happened in former ages
that some persons would not be bap­tized except at the close of their life, and
almost in the moment of their death, so that they might obtain pardon for their
whole life—a preposterous caution, which is frequently censured in the writings
of the ancient bishops. But we ought to conclude that at whatever time we are
baptized we are washed and purified for the whole life. Whenever we have fallen,
therefore, we must recur to the remembrance of baptism, and arm our minds with
the consideration of it, that we may be always certified and as­sured of the
remission of our sins.” Calvin in Campbell on Bap­tism, pp. 262, 263. This is an
error into which Mr. Calvin and others fell by fail­ing to recognize the fact
that God has ordained a law of pardon or naturalization for the alien, by which
he must become a citi­zen of His kingdom, and another law of pardon for him
after he becomes a subject of His government—one law of pardon for the stranger
and another for His children. We do not know whether there are any who now
believe the doctrine of the fore­going paragraph from Mr. Calvin’s pen or not,
but we do know that many, like him, have failed to make any distinction in the
law which applies to the alien and that which applies to the er­ring Christian;
and, hence, the common objection to the doctrine of baptism for the remission of
sins: “If baptism is for the remis­sion of sins, why do you not baptize a man
every time he sins? We are not surprised when such an objection comes from those
who never read the Bible, but when it comes from good men who study the Bible,
we know not how to account for it. Our charity, however, inclines us to make
great allowance for the blinding influences of a false theory, and to conclude
that the objection is honestly made and must be met accordingly; we, therefore,
proceed to show that God has given a law of pardon applicable to His erring
children differing from the law of par­don given to the unconverted sinner.
Philip went down to the city of Samaria and preached Christ to the people, and
“when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God
and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. Then Simon
himself believed also; and when he was baptized he continued with Philip, and
wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done.” Acts 8:12-13. Here
is one law to which the Samaritans submitted, in doing which they became
children of God. Jesus said: “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.”
Mark 16:16. The Samaritans, Simon among them, did believe and were baptized, and
hence were pardoned as surely as there is any truth in the record. Simon did
just what the oth­ers did, and was saved if they were saved. But “when Simon saw
that through laying on of the apostles’ hands the Holy Ghost was given, he
offered them money, saying, Give me also this power, that on whomsoever I lay
hands he may receive the Holy Ghost.” Ver. 18,19. Here was a wicked thought
which entered into the heart of Simon, but did the inspired teachers rebaptize
him? No; but why not? This is a case exactly applicable. to the objection under
examination. He, with the other Samaritans, had believed and been baptized, and
was, therefore, saved; yet he sinned. What shall he do now? Peter said: “Repent,
there­fore, of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of
shine heart may be forgiven thee.” Ver. 22. Here is the law which applies to
those who sin after having been bap­tized in the name of Jesus Christ for the
remission of their past sins. They must repent of the sin or sins committed, and
pray to God for pardon, and, as His children, He will hear and pardon them.
Being a child of God, “if any man sin, we have an advo­cate with the Father,
Jesus Christ the righteous.” 1 John 2:1. And, again: “If we confess our sins, he
is faithful and just to for­give us our sins, and to cleanse us from all
unrighteousness.” 1 John 1:9. Here are privileges which the children of God
have, which aliens, while children of the wicked one, have not. It is their
gracious privilege to pray to their Father, with the assur­ance that He will
grant them such favors as they ask in accord­ance with His will. But Mr. Ditzler
says Simon “did not believe on Christ, but they simply believed Philip preaching
the things concerning the kingdom of God ... and were baptized. Acts 8:12. Ver.
13: Then Simon himself believed (i.e., Philip preaching), and was baptized.”
Louisville Debate, p. 222. He says Simon did not believe on Christ, yet the
scriptures he quotes show that he believed just what the others did; and no one
doubts their faith. But he omits some words in the quotation, which, of course,
he deems unimportant to the sense, yet we think them calculated to show just the
opposite of what he said. They are the words “and the name of Jesus Christ” in
the sentence, “They believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom
of God and the name of Jesus Christ.” Then Philip preached the things concerning
the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, which they and Simon be­lieved,
yet he did not believe on Christ at all! Philip must have acted strangely
inconsistent; for, in the same chapter (ver. 37), we find that he would not
baptize the eunuch until he confessed his faith in Jesus Christ as the Son of
God, and yet he baptized Simon and the Samaritans who did not believe on Christ!
How is this? But he continues: “Now, because Simon was baptized, sorcerer as he
was, though at once said to be in the gall of bitter­ness and the bond of
iniquity.” How does he know that as soon as Simon was baptized this was at once
said to him? The record says: “When the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard
that Sa­maria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John:
who, when they were come down,” etc. Ver. 14, 15. This shows that after Simon’s
baptism a report of the success of Philip’s preaching had to go from Samaria to
Jerusalem (a distance of thirty-six miles); the apostles have a meeting, and
Peter and John go from Jerusalem to Samaria before Peter could have said to him
what Mr. Ditzler says was said at once. We suppose the news went from Samaria to
Jerusalem by the or­dinary intercourse between those cities; as we have no
account of special messengers being sent to carry it, then it is impossible to
tell how long a time elapsed from Simon’s baptism to his re­buke by Peter. But
when we take into consideration the means of travel in that country at that
time, we know it was several days at least. Mr. Ditzler continues: “Peter’s very
words, ’I perceive thou art in the gall of bitterness,’ imply he discovered he
never had been right.” Do Peter’s words show that Simon never had been right?
Peter does not tell Simon to repent of all his sins, or even of sins, but of a
specific sin—repent of THIS thy wickedness. Nor does he tell him to pray to God
for the pardon of all his past sins, but for a specific sin—pray God if perhaps
the thought of shine heart may be forgiven thee—this thought of purchasing the
gift of God with money. We insist that this language clearly shows that one sin,
and only one, stood charged against Simon, and that all his former sins had been
pardoned prior to that time. Nor is this all; Simon did not manifest a wicked,
but a peni­tent, disposition after Peter rebuked him. Said he: “Pray ye to the
Lord for me, that none of these things come upon me.” Acts 8:24. And if Peter
obeyed the instructions which were given to other disciples, to “pray one for
another” (James 5:16), he did pray for Simon, and none of these things came upon
him. We have quoted Mr. Ditzler as expressing the generally re­ceived theory on
Simon’s case, because his language is a matter of record, and can be found by
those who will take the trouble to find and read the page to which we have
referred them. Simon’s case as clearly shows two laws of pardon—one for the
alien and another for the erring Christian—as it is possible to show any thing
by proof; we shall, therefore, treat this as settled, and proceed to examine the
testimony upon which we rely to prove that baptism is for the remission of sins.
Though John’s baptism is not now binding upon any one, and has not been since
the establishment of the kingdom for which it prepared material, yet a brief
examination of it is deemed impor­tant to a proper understanding of the baptism
to which the taught of all nations are now required to submit. Indeed, that
differed from this rather in its adjuncts than in the baptism itself. John
required those baptized by him to believe in a Saviour to come. John required
those who came to his baptism to confess their sins—now those who would be
baptized must confess their faith in the Son of God. Now, persons are baptized
into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. What
formula John used is not known, but it is certain he did not baptize into these
sublime names. John’s baptism prepared material for POSITION in a kingdom to be
established, or a temple or church to be built; now, persons are baptized into a
kingdom already established, a temple which has been built, a church al­ready in
existence. While there are these differences in the ad­juncts, John’s baptism
was immersion in water—adults only were subjects of it, and it was for the
remission of the sins of those who submitted to it. When John was named by the
direction of the angel, his father Zacharias was filled with the Holy Spirit,
and prophesied, saying: “Thou, child, shalt be called the prophet of the
Highest: for thou shalt go before the face of the Lord to prepare his ways; to
give knowledge of salvation unto his people by the re­mission of their sins.”
Luke 1:76-77. In fulfillment of the proph­ecy, and others made by the prophets,
it is said “John did baptize in the wilderness, and peach the baptism of
repentance for the remission of sins.” Mark 1:4. “And he came into all the
country about Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of
sins.” Luke 2:3. if these scriptures do not prove, beyond the possibility of
even respectable quibble, that John’s baptism was for the remission of sins,
then we know not how language might be shaped capable of proving that fact. To
keep within the range of English criticism, the preposition of in these
quotations implies possession—i.e., that baptism be­longs to or grows out of
repentance; hence, those baptized by John were truly penitent, and desired to
obey God in baptism that they might have knowledge of salvation by the remission
of their sins. But we are told that John’s baptism did not follow repentance,
but preceded and obligated to it. Then we are to understand that John baptized
the impenitent upon a promise of future repentance. Suppose an applicant for
baptism had said: “John, I have not repented, but if you will baptize me I will
repent at a more convenient season,” would John have bap­tized such an
applicant? But let us suppose this theory true for a moment, and see what it
will do for the theory of those who advocate it. They tell us that there never
has been but one law of pardon from the days of Adam until now, and that
repentance precedes faith in the order of their occurrence. Then, as the same
law of pardon existed in John’s day that exists now, and baptism preceded
repentance, and repentance preceded faith, it follows that baptism is first in
order, then repentance, and faith comes last; and, hence, we must baptize
persons without faith or repentance. Paul says: “Without faith it is impossible
to please God,” therefore such baptism could not be pleasing to God; and as that
which is not of faith is sin, such baptism is sin. The ad­vocates of this theory
have often tantalized us for baptizing per­sons without sufficient preparation,
but we would like to know how much preparation for baptism belongs to this
theory. As it precedes repentance, and repentance precedes faith, what pre­cedes
and prepares for baptism? Just nothing at all. But again: suppose their theory
be true that repentance did follow, not precede, John’s baptism, does it follow
that his bap­tism was not for the remission of sins because it was not last in
the order of conditions complied with? We are told that Jacob served seven years
for Rachel ( Genesis 29:20); was not the first year’s service as much for Rachel
as that of the seventh year? and could he ever have reached the seventh year
without passing through all the preceding years? When Naaman dipped himself
seven times in Jordan, that he might be cured of his leprosy, though the cure
followed the seventh dipping, all the preceding were as much for his cure as was
the seventh. We might give numerous illustrations of this principle, but these
are enough to show that were we to concede that John’s baptism preceded
repentance, the concession would not prove that it was not for remission of
sins. When the Bible says that John preached the baptism of re­pentance for
remission of sins, the language affirms nothing of repentance, but that the
baptism which belongs to repentance is for remission of sins. But why argue the
question further? It is plain enough. But there are those who admit that John’s
baptism was for the remission of sins, and yet they tell us that those who
submit­ted to it could not enter the kingdom on or after the day of Pentecost
without being rebaptized. Now, if John’s baptism was for the remission of sins,
and those who submitted to it were pardoned—their sins remitted—for what must
they be baptized on or after the day of Pentecost? Must they again be baptized
for the remission of the same sins remitted in John’s baptism? When the blood of
Jesus was shed their pardon was complete. As the material prepared for the
temple of Solomon was ready, as soon as brought together, for POSITION in the
building, so those baptized by John, and during the personal ministry of Jesus
by the apostles, were ready to be placed in the great spiritual tem­ple erected
on the day of Pentecost—all that was necessary was that they should be placed
together, and the building was com­plete without the sound of axe or hammer. But
more of this anon. We base our second argument upon the language of Christ to
Nicodemus: “Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he can not enter
into the kingdom of God.” John 3:5. Having devoted a chapter each to the
establishment of the kingdom and the philosophy of the new birth, we need not
stop here to en­large upon either; but it is sufficient to remark that in the
king­dom is a state of safety—out of it we know of no salvation for any one who
belongs to the class of persons for whom it was es­tablished. Paul says: “Then
cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the
Father.” 1 Corinthians 15:24. How shall those for whom the kingdom was
established be delivered with the kingdom unless they be in it? He who enters
the kingdom is saved, pardoned, justified; but if there is salva­tion for
intelligent men and women out of it, why did Christ give His life to establish
it? Surely it could do no good to estab­lish a kingdom out of which persons
could be saved as well as in it; and had such been the fact, when Jesus said
“Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit he can not enter the king­dom,”
Nicodemus could have replied: ’It matters not whether a man enters it or not, as
he can be saved as well out of it as in it.” As it is an incontrovertible truth,
then, that men who would be saved from their sins must enter the kingdom, and as
they can not enter it without being born of water and of the Spirit, it follows
that a birth of water and of the Spirit is indispensable to salvation from sins.
The only remaining question, then, is: Did the Lord allude to baptism when He
used the language “born of water?” If not, to what did He allude? What other
connection with water can there be to which He may have referred? The religious
world, with one voice, from the days of Christ until quite recently, has
ascribed this language to water baptism. Speaking of the primitive fathers, Dr.
Wall, the great Pedo­baptist historian, says: “They understood that rule of our
Sa­viour, ’Except one be regenerated ( or born again) of water and of the
Spirit, he can not enter into the kingdom of God,’ of water baptism, and
concluded from it that without such baptism., no person could come to heaven—and
so did all the writers of these four hundred years, not one man excepted.”
Wall’s History of Infant Bap., vol. 1, pp. 69, 70. Thus we have Dr. Wall’s
testimony that every writer of the first four hundred years, without a single
exception, understood the Saviour to refer to water baptism, and that no man
could be saved without it. Again: on page 147, of the same volume, Dr. Wall
says: “There is not any one Christian writer of any antiquity in any language,
but what understands it of baptism; and if it be not so understood, it is
difficult to give an account how a person is born of water any more than born of
wood.” This is strong language, but no writer has ventured to dispute it. If it
were not true, and any writer understood it otherwise, his writings would have
been produced in refutation of the statement. But what is the testimony of
modern writers on this subject? Mr. Wesley says: “Except a man be born of water
and of the Spir­it—except he experience that great inward change by the Spirit
and be baptized (wherever baptism can be had) as the outward sign and means of
it.” Wesley’s Notes on John 3:5. “By baptism, we who were ’by nature children of
wrath,’ are made the children of God; and this regeneration which our church in
so many places ascribes to baptism is more than barely being admitted into the
church, though commonly connected therewith; being ’grafted into the body of
Christ’s church, we are made the children of God by adoption and grace.’ This is
grounded on the plain words of our Lord, ’Except a man be born again of water
and of the Spirit, he can not enter into the king­dom of God.’ John 3:5. By
water, then, as a means, the water of baptism, we are regenerated or born again;
whence it is also called by the apostle ’the washing of regeneration.’“
Doctrinal Tracts, published by order of the Methodist General Conference, pp.
248, 249. BLOOMFIELD: “The purpose of the next verse (6) seems to be to set
forth the indispensable necessity of this regeneration by water and the Spirit,
in order to the attainment of everlasting salvation; for that as the natural or
animal life depends on flesh and blood, so does the spiritual life depend on the
baptism by water and by the Spirit.” Greek Testament and Notes. WHITBY: “If a
man be not born of water: That our Lord speaks here of baptismal regeneration,
the whole Christian church from the beginning hath always taught, and that with
very good reason.” Notes on John iii : 5. BARNES: “Born of water: By water here
is evidently signified baptism; thus the word is used, Ephesians 5:26; Titus
3:5.” Notes on John 3:5. TIMOTHY DWIGHT, president of Yale College: “To be born
again is precisely the same thing as to be born of water and of the Spirit; and
to be born of water is to be baptized, and he who understands the nature and
authority of this institution, and re­fuses to be baptized, will never enter the
visible or invisible kingdom of God.” GEORGE WHITFIELD: Born of water and of the
Spirit: Does not this verse urge the absolute necessity of baptism? Yes, when it
may be had.” Works, vol. iv, p. 355. While we do not indorse every thing quoted
from these au­thors, they show that the learned of all ages understand baptism
by the language born of water. Did space permit we might ex­tend the list of
quotations ad infinitum. The Methodist Disci­pline quotes John 3 : l-8, in the
baptismal ceremony. The West­minster and Cumberland Presbyterian Confessions
refer to John 3:5, as a proof text under the head of baptism, showing that they
understand the passage to refer to water baptism, otherwise they would not thus
refer to it. The Episcopalian Church so un­derstands it, as the following
questions and answers from the Catechism will clearly show:

“Question. What is the inward and spiritual grace (of bap­tism)?

“Answer. A death unto sin and a new birth unto righteous­ness, for being by
nature born in sin, and the children of wrath, we are hereby made the children
of grace.

“Q. But are there not some conditions required on the part of man in order to
his being saved by the death of Christ?

“A. We must become members of that spiritual society or body of which Christ is
the head.

“Q. Why must we become members of this body?

“A. Because we can not partake of the Spirit of Christ unless we are members of
the body of Christ. ’There is one body and one Spirit.’ Ephesians 4:4.

“Q. What is the body of Christ commonly called?

“A. It is called the church. Ephesians 1:23.

“Q. How are we made members of the church or mystical body of Christ?

“A. By baptism. ’We are all baptized into one body.’ 1 Corinthians 12:13.

“Q. For what end did our Lord institute the rite of baptism?

“A. To be the way and means of admitting man again into the favor of God.
’Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he can not enter into the
kingdom of God.’ John 3:5. “Q. What favors or privileges does God grant to
persons bap­tized in this new covenant? “A. The forgiveness of all his own sins,
if he hath committed any, and the sin of Adam so far as concerned him; a title
to the Holy Spirit, as being the life of the body whereof he is now made a
member, and the promise of a resurrection of his body, and a glorious
immortality in heaven. “Q. Can forgiveness of sin be obtained by those to whom
the gospel is preached, out of the church? “A. No; for it is obtained only
through Jesus Christ. “Q. Does baptism cleanse us from all the actual sins we
have committed before it? “A. Yes; as well as from original sin. ’Arise, and be
baptized, and wash away thy sins.’ Acts 22:16. “Q. Who instituted the sacrament
of baptism and the Lord’s Supper? “A. Our Lord Jesus Christ, for the purpose of
applying the merits of his death to us. “Q. Is it, then, a great advantage to
receive these sacraments worthily? “A. It is the greatest blessing of this life,
because they are the means of conveying grace into our souls, without which we
can do no good thing.” This catechism teaches that baptism brings us into the
church, out of which those to whom the gospel is preached cannot be saved; it
brings us into the body of Christ, out of which we can not partake of the Spirit
of Christ, without which we are none of His; it is the means of obtaining the
remission of all our sins, and Adam’s sin as far as it pertains to us; it gives
a title to the Holy Spirit, a promise of a resurrection of the body, and a
glorious immortality in heaven. Is not this enough? Who ever attached more
importance to baptism than this? But our chief object in quoting it was to show
that it refers the language of Jesus (born of water) to baptism. How comes it to
pass NOW that men will abandon their own creeds and the plainest teaching of
Holy Writ, as understood by the learned of all ages, and deny that the passage
has any reference to baptism at all. When the Lord said: “Suffer little children
to come unto me,” and said not a word about water, or baptism, they can see
plenty of water to baptize an infant; yet where the Lord uses the language “born
of water and of the Spirit,” they can not find a drop of water in the passage.
Whether or not they are consist­ent the reader will judge for himself. But we
are told that if the kingdom was not established until the day of Pentecost,
this language can not apply to it, for it was used before that time. It is true
that the kingdom was not set up until the day of Pentecost; and it is also true
that this lan­guage was used by Christ before that time, but the same is true of
every thing He said while on the earth; hence it may all be wiped out by the
same rule. The New Testament is the last will of the Saviour; was there ever a
will the provisions of which were not arranged before the death of the testator?
Jesus Christ arranged the provisions of His will before His death, and one very
important provision was the manner of entering His king­dom when it should be
established. The clause containing this provision was given to Nicodemus in a
figure, and went into ef­fect when His apostles were installed executors of the
will on the day of Pentecost. But the tenth verse—”Art thou a master of Israel,
and know­est not these things?”—is supposed to show that the lesson con­tained
in the conversation was one which Nicodemus was pre­sumed to know as a teacher
of the Jewish law; and as baptism for remission of sins was not taught in that
law, he could not know it, and therefore it was not embraced in the conversation
between Christ and him. As a teacher of Israel, it was pre­sumed that Nicodemus
was capable of understanding plain in­struction such as Christ had given him,
but after Christ had ex­plained the whole matter to him, he still did not
understand it; hence the question, “Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not
these things?” and Jesus proceeds to tell him the reason: “We speak that we do
know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness. If I have
told you of earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe if I tell
you of heavenly things?” Vs. 11, 12. Thus we see he did not know what Jesus had
taught him because he did not receive the testimony pre­sented. The Jewish age
abounded with types and prophecies pointing to Christ and His kingdom, with
which Nicodemus should have been familiar, yet he did not understand them when
explained to him. Hence the objection amounts to nothing, and the argument
stands forth in all its strength: When Jesus spake of a birth of water and
Spirit, He referred to baptism, without which no man can enter the kingdom of
God, and out of which there is no salvation for those to whom the kingdom comes.
Our third argument is based upon the commission as re­corded by Mark: “And he
said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every
creature. He that believ­eth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that
believeth not shall be damned.” Mark 16:16. To suit the theory of some who
regard baptism a nonessential, and teach that man is justified by faith alone,
the commission should read, “He that believ­eth and is saved may be baptized if
convenient.” Their theory confronts the Lord when He says, “He that believeth
and is bap­tized shall be saved,” and says, “Not so, Lord; he that believes is
saved, whether baptized or not.” When a blessing is promised on certain
conditions, it can not be enjoyed until the last condition is completed with.
E.g.: When Naaman was commanded to wash himself seven times in Jordan, that he
might be healed of his leprosy, he was not healed until he dipped himself the
seventh time. When the Jews were required to go around the city seven days, and
on the seventh day seven times, that they might possess the city, the walls were
not thrown down until they came to the end of the conditions prescribed; so,
when the Lord promises salvation to him who believes AND is baptized, no one
need expect the prom­ised salvation until he has complied with the last
prescribed con­dition. If he believes, yet has not been baptized, the blessing
promised can not be expected. But we are told that the salvation here promised
was salva­tion in heaven, or future salvation. This attaches much more
importance to baptism than belongs to it. We can not be saved in heaven unless
first saved from sin; and as baptism secures sal­vation in heaven, it must save
us from sin, and every thing be­yond that. This is too strong meat for us. As
Peter was one of those to whom this commission was given, and had the Spirit to
guide him into all truth, perhaps he might tell us what baptism saves us from.
On the day of Pentecost, operating under this commission, he commanded persons
to repent, and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of
sins; hence he understood “remission of sins,” or salvation from the punishment
due sin, to be the salvation of the commission. And when he wrote to his
brethren he said, “Baptism cloth also NOW save us” (1 Peter 3:21); hence it is
not a future but a present salvation which is received by baptism—not salvation
in heaven, for it now saves us. But infidelity has furnished our neighbors an
easier way of escape from the commission by Mark. Finding all other quib­bles
ineffectual, they now tell us it is an interpolation—a Roman Catholic
forgery—”the whole of the chapter, from the ninth verse to the twentieth,
inclusive, is spurious.” This is a very convenient way of disposing of an
argument which can not be met otherwise. If a passage is in harmony with our
theory it is canonical, otherwise it is a forgery. We wish to enter our pro­test
against the immolation of our Bible in this way. Interpolations in it there may
be, but they must be incontrover­tibly shown such before we can respect the
attack of one against whose theory they chance to come. Such men can not blow a
chapter out of our Bible with a breath. We propose to submit some testimony
which may not be in the possession of every one, with regard to the authenticity
of this connection of Scripture. Prof. Stowe has made the authen­ticity of the
books of the Bible a specialty, and we suppose has given the subject more
attention than any man in America—perhaps than any man now living. He wrote a
notice of Tischen­dorf’s New Testament, which was published in the “Chris­tian
Union,” from which we extract the following: “The New Testament in English,
edited by Tischendorf and published by Tauchnitz, is a work of great merit, in a
scholarly point of view; but to those not fully acquainted with the subject,
altogether deceptive, though not intentionally so. Such are apt to think that
the three oldest manuscripts must be the best au­thority for the original text,
and that what can not be found in them could not have been a part of the New
Testament as it came from the hands of the apostles. This is a great and
mischie­vous mistake. The three oldest manuscripts used by Tischen­dorf date
from the first quarter of the fourth to the middle of the fifth century; that
is, some two hundred and twenty-five years, at least, after the New Testament
had been written, read in the churches, and scattered all over the Christian
world—liable to all the accidents incident to frequent transcription. “Now we
have translations of the New Testament in various languages—Syrian, Egyptian,
Ethiopic, and others—beginning with the latter part of the second century. From
the first cen­tury to the fifth there are not less than ten of these
translations, and they certainly are a much better authority than manuscripts
which had no existence till early in the fourth century. When these translations
contain passages which are not contained in later manuscripts, the translations
are much more likely to give the text as it stood in their time than the
manuscripts. The loss of a leaf (for these manuscripts are all in book form, and
not in rolls), the beginning in wrong places by the transcriber after a rest
from writing, and various other circumstances, may easily account for an
unintentional omission in the manuscripts, but an interpolation must be
intentional. On these accounts, and others that might be mentioned, it is easy
to see that, at least in regard to interpolations, a good translation of the
second or third century is a far more reliable authority for the original of the
text than the manuscript of the fourth or fifth century. The ten translations
above alluded to are, therefore, on these points, far more trustworthy than the
three manuscripts used by Tischendorf in his new edition of the New Testament.
“Again, we have numerous Christian writers—from the first century to the
fifth—who constantly quote the New Testament as it stood in their time; and the
quotations of the first three cen­turies are an earlier authority for the
original text than any of the Tischendorf manuscripts. There are some
seventy-five of these writers, and their quotations are so numerous that if
every manuscript of the New Testament were lost, the substance of it could be
reproduced from their writings. Moreover, the manu­scripts are all anonymous. We
know not who wrote them; but the quotations are given with responsible names. We
know the authors of the books in which they occur. It is true that these
translations, and the writings of the early Christian fathers, are generally
more or less incomplete, and the text somewhat varied, but the same is true of
the New Testament manuscripts. In the very best manuscript (the Sinaitic),
Tischendorf indicates four different classes or kinds of variation. On this
point all the au­thorities, whether translations or manuscripts, need careful
edit­ing—they all stand on precisely the same ground. “Now apply these
principles to a single case by way of illus­tration. The last chapter of Mark’s
gospel, from the eighth verse onward, is omitted in the Sinaitic and Vatican
manuscripts, but is contained in the Alexandrian. It is in all the Syrian,
Egyptian, and other translations of the second and third centuries, and it is
quoted as the last part of Mark’s gospel by Irenaeus, the most learned Christian
writer of the second century, and the student of Polycarp, who had studied with
the apostle John. Irenaeus tells us that he had the books of the Christian
Scriptures in his possession at the very time when he was on terms of
familiarity with Polycarp, daily listening to his accounts of what he had
himself heard from John and others, who had seen the Lord. ... This chapter of
Mark is also found in more than five hundred Greek manuscripts, and also in the
Latin and Gothic. Now, which is the more probable that all these most ancient
wit­nesses had been deceived by an interpolation, or that, by some accident, the
last leaf of Mark’s gospel had been dropped out from the manuscript from which
the Sinaitic and Vatican were copied? From this statement of fact it is obvious
that any one who should, in making a revised text of the New Testament, strike
out all that is not contained in the three oldest manu­scripts used by
Tischendorf, must be guilty of a very faulty text. It is a remarkable fact, not
to be lightly estimated, that a whole column of space is left blank in the
Vatican manuscript as if the copyist had intended, but for some reason had
omitted, to fill it with the text.” In a subsequent paper Prof. Stowe enters
into specifications as follows: “We are perfectly safe and within bounds in
conclud­ing that, at least, the historical books of the New Testament were in
circulation in the Syrian churches in the Peshito transla­tion as early as the
latter part of the first century. If so, then the Syrian Christians, the near
neighbors and contemporaries, and relations by language and race, of the
apostles themselves, read this passage, the last verses of Mark’s gospel,
without question, as a genuine portion of the gospel of Mark, nearly three
centu­ries before the oldest manuscript used by Tischendorf was writ­ten. Now
take this in connection with the fact that no one knows either the origin or the
history of the Tischendorf manu­scripts, while both the origin and history of
the Syrian transla­tion are known and well attested as to substance, and also
the fact that an accidental omission, especially of the last leaf, is much more
easily accounted for than an interlined interpolation, which, at that early
period, and in those circumstances, would have been well nigh impossible, and
any one can see that the authority of the Syrian translation must be, in this
instance, alto­gether superior to that of the Greek manuscript. To this andadd
the authority on the same point of all the translations of the sec­ond and third
centuries, and of more than five hundred Greek manuscripts, and the case is made
out.

“Second authority, Irenaeus. He was born in Smyrna, near the beginning of the
second century; was the student of Poly­carp, the celebrated bishop and martyr
of that city, the disciple of John the apostle, and, not unlikely, the very
angel of that church to whom John directed the epistle in Revelation 2:8-17,
dic­tated by the Lord Jesus. He had resided at Rome and early went as a
missionary to France, where he suffered martyrdom in the year 202. In writing to
his friend Iconius, who was an elder in the church at Rome, he says: ’1 saw thee
when I was yet a boy in the lower class with Polycarp. I remember the events of
those times much better than those of more recent occurrence. I can tell the
very place where the blessed Polycarp was accus­tomed to sit and discourse of
his familiar intercourse with John, as he was accustomed to tell, as also his
familiarity with those who had seen the Lord; how, also, he used to relate their
dis­courses concerning his miracles, his doctrine; all these were told by
Polycarp, in consistency with the Holy Scriptures, as he had received them from
the eye-witnesses. These things I atten­tively heard, noting them down in my
mind; and these same facts I am always in the habit of recalling faithfully to
mind.’ ... Is not Irenaeus better authority on such a point as that which we are
now considering than any anonymous manuscript written nearly two centuries after
his time? Yet Irenaeus, in his great work on Heresies, iii, 10: 6, writes thus:
’Mark says in the end of his gospel (Mark 16 : l9), And, indeed, the Lord Jesus,
after he had spoken to them, was received up into heaven, and sat on the right
hand of God.’

“The third authority, Hippolytus. Hippolytus was a student of Irenaeus, the
pastor of a church in the neighborhood of Rome, one of the most pious preachers
and able writers of his time, and his works are still highly esteemed and widely
read. In 1551, a statue of him, with biographical inscriptions, was disinterred
near Rome, and in 1661 and 1832, important long-lost writings of his were
discovered, all of which excited great interest and en­thusiasm. In his work on
spiritual gifts there is-this passage: ’Jesus says to all, at the same time,
concerning the gifts which shall be given by Him through the Holy Spirit. And
these signs shall follow them that believe,’ etc., etc., quoting the whole of
Mark 16:17-18. We need pursue the subject no further, nor quote the later
fathers, Augustine, Jerome, and others. So far as the weight of authority is
concerned, is not the genuineness of the passage in question established beyond
reasonable doubt? Tischendorf has no superior in regard to New Testament Greek
manuscript authority; but as to authority of translations,. church writers,
etc., which are more ancient than any of our existing New Testament Greek
manuscripts, Lachmann is his superior, and Lachmann retains this passage as
genuine. As to the inter­nal evidence, without these verses how abrupt and
awkward the closing words of the gospel: ’For they were afraid.’ From the
analogy of all the other gospels we could certainly expect some­thing beyond
this, and common sense would teach the same.”

We offer no apology for these long extracts from Prof. Stowe, they throw a flood
of light upon the whole subject, and we can well afford the space given if we
may thereby preserve the integ­rity of the Bible. We could abundantly prove the
doctrine of baptism for the remission of sins without this passage, but with it
there can be no plausible opposition. In the Introduction to the Tischendorf New
Testament we find the following admis­sion: “The ordinary conclusion of the
gospel of St. Mark, namely, 16: 9-20, is found in more than five hundred Greek
man­uscripts, in the whole of the Syriac and Coptic, and most of the Latin
manuscripts, and even in the Gothic version. But by Eu­sebius and Jerome (the
former of whom died in the year 340), it is stated expressly that in nearly all
the trustworthy copies of their time the gospel ended with the eighth verse;
and, with this, of all existing known Greek manuscripts, only the Vatican and
the Sinaitic now agree.” We might quote numerous other authorities, but the
forego­ing are all for which we have room, and are deemed quite sufficient to
establish the purity of the text beyond doubt. It is a positive utterance of Him
who had all authority in heaven and upon the earth, that “he that believeth and
is baptized shall be saved.” Heaven and earth may pass away, but the words of
Jesus can not fail. Reader, are you a believer? If so, have you been baptized?
If not, can you feel that the promise, “he that believeth and is baptized shall
be saved,” offers any consolation to you while in your present condition? If
not, “why tarriest thou? arise and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling
on the name of the Lord.” We base our next argument upon the operations of the
apos­tles under this commission. They were instructed to tarry at Je­rusalem
until endued with power from on high. They were all with one accord in one place
when the Spirit came from heaven and took possession of their tongues, and spake
forth the won­derful and mighty works of God to Jews, devout men, of every
nation under heaven. The gospel was preached, they heard and believed it, and
were cut to the heart by it, and cried out “Men and brethren, what shall we do?”
To this important inquiry Peter replied: “Repent, and be baptized every one of
you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins.” Acts 2:38. This
answer was dictated by the Holy Spirit, and must therefore be accepted as
applicable to the question asked. If there was ever a time when a plain,
unambiguous answer was demanded, this was the time. His answer not only
concerned the thousands then present, but as to him was committed the keys of
the kingdom, and he was, for the first time, proclaiming the terms of
ad­mission, his answer must constitute a law of entrance for those who would
become subjects of the kingdom until it shall have been delivered up to God even
the Father. A plain answer was demanded, and we insist that such was the
character of the an­swer given. There are two adjunctive phrases in the answer
which we may first understand, and then remove for a moment in order to get the
meaning of the trunk without them. Repent, and be baptized [every one of you, in
the name of Jesus Christ] for the remission of sins. Every one of you. This
shows that all are addressed, and this is the measure of its import. In the name
of Jesus Christ. This shows by what authority he gave to the command. When Peter
healed the lame man who lay at the gate of the temple, he said: “In the name of
Jesus Christ of Naz­areth rise up and walk.” Acts 3:6. When the people were
as­tonished at what was done, Peter explained: “Ye men of Israel, why marvel at
this? or why look ye so earnestly on us, as though by our own power or holiness
we had made this man to walk?” Ver. 12. This shows that the phrase “in the name
of Jesus Christ” simply conveys the idea of authority or power. This set­tled,
then we leave out the adjunctive phrases that the members of the trunk may stand
closer together, and we read it thus: Re­pent, and be baptized for the remission
of sins. This leaves no room to doubt the object or design of the obedience
required. Repent, and be baptized. What for? For the remission of sins. The
preposition for connects repent and be baptized on the one hand with remission
on the other; of connecting sins with remission and governing it in the
objective case. Hence, the re­lation expressed by the word for is between repent
and be bap­tized on one side, and remission of sins on the other. The word for
can not be divided and made mean one thing as to repent, and another thing as to
be baptized. We have already shown, by rules of language quoted more than once,
that the same word can not have more than one meaning at the same time, and in
the same place; hence, whatever may be the meaning of the preposition for as to
repentance is its meaning as to baptism. They are connected by the copulative
conjunction and, and must not be separated, but must sustain, in this sentence,
the same re­lation to remission. This point being settled, we turn to Peter for
an explanation of the relation existing between repentance and remission,
feeling sure that baptism sustains the same rela­tion. We read: “Repent ye,
therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out.” Acts 3:19. Do
what? Repent and be converted. What for? That your sins may be blotted out.
Then, as men are to repent that their sins may be blotted out, and baptism
sustains the same relation to remission of sins, it follows that men must be
baptized that their sins may be blot­ted out. From this decision there is no
appeal; it is strong as Holy Writ and the laws of language can make a
proposition. Before leaving this argument we may say that were it shown that men
must be baptized because their sins are pardoned, it would follow that they must
repent for the same thing, i.e., be­cause their sins are pardoned. As before
stated, the preposition for can not mean in order to and because of at the same
time and place. More than this, for is from the Greek preposition eis, which
looks forward, not backward. Liddell and Scott define it, “direction toward,”
“motion to,” “on,” or “into.” It is not used in the sense of because of a single
time in the Bible. In Matthew 26:28, we have a similarly constructed sentence
both. in the Greek and in the English scriptures: “For this is my blood of the
New Testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.” The words “for
the remission of sins,” are not only the same as in Acts 2:38, but they are from
the same Greek words, eis aphesin amartioon. No one believes that Christ shed
His blood because the sins of the people were remitted, but in order that they
might be remitted. Then if the same set of words means the same thing, Peter
commanded the Pentecostians to re­pent and be baptized in order that their sins
might be remitted, or as in the French Bible, “in order to OBTAIN the remission
of sins.” But an objector says that “when Jesus cured a man of his lep­rosy, ’he
charged him to tell no man: but go, and show thyself to the priest, and offer
for thy cleansing according as Moses com­mended, for a testimony unto them’
(Luke 5:14; Mark 1:44)— thus showing that for means ’because of.’ He was to make
the offering because of his cleansing.” In the first place, we reply that the
word for, in the phrase “for thy cleansing,” is not from eis, the word used in
Acts 2:38. In the next place, by consulting the law of Moses for the cure of
leprosy, it will be seen that there was first a cure, and then a ceremonial
cleansing from lep­rosy; and it was in order to this cleansing that the cured
man was required by the Lord to make the offering. Hence, even in this place,
the preposition for, though not a translation of eis at all, means “in order
to,” and not “because of.” And if it did mean “because of,” as it comes not from
eis the objection amounts to nothing. But since Mr. Ditzler has come upon the
arena, the argument based upon “because of,” as a meaning of eis, has been very
gen­erally abandoned in this country. He says: “Eis is always prospective, and
never retrospective. ... The Baptists are all wrong on eis—making it
retrospective—’in consequence of.”’ Louisville Debate, p. 307. This position is
well taken, but it takes away all chance of even a respectable quibble on Acts
2:38, against baptism for remission of sins. He says: “Neither repentance nor
baptism is for remission’ but conditions prece­dent to doing that which is for
remission.” P. 295. If this were true it could give no relief to his theory. How
can he get to re­mission until he passes through the conditions precedent to it?
But he continues: “The repentance would as much be for re­mission as baptism,
since they are coupled with kai—and; ’re­pent and be baptized.’ But it is never
for remission of sins. Whatever is for remission, of necessity brings remission
of sins. Faith does this—repentance never. The repentance here as usual precedes
faith.” Ut supra. Repentance is not for remis­sion of sins, yet Peter commanded
persons to repent and be con­verted, that their sins might be blotted out!!
(Acts 3:19.) Wonder what difference there is in remission of sins and blotting
out of sins! But he says repentance precedes faith; and as re­pentance precedes
baptism, and both are conditions precedent to faith, which brings remission, it
follows that they are without faith, and not pleasing to God; for “without faith
it is impossible to please him.” Hebrews 11:6. And as that which is not of faith
is sin, such repentance and baptism as precede faith are sin. But this reverses
the order of the commission—”he that believeth and is baptized,” not he that is
baptized and then believes. It also reverses the order of Philip’s operations.
When the Samari­tans believed Philip’s preaching, they were baptized; and when
the eunuch demanded baptism, Philip replied: “If thou believes” with all thy
heart thou mayest.” No inspired man ever taught that repentance and baptism were
conditions precedent to faith, or that any one should be baptized who did not
believe. The conversion of the Pentecostians may be regarded as an inspired
Commentary on the commission under which the apos­tles acted. The commission
required teaching or preaching—Pe­ter preached to Jews, devout men, who were
present on the oc­casion. The commission required faith or belief—these were cut
to the heart when they heard and believed what Peter preached. The commission,
as recorded by Luke, associated repentance with remission of sins; so did Peter.
The commission required believers of all nations to be baptized; so did Peter.
The com­mission followed baptism by a promise of salvation—Peter made remission
of sins the object of repentance and baptism. Thus we see how the apostles
understood the commission. But an objector says: “Anderson’s Translation of Acts
2:47, says: ’The Lord added the saved daily to the church.’ And as men are added
to the church by baptism, it follows that they were saved before they were added
by baptism.” Anderson be­lieved that the word ekklesia, here rendered church,
simply meant a local church or congregation, and that after they were saved by
obedience to the gospel they were daily added to the congregation, or placed
together. Mr. Campbell’s compilation of Campbell, Macknight, and Doddridge,
renders this verse, “And the Lord daily added the saved to the congregation.”
Whether Anderson correctly translated the verse or not, no honest man will take
advantage of his translation to pervert his teaching. T. S. Green, of London,
renders the passage thus: “And the Lord was adding daily those that were being
saved.” Twofold New Testament. Thus he leaves out the word church, for which
there is nothing in the original, and is faithful to the participal form and
present tense of the Greek. This rendering comes to us from, and is supported
by, very high authority, and is in harmony with the general teaching of the
Bible on the subject. It should, therefore, be very carefully considered before
it is re­jected. It is a fact beyond controversy that those who complied with
the terms imposed on the day of Pentecost were pardoned at some time of that
day. At what time were they pardoned? Were they pardoned when they came together
that morning? No, for they believed that Jesus Christ was an impostor, and they
had crucified Him as such. Were they pardoned when Peter began to preach? Surely
not, for he accused them with the mur­der of the Son of God, and they believed
him drunk with wine. Were they forgiven when, convinced of their great wrong,
they cried out, “Men and brethren, what shall we do?” Such is not the style of
those who are forgiven. Surely they did not cry out in the anguish of their
souls, “Men and brethren, what shall we do because God has graciously forgiven
us all our sins?” They were charged with the murder of Jesus Christ, and they
wanted to know how to escape the punishment due them as sinners. Did Peter
answer the question they put to him? We suppose he did. He commanded them to
repent, and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins.
As many as “gladly received his word were baptized.” Now, are they par­doned? No
one doubts it. When were they pardoned? When they complied with the conditions
specified in the command; not before. Sinner, would you be saved? then do as
they did. The command came fresh from heaven, and can not be wrong. We base
another argument upon the language of Ananias to Saul: “And now why tarriest
thou? Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, galling on the name of the
Lord.” Acts 22:16 Saul’s conversion, though in some respects extraordi­nary, has
within it all the elements contained in the commission and in the conversions of
Pentecost. He was a violent persecu­tor of the people of God, and believed Jesus
an impostor, and His followers worthy of punishment. Jesus presented Himself to
him and made known the fact that He was truly the Son of God. Believing it, he
cried out, “Lord, what wilt thou have me to do?” Here would have been a good
time to have verified the theory of justification by faith alone. Saul had the
faith, and, if justifica­tion was by it alone, he would have gladly known the
fact. As the Lord did not so inform him, we infer that no such theory was in
operation at that time. Having delegated the proclama­tion of the gospel to men,
the Lord did not usurp the authority delegated to others by telling Saul
himself, but tells him where he might go and find one competent to furnish the
desired infor­mation—”Arise, and go into the city and it shall be told thee what
thou must do.” Not what you may do or can do, if con­venient, but what you must
do. The Lord sent Ananias to an­swer the inquiry, which he did, saying, “Arise,
and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.” He
did not tell Saul to believe, for he had been a believer from the time the Lord
appeared to him in the way, three days before; nor was he told to repent,
because he had been truly penitent the same length of time; but the instructions
began just where Saul’s obedience had stopped, and at the point necessary to
per­fect it. We stop not to inquire what washed Paul’s sins away— whether blood,
water, or any thing else—sufficient it is for us to know that they were not
washed away until he was baptized. Granting, as we do, that the blood of Christ
cleanseth from all sin, Paul could not literally come in contact with it, but
must ap­proach it through some means appointed for that purpose. Commenting upon
the phrase “be baptized and wash away thy sins,” Mr. Wesley says: “Baptism
administered to real penitents is both a means and seal of pardon. Nor did God,
ordinarily, in the primitive church, bestow this on any, unless through this
means.” Wesley’s Notes. Burkitt says: “Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy
sins. Here note that sacraments are not empty, insignificant signs; but God, by
His grace and blessing, renders His own ordinances ef­fectual for these great
ends for which his wisdom has appointed them: Be baptized and wash away thy
sins. As water cleanseth the body, so the blood of Christ, signified by water,
washes away the guilt of the soul. Where true faith is, together with the
pro­fession of it by baptism, there is salvation promised. Mark 16:16. He that
believeth and is baptized shall be saved.” Burkitt’s Notes. But Mr. Campbell
says: “Paul’s sins were really pardoned when he believed, yet he had no solemn
pledge of the fact, no formal acquittal, no formal purgation of his sins, until
he washes them away in the water of baptism.” Debate with MacCalla, p. 135. Yes,
Mr. Campbell said this in his debate with MacCalla in October of 1823, while he
was a Baptist and believed and taught as Baptists do; but when he became a man
he put away childish things. But we are told that Paul was commanded to arise
and be baptized and wash away his sins BY calling on the name of the Lord. We
respectfully suggest that the language will not bear this rendering. The word
epicalesmenos (epicalesamenos) is, 1. Aorist, correspond­ing to the indefinite
past tense of English, and, hence, must indicate a calling which had previously
been made. Arise, and be baptized, and wash away your sins, having called on the
name of the Lord. We would transpose and paraphrase the passage thus: “Hav­ing
called upon the name of the Lord for information, or to know what to do, He has
sent me to tell you; and now why tarry? Arise, and be baptized, and wash away
your sins.” The indefinite past tense can not express a calling yet to be made.
“But Paul said to the jailer, ’Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt
be saved, and thy house,’ and it is not likely he would have given to the jailer
a system of pardon differing from his own.” What are we to do with such a
passage as this? Shall we tear it from its context, and build a theory of
justification by faith alone because it says nothing about repentance or
baptism? If so, may we not take the language of Ananias to Saul, and con­struct
a theory of justification by baptism alone because he was told to arise and be
baptized, and not a word was said about faith or repentance? And may not a third
party take Peter’s language, “Repent, and be converted that your sins may be
blotted out,” and construct a theory of justification upon repent­ance alone,
because faith nor baptism is mentioned? So a fourth party may quote Peter on
Pentecost, saying, Repent, and be bap­tized, and build a theory on these two to
the exclusion of faith because it is not mentioned, and thus we may have as many
theories of justification as there are cases of conversion recorded. We must
allow the apostles to adapt their teaching to the condition of the taught. When
Paul addressed the jailer in infi­delity—one who believed Jesus an imposter and
had Paul and Silas in prison for performing a miracle in His name—it was
necessary to begin at the beginning; hence, they told him to believe as the
first thing necessary, and then they spake unto him the word of the Lord; that
is, they further developed the plan of salvation to him. When Peter addressed
believers on the day of Pentecost, he did not tell them to do that which they
had already done, but added what was lacking, “Repent, and be baptized.” But
when Ananias addressed a believing penitent in the person of Saul, he did not
tell him to believe and repent, for both of these he had done; but he told him
to do the only thing which, at that stage of his conversion, he lacked “Arise,
and be baptized.” But we propose now to show that Paul did impose the same
conditions upon the jailer that Peter did upon the Pentecostians, and that Peter
and Paul did not preach different gospels. Paul said to the jailer: “Believe on
the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved, and thy house, and they spake
unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house.” Acts
16:31-32. The reader will please note the fact that the lord of the Lord was
spoken to the jailer; and if we would know what was re­quired of him we must
learn what was embraced in the word of the Lord. The prophet said: “And many
people shall go and say, Come ye and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord,
to the house of the God of Jacob, and he will teach us of his ways, and we will
walk in his paths; for out of Zion shall go forth the law and the word of the
Lord from Jerusalem.” Isaiah 2:3. Thus we see that the word of the Lord spoken
to the jailer was to go forth from Jerusalem; hence, if we can find what went
forth as the word of the Lord from Jerusalem we may know what was preached to
the jailer. The Lord said: “That repentance and re­mission of sins should be
preached in his name among all na­tions, beginning at Jerusalem.” Luke 24:47.
The prophet tells us that the word of the Lord should go forth from Jerusalem,
and the Lord explains this by saying it was written that repent­ance and
remission of sins should be preached in His name among all nations, beginning
there. Then how did the word of the Lord go forth from Jerusalem? and how was
repentance and remission of sins preached in the name of Jesus, beginning there?
Peter said: “Repent, and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus
Christ for the remission of sins.” This was what went forth as the word of the
Lord from Jerusalem; and, as this constituted the word of the Lord at Jerusalem,
it took the same thing to constitute it at the Philippian jail; and as this was
the way repentance and remission of sins began to be preached in the name of
Jesus at Jerusalem, and was to be preached among all nations, and as the jailer
and all his were a part of all nations, it is certainly what was preached as the
word of the Lord to them, Not only so, but we find the same result produced by
the preaching at both places. At Jerusalem “they that gladly received his word
were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand
souls.” Acts 2:41. At the jail “he took them the same hour Of the night and
washed their stripes, and was baptized, he and all his straightway.” Acts 16:33.
Thus we see that the same gospel was preached at both places, and the parties
understood and obeyed it in the same way. If baptism was not included in the
word of the Lord spoken to the jailer, and especially if it be a mere
non-essential, why did he so promptly attend to it the same hour of the night?
Before leaving Paul’s case we must attend to another objec­tion which comes in
our way occasionally: “If baptism be for the remission of sins, then remission
is made to depend upon third parties, and the subject is dependent upon an
administrator.” Had the Lord been disposed to have dispensed with the services
of third parties, why did he not pardon Saul without sending him off to wait
three days for Ananias, the third party? Why did He not pardon the devout
Cornelius without sending to Joppa for Simon Peter, the third party? Why did He
not pardon the Ethiopian nobleman without the services of Philip, the third
party? God did specially interpose in each of these cases, and yet He dispensed
not with the services of the third party. When an unclean person was to be
purified under the law, “a clean person shall take hyssop, and dip it in the
water, and sprinkle it upon the tent, and upon all the vessels, and upon the
persons that were there, and upon him that touched a bone, or one slain, or one
dead, or a grave; and the clean person shall sprinkle upon the unclean on the
third day and on the seventh day.” Numbers 19:18-19. Thus we see that God’s law
has ever required the services of third parties, or the services of one class in
behalf of another. But if this objection be worth any thing, is the theory of
justification by faith alone free from it? Paul tells us that faith comes by
hearing, and hearing by the word of God, and asks: “How shall they believe in
him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?”
Romans 10:14. Then, as he can not get faith without a third party, the preacher,
the difficulty rests with all its weight upon the objec­tor. When he gets done
preaching to him, if he has faith enough, it will not detain him much longer to
baptize him and make a clean job of it at once. “But in a desert he might
believe in preaching previously heard.” Yes; but the preacher was still present
when the preaching was done by the third party, and when the sinner heard the
gospel, then was the time he should have obeyed it; and if he declined to do it,
it was his misfortune, and God will hold him responsible for opportunities thus
slighted, just as he will another man who has the same opportunities and dies in
place of falling in a desert. In both cases it is the misfortune of the parties
that they did not obey the gospel when they had the opportunity of doing so. The
man who slighted ten thousand opportunities of obeying the gospel, until he gets
into a condition that offers no opportunity, need scarcely expect to be held
guiltless for slighting the over­tures of the past. Now is the day of salvation.
Now is your time—to-morrow to you may never come. We come next to examine the
epistles, in which are various allusions to our subject. In Paul’s letter to the
church at Rome we have the following very significant paragraph: “But ye have
obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you. Being then
made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness” Romans 6:17-18.
Here we learn that the Romans obeyed a form, system, or mould of doctrine, in
doing which they were made free from sin. Having made the subject of a change of
heart a theme of special examination in another part of our work, we need not
stop to consider it here. It is sufficient at present to state that all
acceptable obedience comes from the heart. God is not mocked, but seeks such to
worship Him as worship Him in spirit and in truth. He that worships God to be
seen of men, to gain popular applause, professional patronage, the hand of a
lady, the approval of a companion, is but mocking Him with that which is an
abomination in His sight. The Romans obeyed from the heart the form of doctrine
delivered them. They did not obey the doctrine, but they obeyed the form of it.
In order to recognize the form or likeness of any thing, we must be acquainted
with that of which it is a form; ea., to recognize the form or likeness of a
man, we must first be acquainted with the man of whom it is a likeness. Then, to
recognize the form of doctrine obeyed by the Romans, we must know the doctrine
itself. Paul says: “Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I
preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; by which
also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have
believed in vain. For I deliv­ered unto you first of all that which I also
received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures; and
that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the
Scriptures.” 1 Corinthians 15:1-4. Paul says he delivered to the Corinthians
that which he re­ceived, and he says the Romans obeyed the form of doctrine
delivered them. He further says that he preached the gospel to the Corinthians,
and we suppose he preached the same gospel at Rome which he preached at Corinth,
for he invokes the curses of heaven upon himself, or an angel, should either
preach another gospel. Galatians 1:8. Then, what was the gospel preached by
Paul? In its facts it was: “that Christ died for our sins according to the
Scriptures; that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day accord­ing
to the Scriptures.” These three facts are the gospel which Paul preached, the
form of which the Romans obeyed, in doing of which they were made free from sin.
We are now prepared to look for the form. Paul says: “If we be dead with Christ,
we believe that we shall also live with him; knowing that Christ being raised
from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him. For in that
he died, he died unto sin once; but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God.
Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto
God.” Romans 6:8­ 11. Then the sinner dies unto sin—Christ died unto sin once.
Going back to the third verse, we read: “Know ye not, that so many of us as were
baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried
with him by baptism into death; that like as Christ was raised up from the dead
by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life; for
if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also
in the likeness of his resurrection.” Christ died for sin—the sinner must die to
sin. Christ was bur­ied—the sinner must be buried with him by baptism; Christ
was raised up from the dead—the sinner must be raised up from his baptism into
death to walk in newness of life. Thus they are planted in the likeness of His
death, and, raised to newness of life, should live in expectation of a final
resurrection like His. There is another thought connected with baptism into
Christ’s death. We are not baptized into Christ’s death literally, but we are
baptized into the benefits of His death; this being so, we can reach the
benefits of His death only through baptism as the means of reaching it. A burial
with Christ by baptism is the subject introduced in the beginning of the
chapter, and Paul la­bors it and its results until he comes to the language
quoted: “You have obeyed [in baptism] the form of doctrine delivered you [what
was the effect of this obedience]?; being then made free from sin, ye became the
servants of righteousness,” But we would next call attention to the fact that
out of Christ there is no salvation. All the blessings of the gospel are to be
realized in Him, none out of Him: “If any man be in Christ, he is a new
creature: old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new.” 2
Corinthians 5:17. “God was in Christ, re­conciling the world unto himself, not
imputing their trespasses unto them.” Ver. 19. “In whom we have redemption
through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins.” Colossians 1:14; Galatians
1:7. “Ye are complete in him who is the head of all principality and power.”
Colossians 2:10. “For in him dwelleth all the fullness of the godhead bodily.”
Ver. 9. “It pleased the Father that in him should all fullness dwell.”
Colossians 1:19. “Who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly
places in Christ.” Ephesians 1:3. All things are gathered in Christ. Ver. 10. We
trust in him. Ver. 12. Our redemption is in Christ. Romans 3:24. While liv­ing,
the Christian has hope in Christ. 1 Corinthians 15:19. When dead, the Christian
sleeps in Christ. 1 Thessalonians 4:16. Will be made alive from the dead in
Christ. 1 Corinthians 15:22. Seeing, then, that all the blessings of the gospel
are in Christ, and that if we enjoy them we must get into Christ, the question
next in order is, How do we get into Christ? Paul says: “Know ye not, that so
many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death.”
Romans 6:3. And, again: “For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have
put on Christ.” Galatians 3:27. Of course, we are not speaking of baptism to a
faithless impenitent, for we have labored the antecedents sufficiently to be
understood on these subjects. By the above passages we find baptism to be the
act by which a proper subject puts on Christ, where all spiritual blessings are.
Luther says: “This is not done by changing of a garment, or by any laws of
works, but by a new birth, and by the renewing of the inward man, which is done
in baptism, as Paul saith: ’All ye that are baptized have put on Christ.’ Also:
’According to his mercy he saved us by the washing of regeneration, and renewing
of the Holy Ghost.’ Titus 3:5. For, besides that, they who are baptized are
regenerated and renewed by the Holy Ghost to a heavenly righteousness and to
eternal life, there ariseth in them new and holy affections, as the fear of God,
true faith, and assured hopes, etc. There beginneth in them also a new will; and
this is to put on Christ truly and according to the gospel. Therefore, the
righteousness of the law, or our own works, is not given unto us in baptism, but
Christ himself is our garment. Now, Christ is no law, DO lawgiver, no works, but
a divine and an inestimable gift, whom God hath given unto us, that he might be
our Justifier, our Saviour, and our Redeemer. Wherefore, to be appareled with
Christ according to the gospel, is not to be appareled with the law or with
works, but with an incomparable gift—that is, with remission of sins,
righteousness, peace, consolation, joy of spirit, salvation, life, and Christ
himself.” Luther on Galatians in Campbell on Baptism, p. 261. “For ’as many as
are baptized into Christ,’ in his name ’have’ thereby ’put on Christ’ (Galatians
3:27)—that is, are mystically united to Christ, and made one with him. For ’by
one Spirit are we all baptized into one body’ (1 Cor. xii : 13 )—namely, the
church, ’the body of Christ’ (Ephesians 4:12). From which spiritual, vital union
with Him proceeds the influence of His grace on those that are baptized; as from
our union with the church, a share in all its privileges, and in all the
promises Christ has made to it.” Doctrinal Tracts, p. 248. But we have another
argument upon Paul’s seven units, of which baptism is one. He says: “There is
one body and one spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling, one
Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all, and
through all, and in you all.” Ephesians 4:4-6. Having shown in the preceding
chapters of this epistle that in the death of Jesus Christ God had broken down
the middle wall which had long separated Jews from Gentiles, that He might make
of twain one new church, reconciling both Jews and Gentiles in one body by the
cross (2: 11-20), the apostle’s argument culminated in the grand fact that there
is now ONE BODY, or church, composed of both Jews and Gentiles—ONE SPIRIT
sealing both Jews and Gentiles—ONE HOPE animating both Jews and Gentiles—ONE
LORD, who died for all, both Jews and Gentiles—ONE FAITH common to Jews and
Gentiles—ONE BAPTISM enjoined upon all, whether Jews or Gentiles—ONE GOD and
Father of all, if Christians, whether Jews or Gentiles. Now, are all the items
of this compendium of doctrine for the remission of sins? 1. We are to be
reconciled to God in one body, and Jesus gave Himself for it. Ephesians 2:16. 2.
We must all drink into one Spirit (1 Corinthians 12:13), and unless we have the
Spirit of Christ we are none of his. Romans 8:9. 3. We are saved by hope. Romans
8:24. 4. Christ the one Lord died for man, and there is no salvation in any
other name. Acts 4:12. 5. Without faith it is impossible to please God. Hebrews
11:6. 6. Baptism cloth also now save us. 1 Peter 3:21. 7. It is God that
justifieth. Romans 8:33. Now, are all these grand pillars in the spiritual
temple essential save one which is unimportant? “But this is spiritual baptism.”
Then let us turn quaker, and repudiate water baptism, so that Paul may be
consistent in saying “there is one baptism.” The language “there is one baptism”
just as clearly implies that there is but one baptism, as does the phrase there
is one God imply that there is but one God. But the one Spirit is specifically
mentioned in its own place; then why afterward mention one baptism, and refer it
back to Spirit which fills its own place? Alexander Had once made a remark on
the use of prepositions as follows: “We now present five prepositions: in, by,
With, for, and into. Upon these five prepositions we predicate five
proposi­tions, viz: that we are baptized in something, by something, with
something, for something, and into something; and that all these refer to water
baptism. They are, 1st, in the name of the Lord Jesus (Acts 10:48; Acts 19:5);
2d, by the Spirit of God (1 Corinthians 12:13) —i.e., according to its authority
or directions; 3d, with water (Matthew 3:11, should be in); 4th, for the
remission of sins (Acts 2:38; Acts 5 th, into Christ (Galatians 3:27); into one
body (1 Corinthians 12:13). “Here, then, we have these five relations clearly
expressed by these five prepositions; and thus we are baptized in the name of
Christ, by the Spirit of God, with [in] water, for the remission of sins, and
into the one body, which are all one and the same baptism—the same ordinance
which brought three thousand penitent believers into the kingdom of God on the
day of Pente­cost.” Gospel Proclamation, vol. ii, p. 349. In this summary Paul
groups the great fundamental pillars of the Christian religion; and that the one
baptism is in water, has been the opinion of the learned until the baptismal
controversy became rife in modern times. Dr. Clark’s note on this passage is as
follows: “One baptism administered in the name of the Holy Trinity; indicative
of the influences, privileges, and effects of the Christian religion.” Wesley’s
note is composed of three words: “One outward baptism.” In his sermons upon the
church, however, he is more ample. He says: “There is one baptism, which is the
outward sign our one Lord has been pleased to ap­point of all that inward and
spiritual grace which he is continually bestowing upon his church. Some, indeed,
have been in­clined to interpret this in a figurative sense, as if it referred
to the baptism of the Holy Spirit which the apostles received on the day of
Pentecost, and which, in a lower degree, is given to all believers. But it is a
stated rule, in interpreting Scripture, never to depart from the plain, literal
sense unless it implies an absurdity; and, besides, if we thus understood it, it
would be a needless repetition, as being included in ’there is one Spirit.” Mr.
Rice, in his debate with Mr. Campbell (p. 264), says: “This one baptism is an
ordinance administered with WATER, in the name of the Father, and of the Son,
and of the Holy Spirit, by an ordained minister of the gospel.” Thus we see the
very high­est authority understands Paul to refer to water baptism when he says
“there is one baptism;” indeed, we suppose no one ever thought of any thing else
until this passage was brought into the recent controversy on the design of
baptism. But this is not all upon this subject. The apostle says: “Hus­bands,
love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it,
that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word.”
Ephesians 5:25-26. Christ gave Himself for the church, that He might sanctify
and cleanse it how; With the washing of water by the Word. Not a washing with
the Word—the washing of water by the Word; that is, in obedience to it, or in
accordance with it—just as we are baptized by one Spirit into one body; that is,
in obedience to it, and in harmony with its teaching. That the washing of water
by the Word, here, is baptism, Watson, Wesley, Clark, Macknight, Stuart, and all
other commentators, teach, as far as we have been able to examine. Then, if
baptism be the means by which the church is sanctified and cleansed, how shall
it be cleansed with­out the means? Surely, it can not be. If baptism be not the
washing of water alluded to, what other washing of water is there connected with
spiritual cleansing to which Paul may have re­ferred? “But it is the church that
is cleansed, not the people be­fore they enter it.” Yes, and Christ gave Himself
for the church before it was a church; so the church is cleansed by cleansing
the material of which it is made. Does any one suppose men and women are to
enter the church uncleansed, or unpardoned, and then be cleansed by the washing
of water? The objector might be willing to apply this theory to infants, but it
would not do for men; and it would involve the necessity of rebaptizing even
those baptized in infancy. But the creeds will not allow the theory, for they
all teach that the washing with water brings them into the church. On page 247,
Doctrinal Tracts, we find a comment on the verse under consideration, as
follows: “And the virtue of this free gift, the merits of Christ’s life and
death are applied to us in baptism. ’He gave himself for the church, that he
might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word’ (Ephesians
5:25-26); namely, in baptism, the ordinary in­strument of our justification.
Agreeably to this, our church prays, in the baptismal office, that the person to
be baptized may be ’washed and sanctified by the Holy Ghost, and, being
deliv­ered from God’s wrath, receive remission of sins, and enjoy the
everlasting benediction of His heavenly washing.’“ Again, the apostle says: “Ye
are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power; in whom
also ye are cir­cumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting
off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; buried with
him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the
operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead. And you, being dead in your
sins and the uncir­cumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him,
having forgiven you all trespasses.” Col. ii : 10-13. Here we learn that the
Colossians put off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of
Christ, in being buried with him in bap­tism; and thus they were forgiven all
trespasses. On this pas­sage Mr. Watson remarks: “Here baptism is also made the
initia­tory rite of the new dispensation, that by which the Colossians were
joined to Christ, in whom they are said to be complete.” Institutes, vol. ii, p.
621. If baptism be the act which joins us to Christ, then we ask whether or not
we can be saved until we are joined to Christ? If not, we can not be saved until
baptized, that we may be joined to Christ. But the apostle says: “Not by works
of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us; by
the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost.” Titus 3:5. He saved
us how? By the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost. What is
this washing of regenera­tion? It can not be the renewing of the Holy Ghost, for
that is specifically mentioned. The Spirit and the water are not the same, for
“there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the
blood.” 1 John 5:8. Then, if this wash­ing of regeneration is not baptism, what
is it? Wesley and Whitby call this “the laver of regeneration.” Clark says:
“Un­doubtedly the apostle here means baptism.” Watson, Mack­night, Alford,
Bloomfield, Stuart, Smith, and Wall, say it means baptism. Well, what if it does
mean baptism? Only this: Paul says we are saved by it. He saved us by the
washing of regener­ation and renewing of the Holy Ghost. Wall says: “The
wash­ing of regeneration (Titus 3:5) is the washing of baptism.” Vol. 1, p.70.
“But baptism is a work.” Yes; so is faith. “Jesus answered and said unto them,
This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.” John 6:29.
Hence, if baptism may be set aside because it is a work, then faith goes the
same road. “But faith is the work of God.” Yes, and so is baptism, in the same
sense, the work of God. They are both acts of man, but the works of God by
authority, because God has ordained them. Paul says: ’We are his workmanship,
created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we
should walk in them.” Ephesians 2:10. The works which God has ordained are not
the procuring cause of our salvation, but ac­cording to His mercy He saved us
through just such means as He saw fit to appoint; and Paul says they were the
washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit. We come now to examine
the types and shadows of former dispensations, and their antitypes and
substances in the Chris­tian dispensation. We might begin with Adam, and show
that from him until the coming of Christ there were numerous single types of
Him. Moses, as lawgiver, mediator, etc., was a type of Christ. Aaron, as
high-priest, was a type of Christ. But there were great systems of types
adumbrating the deliverance of men from the guilt and pollution of sin under the
gospel. Some of these we will briefly examine. God proposed to save Noah and his
family from the sin-cursed world with which he was identified prior to the
deluge. With a view to this end, He revealed to Noah the plan by which his
deliverance was to be effected. Noah believed it, and Paul says: “By faith Noah,
being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark
to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world and became heir
of the righteousness which is by faith.” Hebrews 11:7. Faith was the great
principle which moved Noah. Faith alone, however, did not save him, but, moved
with fear, he prepared an ark to the saving of himself and family. Peter says:
“Once the longsuffer­ing of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was
pre­paring, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. The like
figure whereunto even baptism cloth also now save us (not the putting away of
the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), by the
resurrection of Jesus Christ.” 1 Peter 3:20-21. The words like figure, in the
above quotation, are from the Greek antitupon, which should be ren­dered
antitype; thus: the antitype watere of baptism cloth also now save us. Here
Peter says in plain terms that baptism saves us, and that it is the antitype of
Noah’s salvation in the ark by water. Now, if baptism does not save us from sin,
from what does it save us? It does not save us from temporal punishment, such as
persecution, insult, hunger, sickness, death, for the bap­tized man is as
subject to these as the unbaptized. Nor can Peter allude to final salvation, for
he says baptism NOW saves us. Then, if baptism does not save from sin, we repeat
the question, with emphasis, from what does it save us? It does not save us from
the filth of the flesh, for it is not a mere fleshly washing, but has to do with
the conscience. “But it is the answer of a good conscience, and hence the
conscience must be good before baptism.” Waiving any objection to this rendering
for the pres­ent, we inquire what is meant by a good conscience? Certainly a
good conscience does not always imply that he who has it is a pardoned man. Paul
had a good conscience when he was kill­ing Christians; after his conversion he
says: “I have lived in all good conscience before God until this day.” Acts
22:1. Yet, he had to be pardoned, and says: “But I obtained mercy, be­cause I
did it ignorantly in unbelief.” 1 Timothy 1:13. Then all that can be claimed for
a good conscience is, that its possessor is an honest man; and we are quite
willing to grant that such he must be, in order to acceptably obey God in
baptism or any thing else. But the rendering might be improved, perhaps, by
render­ing it seeking of a good conscience; and we know not how a man might seek
a good conscience more effectually than by being baptized in the name of Jesus
Christ for the remission of his sins. If he were as correctly taught as the
eunuch he would likely have a good conscience when done. “Well but Noah was a
good man before he was saved in the ark by water; hence we must be Christians
before we are bap­tized.” If this proves any thing against baptism for
remission, it proves just as much against faith; for Noah was as good a man
before he had faith in the plan of his delivery as he was after the deluge, or
when he was in the ark. Hence that which proves too much proves nothing at all.
Watson says: “It is thus that we see how St. Peter preserves the correspondence
between the act of Noah in preparing the ark as an act of faith by which he was
justified, and the act of submitting to Christian baptism, which is also
obviously an act of faith, in order to the remission of sins or the obtaining a
good conscience before God.” Institutes, vol. ii, pp. 624, 625. Wesley says:
“The antitype whereof—the thing typified by the ark, even baptism, now saveth
us. That is, through the water of baptism we are saved from the sin which
overwhelms the world as a flood; not indeed the bare outward sign, but the
inward grace—a divine consciousness that both our persons and our actions are
accepted through Him who died and rose again for us.” Wesley’s Notes. Clark
says: “Noah believed in God, walked uprightly before Him, and found grace in His
sight; he obeyed Him in building the ark, and God made it the means of his
salvation from the waters of the deluge. Baptism implies a consecration and
dedi­cation of the soul and body to God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. He who
is faithful to his baptismal covenant, taking God through Christ, by the eternal
Spirit, for his portion, is saved here from his sins, and, through the
resurrection of Christ from the dead, has the well-grounded hope of eternal
glory.” Commentary on 1 Peter 3:21. “Baptism cloth now save us if we live
answerable thereto—if we repent, believe, and obey the gospel; supposing this,
as it ad­mits us into the church here, so into glory hereafter.” Doctrinal
Tracts, p. 249. But we are told the word rupos, rendered filth in this verse (1
Peter 3:21), means sin; and hence the parenthetical clause negatives the idea of
baptism saving from sin; thus, “not the put­ting away sin.” Let us see about
this. LIDDELL AND SCOTT: Rupos—dirt, filth, dirtiness. PICKERING: “Rupos—dirt,
foulness, scurf; metaphorically, ava­riciousness; also, sealing-wax.” DONNIGAN:
“Rupos—filth; metaphorically, sordid avarice,” etc. Rupos may sometimes,
metaphorically, mean sin, but we are bound by the laws of exegesis to give its
obvious meaning unless it involves an absurdity. No one will say that it does
this here; hence it must simply mean filth, especially as it is qualified by the
word flesh—filth of the flesh. Baptism is not for the removal of this, but has
to do with the conscience. Peter remembered the commission given by the Lord—”He
that believeth and is baptized shall be saved”—and commanded the Pentecostians
to repent, and be baptized for the remission of sins; hence he understood
baptism to be for remission of sins, and hence, with great propriety, could say,
“Baptism doth also now save us.” Save us how? From our sins. After the deluge
the world was again peopled by the descendants of Noah, and they again became
wicked; but He had entered into covenant not to a second time destroy the world
by water; hence, finding Abram righteous before Him, he determined to separate
him from the wicked people and of him make to Himself a great nation. In due
time Isaac was born to Abraham, and then Jacob was born to Isaac, and to Jacob
was born twelve sons, who became heads of the twelve tribes of Israel. After a
time, by their wickedness, they became slaves in Egypt where, notwithstanding
their sore oppression, they rapidly increased, until Pharaoh, fearing for the
safety of his throne, issued an order that all male children born of the Hebrews
mothers should be put to death. Pending this order, Moses was born, and hid by
his mother until she could conceal him no longer; she placed him in an ark on
the river, where his sister lingered to see the result. Pharaoh’s daughter found
the child and adopted him as her own, and thus he was saved from death by the
decree of her father. “By faith Moses, when he was come to years, refused to be
called the son of Pharaoh’s daughter; choosing rather to suffer affliction with
the people of God than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season; esteeming the
reproaches of Christ greater riches than the treasures in Egypt; for he had
respect unto the recompense of the reward. By faith he forsook Egypt, not
fearing the wrath of the king; for he endured as seeing him who is invisible.
Through faith he kept the passover, and the sprinkling of blood, lest he that
destroyed the first-born should touch them. By faith they passed through the Red
Sea as by dry land, which the Egyptians essaying to do were drowned.” Hebrews
11:24-29, In due time God appeared to Muses and revealed to him His purpose to
deliver the Hebrews through him; “And Moses answered and said, But, behold, they
will not believe me, nor hearken unto my voice: for they will say, The Lord hath
not appeared unto thee. And the Lord said unto him, What is that in thins hand?
And he said, A rod. And he said, Cast it on the ground. And he cast it on the
ground, and it became a serpent; and ;Moses fled from before it. And the Lord
said unto Moses, Put forth thy hand, and take it by the tail. And he put forth
his hand and caught it, and it became a rod in his hand: that they may believe
that the Lord God of their fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and
the God of Jacob, hath appeared unto thee.” Exodus 4:1-5. By this sign, and two
others which we have not space to mention, God enabled Moses to bear witness to
his brethren that he was sent of God, that they might believe. Moses went to
them and delivered the message, confirming it by signs which God had enabled him
to perform in their presence. They believed the message given them by Moses,
and, with full confidence in Moses, they turned their backs upon their former
taskmasters and set forward on their journey toward Canaan. After a time they
came to the Red Sea, and, finding themselves closely pursued by their late
masters, they murmured at Moses for bringing them out of Egypt to die in the
wilderness. But Moses replied: “Fear ye not, stand still, and see the salvation
of the Lord, which he will show to you to-day; for the Egyptians whom ye have
seen to-day, ye shall see them again no more forever.” Exodus 14:13. Moses
stretched his arm and raised his rod over the sea—the waters were divided, and
stood as walls on either side; the people moved forward, the cloud overshadowed
them, and they landed safely on the opposite shore. The Egyptians pursued them
and were drowned in the sea: seeing which the children of Israel sang a song of
deliverance and rejoiced, believing in God and His servant Moses. But though
their enemies were gone, they were still far from Canaan; and for forty years
they were in a state of probation, until, of the male adults who crossed the Red
Sea, only Caleb and Joshua remained alive. Under the lead of these faithful men,
Joshua being chief, they crossed the river Jordan and entered the land of
Canaan—the inheritance promised to their fathers. Touching the leading features
of this narrative, Paul says: “Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be
ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through
the sea; and were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; and did
all eat the same spiritual meat; and did all drink the same spiritual drink; for
they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ
But with many of them God was not well pleased; for they were over­thrown in the
wilderness. Now these things were our examples.” 1 Corinthians 10:1-6. Let us
now gather the chief features of this system of types, and see their application
to the antitype: 1. The children of Israel became slaves in Egypt by their own
wickedness—men become servants of sin by indulgence in crime. 2. God heard the
groanings of His people in Egypt and pro­vided for their deliverance—God so
loved the world that He gave His Son to die for them. 3. Moses was the deliverer
of the children of Israel—Jesus is our deliverer. 4. Pharaoh feared for the
safety of his throne and ordered all male children born of Hebrew mothers to be
put to death— when Jesus was born, Herod feared for the safety of his throne and
sent and slew all the male children from two years old and under. 5. God
preserved Moses from death by Pharaoh’s decree— God sent Joseph with the infant
Jesus into Egypt, there to re­main until Herod was dead, and thus saved him from
death by Herod’s decree. 6. Moses was enabled to perform miracles in
confirmation of his mission, that the people might believe that God had sent him
—”Many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disci­ples which are
not written in this book; but these are written that ye might believe that Jesus
is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing ye might have life through his
name.” John 20:30-31. 7. Moses, through Aaron, made known to the Israelites the
plan of their delivery, and they believed it, for Paul says they did every thing
by faith—Jesus required His apostles to preach the gospel to every creature in
all the world, that every one might believe it; for faith comes by hearing, and
without faith it is impossible to please God. 8. The Israelites were required to
quit serving the Egyptians and turn away from them—Jesus required the people
every­where to repent, turn away from the service of sin. 9. The Israelites were
baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea—Peter commanded the people to be
baptized, in the name of the Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins. 10. The
Egyptian task-masters of the Israelites were left just where the people were
baptized unto Moses, and they saw them no more—those baptized in the name of
Jesus Christ for the re­mission of sins, leave their sins just where they are
baptized. 11. The Israelites rejoiced in their deliverance on the shore after
their baptism—as soon as the eunuch was baptized he went on his way rejoicing.
12. The Israelites were not secure in Canaan as soon as bap­tized, but had to be
faithful to God or die short of the promised land—those baptized in the name of
Jesus Christ for the remis­sion of sins, though freed from past sins, are not in
heaven, but must live a life of devotion to God or be lost at last. 13. The
Israelites who remained faithful to God through their period of probation were
conducted across the Jordan and into the land of Canaan, the inheritance
promised to their fa­thers—those Christians who remain faithful to God through
life will be conducted across the Jordan of death into heaven, the everlasting
Canaan which God has prepared for them that love Him. Thus we have presented, as
briefly as possible, the more im­portant features of this great system of types,
omitting, for want of room, many things which would have been of interest to the
reader; but the great point to which we would especially direct his attention at
present is the time when the Israelites were freed from their enemies, and the
corresponding time when we are freed from sin. We are told that men must be
saved from their sins before they are baptized—i.e., that they are pardoned as
soon as they believe on Jesus Christ. If so, then there is no fitness in this
type. The Jews believed in the plan of their deliv­ery when it was presented,
otherwise they would not have set out under the lead of Moses; but they were not
saved from their enemies at that time. Moses specifically locates the time of
their salvation. “Stand still and see the salvation of the Lord, which he will
show to you to-day” (Exodus 14:13)—not did show you back in the place where you
believed. And what was the salva­tion shown them that day? “The Egyptians whom
ye have seen to-day, ye shall see them again no more forever.” Ut supra. Where
did they leave these enemies? In the sea where they were baptized. “Thus the
Lord saved Israel that day out of the hand of the Egyptians.” Ver. 30. Language
could not more definitely locate the time of their salvation upon the day of
their baptism than it here does. Then, if there be any fitness in type and
antitype, we must be saved from our sins when we are bap­tized, not before. When
a type spells the word God, the anti­type can not spell devil; so when the type
says saved in baptism, the antitype can not say saved by faith atone before
baptism. No one denies that the salvation of the Israelites from bon­dage was a
type of our salvation from sin, and that their baptism in the cloud and sea was
a type of our baptism; but some seek to evade the force of the argument by
saying that God recognized the Israelites as His people when He appeared to
Moses in the burning bush; and as this was before their baptism, we must be
God’s people before we are baptized. But if this objection amounts to any thing
against baptism for remission of sins, it amounts to just as much against faith,
for the Lord had not then revealed the plan of their delivery, but had then
appeared to Moses for the purpose of revealing it to him. The Israelites knew
nothing about it. So they were God’s people before they had faith, as well as
before they were baptized. Indeed, they were God’s national people before the
birth of Moses; hence, if we must be God’s people at the same time they were, it
follows that we must have been God’s people before Jesus, the antitype of Moses,
was born. This would be Calvinism sublimated. The objector forgets that the type
was in the salvation of the Israelites from Egyptian bondage, hence we can not
go behind the hype for impressions in the antitype. In debate upon this subject
once, our opponent replied that there was no remission of sins in the
deliverance of the Israelites, and as there was no remission in the type there
could be none in the antitype; yet he freely quoted, “As Moses lifted up the
ser­pent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up; that
whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.” John
3:14-15. Now, was there any remission of sins in the brazen serpent placed on
the pole by Moses? Surely not; yet it could represent his system of
justification by faith alone, as he thought. The idea that a figure can
represent noth­ing not in the figure itself would simply destroy all figures.
The serpent on the pole could not be a type of Christ unless Christ became a
serpent; a lamb could not be a type of Christ until Christ is shown to have been
a sheep. We dislike to dignify such an objection with a reply, but when great
men make such objections, others may think there is something in them. It was
our original purpose to have followed these types through the Tabernacle of the
wilderness and the consecration of a Jewish priest as types of the more perfect
Tabernacle and the consecration of a Christian priest, but want of space compels
us to forego the pleasure of doing so. We must notice some of the more prominent
objections urged by those who oppose our teaching. First, we are told that
“there are two kingdoms, one visible and the other invisible—that the visible
kingdom is the visible church, and is for the visible man. Baptism is purely a
visible act of the visible man, who is par­doned when baptized, and thus
introduced into the visible king­dom. This is formal pardon, indicative of real
pardon which was secured by faith—a purely mental act, an act of the invisible
man by which it was introduced into the invisible kingdom when he believed. And
whether the visible man is ever justified and introduced by baptism into the
visible kingdom, yea, or nay, is of but little importance as to the ultimate
happiness and final salvation of the spiritual man.” This is substantially the
theory of the two kingdoms, and we will examine it briefly. If it be true, it is
evident that there are two churches or two kingdoms governed by the same King at
the same time. And as the church is the body, and Jesus “is the head of the
body, the church” (Colossians 1:18), it follows that He is: the head of two
bodies at the same time, or one of the bodies has no head, or if each has a head
one of them has a human head. John saw a beast having seven heads to one body
(Revelation 13:1); but here we have a different beast—two bodies to one head.
When Paul said “there is one body” (Ephesians 4:4), and again, “now are there
many members yet but one body” ( 1 Corinthians 12:20), he was not aware of the
existence of one of the bodies contemplated in this theory. Once more: The
church is said to be the “bride, the Lamb’s wife.” According to this theory, the
Lamb has two wives at the same time, and one of them invisible, hence, He would
be unfit for a bishop in the church, to say nothing of its head, for Paul tells
us that a bishop must be “the husband of one wife.” 1 Timothy 3:2. These visible
and invisible brides must both belong to one husband, or one of them has either
no husband or an illegitimate one. “There is one body and one spirit” (Ephesians
4:4) in this body; and as one spirit can not animate two bodies at the same
time, it follows that one of them is without a spirit (unless it be a human
spirit); and as James tells us that “the body without the spirit is dead” (James
2:26), it follows that one of these is a dead body. It will be remembered that
at the time, the subject believes, the invisible man is introduced into the
invisible kingdom of the Lord, and baptism is the only way of introducing the
visible man into the Lord’s visible kingdom. Then, if a man believed twenty
years ago, and by that act had the inner man introduced into the invisible
kingdom at that time, and he has not been baptized until to-day, where was the
visible man from that time until this? It was not in the visible kingdom, for it
could only enter this kingdom by baptism; and as he was unbaptized, of course he
was not in it. He was not in the invisible kingdom, for that was prepared for
the invisible man, and is in heaven and he upon the earth. Then, we repeat the
question! where is the visible man from the time faith is exercised until he is
baptized? As we have seen that he is in neither of the theoretical kingdoms of
the Lord, he must be in the dominion of Satan, and if so, then there must be a
singular partnership between the Lord and his satanic majesty in the same
person, the former having the invisible and the latter the visible man from the
time he believes until he is baptized. Well might Paul ask: “What concord hath
Christ with Belial?” 2 Corinthians 6:15. Once more: It will be remembered that
the locality of the visible kingdom is on the earth, and that of the invisible
king­dom is in heaven; and it will be admitted that the visible man is the
dwelling-place of the invisible through life, and their separa­tion takes place
only at death. How, therefore, can the invisible man be translated to heaven,
the place of the invisible kingdom, by faith or otherwise, and the body remain
upon the earth dur­ing life, and no separation take place? When Paul said he was
“willing to be absent from the body and be present with the Lord” (2 Corinthians
5:8), he had not learned the theory by which he could be with the body and the
Lord at the same time. In this theory we have the very anomalous idea of a king
having two kingdoms in different localities, the same subjects being in both at
the same time. But we come now to examine the foundation of the theory. Is faith
purely mental, or does it require the cooperative exercise of mind and body?
Paul says: “Faith comes by hearing.” Romans 10:17. How do persons hear? Jesus
quoted the prophet thus: “For this people’s heart is waxed gross, and their ears
are dull of hear­ing, and their eyes they have closed, lest at any time they
should see with their eyes, hear with their ears,” etc. Matt. xiii : 15. Then,
if faith comes by hearing, and hearing is done with the ear, and the ear is a
part of the physical or visible man, it is cer­tain that the faith of which Paul
spake is not purely mental. But the objector quotes Paul again: “With the heart
(mind) man be­lieveth unto righteousness.” Romans 10:10. True, indeed; but how
does he obtain possession of what he believes? Surely, through his senses. At
the time faith is exercised, or is present, there has been an exercise of mind
and body, and hence the theory is false that would justify the invisible man at
that time, because noth­ing but mind had entered into the service. Once more:
The brain is as much the organ of the mind as is the eye the organ of sight, or
the ear the organ of hearing, and we are as much compelled to use the brain in
thought as we are the eye to see or the ear to hear. Then, if we are compelled
to think in the act of believing, and the brain, a part of the physical and
visible man, is used in thought, it follows that to have faith there must be an
exercise of mind anal body. But is baptism purely a physical act? If so, why
will not the advocates of the theory baptize a maniac in the absence of mind? If
a man’s reason is dethroned, no one will say he may be baptized. But why not? If
there is nothing mental con­nected with its validity, surely he would be as fit
a subject then as at any other time. In the administration of infant sprinkling
they are more consistent, for here, indeed, there is nothing men­tal to
accompany it. But even here they reverse the order of the theory. In the case of
adults the invisible man is first saved by faith, then the visible by baptism;
but here the visible man (in­fant) is introduced into the visible kingdom, and
the invisible or spiritual man is left in the devil’s kingdom for years, perhaps
for life. If we wish to baptize a man, we must first operate on his mind or
invisible man until we convince his judgment that it is his duty to submit to
it. When we have cane this, the mind transmits the will to act, through the
nerves to the muscles; they contract, in obedience to the will, upon the bones,
and thus by a co-operation of mind and body the man steps forward. But whenever
the mind ceases to co-operate the process is at once arrested. Hence, baptism
can not be performed as an accepta­ble service to God without the action of mind
and body. There is no foundation for the objection, and it therefore amounts to
nothing. But another very common objection is that when Jesus healed the woman
of her plague, He said: “Daughter, thy faith hath made thee whole: go in peace,
and be whole of thy plague.” Mark 5:34. And it is insisted that this miraculous
healing from disease must constitute the basis of a theory of con­version. We
insist that no one has a right to select one miracle and make it the basis of a
theory, to the exclusion of other mira­cles of like character. If one man may
make such selection, oth­ers may. One may select the healing of the centurion’s
servant. Jesus said to him: “Go thy way: and as thou hast believed so be it done
unto thee. And his servant was healed in the self-same hour.” Matthew 8:13. A
servant may build a theory of conver­sion for him on this case and seek to be
saved on the faith of the master. But some are not servants and would prefer to
be saved upon the faith of their parents, hence they select a different miracle.
“Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great is thy faith; be it unto
thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour.”
Matthew 15:28. Again: “As soon as Jesus heard the word that was spoken, he saith
unto the ruler of the synagogue, Be not afraid, only believe.” Mark 5:36. And on
his faith Jesus restored his dead daughter to life, though twelve years of age.
Then, if any one has parents he may get them to have faith for him, and upon
their faith his sins may be pardoned. But another may not be a servant, nor yet
have parents, but may have brothers or sisters, hence he selects the following:
When Jesus was standing over the grave of Lazarus, He said to Martha: “Said I
not unto thee, that if thou wouldest believe, thou shouldest see the glory of
God?” John 11:40. Then, if a man wishes to be saved, he may get his sister to
have faith, and that will do for him. But another has no relatives, and hence
must select another example. “They brought a man sick of the palsy, Lying on the
bed; and Jesus seeing their faith said unto the sick of the palsy, Son, be of
good cheer, thy sins be forgiven thee.” Matthew 9:2. Taking this case as a
foundation, a man may get his neighbors to have faith for him. But as many have
more faith in the preachers than any one else, they select another example
suited to their taste. “Peter, fastening his eyes upon him, with John, said,
Look on us. And he gave heed unto them, expecting to receive something of them.
Then Peter said, Silver and gold have I none; but such as I have give I thee: In
the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth rise up and walk. And he took him by the
right hand, and lifted him up.” Acts 3:4-7. Then, with this case as a
foundation, a man may get the preacher to have faith, and that will do for him.
But there are infidels who have no faith in any one. They may be saved too.
’When Jesus was come into Peter’s house, he saw his wife’s mother laid, and sick
of a fever. And he touched her hand, and the fever left her.” Matthew 8:14. All
the faith in this case was in Jesus. So of the blind man restored to sight John
9:6-7. These examples would justify the theory of justification upon the faith
of Christ without any faith in the saved at all. But there are those who seem to
have more communion with evil spirits than with the Lord. They, too, may find
examples suited to their taste. “Unclean spirits, when they saw him, fell down
before him, and cried, saying, Thou art the Son of God.” Mark 3:11. See also 5:
7. Luke 4:41. These examples would secure salvation upon the faith of evil
spirits. But we return now to the case whence we set out; and by an examination
it will be seen that her faith did not make her whole until she did the thing
contemplated in her faith. “When she had heard of Jesus, came in the press
behind and touched his garment. For she said, If I may touch but his clothes, I
shall be whole. And straightway the fountain of her blood was dried up; and she
felt in her body that she was healed of that plague.” Mark 5:27-29. Then, this
example would not do for justifica­tion by faith alone, for she did the thing
contemplated in her faith before she was healed. But what have all these
miracles to do with remission of sins? If one man may select one of them on
which to build a theory of conversion, others may do the same thing, and we may
thus have as many different theories of conversion as there are miracles
re­corded. John said: “Many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his
disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written, that ye
might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye
might have life through his name.” John 20:30-31. Then these miracles were not
written upon which to con­struct theories of conversion, but they were written
that the peo­ple might believe in the divine character and mission of Jesus
Christ. They could not have been done by unaided human power; hence, says
Nicodemus: “We know that thou art a teacher come from God, for no man can do the
miracles that thou doest except God be with him.” John 3:2. This is the ob­ject
of these miracles, and hence they have nothing to do with justification by faith
alone.

“But the thief was saved without being baptized.” To this assumption we file
three objections: 1. No man can prove that the thief was saved at all. 2. No man
can prove that he was un­baptized. 3. This was before the kingdom was
established, and before the law of remission began to be preached under the new
covenant.

It is true that the thief “said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest
into thy kingdom. And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To-day shalt
thou be with me in para­dise.” Luke 23:42-43. It is doubtful whether the thief
made this request in derision or in good faith, for the thieves had both derided
Him (see Matthew 27:44; Mark 15:32). And, in the next place, if the thief
understood the nature of Christ’s kingdom, he had higher conceptions of it than
did even the apostles, for they thought it a merely temporal kingdom. In the
next place, Jesus only promised the thief that they would meet in paradise.
Jesus was in the heart of the earth (Matthew 12:40), and when He arose from the
grave He said He had not yet ascended to His Father. John 20:17. Then we think
it would be difficult to prove that this amounted to a promise of salvation. Was
the thief baptized? We can not prove positively that he was, nor can any one
prove that he was not. John was baptizing in that country, and there “went out
to him Jerusalem, and all Judea, and all the region round about Jordan, and were
baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins.” Matthew 3:5-6. That this
language implies the baptism of large masses of the people no one will deny;
then “Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John.” John 4:1. Then, taking
what John baptized and what Jesus, through his disciples, baptized in that
country—and we suppose there were but few left unbaptized—hence the
probabilities are strongly in favor of the presumption that the thief was
baptized. But whether he was or was not baptized affects not the doc­trine of
baptism for the remission of sins. While a man lives he may give his property to
whom he will, but when he dies, leav­ing a will, there can be no more special
bequests, but his prop­erty must be distributed according to the provisions of
the will. So while Christ was upon the earth, He could say to a man, “Thy sins
be forgiven thee,” and it was so; but when He died, leaving a will, He would not
afterward pardon, even Saul, con­trary to the provisions of the will, but sent
him where he might find a man to tell him how he might obtain pardon according
to the provisions of the will. Granting, then, what can not be proved, that the
thief was saved without baptism, while Christ was alive, it is no evidence that
men may be so saved after the law went into force, which required them to be
baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins. But Paul says:
“Therefore being justified by faith we have peace with God through our Lord
Jesus Christ.” Romans 5:1. By supplying the word only or alone after the word
faith, this pas­sage has been made to negative the doctrine of baptism for
re­mission of sins by setting up the doctrine of justification by faith alone.
If this be the correct interpretation of the passage, then the word alone may be
supplied in the reading; thus: “Being jus­tified by faith alone we have peace
with God.” Then how are we to reconcile this statement with others made by Paul
himself? If we are justified by faith alone, we are justified by faith to the
exclusion of every thing else; yet, in the same chapter from which the above
quotation is made, he says: “Much more, then, being justified by his blood, we
shall be saved from wrath through him.” Ver. 9. Does Paul thus flatly contradict
himself in the same chapter? Again he says: “Being justified freely by his grace
through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus.” Romans 3:24. Once more: “Ye are
justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.” 1
Corinthians 6:11. Now, how can we be justified by ALL these things and justified
by any one of them alone? We may be justified by grace, but not by grace alone;
by Christ, but not by Christ alone; by blood, but not by blood alone; by the
Spirit, but not by the Spirit alone; in the name of the Lord Jesus, but not by
His name alone; by faith, but not by faith alone; by works, but not by works
alone. We live by breathing, but not by breathing alone; we live by eating but
not by eating alone; we live by sleeping, but not by sleeping alone; we live by
exercise, but not by exercise alone. A place for every thing, and every thing in
its place, is God’s order everywhere. But if we may supply the word alone after
the word faith, in Romans 5:1, why may we not do the same thing elsewhere? If
the phrase “by faith” means by faith alone, then we may supply the word alone
and make sense wherever this form of expression oc­curs. Shall we try a few
passages, to see whether or not the phrase “by faith” means by faith alone? “By
faith alone Abel of­fered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain.”
Hebrews 11:4. “By faith alone Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as
yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house.. Ver. 7. “By
faith alone Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place which he should
after receive for an inher­itance, obeyed; and he went out, not knowing whither
he went.” Ver. 8. That is, he sat perfectly still, went nowhere, nor did any
thing only by faith! “By faith alone Abraham, when he was tried, offered up
Isaac.” Ver. 17. That is, by faith alone he went three days’ journey to a
mountain shown him by the Lord; by faith alone he built an altar; by faith alone
he bound his son upon the altar; and by faith alone he raised his knife and
would have slain him had not the Lord interposed!! And thus we might go through
the whole list of examples given in this chap­ter, but these are sufficient to
show the absurdity of supplying the word alone or only after faith. These
ancient worthies did what they were commanded to do, in order to accomplish the
object contemplated in their faith. They practically carried out their faith,
and perfected it by obedience to the law of the Lord. James says: “By works was
faith made perfect.” James 2:22. Surely, an imperfect faith can do no good—and
if not, it can only be perfected in obedience. “Even so faith, if it hath not
works, is dead, being alone.” Ver. 17. And again: “As the body without the
spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.” Ver. 26. Can dead faith
justify any one? But by supplying the word alone, or only in the passage quoted,
thus making Paul say, “Therefore, being justified by faith only, we have peace
with God,” we not only make him con­tradict himself, but we make him contradict
James, when he says: “Ye see, then, how that by works a man is justified, and
not by faith only.” James 2:24. Now, James does not say that a man is justified
by works alone, to the exclusion of faith, for the phrase “not by faith only”
shows that faith is included. But we are told that Paul speaks of justification
in the sense of pardon, and James speaks of justification in the sense of
ap­proval—that Paul draws his argument from Abraham’s faith, by which he was
justified or pardoned of his sins, when the cove­nant of circumcision was
instituted, an account of which we have in the seventeenth chapter of
Genesis—and James draws his argument from Abraham’s justification as a righteous
man when he offered his son, an account of which we have in the twenty-second
chapter. Now, we respectfully deny that Abra­ham was an unpardoned sinner up to
the time of which Paul speaks. The first account we have of him is as follows:
“Now, the Lord had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy
kindred, and from thy father’s house, unto a land that I will shew thee; and I
will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name
great; and thou shalt be a bless­ing; and I will bless them that bless thee, and
curse him that curseth thee; and in thee shall all families of the earth be
blessed.” Genesis 12:1-3. Now, this precedes the time to which Paul refers by
twenty-five years; and can any sane man believe that God fell in love with
Abraham so as to induce his removal from among the wicked that he might be the
father of God’s pe­culiar people; and that God promised to bless them who
blessed him, and curse them who cursed him, when he was condemned, unpardoned
sinner himself, and so remained for twenty-five years afterward? Abraham was as
good a man the first account we ever have of him as he ever got to be, and both
Paul and James allude to his justification in the sense of approval; but they
did it to show the kind of faith which has always been re­quired to meet the
favor of God—a faith which trusted in the promise of God, and perfected itself
by obedience to His will. God never accepted any other faith than this from
saint or sin­ner. This is the doctrine taught by Paul and James, and there is
neither discrepancy in their teachings nor difference in the justi­fication to
which they allude. The principle will apply to the alien or to the Christian, as
an imperfect or dead faith will profit neither. In the New Testament the word
faith is used in at least three different significations. 1. As the synonym of
belief; 2. To indi­cate a spiritual gift by which miracles were wrought; and 3.
To indicate a system of justification by the gospel in contrast with the law of
Moses. The first two of these we have examined suffi­ciently in the chapter on
faith; the system of faith demands some further notice just here. We have seen
that James says we are justified by works, yet Paul says: “Not of works, lest
any man should boast.” Ephesians 2:9. How shall we reconcile these two
statements? Paul says: “Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the
law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed on Jesus Christ,
that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the
law; for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.” Galatians 2:16.
Then, when Paul said “not of works, lest any man should boast,” he referred,
first, to the origin of the plan of salvation, that it was by grace or unmerited
favor, and, secondly, that it was not by the works of the law of Moses. By the
faith of Jesus Christ, which Paul here contrasts with the law, is meant the
system of faith or gospel plan of salvation given by Jesus Christ. By the phrase
works of the law is meant the works of the law of Moses which had been taken out
of the way by the death of Christ, by which if a man could be saved now he might
have whereof to glory, for he would be saved upon a plan of his own, and not
upon God’s plan; hence, Paul asks: “Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By
what law? of works? Nay; but by the law of faith. Therefore, we conclude that a
man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.” Romans 3:27-28. What is
the law of faith? Certainly, it is the gospel, and by it boasting is excluded
because it is God’s plan, which was given in mercy, from a prin­ciple of love,
grace, or unmerited favor; and “was made known to all nations for the obedience
of faith.” Romans 16:26. Paul calls this same law of faith “the law of the
Spirit of life in Christ Jesus,” which he says “hash made me free from the law
of sin and death.” Romans 8:2. To be made free from sin by a law we must comply
with the requirements of the law; hence says Paul: “You have obeyed from the
heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you, being then made free from
sin.” Romans 6:17-18. But we are told that “Abraham believed God, and it was
counted unto him for righteousness.” Romans 4:3. But when was faith counted to
him for righteousness? James says: “Was not Abraham, our father, justified by
works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Seest thou how faith
wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? And the scrip­ture
was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for
righteousness; and he was called the friend of God. Ye see, then, how that by
works a man if justi­fied, and not by faith only.” James 2:2 l-24. Then, it was
when Abraham obeyed God, and perfected his faith by obedience that his faith was
counted to him for righteousness, Hence, if we would be justified by faith, as
Abraham was, we must “walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham.”
Romans 4:12. “By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place which
he should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed; and he went out, not knowing
whither he went.” Heb. xi : 8. Abraham walked by faith, not by sight, and if we
would walk in the steps of his faith, we must trust in God and go where He
commands us to go, whether we can or can not see to the end. But the advocates
of justification by faith alone invoke the aid of John as well as Paul in
support of their theory. He says: “Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ
is born of God; and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is
begotten of him.” 1 John 5:1. That the translation of this verse is defective
any one can see by the context. The words born, begat, begotten are from the
same original word, and the word born here should have been begotten, as the
context clearly shows. “Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is begotten
of God; and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him that is begotten of
him.” This harmonizes the passage with it­self, and with the general teaching of
the Scriptures on the sub­ject of the new birth to the chapter on which the
reader is re­ferred. When a man believes the gospel he is begotten of God, and
is prepared to be born. As an effect of his faith he must love God; hence “He
that loveth is born [begotten] of God.” 1 John 4:7. Nor is this all. “Every one
that doeth righteousness is born [begotten] of God.” 1 John 2:29. Whosoever,
then, be­lieves that Jesus is the Christ, is begotten of God—loves God, and does
righteousness; for ’Whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God.” 1 John iii
: 10. That the word born in 1 John 5:1, should be begotten is a point upon which
critics are very generally agreed.

DR. CLARKE says: “He that believes that Jesus is the Messiah, and confides in
him for the remission of sins, is begotten of God.” Commentary, John 5:1.

T. S. GREEN, of London, translates the verse thus “Every one that believes that
Jesus is the Christ has been begotten of God; and every one that loves the
begetter loves him that has been begotten of him.” Twofold New Testament. When
the translation is corrected, the difficulty is gone. He who makes a proper
distinction between being begotten of God and the new birth knows that when a
man believes the gospel he is begotten; but if begotten of God and born again
mean the same thing, we see no use in correcting the translation. John further
says: “He came unto his own, and his own re­ceived him not; but as many as
received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that
believe on his name; which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the
flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.” John 1:11-13. Jesus came to his
own—John came to prepare a people for the Lord, and when they were made ready
Jesus came to them, but as a people they did not receive Him. Some did, however,
and be­lieved on His name, and to them He gave the power or privilege of
becoming sons of God. John baptized the people, saying “That they should believe
on him which should come after him —that is, on Christ Jesus.” Acts 19:4. Having
been previously baptized by John, and made ready for the Lord, when they
be­lieved on Him He gave them permission to enter the family of God when it
should be organized on the day of Pentecost. The style of expression shows that
their faith did not make them sons of God, but simply prepared them to become
such in future. It was a prospective privilege with them; but no persons are
situ­ated now as they were then. They were baptized before Jesus came, and when
He came they believed on Him before His Father’s family was organized, or the
kingdom of God had come; hence they had permission given them to become His
children when the fullness of time should arrive. It is sometimes said the
material prepared by John had to re­pent and be baptized, as others, on or after
the day of Pentecost, in order to enter the spiritual family of God; but if this
was true, the privilege of becoming sons of God was without meaning to them. All
others had the privilege of becoming sons of God in this way, and therefore His
own prepared people who believed on Him were not at all in advance of those who
crucified Him; for they could repent, and be baptized in His name for the
re­mission of sins, and enter the kingdom on the day of Pentecost. What did the
Lord mean by giving His own prepared people who believed on Him the power or
privilege of becoming the sons of God? Surely, this privilege amounted to
something. We come now to notice a class of proof texts more relied on to prove
the doctrine of justification by faith alone than any oth­ers, perhaps, in the
Bible. They are in the third chapter of John, and we begin to read with the
fourteenth verse: “And so Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so
must the Son of man be lifted up; that whosoever believeth in him should not
perish, but have eternal life. For God so loved the world, that he gave his
only-begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have
everlasting life.” Vs. 14-16. Now be it observed that Jesus is here speaking to
Nicodemus, to whom he had just said: “Except a man be born of water and of the
Spirit he can not enter into the kingdom of God.” Ver. 5. Does any one believe
that Jesus intended to contradict this statement by what he said in the
fourteenth to sixteenth verses? That is, “I know, Nicodemus, that I did say that
a man must be born of water and of the Spirit, or into the kingdom of God he
should not go; but I was wrong in that, for he that believeth on Me has
everlasting life, whether born of water or not.” Jesus had fully explained the
new birth to Nicodemus, and he did not believe the testimony—”you receive not
our witness;” hence Jesus ap­peals to an incident in Jewish history with which,
as a teacher of Israel, Nicodemus was bound to be familiar, to confirm the fact
that He was the promised Messiah, through Whom alone the world could hope for
eternal life. The Israelites were bitten by poisonous serpents, and were dying
without remedy, but God in­structed Moses to make a serpent of brass, and place
it upon a pole in the midst of the camp, and he that would look upon it should
live. Now, Nicodemus, you are acquainted with this fact; then, “as Moses lifted
up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up.” And
how was the serpent lifted up? Were the bitten Israelites cured by faith alone?
They might have believed that the brazen serpent was on the pole, and they might
have believed in the power of God to heal them, yet had they regarded the look
as non-essential, and acted accordingly, they would have died without remedy.
They had to do the thing commanded or die; even so may the sinner believe that
Jesus was lifted upon the cross and died for sinners, yet if he refuses to look
to God in His appointed way, he will die in his sins and be lost at last. Then,
it was believe, look, and live; now, he that believeth and is baptized shall be
saved. Baptism is the act of faith now; look was the act of faith then. But
Jesus makes another declaration to Nicodemus which, to understand, we must
remember the circumstances under which it was said: “He that believeth on him is
not condemned; but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath
not believed in the name of the only-begotten Son of God.” Ver. 18. We have seen
that John’s baptism obligated those who received it to believe on Jesus when He
should come; hence those who be­lieved on Him were not condemned, but had
permission to be­come sons of God; but those who did not believe on Him had
forfeited their obligations, and hence were in a state of condem­nation for
their unbelief. This could not have been applicable to those who had not heard
the preliminary preaching of John, Jesus, or His disciples, for they surely
would not have been ALR­EADY condemned for not believing in a Christ of Whom
they had not heard. As these unbelievers were already condemned, it follows that
they were such as had been under obligations to believe. One more verse in this
chapter demands a passing notice: “He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting
life; and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God
abideth on him.” Ver. 36. We have no doubt that this declara­tion was made with
reference to the same class of persons— namely, those who had been baptized.
Paul says: “Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached
unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; by which also ye
are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have
believed in vain.” 1 Corinthians 15:1-2. How could a man believe in vain if he
were in possession of eternal life the moment he believed? Every part of God’s
Word must be so interpreted as to harmonize with every other part; and nothing
is more clearly taught in Holy Writ than that man never has eternal life
otherwise than in prospect while he dwells in the flesh. “Eternal” means without
beginning or end of endless duration; hence, if any one has eternal life in
actual possession, he can not believe in vain—he can not fall away and be lost;
for, whenever he falls, that is an end to his spiritual life, which, therefore,
could not have been eternal. That it is possible for a child of God to fall away
and be lost, we have seen on pages 28-32, to which the reader is respectfully
referred. In further confirmation of the fact that the Christian has eter­nal
life only in prospect, Jesus says: “There is no man that hath left house, or
brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children or lands for my
sake and the gospel’s, but he shall re­ceive an hundred-fold now in this time,
houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with
persecu­tions; and in the world to come eternal life.” Mark 10:29-30. Luke gives
an abridgement of this promise, thus: “Manifold more in this present time; and
in the world to come life everlast­ing.” Luke 18:30. Here the Lord expressly
tells us when His followers shall have eternal life—in the world to come.
According to the theory of some, His disciples might have re­plied: “Lord, you
said, ’He that believeth on the Son of God hath everlasting life;’ we believe on
you, and, therefore, have eternal life now: why do you say we shall have it in
the world to come?” Paul says: “Now being made free from sin, and be­come
servants of God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting
life.” Romans 6:22. Paul’s brethren at Rome were then pardoned—free from
sin—servants of God—and of course were believers in Jesus, yet they were to have
eternal life at the end. Again: Paul speaks of the righteous judgment, when God
“will render to every man according to his deeds; to them who by patient
continuance in well-doing seek for glory, and honor, and immortality, eternal
life.” Romans 2:6-7. Those who persevere in well-doing to the end will get
eternal life in the judgment of the great day, when the wicked “shall go away
into everlasting pun­ishment; but the righteous into life eternal.” Matthew
25:46. The eternal life of the righteous is co-etaneous with the punishment of
the wicked. Paul admonished Timothy to fight the good fight of faith, that he
might “lay hold on eternal life.” 1 Timothy 6:12. Surely, this man of God did
not have to fight in order to lay hold on that which he already had. And to
Titus Paul said: “Being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs
according to the hope of eternal life.” Titus 3:7. He who is justified by grace
hopes for eternal life; yet he can not hope for that which he al­ready has; “but
if we hope for that we see not, then do we with patience wait for it.” Romans
8:25. Then they who had been baptized by John, and believed on Jesus as the Son
of God when He came, had everlasting life; but how did they have it? In
prospect—by right or grant—were heirs of eternal life, and by patient
continuance in well-doing, would lay hold on it in the world to come. And no man
has it otherwise now, however con­fidingly he believes in Jesus Christ, or
honestly he may have obeyed the gospel. “Among the chief rulers also many
believed on him, but be­cause of the Pharisees they did not confess him, lest
they should be put out of the synagogue, for they loved the praise of men more
than the praise of God.” John 12:42-43. Here were per­sons who believed on
Jesus, yet surely no one will say they had eternal life when they loved the
praise of men more than the praise of God. They would not confess Jesus before
men; and he says: “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
10:32-33; Luke 12:8. And again: “Whosoever, therefore, shall be ashamed of me
and of my words, in this adulterous generation, of him also shall the Son of man
be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.”
Mark 8:38; Luke 9:26. If this does not cut off those rulers who believed on
Jesus, no language could do it; and yet they did the very thing which, it is
claimed, secures eternal life. Their faith was dead, and surely dead faith can
not secure eternal life. But we have another case. “As he spake these words,
many believed on him.” Here are believers—have they eternal life? We will see.
“Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word,
then are ye my disciples indeed.” John 8:30-31. Jesus continues His address to
“those Jews which believed on him” until at the fortieth verse He says: “But now
ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of
God.” To these same believers He says: “Ye are of your father the devil, and the
lusts of your father ye will do.” Ver. 44. Here were persons who believed on the
Son of God, yet they sought to kill Him, and He tells them that they are
children of the devil. Surely, then, he who believes on the Son of God, and does
not perfect his faith by obedience to His will, can not have eternal life,
either in possession or in prospect, unless, indeed, he may be the son of God
and a child of the devil at the same time. If it be true that man is justified
by faith alone, is it not a lit­tle remarkable that no case of conversion can be
found on record where a man rejoiced in the pardon of his sins before, or
without baptism after the new covenant went into operation on the day of
Pentecost? Thousands were converted under the teaching of inspired men, and the
cases are recorded for “our learning,” yet not a case of justification, or
pardon by faith alone—not one. “Yes, Cornelius was baptized with the Holy Ghost
and spake with tongues before he was baptized in the name of the Lord; and, as
the world can not receive the Spirit, he was, of course, pardoned by faith alone
before baptism.” This is the most plau­sible case, and we have put the objection
in the strongest possi­ble terms, that we may examine it in all its strength.
That the Holy Spirit or Comforter can not be received as an indwelling guest by
a man of the world is a fact conceded; but the ability to speak with tongues was
not always conclusive proof of the conversion of the party speaking by the
Spirit, or that the Spirit had taken up its abode in him. Very wicked men have
spoken by inspiration of God. Balaam prophesied against Balak by the immediate
direction of God. The Spirit of God came upon Saul, and he prophesied.* The old
lying prophet of Be­thel was enabled by the Spirit to foretell the sad fate of
the man of God, whom by falsehood he had seduced from the word of the Lord.*
Caiaphas, though one of the chief priests who con­spired against the Lord,
prophesied of the death of Christ for the Jewish nation.* These men, though
wicked as need be, proph­esied truly by the Spirit of God; hence, the fact that
Cornelius was enabled to prophesy can not prove that his sins were par­doned at
that time. Cornelius was told to send to Joppa for Simon Peter, “who shall tell
thee words whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved.” And Peter says: “As I
began to speak the Holy Ghost fell on them as on us at the beginning.” Acts
6:14-15. Now, if Cornelius had to hear words by which to be saved, he could not
have been saved by the words until he heard them. And as the Holy Spirit fell on
them as Peter began to speak, it follows that they had not heard the words when
the Holy Spirit fell on them, and hence they were not saved at that time. From
this decision there can be no appeal. Alluding to this event, “Peter rose up,
and said unto them, Men and breth­ren, ye know how that a good while ago, God
made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the
gospel and believe.” Acts 15:7. Then, if they were par­doned when the Holy Ghost
fell on them at the beginning of Pe­ter’s discourse, they were pardoned before
they heard and be­lieved the gospel, and therefore they were pardoned without
faith as well as without baptism.

* Num. xxiii, xxiv. Two chapters entire 1 Samuel 10:10.

* 1 Kings 13:11-32.

* John 11:47-53.

Paul says: “Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not
charity, I am become as sounding brass or a tinkling cymbal.” 1 Corinthians 13 :
l. Hence, were a man baptized with the Holy Spirit, and enabled to speak in all
the languages of earth, yet without charity or love he would be nothing; and
“this is the love of God that we keep his commandments.” 1 John 5:3. And what
was His commandment to Cornelius? “He commanded them to be baptized in the name
of the Lord.” Acts 10:48. What were they baptized in the name of the Lord for?
To the Pentecostians Peter said: “Repent, and be baptized, every one of you, in
the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins.” Acts 2:38. Then Peter
understood baptism in the name of the Lord to be for the remission of sins, and
this is what he commanded Cornelius to do; and he says God “put no difference
between us and them;” and again: “We believe that through the grace of the Lord
Jesus Christ we shall be saved even as they.” Acts 15:9-11. Then, unless God did
make a difference between the salvation of the Jews and the Gentiles, which
Peter says He did not, Cornelius was baptized in the name of the Lord for the
remission of sins. For the design of his baptism with the Holy Spirit, see the
chapter on that subject. CONYBEARE and HOWSON say: “The case of Cornelius, in
which the gifts of the Holy Spirit were bestowed before bap­tism, was an
exception to the ordinary rule.” Life and Epistles of Paul, p. 384. That they
are right m this statement, is clear from the fact that the Pentecostian
converts were not baptized with the Holy Spirit at all, and were only promised
the gift of the Holy Spirit at all, and were only promised the gift of the Holy
Spirit as a sequence to baptism in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of
sins, and from the additional fact that the Samaritans believed and were
baptized, and yet the Holy Spirit fell upon none of them until Peter and John
went there.* * See Acts 8:13-16.

But Peter said: “To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name
whosoever believeth in him shall receive re­mission of sins.” Acts 10:43. Yes,
believers get remission of sins through His name, and that is the reason Peter
commanded Cor­nelius and the Pentecostians to be baptized in His name, that they
might receive remission of sins as the prophets had testi­fied; and we know of
no other way by which believers may re­ceive remission of sins in His name than
by accepting remission as He proposed it, saying: “He that believeth and is
baptized shall be saved.” Mark xvi : 16. But we have an overwhelming objection
to the doctrine of baptism for the remission of sins in the fact that Paul says:
“Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel.” 1 Corinthians 1:17.
This is an elliptical form of expression, like which we have many in the Bible;
e.g., “He that believeth on me, believeth not on me, but on him that sent me.”
John 12:44. Here the Saviour is made to contradict Himself in a single sentence,
by saying he that believed on Him did not believe on Him; but when we supply the
ellipsis all is plain. “He that believeth on me, believ­eth not [only] on me,
but [also] on him that sent me.” We suppose all will agree that the words only
and also should be supplied in this quotation. Let us try another. “But when
they deliver you up, take no thought how or what ye shall speak; for it shall be
given you in that same hour what ye shall speak; for it is not ye that speak,
but the Spirit of your Father which speak­eth in you.” Matthew 10:19-20. Here,
again, unless the ellipsis be supplied, Christ contradicts Himself by first
saying it should be given them what they should speak, and then telling them
that they should not speak at all. When the ellipsis is supplied the passage
reads thus: “It is not [only] you that speak, but [also] the Spirit of my Father
that speaketh in you.” Do all agree to this? Then, why may we not understand
Paul in the same way? “Christ sent me not [only] to baptize, but [also] to
preach the gospel.” If this ellipsis be not allowed, then we have Paul doing
that for which he had no authority; for he says he did baptize even some of
these Corinthians; and he says himself he baptized Crispus, and Gaius, and the
household of Stephanus. Now, can any one suppose that Paul raised his hand
before God and said: “In the name of Jesus Christ I baptize you,” when Christ
gave him no authority to baptize at all? Surely not. Then Paul was sent not only
to baptize, but also to preach the gospel. “But Paul thanked God that he had
baptized but few of them; and if baptism had been for the remission of sins he
would have gladly baptized many of them.” Paul did not thank God that but few
had been baptized, but that but few of them had been baptized by him, and he
gives a reason for this: “Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own
name.” Ver. 15. He does not say that he had baptized but few persons at all, but
only that he had baptized but few of the Corinthians, among whom this
unfortunate division had sprung up. He may have baptized thousands elsewhere.
But had baptism been an unmeaning formality, it occurs to us that Paul would not
have feared a disparagement of its value by a false report concerning the name
in which it was adminis­tered. But some of them had claimed to be of Paul, some
of Apollos, some of Cephas, and some of Christ; hence he asks: “Were you
baptized in the name of Paul?” thus showing that they could not be of Paul
unless they had been baptized in his name, nor could they be of Christ unless
baptized in His name. The apostle asks: “Was Paul crucified for you?,’ thus
showing that they were Christ’s because He had died for them, and they had been
baptized in His name, that they might enjoy the bene­fits of His death. Reader,
will you be baptized in the name of Him who has been crucified for you, that you
may be His and enjoy the benefits of His death? “But what efficacy is there in
water to wash away sins?” Just none at all. “Then why should we be baptized in
water for the remission of sins?” Because God has required it: is not this
rea­son enough? The blood of Christ cleanseth us from all sin; but as we can not
come in contact with it literally, we must ap­proach it through the means which
God has appointed for that purpose. As God saw fit to appoint baptism for this
purpose, it is our duty to submit, but not our province to object. Had He seen
proper to appoint prayer at the mourner’s bench, or any thing else, for this
purpose, then this, and not baptism, would have been the act of obedience for
us. When God commands the man of faith obeys without a why or an if, and the
promised blessing is sure to follow. Naaman reasoned very much like the people;
do now.* He was afflicted with a loathsome leprosy which bid defiance to all the
remedies at his command, when he was induced by a captive girl, who waited on
his wife, to go to Samaria, that Elisha the prophet might cure him. He pre­pared
himself with presents, and a letter from the king of Syria to the king of
Israel, that he might be properly introduced on his arrival. When he presented
his letter to the king, it gave offense to him, rather than secured his favor;
but when Elisha heard of it, he ordered Naaman to be brought unto him, that he
might know there was a prophet in Israel. When he stood before the house of
Elisha, he did not even go out to see him, but “sent a messenger unto him,
saying, Go and wash in Jordan seven times, and thy flesh shall come again to
thee, and thou shalt be clean.” But Naaman was angry, and went away, saying,
“Are not Abana and Pharpar, rivers of Damascus, better than all the waters of
Israel? may I not wash in them and be clean? So he turned and went away in a
rage.” But a servant, more prudent than him­self, entreated him to go and do
what the prophet had directed: “Then went he down and dipped himself seven times
in Jordan, according to the saying of the man of God; and his flesh came again
like unto the flesh of a little child.” Just so people reason now. “What virtue
is there in water? Why not go to the altar or to the grove and be pardoned?” But
Naaman thought there was no virtue in the waters of the Jordan; and truly there
was none; yet God healed him when he did the thing commanded. So there is no
abstract virtue connected with the water in which we are baptized; but the Lord
said, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved;” and as Naaman was
cured when he obeyed, so will the sinner be saved who obeys the command­ment of
the Lord. God commanded Moses to make a serpent of brass and put it on a pole in
the midst of the camps of Israel, promising that the bitten Israelite who looked
thereon should live; and it came to pass according to His word. Was there any
virtue in the brass? None. Any in the peculiar form into which it was cast?
None. Any in the pole on which it was reared? None. Any in looking at it on the
pole? None. Yet God healed the bitten man when he did just what was required of
him.* Jesus made ointment of spittle and clay and anointed the eyes of one who
had been born blind, and told him to go and wash in the pool of Siloam, which he
did, and came seeing.* Was there any efficacy in the spittle? None. Any in the
clay? None. Any in the waters of the pool in which he washed? None. Yet the Lord
gave him sight when he availed himself of the means ap­pointed for that purpose.
These illustrations might be extended indefinitely; but surely the thought is
sufficiently clear that we are baptized because God has required it of us, and
in respect to His authority; and we expect remission of sins, not because of any
virtue in water, or merit in any act of our own, but because the Lord has
promised to bestow it upon us when we comply with His will.

* 2 Kings, chap. v, entire.

* Numbers 21:8-12.

* John 9:1-7

But why should we have to thus explain a doctrine as though it were new which
has been taught not only by the writers of the New Testament, but also by
primitive Christians even from the days of the apostles. At the risk of being
tedious, we must pre­sent a few extracts from the writings of the ’’fathers” in
proof of this fact. HERMAS says: “For before any one receives the name of the
Son of God he is liable to death; but when he receives that seal, he is
delivered from death and is assigned to life. Now, that seal is water, into
which persons go down liable to death, but come out of it assigned to life. For
which reason to these also was the seal preached; and they made use of it that
they might enter into the kingdom of God.” Wall’s History, vol. 1, p. 51. (Paul
salutes Hermas, Romans 16:14.) Wall says: “This book was written before St. John
wrote his gospel.” ibid, p. 52. On page 54 he says: “The scope of the place is
to represent the necessity of water-baptism to salvation or to entrance into the
kingdom of God, in the opinion of the then Christians—i.e., the Christians of
the apostles’ times.” Thus we see, according to Dr. Wall, that Hermas lived in
the days of the apostles, and wrote before John wrote his gospel; and he says
persons go down into the water liable to death, and come out of it assigned to
life. BARNABAS says: “This meaneth that we indeed descend into the water full of
sins and defilement, but come up bearing fruit in our heart, having the fear of
God, and trust in Jesus in our spirit.” Apostolic Fathers, p. 154. Barnabas is
said to have been the companion of Paul. Orchard’s History, vol. 1, p. 12.
JUSTIN MARTYR wrote about ninety years after Matthew wrote his gospel. He says
“that we should not continue children of that necessity and ignorance, but of
will, or choice, and knowledge, and should obtain forgiveness of the sins in
which we have lived, by water, [or in the water] there is invoked, over him that
has a mind to be regenerated, the name of God the Father,” etc. Wall’s History,
vol. 1, p. 69. Orchard quotes Justin as follows: “This food we call the
eucharist, of which none are allowed to be partakers but such only as are true
believers, and have been baptized in the laver of re­generation for the
remission of sins.” Orchard’s History, vol. 1, p.24. Wall comments on a
quotation from Justin thus: “I recite this to show that in these times, so very
near the apostles’, they spoke of original sin affecting all mankind descended
of Adam; and un­derstood that, besides the actual sins of each particular
person, there is in our nature itself, since the fall, something that needs
redemption and forgiveness by the merits of Christ. And that is ordinarily
applied to every particular person by baptism.” Wall’s History, vol. 1, p. 64.
ORIGEN wrote about the year 185 A.D. He says: “They are rightly baptized who are
washed unto salvation. He that is bap­tized unto salvation receives the water
and the Holy Spirit; such baptism as is accompanied with crucifying the flesh,
and rising again to newness of life, is the approved baptism.” Orchard’s
History, vol. 1, p. 35. CYRIL, Bishop of Jerusalem, in the year 385 A.D., said:
“If any one receive not baptism he can not be saved.” Ibid., p. 43. ST. AMBROSE:
“There is no regeneration without water.” Wall’s History, vol. 1, p. 78.
TERTULLIAN. Wall comments upon Tertullian thus: “This au­thor, in the places
here first cited, treating of the necessity of baptism, speaks of that necessity
as absolute, and of those who die unbaptized as lost men; and is enraged at
those who maintain that faith without it is sufficient to salvation.” Wall’s
History, vol. 1, p. 96. GREGORY NAZIANZEN. Wall comments on Gregory after the
following style: “When he deters the baptized person from fall­ing back into
sinful courses, tells him ’there is not another regen­eration afterward to be
had, though it be sought with ever so much crying and tears,’ and yet grants, in
the next words, that there is repentance after baptism, but shows a difference
be­tween that and the free forgiveness given in baptism.” Ibid, pp. 77, 78.
CYPRIAN: “If any one be not baptized and regenerated he can not come to the
kingdom of God.” Ibid, p. 146. GREGORY, Bishop of Nysa, A.D. 388, says: “In
baptism there are three things which conduct us to immortal life—Prayer, Water
and Faith.” Orchard’s History, vol. 1, p. 44. AMBROSE, Bishop of Milan, A.D.
390, says: “The body was plunged into this water to wash away sin.” ibid. In
commenting upon the doctrine of Novatian, who figured in the middle of the third
century, Neander says: “The church, he could say, has no right to grant
absolution to a person who, by any mortal sin, has trifled away the pardon
obtained for him by Christ, and appropriated to him by baptism.” Neander, vol.
1, p. 244. Concerning baptism in the third century, Mosheim says: “The remission
of sin was thought to be its immediate and happy fruit.” Maclain, Mosheim, vol.
1, p. 91. We might pursue this line of testimony on through the Donatists, the
Albigenses, the Waldenses, and other parties of more recent date, showing that
they all were of one mind on this sub­ject, but we have not room to do so. Even
the abuses of bap­tism point to the well-recognized doctrine of baptism for the
re­mission of sins. In the previous chapter we saw that infant bap­tism grew out
of the absurd dogma of original sin, and the well-known fact that baptism was
for the remission of sins. “The Council of MELA, in Numedia in Africa, enjoin
Christians to bap­tize their infants for forgiveness of sin, and curse all who
deny the doctrine.” Orchard’s History, vol. 1, p. 47. For abundant proof of this
fact the reader is referred to the previous chapter. We have not the space, nor
is it necessary, to elaborate it here— though a volume might be filled with
proof of the fact. But if baptism for remission of sins was taught by the
writ­ers of the New Testament, and by the primitive Christians for centuries
after inspiration ceased, how comes it to pass that it is so zealously opposed
by good men of modern times? From some cause a radical change has been effected
in the theology of religious parties on this subject very recently. We have
before us some two or three editions of the Methodist Discipline which differ
from each other widely upon this subject. One of them was published by John
Early for the Methodist Episcopal Church South in Louisville, in 1846, from
which we quote a prayer used at the baptism of persons of riper years, as
follows: “Almighty and immortal God, the aid of all that need, the helper of all
that flee to Thee for succor, the life of them that believe, and the
resurrection of the dead; we call upon Thee for these persons, that they, coming
to Thy holy baptism, may re­ceive remission of their sins by spiritual
regeneration. Receive them, O Lord, as thou hast promised by thy well-beloved
Son, saying, Ask, and ye shall receive; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it
shall be opened unto you; so give now unto us that ask: let us that seek, find;
open the gate unto us that knock; that these persons may enjoy the everlasting
benediction of Thy heavenly washing, and may come to the eternal kingdom which
Thou hast promised by Christ our Lord. Amen.” Now we pick up another edition
which was published by J. B. McFerrin, of Nashville, in 1858; and find that
after the words “these persons” all the following words are omitted: “that they,
coming to Thy holy baptism, may receive remission of their sins by spiritual
regeneration.” Why were these words stricken out? If they were expressive of
truth in 1846, were they not equally orthodox in 1858? If baptism was for the
remission of sins when the first edition was published, is there any good reason
why it should not be so yet? But there is a change in the next prayer equally
significant. In 1846 the minister was instructed to pray for the candidates
thus: “Give Thy Holy Spirit to these persons, that they may be born again, and
be made heirs of everlasting salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ.” But in
1858 he prays, ’Give Thy Holy Spirit to these persons, that they, being born
again, may be made heirs of everlasting salvation,” etc. Then he prayed that
“they may be born again” in baptism; now he must recognize them as already born
again before baptism. And still he must pray that they be made heirs of eternal
life—as though they could be born again without being heirs of eternal life. But
why cease to pray that they should be born again in baptism? If it was true then
that men must be born of water and of Spirit, it is certainly true yet. We do
not object to the abandonment of error when it is discovered, but these changes
show that these parties found themselves teaching the doctrine of baptism for
the remission of sins down to 1858, when the change was made, and that a
doctrine now regarded as a monstrous heresy was be­lieved and taught up to that
time. Indeed, it seems hard for the creed-makers to avoid teaching this doctrine
even when seeking to avoid it. The Westminster and Cumberland Presbyterian
Confessions have both taught it, despite of their efforts to the contrary. They
say: “Although it be a great sin to condemn or neglect this ordinance, yet grace
and salvation are not so in­separably annexed unto it as that no person can be
regenerated or saved without it.” Here note the fact that it is a great sin to
condemn or neglect baptism. Of repentance they say: “As there is no sin so small
but it deserves damnation, so there is no sin so great that it can bring
damnation upon those who truly repent.” Here note the fact that there is no sin
so small but deserves damnation; hence, if the smallest sin deserves damnation,
the great sin of neglecting baptism deserves it none the less. On the attributes
of God they say: He hates all sin, and will by no means clear the guilty.” Then
they who neglect baptism de­serve, and will receive, damnation, if these books
be true. But the last resort is an appeal to the prejudice of the peo­ple: “If
baptism is for the remission of sins, all our pious fathers and mothers who died
unbaptized are lost.” As to what God will do with those who sought to know the
truth, and made an honest mistake with regard to baptism or any thing else, He
has not seen fit to reveal, and therefore we will not attempt to de­cide; but
if, like many do now, they allowed prejudice to stop their ears and close their
eyes against the truth, then we hesitate not to say that their ignorance of the
law will be no excuse. But suppose they were deprived of opportunities which you
have, and they honestly believed non-essential that which you know to be a
solemn requisition of the Lord, will you be excused because they were? But
suppose we concede that they were lost, will it benefit them for you to persist
in rebellion and be lost also? Would it not be more wise for you to seek a
knowledge of your duty, and perform it to your own salvation, than to cling to
known error because your parents believed it true? Though you were to weep tears
of blood on account of their mistake, you could not correct it. They are in the
hands of a God whose infi­nite love and mercy will secure a just decision as to
them: and this is all you can know on the subject. You have an immortal spirit
of your own, which must live in endless bliss with God and His Son in heaven, or
writhe in eternal misery with the devil and the damned. Oh, then, as you have a
heaven to gain and a hell to shun, why not accept salvation upon the terms which
God has proposed?


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 16: GPS-15-THE HOLY SPIRIT
========================================================================

CHAPTER XV. THE HOLY SPIRIT

It is not our purpose to write a dissertation upon the nature, origin, or
relationships of the Holy Spirit. Paul said, “Foolish and unlearned questions
avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes.” 2 Timothy 2:23. We are persuaded
that there can be but little known of these subjects because there is but little
revealed concerning them. “Secret things belong unto the Lord our God: but those
things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children forever.”
Deuteronomy 29:29. Why, then, should we worry ourselves over questions which our
Father never revealed to us, and therefore never intended us to know? There are
more practical questions connected with the Holy Spirit of which we may know
something, because God has spo­ken to us more definitely concerning them, and it
is of them we propose to write. We are aware, too, that even these are not to be
comprehended without effort; nor are we vain enough to sup­pose that we are able
to write an unexceptionable essay concern­ing them. Strong minds and devoted
hearts have prayerfully pe­rused the sacred pages of Holy Writ until their eyes
have grown dim in age; and, after all their toil, have closed their labors
con­fessedly ignorant of the modus operandi of the Holy Spirit. Indeed the
incomprehensibility of the subject is the theory advo­cated by many very able
pens. By such, those who claim to un­derstand the subject, are at once suspected
of denying the influ­ence of the Spirit in conversion entirely. If you deny an
incom­prehensible influence of the Spirit, they know of no other, and hence
conclude that you deny all spiritual influence. They are ever ready to quote
John 3:8; “The wind bloweth where it lis­teth, and thou hearest the sound
thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every
one that is born of the Spirit.” In vain may you call their attention to the
fact that the passage does not say “so is the Spirit,” or “so is the operation
of the Spirit.” They have learned to so interpret it, and this is quite
sufficient to end the investigation of the subject. They will regard it
presumptuous in us to even attempt an exam­ination of it. They will quote the
old adage, “Fools rush on where angels fear to tread.” But we beg them to
remember that if we are ignorant of the subject, we will not be more likely to
remain so, than those who do not examine it at all. If they and we close our
Bibles and cease to investigate, we will all re­main ignorant together. The
divine volume contains many les­sons on the subject, and surely our Father would
not have said so much to us on a subject of which he intended us to remain
entirely ignorant. We are, therefore, encouraged to pursue our study of the
sacred pages with all the assistance we can get, in the hope that we may, at
least, acquire a sufficient knowledge of what is taught concerning the Holy
Spirit, to enable us to enjoy its comforting influences in God’s appointed way.
Our Bible teaches us that there is not only one God and Father, and one Lord
Jesus Christ the Son of this Father, but also that there is one Holy Spirit
which proceeded from God, di­vine as is God from whom it proceeded. As the sun
is the great center of the solar system from which emanate light and heat to the
natural world, so God is not only Spirit, but the great center of the spiritual
world from whom emanated the Holy Spirit, giv­ing light and comfort to the
denizens of earth through the in­spired word and the institutions and service
appointed therein. John the Baptist said to those who came to be baptized of him
in the Jordan: “I indeed baptize you with water unto re­pentance; but he that
cometh after me is mightier than 1, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear; he
shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire.” Matthew 3 : ll. Paul says,
“Now concerning spiritual gifts, brethren, I would not have you ignorant.” And
again: “Now there are diversities of gifts but the same Spirit.” 1 Corinthians
12 : l, 4. After Jesus had told His disciples that it was needful for them that
He should go away, in order that the Holy Spirit might come to and remain with
them as an abiding Comforter. He said to them: “When He is come He will reprove
the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment.” John 16:8. Paul, in
his epistle to his brethren at Rome, said: “Ye have received the Spirit of
adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.” Romans 8:15. And again: “The Spirit
itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are children of God.” Romans
8:16. Thus we find the Scripture speaking of the baptism of the Holy Spirit;
secondly, of the gifts of the Spirit; thirdly, the oper­ation or work of the
Spirit in reproving the world of sin, righ­teousness, and judgment, the
reception of the Spirit by the chil­dren of the Father, and the witness of the
Spirit. Paul charged Timothy, saying: “Study to show thyself approved unto God,
a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” 2
Timothy 2:15. We know of no subject to the study of which this admonition is of
more importance than that of the Holy Spirit. If we can rightly divide and apply
the word of truth to the subject in hand, we will be aided much in attain­ing to
a knowledge of it. If we fail to do this, we may correctly learn something
concerning it, but understand the subject as a system we never will. We have
seen five separate departments of our subject spoken of in the passages quoted.
Let us draw the line deep and wide between them, that we may keep them well
apart until we exam­ine them in the light of the Scriptures. Should we
indiscrimi­nately apply what was written with reference to any one of them,
teaching of the Spirit and make an incomprehensible logomachy of the whole
subject. Let us rightly divide our subject, and apply the Scriptures
accordingly. First in order we examine THE BAPTISM OF THE HOLY SPIRIT.

That God promised the baptism of the Holy Spirit to certain persons, through
John the Baptist and also through Jesus His Son, is not disputed by any one; and
that this promise was veri­fied on the day of Pentecost, and at the house of
Cornelius, is believed by all. The matter in controversy is as to whether or not
the baptism thus promised was to be special or general, tem­porary or perpetual.
In other words, was it confined to the day of miracles? or was it designed for,
and promised to, the Chris­tians of our day, yea, of all time? First, then we
will examine the Scriptures relied on, to prove that persons are now baptized
with the Holy Spirit. The first pas­sage we will examine may be found in the
prophecy of Joel 2:28-30. “And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour
out my Spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy,
your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions; and also upon
the servants, and upon the handmaids in those days will I pour out my Spirit;
and I will show wonders in the heavens and in the earth, blood and fire, and
pil­lars of smoke.” That this prophecy had reference to the baptism of the Holy
Spirit, to take place on the day of Pentecost is cer­tain, from the fact that
Peter quotes it as fulfilled in the events of that day. Acts 2:16-19. As it is
here said that the Spirit was to be poured out upon all flesh, it is insisted
that those living now are a part of all flesh as well as those who lived then,
and hence it must require all time to fulfill the prophecy, because if its
fulfillment was restricted to the events of that day, it was not poured out upon
an flesh. But if there are to be no restrictions placed upon the phrase “all
flesh” then the passage will prove entirely too much. Paul tells us that “All
flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another
flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds.” 1 Corinthians 15:39.
Therefore, if the phrase “all flesh” is not to be limited, we not only have all
men baptized with the Spirit, but also all beasts, birds, and fish. “Well, but
it means all human flesh.” This proves too much yet; for this would include the
most wicked man of earth, as well as the best Christian. “But it means all
Chris­tians.” Stop; you set out with the POSITION that there are no
re­strictions to be put on the phrase all flesh; now you cut off not only all
beasts, birds, and fish, but also the larger portion of human flesh, for few go
the narrow path, while the many go the broad road; and these you will not allow
to be baptized with the Spirit at all. This is doing pretty well. These
restrictions are right; may there not be others? The sons and daughters who were
the subjects of this baptism were to prophesy, the old men were to dream dreams,
and the young men were to see visions. Are these phenomena exhibited by all
Christians now? If not, the phrase all flesh must be pruned down until it
embraces such, and only such, as can do the things spoken of. When Peter said,
“This is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel,” (Acts 2:16) the disciples
were prophesying, speaking with tongues, and doing the things spoken of by Joel;
hence we feel authorized to restrict the phrase “all flesh” to such as exhibited
the signs predicted in the prophecy. Again: We have the fulfill­ment of this
prophecy to take place at a specified time. “It shall come to pass in the last
days, saith God, that I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh.” Acts 2:17.
Certainly the last days here spoken of can not be the last days of time, for
more than eighteen hundred years have gone by since Peter said, “This is that
which was spoken by the prophet Joel.” And it would re­quire great boldness to
affirm that the phrase last days was in­tended to include all the days from the
day of Pentecost to the end of time; yet such must be the interpretation given
to it, to make the fulfillment of Joel’s prophecy include the Christians of all
time, and therefore those of this day. The last days here spo­ken of by Joel
must have been the last days of the Jewish dis­pensation, for it was in them
that Peter tells us, “This is that which was spoken.” The argument drawn from
this prophecy to support the notion that persons are now baptized with the Holy
Spirit is, therefore, evidently defective. The language of John the Baptist next
claims our attention. He said to those demanding baptism of him in the Jordan:
“I in­deed baptize you with water unto repentance; but he that com­eth after me
is mightier that 1, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you
with the Holy Ghost and with fire: whose fan is in his hand, and he will
thoroughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner; but he will
burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.” Matthew 3:11-12. This address is
recorded by Luke (3: 16, 17) in very nearly the same words. Mark records an
abridgment of it, thus “There cometh one might­ier than I after me, the latchet
of whose shoes I am not worthy to stoop down and unloose. I indeed have baptized
you with water; but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost.” Mark 1:7-8. It is
not important to our investigation that we stop to in­quire who were to be the
subjects of the baptism of fire spoken of in the records by Matthew and Luke, as
it is the baptism of the Holy Spirit which concerns us at present; nor will we
stop to inquire whether this was to be a figurative or a literal baptism in the
Holy Spirit. That it was literal is all that can be claimed, and this we are not
only willing to grant, but firmly believe. But do these quotations prove that
persons are now baptized with the Holy Spirit? If they prove it at all, they
must do it in one of two ways. First, the language employed must be sufficiently
comprehensive to include us, or the principle taught must be applicable to us.
First, then, who were the persons represented by the pronoun you in the sentence
“He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost”? That this word could not have
included even all John’s audience is clear from the fact that some of them were
wicked—comparable to chaff and to be burned with un­quenchable fire. But even
had it embraced every one to whom he spake, both wicked and good, it would still
require very elas­tic rules of interpretation to make it embrace the Christians
of all time. “I indeed baptize you with water ° ° ° he shall bap­tize you with
the Holy Ghost and with fire.” Can any fair rules of interpretation make the
last you include more than the first you? Surely not. Then it follows that those
who were here promised the baptism of the Holy Ghost were among those bap­tized
li y John in water. Again: We have a rule of grammar saying: “Pronouns must
agree with the nouns for which they stand, in gender, number, and person.” If we
respect this rule at all, how can we make these pronouns include more, or other,
persons than their antece­dents in the preceding part of the chapter? Once more:
In oral discourse, the persons indicated by pro­nouns of the second person are
always present with the speaker. This rule knows no exception. In written
communications, per­sons represented by pronouns of the second person may be
absent from the writer, but to a speaker they must be present. Let us apply this
rule to the speech made by John the Baptist to the multitude on the banks of the
Jordan. “I indeed baptize you with water.... he shall baptize you with the Holy
Ghost.” How can these pronouns of the second person embrace any per­sons not
present before John when he used them? If we apply this promise to other
persons, we must derive authority for doing so from other sources than the
language employed, for evidently it is not there. Then is there a principle
taught applicable to us? If so, we can not see it. The passage was a prophetic
promise made to certain persons, to be fulfilled to them, and when so
ful­filled, there was no general principle remaining applicable to any persons
only such as are shown to Joe subjects of the baptism in question. That
Christians are now such subjects is the matter to be proved—to assume it is to
assume the whole controversy. We have seen that the language of John is
incapable of proving it, either expressly or by implication. We would not be
under­stood, however, to deny that any were baptized with the Holy Ghost who
were not of those baptized by John the Baptist in water. We know that others
were so baptized, but this is not quite sufficient to prove that the language
employed by John included them. We have been seeking to test the power of this
passage to prove the doctrine in question. We know that it is confidently relied
on to sustain the theory; hence we have sought for the ex­tent of its
application and the time of its fulfillment. When Jesus was assembled with the
apostles on one occasion, He “com­manded them not to depart from Jerusalem, but
wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me; for
John ruly baptized with water, but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not
many days hence.” Acts 1:4-5. As Jesus here associates this promise of the
Father with John’s baptism, it is next to certain that He here refers to the
same promise which the Father made by John. This being so, we can scarcely fail
to recognize its fulfillment on the day of Pen­tecost at Jerusalem, where they
were commanded to wait for it. And though, in the three recorded accounts of
John’s discourse, we have no specific allusion to the time of its fulfillment,
yet when Jesus quotes it, He says it shall be not many days hence, and commanded
them not to depart from Jerusalem until it was fulfilled. When, therefore, we
connect these passages together, we see not how it is possible to look beyond
the day of Pentecost for the complete fulfillment of the promise of the Father
made through John concerning the baptism of the Holy Spirit. But we may be told
that Peter quoted this language at the house of Cornelius as applicable to the
Gentiles, saying: “As I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them as on us at
the be­ginning. Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John
indeed baptized with water, but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.” Acts
11:15-16. This is sufficiently near the language quoted from Acts 1:4-5, to make
it probable that both passages refer to the same conversation. As God baptized
the disciples with the Holy Spirit when the gospel was first pro­claimed to the
Jews, it was proper, for reasons which we will see in due time, that He should
attend its introduction to the Gen­tiles by the like gift. But if the baptism of
the Holy Spirit was then bestowed upon all converts, as we are told it now is,
why did Peter associate it with the beginning? Why not have said: “As I began to
speak the Holy Spirit fell on them as on all others converted?” Surely, some
such style would have been appro­priate. Many thousands had been converted from
the day of Pentecost to that time, yet the language employed is calculated to
make the impression that such an event had not come under their notice from the
beginning until that time. We will notice one more passage only. “For by one
Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gen­tiles,
whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.” 1
Corinthians 12:13. Although this passage was written in close proximity to
Paul’s explanation of the miraculous gifts of the Spirit, yet we are willing to
admit the principle taught in it to be applicable to Christians generally, but
it falls very far short of proving that they, or any of them, are baptized with
the Holy Spirit. So far from it that it says not one word about it. By one
Spirit are we all baptized into one body. There is one body (Ephesians 4:4);
This is the church (Colossians 1 : l8 and 24). There is one baptism (Ephesians
4:5), by which we enter this one body. Are we now prepared to see the import of
the passage? By (the teaching of) one Spirit (the Holy Spirit) we are all
bap­tized (in water) into one body (the church). This seems to be the obvious
import of the passage, and it is in harmony with the whole tenor of the Spirit’s
teaching on the subject. But if we insist that it means “in one Spirit we are
all baptized into one body,” then we make Paul contradict himself, saying there
is “one baptism.” When he says: “There is one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one
God and Father of all’“ he as clearly teaches that there is but one baptism, as
he does that there is but one Lord or but one God and Father of all. The
denominations themselves agree that by water baptism we enter the church; if,
therefore, they make this passage mean Holy Spirit baptism, they not only
contradict Paul, but they contradict themselves. Surely, they will not do this.
It is admitted by all that God’s works, every-where, are a most wonderful
exhibition of harmony and order. He has a place for every thing and every thing
in its place—an office for every thing to fill, and every thing filling its own
office. It is al­together probable, then, that the baptism of the Holy Spirit
was designed for some appropriate work, and not given to accom­plish any thing,
every thing, or nothing, as might chance to hap­pen. It is, then, of the first
importance that we seek for the office assigned it in the gospel plan of
salvation. What say you, gentle reader, on this subject? What do you want with
it? What do you expect it to do for you? The first work usually as­signed it in
the theories of modern times, is the removal of the depravity or corruption of
nature supposed to have been inher­ited from our illustrious progenitors as a
result of their sin, or rather, our sin in them. It is assumed that man comes
into the world totally depraved, wholly defiled in all the faculties and parts
of soul and body, opposed to all good and wholly inclined to all evil, in
consequence of which he can not will or desire any thing good accompanying
salvation until this depravity is re­moved or modified by the baptism of the
Holy Spirit. For an examination of this assumption the reader is referred to the
chapter on Hereditary Depravity. Suppose, however, that this is really a true
picture of man’s nature, and he can do nothing until God enables him to do it by
baptizing him with the Holy Spirit. What then? If God has to administer it, and
man can do nothing until it is done, and it is never done at all, who is to
blame for it? Will God sentence the sinner to hell and there punish him forever
for not obeying the gospel, when it was no fault of his that he did not do it?
The baptism of the Holy Spirit was a miracle, emphatically a miracle, performed
by Jesus Himself. If, therefore, all converts of our day are baptized with it,
it follows that there is a miracle per­formed every time a conversion takes
place, and miracles will continue as long as there is a subject converted to
God; and the conversion of every man is suspended upon the performance of a
miracle of which he has not the slightest control, for until it is performed he
can not even desire it, or will any good thing ac­companying it. But was the
removal of depravity the object to be accom­plished by the baptism of the Spirit
anciently? The first case, of which we have a record, took place on the day of
Pentecost, and the disciples were the subjects of it on that occasion. Had the
apostles been more than three years with the Lord, and been sent by Him to
preach the approach of the kingdom “to the lost sheep of the house of Israel”
(Matthew 10:5-7), with power to per­form miracles in His name, and, finally, to
preach the gospel to every creature, with power to bind and loose on earth, with
the assurance that their acts should be ratified in heaven, and yet their hearts
totally depraved, wholly disposed to evil and op­posed to all good until they
were baptized with the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost? Are we prepared for
this? But we are told that the three thousand converts of that day were also
baptized with it. Is there any proof of this? The rec­ord says: “Peter stood up
in the midst of the disciples, the num­ber of names together were about a
hundred and twenty.” Acts 1:5. “And when the day of Pentecost was fully come,
they were all with one accord in one place and they were all filled with the
Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues as the Spirit gave them
utterance.” Who were with one accord in one place? The disciples. Who were all
filled with the Holy Ghost? The disciples. Who began to speak with other tongues
as moved by the Holy Ghost? The disciples. Not a word about any one else being
with them. But “when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together.” ver.
6. Then it was not until after the baptism of the disciples with the Holy Spirit
that the multitude came together, from among whom the three thou­sand were
converted. Not a word in the narrative about their having been baptized with the
Holy Ghost. They were prom­ised the gift of the Holy Spirit if they would
“repent, and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins;”
but even this was not until they had heard and believed Peter’s preaching, and
were cut to the heart by it, which modern teach­ers insist they could not have
been until they were baptized with it. We will next examine the case of
Cornelius. Please notice his character before he was baptized with the Holy
Spirit. He was “a devout man, and one that feared God with all his house, which
gave much alms to the people, and prayed to God al­ways.” Acts 10:2. And was his
heart totally depraved, wholly corrupt, the opposite of all good? Really, it
seems he had good thoughts and did good deeds before he was baptized, either
with Spirit or water. Then it follows, that the baptism of the Holy Spirit was
not intended to remove his depravity and make him devoted, charitable, or
prayerful, for he was all these before. We insist that if you purify the heart
by the baptism of the Holy Spirit, you thereby annul the office of faith. With
reference to the Gentiles, Peter says: “God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them
witness, giving them the Holy Ghost even as he did unto us; and put no
difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.” Acts 15:8-9.
Here we find, that in cases where the Gentiles received the Holy Spirit, it was
not to purify the heart, for this was done by faith. Suppose you have a clock,
the machinery of which is propelled by weights. You remove the weights from
their place, and propel the machinery of the clock by springs, what further use
have you for the weights? So, if you purify the heart by the baptism of the Holy
Spirit, what further use have you for faith? But we are sometimes told that the
baptism of the Holy Spirit is to produce faith. Then when Paul said, “So then
faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God” (Romans 10:17), he
should have said, “So then faith cometh by the baptism of the Holy Spirit.”
Again: It is insisted that the baptism of the Holy Spirit is for, or in order
to, the remission of sins, and that this is its office in the gospel plan of
salvation. Then it follows, that the apostles were three years the chosen
companions of Jesus, sent by Him to preach to the lost sheep of the house of
Israel, with power to perform miracles in His name, and still unpardoned until
bap­tized on the day of Pentecost. “John did baptize in the wilder­ness and
preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins. And there went out
unto him all the land of Judea, and they of Jerusalem, and were all baptized of
him in the river of Jordan, confessing their sins.” Mark 1:4-5. Thus John made
“Ready a people prepared for the Lord.” Luke 1:17. Jesus se­lected His apostles
from the material thus prepared for him. Does any one believe that, when they
were baptized by John for the remission of sins, that they were still unpardoned
un­til baptized with the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost? If not, then the
baptism of the Holy Spirit was not for the remis­sion of their sins. Paul
informs us that there is “one Lord, one Faith and ONE Baptism.” Ephesians 4:5.
That this one baptism is for the remission of sins, we believe, is admitted by
all. All agree that the one Body, Spirit, Hope, Lord, Faith, Baptism, God, and
Father of all, spoken of in this connection, by the apostle to his Ephesian
brethren, are essential to the remission of sins, spiritual growth, and final
happiness of intelligent men and women in a land of Bibles. But those-who would
disparage the worth of baptism in water always insist that this one baptism is “
Holy Ghost baptism.” If we can dispel this delusion, we will have done much to
settle the unfortunate controversy, with re­gard to the design of baptism in
water. First, then, we would inquire of those who advocate this theory, and
believe them­selves to have received this one baptism in the Holy Spirit, why
they still submit to baptism with water in any form? Surely, if they have been
baptized with the El oly Ghost, that is one bap­tism; yes, verily, if their
theory be true, it is the one baptism; hence, if they subsequently add to this
another, in water, they have not one, but two baptisms, and Paul should have
said: “There is one Lord, one faith, and two Baptisms.” But we may be told that
“Cornelius was baptized with the Holy Spirit and was subsequently baptized with
water, in obedience to the com­mand of God through Peter, which proves that we
may have two baptisms.” If this proof is conclusive, will the objector be so
good as to assist Paul in extricating himself from the difficulty in which he is
placed by saying “There is one baptism.” If he will say, with us, that the
baptism of the Gentiles at the house of Cornelius, with the Holy Spirit, was a
miracle, such as has not occurred from that time to the present (of which we
have a record), and allow that, when Paul said “There is one baptism,” he
alluded to the baptism to which the taught of all nations are to submit (Matt.
xxvii): 19), and that was enjoined upon “every creature” who would believe the
gospel and be saved (Mark 16:16), which was connected with repentance for the
remission of sins (Acts 2:30), that now saves the people who rightly sub­mit to
it (1 Peter 3:21), and to which all must submit, or fail to enter the kingdom of
God (John 3:5), then we can see per­fect harmony in the Scriptures, and a
fitness in Paul’s language saying: “there is one baptism.” Again: When persons
were baptized with the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost, “they were all
filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues as the Spirit
gave them utterance.” Acts 2:4. There was an absolute impact of the Holy Spirit
with the human Spirit; and hence, being filled with the Holy Spirit, their
spirits were energized—inspired by the Holy Spirit, which took possession of
them—and through them spake forth the wonderful and mighty works of God in
lan­guages hitherto unknown to them. The same cause produces the same effect on
all occasions, if surrounded by the same cir­cumstances. Baptism with the Holy
Spirit, on the day of Pente­cost, enabled those who received it to speak with
tongues, hence, if we can find another case on record, we may expect the same
results; for of this law in nature God is as much the author as he is the author
of the Bible. Accordingly, when Cornelius and his house were baptized with it,
“they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God.”Acts 10:46. Now, as this
law ob­tained in the cases recorded, we must insist that those who claim to have
been baptized with the Holy Spirit, must, under its influence, speak in
languages before unknown to them; or give us some good reason why their cases
are exceptions to the rule. And, were they even to speak with other tongues,
this would not be conclusive, for although this always followed the baptism of
the Holy Spirit, and its absence would bar the claim to such baptism, yet there
were persons enabled to speak with tongues, and prophesy, who had not been
baptized with the Spirit. This we will see more clearly when we come to examine
the subject of spiritual gifts. As Paul tells us that there is “one baptism,” we
have only to show that baptism in water is enjoined upon all na­tions, and every
creature who believes the gospel and would be saved, in order to show that there
is now no such thing as Holy Spirit baptism, and hence, that there is not a man,
woman, or child, alive to-day who has been the subject of it. In the
com­mission, Jesus says, “Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, bap­tizing
them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.”
Matthew 28:19. Now, here is a baptism to which the taught of all nations are to
submit; for it would have been anomalous had Jesus commanded the apostles to
baptize them without, at least, an implied obligation on their part to submit to
it. Hence, if there be one baptism, and only one, this is THE baptism, besides
which there is not another. There is no escape from this POSITION. Then, the
only remaining question to be settled is, did the Saviour here allude to water
baptism? Does any one doubt it? If so, from whence comes their authority to
baptize with or in water, in the names here set forth; that is, in the names of
Father, Son, and Holy Ghost? And as Jesus was to baptize with the Holy Ghost,
and no human being ever had power to administer this baptism; and as the
apostles were commanded to administer one, it is certain that it was not Holy
Ghost baptism. Once more: This was to be administered in the name of the Holy
Ghost; and as it is not probable that the bap­tism of the Holy Ghost would have
been administered in its own name, it is not probable that this was that kind of
baptism. We have seen that there was an implied command in the commission to the
taught of all nations to submit to this baptism, and in keeping therewith we
find the apostles commanding per­sons to be baptized: “Repent, and be baptized,
every one of you.” Acts 2:38. “And he commanded them to be baptized in the name
of the Lord.” Acts 10:48. The baptism of the Holy Spirit was not a command but a
promise. “And being assem­bled together with them, commanded them that they
should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which,
saith He, ye have heard of me.” What promise? “For John truly baptized with
water, but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.” Acts
1:4-5. As baptism in water is a command, and the baptism of the Holy Spirit is a
promise and not a command, it follows, that when the apostles commanded baptism,
they meant water baptism. Paul speaks of himself and Roman brethren as having
been buried with Christ by baptism, and finally tells them, “ye have obeyed from
the heart the form of doctrine which was delivered you; being then made free
from sin.” Romans 6:17-18. When were they made free from sin? When they obeyed
the form of doctrine. What form of doctrine? He was speaking of a baptism in
submission to which they obeyed, and were then made free from sin. Was this Holy
Ghost baptism? No; there was no obedience in that —it was a promise, not a
command. Promises may be enjoyed, but can not be obeyed. Commands are to be
obeyed in order that the promises connected therewith, if any, may be enjoyed.
Water is the only element in which the Romans were com­manded to be baptized;
and hence baptism in it was the only baptism they could have obeyed in order
that they might be made free from sin. This form of doctrine we have already
ex­amined. But it is insisted that we must have the baptism of the Holy Spirit
as evidence of pardon and acceptance with God. Then we ask had the apostles, who
received it on the day of Pente­cost, no evidence of their acceptance during
their personal inter­course with the Saviour prior to that day? And did it give
evi­dence to Cornelius of his acceptance before he obeyed the gos­pel? Now, we
propose to show that persons were pardoned under the gospel dispensation, and
had reliable evidence of the fact, who had not been baptized with the Holy
Spirit. Let us see. “Then Philip went down to the city of Samaria and preached
Christ unto them.” Acts 8:5. “When they believed Philip preaching the things
concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized
both men and women.” Ver. 12. Now are they saved? Does any one doubt it? Do the
advocates of modern Holy Ghost baptism command men and women to be baptized,
whom they regard as unsaved, when they have been baptized? Nay, verily! So far
from it, that they believe them pardoned before baptism. Then, accord­ing to
their own theory, these persons were saved. If men are saved by faith only,
before baptism they believed and were therefore saved; and if it required faith
and baptism, they had believed and been baptized and were still saved. So they
were saved in any aspect of the case. But they had still further evi­dence of
pardon. Jesus had said “He that believeth and is bap­tized shall be saved.” Mark
16:16. This language is not ambig­uous, we can not fail to understand it. Luke
says they did be­lieve and were baptized, hence, if Jesus spake truly when He
is­sued the proclamation, and Luke correctly recorded what they did, it follows,
unmistakably, that they were pardoned, and had the word of the Lord as evidence
of the fact. Were they yet baptized with the Holy Ghost? “Now when the apostles
which were at Jerusalem, heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they
sent unto them Peter and John, who when they were come down prayed for them,
that they might receive the Holy Ghost, for as yet he was fallen upon none of
them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.” Acts 8:14; Acts
8:16. While it is true that the baptism of the Holy Spirit was not the measure
of it which Peter and John designed to confer upon the disciples at Samaria, yet
the context clearly shows that it had not fallen upon any of them in any form,
they having only received what ordinarily followed adoption into the family of
God; still they were pardoned—saved beyond a peradventure. Then if the
Samaritans could and did believe the gospel, and be bap­tized in the name of the
Lord Jesus, and have His word as evi­dence that they were saved without the
baptism of the Holy Spirit, why may we not do the same thing? If any one
supposes himself to have been baptized with the Holy Spirit in order to his
conversion, then we would like to know whether or not he supposes himself to
have been converted as were the Samari­tans? Should he claim to have been
pardoned in a different way, then we would inquire how many ways of pardon are
there for the same class of persons? But we have not yet found the purposes for
which the bap­tism of the Holy Spirit was administered in the cases of which we
have a record. Soon after His baptism, Jesus selected twelve men, to whom it was
His purpose to commit the first proclama­tion of the gospel which was to be the
power of God for the sal­vation of men; these he required to forsake parents,
friends, oc­cupations—every thing—and follow Him, that their minds might be free
to receive the instruction necessary to a thorough prepa­ration for the work
assigned them. For three and a half years He ceased not to instruct them in the
things pertaining to His kingdom; and though they had left all to follow one so
poor that He had not where to lay His weary head, He comforted them, saying: “I
appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath ap­pointed unto me; that ye may
eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve
tribes of Israel.” Luke 22:29-30. Knowing the events that were soon to occur in
their presence—that He should be put to death, and go to His Father, leaving
them to plead His cause in the midst of persecu­tion and death—He faithfully
told them of all that should befall them, but that He would remember them in
prayer to His Father: “I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another
Comforter, that he may abide with you forever: even the Spirit of truth; whom
the world can not receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye
know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.” John 14:16-17. This
Comforter was not, like Him, to be taken from them, but to remain with them
forever. But said He: “Because I have said these things unto you, sorrow hath
filled your heart. Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you
that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but
if I depart’ I will send him unto you.” John 16:6-7. Why was it expedient for
them that He should go away? “When the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto
you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father,
he shall tes­tify of me.” John 15:26. They “trusted that it had been he which
should have redeemed Israel.” Luke 24:41. But when He was crucified their hopes
died with Him, and, in despair, they went, each one, to his former occupation.
When He gave them proof that He had risen from the dead, they took courage, and
determined to await the promised power from on high. But when the Holy Spirit
came from heaven, bearing to them the glorious tidings of His coronation as King
of kings and Lord of lords, it filled their hearts with joy and gladness; yea,
they re­joiced to know that He was at His Father’s right hand, as their adorable
High Priest and Mediator, and would there remain to make intercession for His
children, until His foes should be­come His footstool. Truly did the Comforter,
on that day, bear witness of Him, for then were they bold to declare that he was
“by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise
of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear.” Acts
2:33. Again: Notwithstanding He had been with them, and had faithfully
instructed them in the great scheme of man’s salvation still they were human,
and liable to forget the important lessons He had given them; hence He told them
that “the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my
name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance,
whatsoever I have said unto you.” John 14:26. Though He had many things to say
to them which, in their weakness, they were not able to bear, and which, for
their good, He graciously declined then to reveal, he assured them that “when
he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth” (John
16:13); and thus He prepared them to eventually receive what He could not then
tell them. Once more: their commission required them to “preach the gospel to
every creature,” to “teach all nations.” How could these ignorant Galileans
preach the gospel among all nations, to every creature in the numerous languages
then spoken? “There were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every
nation under heaven.” Acts 2:5. Truly, here was a diffi­culty. But they were to
“tarry at Jerusalem until endued with power from on high.” This power they were
to receive after that the Holy Ghost came upon them. This completed the
prep­arations. How could they then err? They could not despair, for the Spirit
gave them comfort from heaven They could not for­get any thing, for the Spirit
was to strengthen their memory. What Jesus lacked of perfecting their
instructions the Spirit sup­plied by guiding them in all truth. Were there many
nations and divers languages? The baptism of the Holy Spirit enabled them to
speak to every man in his own tongue wherein he was born, and thus they were
enabled to preach to every creature among all nations; and the Comforter through
them reproved the world of sin, of righteousness, and of judgment. Only one
thing more and the scheme is complete. Other sheep have I which are not of this
fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be
one fold, and one shepherd.” John 10:16. But how shall this be done? The Jews
then, like the Calvinists now regarded themselves as the favored few for whom
Jesus died, and thought it not meet to take the children’s bread and give it to
dogs. Hence, it took a miracle to convince Peter that it was his duty to preach
the gospel to the Gentiles. Six of his Jewish brethren accompanied him to the
house of Cornelius, where God poured out the Holy Ghost on the Gentiles as on
the disciples at Jerusalem on Pentecost. “And they of the circumci­sion which
believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the
Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. For they heard them
speak with tongues and magnify God.” Acts 10:45-46. This satisfied those of the
Jews who were with Peter and witnessed it; and when he re­hearsed the whole
matter from the beginning to the apostles and brethren who were at Jerusalem,
“they held their peace and glo­rified God, saying, Then hath God also to the
Gentiles granted repentance unto life.” Acts 11:18. Thus we see a necessity for
God to baptize the Gentiles at the house of Cornelius with the Holy Spirit—not
to convert those who received it, or in any way benefit them—but that the Jews
might “perceive that God is no respecter of persons: but in every nation he that
feareth him and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.” Acts 10:34-35. We
wish, in conclusion, to call attention to the striking differ­ence in the forms
of speech used with reference to water bap­tism and Holy Spirit baptism. “Go
teach all nations, baptizing them.” “Preach the gospel to every creature; he
that believeth and IS baptized shall be saved.” Every creature, among all
na­tions, who is capable of hearing and believing the gospel, may be baptized
with the baptism connected with faith as a condi­tion of salvation. How very
different the style when speaking of Holy Spirit baptism! “He shall baptize you
with the Holy Ghost and with fire.” “Ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost
not many days hence.” When speaking of that coming down to us and de­signed to
be perpetual, the style is all nations, every creature; but when speaking of
Holy Spirit baptism it is you, ye, and this is the extent of it. Kind reader, is
not this significant? THE GIFTS OF THE HOLY SPIRIT.

Speaking of the Son of God, John the Baptist said: “God giv­eth not the Spirit
by measure unto him.” John 3:34. This lan­guage clearly implies, as stated
elsewhere, that God gave the Spirit by measure to others. Indeed, it may be
safely said that Jesus was the only person who ever possessed the Spirit without
measure—who was always speaking and doing the things sug­gested by it. The
prophets and apostles spake and acted under it occasionally, He always. But we
have seen that there was a baptism with the Spirit which was a measure of it
sufficient to temporarily possess and inspire those who received it. This
measure of the Spirit was the promise of the Father, and was given by Him
through His Son to the disciples on the day of Pentecost’ and to the Gentiles at
the house of Cornelius. See Acts 11:17. But we must be careful that we do not
confound the Spirit with the gifts of the Spirit. The inspiration and energizing
influences of the Spirit are not the Spirit. But there was an­other measure of
the Spirit which was capable of imparting ex­traordinary gifts to the disciples,
which we propose to examine for a time. That this measure of the Spirit was
different from the baptism of the Holy Spirit, is evident from the fact that the
lat­ter always required a divine administrator, while the measure under
consideration was imparted by the laying on of apostolic hands. That this
measure of the Spirit was different from the or­dinary measure received by all
Christians is clear from several considerations. First: “It was imparted by the
apostles through the imposition of their hands, as before stated, while the
ordi­nary measure was received by the hearing of faith. See Galatians 3:2.
Second: Miraculous power was always imparted by it, and manifested by those who
received it, while no such manifesta­tions attend the ord nary measure. Third:
.\t Samaria and other places, persons believed the gospel and were baptized,
and, therefore, enjoyed the ordinary measure of the Spirit for some time before
this measure was imparted to them by the apostles. The power to impart this
measure of the Spirit was what Simon sought to purchase with money, and was
called by Peter t e gift of God” (Acts 8:20), because God gave it to the
apostles, who alone possessed it. Though this power of imparting the Spirit by
the imposition of apostolic hands was the gift of God, it was neither the Spirit
nor the gift of the Spirit. And the Spirit itself, though given in different
measures, at different times, to different persons, in different ways, for
different purposes, was always the gift of God and the same Spirit. There is one
Spirit, and only one; hence, Paul says: “There are diversities of gifts, but the
same Spirit.” 1 Corinthians 12:4. We have seen that baptism with the Holy Spirit
required a divine administrator, hence on the day of Pentecost and at the house
of Cornelius it came from heaven in its amplitude—”the self-same Spirit dividing
to every man severally as he would” the measures and manifestations ap­propriate
to each. The phrase “the gift of the Holy Ghost” occurs Acts 2:38; Acts 10:45,
and in both places must be understood as equivalent to “the Holy Spirit as a
gift,” yet we are persuaded that the same measure of the Spirit is not alluded
to in both places. “While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on
all them which heard the word. And they of the circumcision which believed were
astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was
poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost; for they heard them speak with tongues
and magnify God. Acts 10:44-46. That this was that measure called the bap­tism
of the Holy Spirit is plain from the fact that when Peter re­hearsed the matter
before his brethren, he said: “As I began to speak the Holy Ghost fell on them
as on us at the beginning. en remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he
said John indeed baptized with water, but ye shall be baptized with the Holy
Ghost” (Acts 11:15-16); thus quoting the language of the Lord concerning baptism
with the Holy Ghost as applicable to this event. But it was not until after the
Holy Spirit had been poured out on the disciples “at the beginning,” on the day
of Pentecost, that the multitude came together, to whom Peter promised the Holy
Ghost as a gift; hence, it could not have been the baptism of it to which he
referred when he said: “Ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.” Acts 2:38.
But did Peter here mean the Holy Spirit itself, in some measure of it, or did he
mean that they should receive something imparted to them by the Spirit? Paul
says: “There are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit.” Peter did not say:
“Ye shall receive a gift, some gift, or any gift of the Spirit, but the gift of
the Holy Spirit.” He uses the singular number and definite article; hence we
conclude he must be understood to mean some measure of the Holy Spirit it­ But
to what measure of the Spirit did the apostle allude? We have seen that he did
not allude to the baptism of it; then it only remains for us to inquire whether
he alluded to the ordinary measure which always follows as a necessary result of
adoption into God’s family; or did he mean to promise them an extraordi­nary
endowment of it peculiar to the apostolic times? We can not regard it very
important to settle this matter in favor of one question or the other. All agree
that there were extraordinary endowments of the Spirit conferred upon those, or
at least many of them, who believed and obeyed the gospel in the apostolic
times; and all agree that all Christians, from then until now, re­ceive the
Spirit of adoption—that all Christians may unite in saying: “The love of God is
shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us.” Romans 5:5.
While good and true men differ as to how the Spirit is received, all agree that
it is received and in some sense dwells in every Christian. It is not important,
therefore, whether Peter referred to this or that measure of the Spirit; yet it
may not be amiss to state that, as the apostles had power to communicate the
Spirit in an ex­traordinary measure to such as believed and obeyed the gospel
under their ministry, and as they deemed it so important that the primitive
Christians should thus extraordinarily receive it, as to send Peter and John
from Jerusalem to Samaria to confer it upon the disciples first made there, we
are inclined to think that Peter intended to promise something more than the
ordinary measure of the Spirit to those he addressed at the beginning. Surely,
it was as important that the first disciples made at Jerusalem should receive
the extra-ordinary endowment as it was that those of Samaria, Ephesus, and other
places should receive it. Nay, more; there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews,
devout men, from every nation under heaven, and it is fair to suppose that some
of every nation were converted on that occasion; and it is more than probable
that it was through these men that the commission was carried out. The apostles
preached to all nations on that day; and when the persons there converted
returned to their homes, bearing the gospel to every creature, the commission
was carried out—”their sound went into all the earth and their words unto the
ends of the world.” Romans 10:18. Surely, if these gifts of the Spirit were for
the confirmation of the Word in Jerusalem, Sa­maria, and Ephesus at its first
proclamation, it was not less important that these converts, who were to go into
all the world with the gospel, should be able to confirm its truth when they
first preached it in their respective countries. Hence, we con­clude that Peter
promised the Spirit to such as would believe and obey the gospel there in as
ample measure as he had power to impart it to them. Why should he not thus amply
bestow it upon them, having the power to do so? and why should he not thus amply
promise it to them? Did he wish to bestow it upon them without apprising them of
it, that he might afford them an agreeable surprise? But as a settlement of this
matter could have no practical bearing upon our investigation, the subject is
not worth debating, and we will not consume further space with it. Our purpose
is, more particularly, to show that there were extra-ordinary manifestations of
the Spirit in the apostolic times, what they were, and how they were conferred,
that they were to cease, have ceased, how and when they ceased, and
conse­quently need not be expected now. Jesus said, in the final commission: “Go
ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that
believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be
damned. And these signs shall follow them that believe, In my name shall they
cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; they shall take up serpents;
and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands
on the sick and they shall recover.” Mark 16:15-18. By this we see that signs
were not confined to the apostles alone, but were to follow them that believe.
This has been a sweet morsel to infi­dels from the time miracles ceased until
now. The Mormon claims to exhibit these signs now; and he sneeringly tells you
that you do not believe your own book. It says: “He that be­lieveth and is
baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.” You believe
that; oh yes! but when it says “these signs shall follow them that believe,” you
do not believe that. Yes, we believe it all; but we will not allow an infidel to
divide and interpret it for us. We were once asked by an infidel why these signs
do not fol­low them that believe. Jesus said they should follow them that
believe. Persons profess to believe, and still we do not see the signs
following. What is the reason? Until such persons learn to discriminate between
things ordinary and extraordinary—un­til they can “rightly divide the word of
truth”—it will ever be unintelligible to them. They never will understand it,
and therefore never will have any well-grounded faith in it. Nor do we think it
at all strange that persons should fail to understand the subject of the
Spirit’s influence, and therefore teach that it is enveloped in mystery—entirely
incomprehensible to finite minds, who mix up the baptism, gifts, reception, and
operation of the Holy Spirit. Nor is it strange that they fail to understand us
and continue to misrepresent our teaching; for when we deny them the baptism of
the Holy Spirit, which they have failed to distin­guish from the operator of the
Spirit, and therefore regard them as one and the same thing, it is natural that
they should under stand us to deny the operation of the Spirit in denying the
bap­tism of it. But Jesus said these signs should follow them that believe. Did
they follow? At Samaria “the people with one ac­cord gave heed unto those things
which Philip spake, hearing and seeing the miracles which he did. For unclean
spirits, crying with loud voice, came out of many that were possessed with them:
and many taken with palsies, and that were lame, were healed. And there was
great joy in that city.” Acts 8:6­8. Here we find that the very things which
Jesus said should follow, really did follow. We next propose to show that these
signs which Jesus said should follow them that believe, and which we have seen
did follow, were among the gifts of the Spirit. What were the gifts? “To one is
given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the
same Spirit; to another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of
healing by the same Spirit; to another the working of miracles; to another
prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues;
to another the interpretation of tongues: but all these worketh that one and the
self-same Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will.” 1 Corinthians
12:8-11. Thus we see that these gifts of the Spirit were the same things which
Jesus said should follow them that believe, and which we have found, at Samaria
and other places, did follow. Before leaving this quotation it may be well to
remark that no one man possessed all the gifts, but they were given, one to
this, and another to that man—”the self-same Spirit dividing to every man
severally” the gifts appro­priate to each. How, then, was the Spirit imparted by
which these gifts were conferred? As the baptism of the Holy Spirit enabled
those who received it to speak with tongues—and speaking with tongues is here
said to be one of the gifts of the Spirit—is it true that all these
miraculously-endowed persons were baptized with the Spirit? We think not. The
baptism of the Spirit was the gift of the Father (Acts 2:4), sent from heaven by
the Son. No human being was ever entrusted with the administration of it; but
when these spiritual gifts were to be manifested, “then laid they their hands on
them, and they received the Holy Ghost. And when Simon saw that through laying
on of the apostles’ hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money,
saying, Give me also this power, that on whomsoever I lay hands, he may receive
the Holy Ghost.” Acts 8:17-19. Then it was through the laying on of the
apostles’ hands that God gave the Holy Ghost to believers, by which these
extraordinary gifts of the Spirit were conferred. And it is expressly said that
Simon “had neither part nor lot in this matter” (Acts 8:21); and we suppose he
had as much part and lot in it as had any one else save the apostles. That these
spiritual gifts were uniformly imparted by the lay­ing on of apostolic hands, is
made probable by the fact that the presence of an apostle was indispensable to
the reception of them. Had it been possible for the apostles to have imparted
these gifts by prayer, it occurs to us that a useless trip from Jeru­salem to
Samaria was imposed upon Peter and John. Certainly, their prayers would have
been as efficacious in that city as in this: they would have been addressed to
God, who could hear in one place and answer in another—and did so in numerous
instances (see Matthew 8:5-13). He was God afar off as well as near by. Paul
said to his brethren at Rome: “I long to see you, that I may impart unto you
some spiritual gift.” Romans 1:11. This shows, most clearly, that, however much
Paul desired to impart spiritual gifts, he had not the power until he could
visit those to whom he would impart them. When he passed through the upper
coasts of Asia and came to Ephesus, he found certain disciples, of whom he
inquired: “Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye be­lieved?” By this it seems
to have been customary for the apos­tles to impart this endowment of the Spirit
to the disciples wher­ever they met them, unless they had previously received
it. Hence, finding that these disciples were entirely ignorant of it, and that
they had been baptized with John’s baptism after its validity had ceased, he
instructed them in the way of the Lord more perfectly, after which “they were
baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had laid his hands upon
them the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.”
Acts 19:5-6. Then, whether this endowment was ever imparted otherwise than by
the laying on of apostolic hands or not, it is certain that they did impart it
in this way; and we have no account of its ever being imparted in any other way;
and they could not impart it without being present, where their hands, at least,
could have been laid on. From this stand-point it is easy to see when and how
these signs, or spiritual gifts, ceased. As none but the apostles, as
in­struments in the hands of God, had power to impart this endow­ment of the
Spirit to those who believed and obeyed the gospel, it is obvious that when they
died, the power to work miracles necessarily ceased to be conferred upon any
person; and when all died who had received the power at the hands of the
apostles, they, of course, ceased to be performed. That none but the apos­tles
had power to impart that measure of the Holy Ghost by which these gifts were
conferred, is plain from the fact that “when the apostles which were at
Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them
Peter and John: who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might
receive the Holy Ghost.” Acts 8:14-15. Philip, it seems had the power to
exercise the gifts of the Spirit, but, not being an apostle, he could not
transfer this power to any one else; hence the necessity of sending Peter and
John to them for that purpose—the apostles alone possessing such power. As we
have said that this Philip, who preached the gospel to the Samaritans, was not
an apostle, and as one of the apostles was named Philip, it may be well for us
to turn aside long enough to examine this matter a little. The New Testament
clearly speaks of three persons named Philip:

First, Philip, the brother of Herod, whose wife was Herodias, at the request of
whom Herod had John the Baptist’s head taken off. This Philip was “tetrarch of
Iturea and of the region of Tra­chonitis.” Luke iii : 1.

Second. The apostle Philip, of whom we have an account as one of the
twelve—Matthew 10:3; Mark 3:18; Luke 6:14; and as one of the eleven, after the
fall of Judas, and before the election of Matthias—Acts 1:13. This Philip “was
of Bethsaida of Gali­lee.” John 12:21.

Third. Philip the evangelist, who lived in Cesarea, into whose house Paul and
company entered; and who “had four daughters, virgins, which did prophesy.” Acts
21:8-9. He “was one of the seven.” Acts 21:8. What seven? “Then the twelve
called the multitude of the disciples unto them, and said, It is not reason that
we should leave the word of God, and serve tables. Wherefore, brethren, look ye
out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, and
whom we may appoint over this business. But we will give ourselves continually
to prayer, and to the ministry of the word. And the saying pleased the whole
multitude: and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost,
and Philip, and Procho­rus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolas a
pros­elyte of Antioch; whom they set before the apostles.” Acts 6:2-6.

Could any thing be more plain? The apostle Philip was one of the twelve who
declined to leave the ministry of the Word, and commanded the selection of seven
others from among the disciples, one of whom was Philip; hence the language: ’We
en­tered into the house of Philip the evangelist, which was one of the seven;
and abode with him.” Acts 21:8. Following up the history of these seven from
their appointment in the sixth chap­ter of Acts, we find in the seventh chapter
an account of the death of Stephen. The second verse of the eighth chapter
speaks of his burial; then, in close connection, the fifth verse de­clares that
“Philip went down to the city of Samaria, and preached Christ unto them.” Then
can we be mistaken in say­ing that this was Philip the evangelist, but not the
apostle Phi­lip? “Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that
Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John: who,
when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy
Ghost (for as yet he was fallen upon none of them; only they were baptized in
the name of the Lord Jesus). Then laid they their hands on them, and they
received the Holy Ghost.” Acts 8:14-17. Had this Philip, who was already at
Samaria, been an apostle, why the ne­cessity of sending Peter and John from
Jerusalem to Samaria that they might impart the Holy Spirit to the Samaritan
disciples? Surely, one apostle could have done this as well as others. Are our
readers sufficiently acquainted with the Samaritan preacher? then we will return
to the examination of spiritual gifts. These gifts were not given as toys, to be
sported with by those to whom they were given as they might think proper. Even
the apostles themselves possessed them only to a limited extent. When Paul was
shipwrecked on the island called Melita, he gathered a bundle of sticks and laid
them on the fire, and there came a viper out of the heat and fastened on his
hand; yet he shook off the beast into the fire, and felt no harm. Acts xxviii :
3, 5. Did Jesus say “they shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly
thing, it shall not hurt them?” Surely, the ever-faith ful Son of God remembered
this promise to His humble, perse­cuted disciple just then. But this was not
all—Jesus further said: “They shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall
recover.” Hence he not only protected Paul’s person from harm, but “it came to
pass that the father of Publius lay sick of a fever and of a bloody flux: to
whom Paul entered in, and prayed, and laid his hands on him, and healed him. So
when this was done, others also, which had diseases in the island, came, and
were healed.” Acts xxvii): 8, 9. By this we learn that Paul possessed in an
emi­nent degree the power to heal the sick, which is enumerated among the
spiritual gifts; nevertheless he informs us that he left Trophimus at Miletum
sick.2 Timothy 4:20. Why would Paul leave his friend and traveling companion
sick, having the power to heal him? Surely, if he could have done so, he would
have cured him. The reason why he did not, can only be found in the fact that he
only possessed such power when the glory of God would be exhibited by its
exercise. But for what were these spiritual gifts bestowed upon the primitive
disciples? After Jesus had given to the apostles their commission to preach the
gospel to every creature, promising salvation to those who would believe and
obey it, and assuring them that these signs (gifts of the Spirit) should follow
them that believe, we learn that “they went forth and preached every­where, the
Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following.” Mark
16:20. Then these signs were for the confirmation of the Word at its first
proclamation. Hence Paul said to the Romans: “I long to see you, that I may
impart unto you some spiritual gift, to the end ye may be established, that is,
that I may be comforted together with you by the mutual faith both of you and
me.” Romans 1:11-12. In the infantile state of the church, when it was dependent
upon oral instructions for all things pertaining to life and godli­ness, the
Lord graciously attended, and confirmed the Word preached by these extraordinary
demonstrations of the Spirit. Hence, says Paul to the Corinthians: “And I,
brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom
declaring unto you the testimony of God; for I determined not to know any thing
among you, save Jesus Christ, and Him cruci­fied. And I was with you in
weakness, and in fear, and in much trembling. And my speech and my preaching was
not with en­ticing words of man’s wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and
of power; that your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the
power of God.” 1 Corinthians 2 : l-5. Persons some­times say of a preacher, “He
is so smart that he can make error appear as truth—he would make you believe a
crow is white as a swan were he to make the effort.” Though this is not very
com­plimentary to the intelligence of the people, the devil sometimes seeks thus
to catch away the seed sown, by making the people believe that it is the
shrewdness of the preacher, and not the truth, which makes his positions look
plausible. The apostle made no effort to fascinate and charm the Corinthians by
his el­oquence, excellency of speech; nor by his learning, enticing words of
man’s wisdom. As to these, he was with them in weak­ness. But that they might be
established and their faith un­shaken, his preaching was confirmed by signs
following, here called demonstration of the Spirit, and of power that their
faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God. When Jesus
ascended up on high, he led captivity cap­tive and gave gifts unto men. How did
he give these gifts, and what were they? By the Spirit he prepared some men to
be “apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and
teachers.” And what were these for? “For the per­fecting of the saints for the
work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ.” And how long were
these gifts to re­main? “Till we all come in the unity of the faith and of the
knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man [perfect Church], unto the
measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ; that we henceforth be no more
children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine.”
Ephesians 4:11-14. Paul tells us “Whether there be prophecies, they shall fail;
whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall
vanish away.” 1 Corinthians 13:8. These were among the spiritual gifts, and it
is here expressly stated that they should have an end; and we have clearly seen
just how and when they did end. Having a perfect record of these signs given by
inspiration of the Holy Spirit, there is no necessity far them to be repeated
now; and to wish to see them, is but to con­fess our want of confidence in the
Bible—virtually saying, “I know, God therein says they occurred, but I am not
sure the rec­ord is true: I would prefer to see them myself.” “If the word
spoken by angels was steadfast, and every transgression and dis­obedience
received a just recompense of reward, how shall we escape, if we neglect so
great salvation, which at the first be­gan to be spoken by the Lord, and was
confirmed unto us by them that heard Him; God, also, bearing them witness, both
with signs and wonders, and divers miracles and gifts of the Holy Ghost,
according to his own will?” Hebrews 2:2-4. Kind reader, let us ponder well this
soul-stirring question. This great salvation first spoken by the Lord, was
confirmed by them that heard him; God, also, bearing them witness with signs,
and won­ders, and divers miracles and gifts of the Holy Spirit according to His
will; and they are written, as were the signs of Jesus, that ye might believe
that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God, and that believing ye might have life
through His name. Oh! then, how shall we escape if we neglect it? As surely as
every transgres­sion and disobedience, under the law, received a just
recom­pense of reward, so surely will we be rewarded according to our works. THE
OPERATION OF THE HOLY SPIRIT.

That it is necessary that man be converted in order to the en­joyment of the
favor of God is not a matter of controversy with any save Universalists; and we
are not quite sure we could do any good by stopping to debate the question with
them just now. They say, they believe the Bible to be a revelation from God, and
therefore true. It says “These shall go away into ever­ lasting punishment; but
the righteous into life eternal.” Matthew 25:46. “The hour is coming, in the
which all that are in the graves shall hear His voice, and shall come forth;
they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life, and they that have done
evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.” John 5:28-29. “The rich man also
died, and was buried; and in hell he lifted up his eyes, being in torments.”
Luke 16:22-23. And what more? “The fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable,
and murder­ers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars,
shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone.”
Revelation 21:8. These are enough for us; and if they will not suffice for those
who profess to believe the Bible, then they would not be persuaded, though one
should arise from the dead. That all intelligent men and women, in a land of
Bibles must be converted or lost, we will assume as a settled fact. That the
Spirit does operate in conversion, is admitted by all who are expected to be
benefitted by our labors; hence, we offer no argument to prove that which no one
denies. Though we have sometimes, nay, often, heard of a people who deny the
op­eration of the Holy Spirit in conversion, we have never met a single man who
so taught; nor have we ever read any thing from the pen of any man who had so
written. Lest, therefore, we waste our ammunition in “shelling the woods” we
will wait for the appearance of the enemy, before we make war upon him. Nor do
we propose any examination of what the Spirit can or can not do. The questions
which concern us are, What does it do, and how does it do it? We have seen, in
another department of our work, that on the day of Pentecost God established
upon the earth a system of government, variously styled, the kingdom of God, the
kingdom of heaven, the kingdom of God’s dear Son, the Church of God, the temple
of God, the house of God, the household of faith, the body of Christ, etc.
Concerning this organization, we are now prepared to see: First, That those who
established it were directly instructed by the Holy Spirit. Second, That, from
the time of its organization, it became the dwelling-place of the Holy Spirit
through all succeeding time; and, Third, That it is the medium through which the
Holy Spirit puts forth its power for the conversion and salvation of man. To an
examination of these propositions, in their order, we solicit the attention of
the reader for a time. First, then, that those who established it were directly
in­structed by the Holy Spirit. This has been so thoroughly exam­ined already
that it need not detain us long. Still it is important to remember that “they
were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as
the Spirit gave them utter­ance.” Acts 2:4. Then their teaching was but the
teaching of the Holy Spirit through them. Every announcement made, every
condition imposed, every blessing promised, and every punishment threatened, was
spoken by the Holy Spirit through men selected for the work, and was made
binding on men here and ratified in heaven. Second, that it became the
dwelling-place of the Holy Spirit through all succeeding time is apparent from
several considera­tions: 1. “The body without the Spirit is dead.” James 2:26.
“The body is the Church.” Colossians 1:18; Colossians 1:24. Then if there was
ever a time when the Spirit was not in the body of Christ or Church it was
surely a dead body. 2. When Paul said, “There is one body and one Spirit,” it is
next to certain that he meant to teach that there is one body, and one Spirit in
this body. 3. In speaking of it as a temple or building, and the disci­ples as
living stones in it, the apostle says: “Know ye not that ye are the temple of
God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you.” 1 Corinthians 3:16. 4. Jesus
said to the disciples before His death, “I will pray the Father, and He shall
give you another Comforter, that He may abide with you forever.” John 14:16.
“The Comforter is the Holy Ghost.” Ver. 26. From these Scriptures it is apparent
that when the Holy Spirit came, and the Church or body was orga­nized by its
directions, it took up its abode in it; not for a season only, but as an abiding
guest and Comforter forever; and thus it is that the disciples are “Builded
together, for an habitation of God through the Spirit.” Ephesians 2:22. Third:
We come now to an examination of our third proposi­tion, namely, that the
Church, thus organized by the Spirit, is not only its dwelling-place, but is the
medium through which it puts forth its power for the conversion and salvation of
man. The kingdom or church of God, and the kingdom of Satan, are the great
antagonistic governments or powers of earth. They are engaged in a perpetual war
against each other; and each is seeking to capture the subjects of the other.
They do not discharge their prisoners on parole; but each one taken is forthwith
made a recruit in the ranks of the captors. Paul mi­nutely describes the armor
furnished the soldiers of the cross in this great struggle. After describing the
character of the enemy, he says: “Wherefore take unto you the whole armor of
God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to
stand. Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on
the breast-plate of righteousness, and your feet shod with the preparation of
the gospel of peace; above all, taking the shield of faith wherewith ye shall be
able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked. And take the helmet of
salva­tion, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.” Ephesians
6:13-17. There are many valuable thoughts suggested by the different parts of
this armor, which we have not time to no­tice. We wish to call attention to the
fact, that the disciples are to don this armor and use it; not lay it on the
center-table as a keepsake, but use it. That this spiritual war is both
offensive and defensive is suggested by the fact that there is both a sword and
a shield belonging to the armor. This is for protection against the darts of the
enemy, that is for making wounds upon him. He that enters the army taking only
the shield, that he may pro­tect himself, while others fight the enemy, makes
rather a worth­less soldier. Soldiers of the cross are required to take the
whole armor of God, that they may “fight a good fight,” for their own salvation,
and the salvation of others. The Word of God is the sword of the Spirit, and the
disciples are to use it in order to rescue their fellow-man from the enemy, and
enlist him as a sol­dier against him—that he may be delivered from the power of
darkness and translated into the kingdom of God’s dear Son. Are we letting the
sword of the Spirit rust in its scabbard? “Ye are the salt of the earth; if the
salt have lost his savor, wherewith shall it be salted? It is thenceforth good
for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men.” Matthew
5:13.

The Holy Spirit, dwelling in the body, operates through its members with its
teaching upon such material as comes within the range of its influence. The
teaching of the Spirit, put forth through the members of the body, is both
theoretic and practical. The gospel is the power of God unto salvation to every
one that believeth; and he has ordained that it shall be preached to all
nations—every creature, that he may learn the theory by which God proposes to
save him. But this is not all of it. There must be a practical exhibition of the
Christian religion in the life of the disciples; hence Jesus said to them: “Let
your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify
your Father which is in heaven.” Matthew 5:16. That this be spiritual light, the
good works must be those “which God hath before or­dained that we should walk in
them.” Ephesians 2:10. Every thing necessary to a thorough exhibition of the
Christian religion, both theoretically and practically, is comprehended in the
Scriptures, “Given by inspiration of God,” for they are “profitable for
doc­trine, for reproof, for instruction in righteousness; that the man of God
may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.” 2 Timothy 3:16-17.
The man of God is designed to be perfect, and the Scriptures given by
inspiration- were designed to make him so. They not only furnish him, but
thoroughly furnish him, not only to some good works but to all good works. Does
it not follow, then, that there is nothing left discretionary with man? Nay, if
there be any work to which the man of God is not thoroughly furnished by the
Scriptures, does it not follow that it is not a good work? “As His divine power
hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the
knowl­edge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue.” 2 Peter 1:3.

But we have seen that the promised Comforter was to re­prove the world of sin,
righteousness, and judgment. That this Comforter was the Holy Spirit, and that
it did come to the disci­ples, and was received by them, we have already seen.
That it did reprove, and is reproving, the world of sin’ righteousness, and
judgment is a fact so generally admitted that we need not stop to offer proof of
it. The controverted question is, How did it do it? To this question we will
give our attention for a time. Did the Spirit come from heaven to the world?
What do we un­derstand the Saviour to mean by the term world in the passage
under consideration? Certainly, it will be conceded that He did not mean the
material universe, but that He meant the wicked people who committed sin of
which to be reproved, in contrast with the disciples. Then was the Holy Spirit
given directly to the wicked, that it might enter their hearts and reprove them?
No; it was promised to the disciples. Jesus said to them: ’1 will pray the
Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you
forever; even the Spirit of truth, whom the world can not receive, because it
seeth him not, neither knoweth him; but ye know him, for he dwelleth with you
and shall be in you.” John 14:16-17. Then, the Spirit was not only promised to
the disciples to dwell with and be in them, but it is said, in great plainness,
that the world, which was to be re­proved by it, could not receive it. On the
day of Pentecost the promised Spirit came, and through Peter used words
calculated to convey to those who heard just such ideas as were necessary to be
communicated to them to make them sensible of the sin of which they were to be
reproved. Believing Jesus to be an im­postor, they had crucified and slain Him;
but Peter used such arguments as convinced them that in this they were mistaken.
At the close of his speech he said: “Therefore, let all the house of Israel know
assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord
and Christ. Now, when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart.” Acts
2:36-37. This is all plain. The Spirit reproved them through Peter’s words which
they understood and believed, and thus operated sensibly upon them—cut them to
the heart. When God created man, He gave him an organization capable of
receiving just such impres­sions as He designed should be made upon him. He
placed within him a mind capable of appreciating COMMUNICATIONS from his Creator
and his fellowman; and He gave him certain senses through which to receive such
impressions as are necessary to the accomplishment of his mission on the earth.
Hence, we con­clude that, in order for man to receive instructions from any
source, they must be embodied in words adapted to his compre­hension and
directed to the mind through the avenues which God has opened to it. In keeping
with this arrangement, we find that in every period of man’s existence, when God
wished to communicate an idea to him, He embodied it in words adapted to his
capacity, and gave it to him either in person or through some agent selected for
that purpose. Even so, when the Spirit reproved man of sin, it is said: “Ye men
of Israel, hear thesewords: Jesus, of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you,
by miracles, and wonders, and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you,
as ye yourselves also know: him, being deliv­ered by the determinate counsel and
foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and
slain.” Acts 2:22-23. When the angel of the Lord told John, in the Isle of
Patmos, what to write to each of the seven Asiatic churches, each mes­sage
closed by saying: “He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto
the churches.” Hence, the words which John wrote by inspiration of the Spirit
were the word: ; of the Spirit, and by hearing them we hear what the Spirit said
to the churches. Then, it follows that when we hear the words of an inspired man
we hear the words of the Spirit, and when we have the thoughts legitimately
belonging to such words, we have the thoughts communicated by the Spirit. In
this way even “now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some
shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and doc­trines of
devils.” 1 Timothy 4:1. The Spirit, then, does not speak in mysterious and
incomprehensible ways, but it speaks express­ly—in words easy to be understood.
“Holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.” 2 Peter 1:21. We
have a faithful record of what they said; hence, “they being dead, yet
speaketh.” Hebrews 11:4. Paul said: “Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither
have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them
that love him. But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit; for the Spirit
searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. ... Which things also we
speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost
teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiri­tual.” 1 Corinthians 2:9-13. And
again: “For this cause 1, Paul, the prisoner of Jesus Christ for you Gentiles,
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 t as I wrote
afore in few words; whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the
mystery of Christ), which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men,
as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the
Spirit.”Ephesians 3:1-5. Here we learn that things which in other ages had been
a mystery to other people were by the Spirit revealed and made known to Paul and
other apostles and prophets, and that Paul had written them to his brethren, so
that when they read they could under­stand his knowledge of what had previously
been a profound mystery. “And what shall I say more? for the time would fail me”
to quote all the Scriptures which prove that the lessons taught by the prophets
and apostles were nothing less than the teaching of the Holy Spirit. David said:
“To-day, if ye will hear his voice, harden not your heart, as in the
provocation, and as in the day of temptation in the wilderness, when your
fathers tempted me, proved me, and saw my work. Forty years long was I grieved
with this generation, and said, It is a people that do err in their heart, and
they have not known my ways.” Psalms 95:7-10. Paul quotes this language, saying:
“Wherefore, as the Holy Ghost saith, To-day if ye will hear his voice,” etc.
Hebrews 3:7-10. Why did the apostle thus quote the language of David as the
language of the Holy Ghost? Because “David, the son of Jesse, said, and the man
who was raised up on high, the anointed of the God of Jacob, and the sweet
psalmist of Israel, said, The Spirit of the Lord spake by me, and his word was
in my tongue.” 2 Samuel 23:1-2. Hence it was, too, that Peter quotes David,
saying: “The Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake,” etc. Acts 1:16. Thus we
see why Paul and Peter quote the words of David as the words of the Holy Spirit
spoken by him; and, therefore, any effect produced upon the heart as prop­erly
growing out of such language can be nothing less than an effect produced by the
Holy Spirit. Having found that the Holy Spirit has clothed its ideas in words
adapted to the comprehension of man, we can see a beauty and fitness in the
parable of the sower and the explana­tion of it by the Saviour. He says: “The
seed is the word of God. Those by the way-side are they that hear; then cometh
the devil, and taketh away the word out of their hearts, lest they should
believe and be saved.” The devil knows well that if he can keep the people away
from the Word of God, or get it away from them after they have heard it, all are
his. Hence, he makes every effort he can to keep it from them. He will bolt
church doors against it; call it all the ugly names he can think of to keep
people from hearing it; if, in spite of him, they hear it, he offers: every
gratification that the flesh can desire to choke it out. “They on the rock are
they, which, when they hear, receive the word with joy; and these have no root,
which for awhile believe, and in time of temptation fall away. And that which
fell among thorns, are they, which, when they have heard, go forth, and are
choked with cares, and riches, and pleasures of this life, and bring no fruit to
perfection. But that on the good ground are they, which in an honest and good
heart, having heard the word, keep it and bring forth fruit with patience.” Luke
8:11-15. As the farmer can not reap a crop without seed has been sown, neither
can there be a spiritual crop without spiritual seed; and as the Word of God is
the spiritual seed, it follows that where the Word of God is not preached, or
the seed in some way sown, there can no be spiritual crop. This is so very
evident that we need not offer arguments to support it. “Faith cometh by
hear­ing, and hearing by the word of God.” Romans 10:17. Where the Word of God
is not, it can not be heard, and hence there can be no faith, and “he that
believeth not shall be damned.” Mark 16:16. Hence, no word of God, no faith—and
no faith, no sal­vation for intelligent men and women in a land of Bibles.
Before there was a written Word, “it pleased God, by the fool­ishness of
preaching, to save them that believe.” 1 Corinthians 1:21. The press is now a
very extensive sower of the Word of God; but then men went everywhere preaching
the Word. Hence, Paul asks: “How shall they believe in him of whom they have not
heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? and how shall they preach
except they be sent?” Romans 10:14-15. Before the gospel was written so as to
afford preachers an opportunity of learning it by study, God miraculously
called, qualified, and sent men to preach; but now, if they would know any
thing, they had better observe Paul’s charge to Timothy: “Give attend­ance to
reading.” That we may, if possible, more clearly see the medium through which
the Spirit operates, we will notice another scrip­ture or two. “The Lord said,
My Spirit shall not always strive with man.” Genesis 6:3. How did the Spirit of
the Lord anciently strive with the people? “Yet many years didst thou forbear
them, and testifiedst against them by thy Spirit in thy prophets: yet would they
not give ear.” Nehemiah 9:30. Thus we see that the Spirit strove with, bore
with, and testified against, the people, but was located in and did its work
through the prophets, and by resisting their words the people resisted the
teaching of the Holy Spirit. The devoted Stephen said to his persecutors: “Ye
stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy
Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye.” How did their fathers resist the Holy
Ghost? ’Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted?” Then, by
persecuting the prophets they resisted the Holy Ghost. “When they heard these
things they were cut to the heart”—reproved of sin—operated on by the Holy
Spirit; but did they receive the Spirit? Surely not. “They gnashed on him with
their teeth; but he being full of the Holy Ghost looked up steadfastly into
heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God,
and said, Behold I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man stand­ing on the
right hand of God. Then they cried out with a loud voice, and stopped their
ears, and ran upon him with one accord and cast him out of the city, and stoned
him.” Acts 7:57-58. By this narrative we see clearly that the Spirit was located
in Stephen, and through his words operated on the peo­ple; yet they did not
receive the Spirit, but resisted it. The Holy Spirit was in Stephen, but the
spirit of the wicked one was in the people. It is one thing, therefore, to be
operated on by the Spirit, and quite another thing to receive the Spirit. On the
day of Pentecost the Spirit operated in the same way, but the result was very
different. It was in Peter, and through his words cut the people to the heart.
“Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there
were added unto them about three thousand souls.” Acts 2:41. In place of gladly
receiving Stephen’s words, they resisted the Holy Spirit and put Stephen to
death. Persons operated on by the Spirit may receive or reject its teaching as
they may elect. All bodies, or organizations, have spirits within them, and can
not exist without them. Not only so, but every organization or body has its own
peculiar spirit. The Free Mason, Odd Fellow, SODS of Temperance, and Good
Templar organizations, each has its own peculiar spirit. And it is a working,
operative spirit, too, operating through the members with its teaching on such
material as comes within the range of its influence. And when it makes any thing
it makes material for its own body and nothing else. That is, the spirit of
Masonry, if it makes any thing, makes Masons, and never makes an Odd Fellow or
Son of Temperance. The spirit of Odd Fellowship makes Odd Fellows, but never
makes Masons, or any thing else. Mormons, Baptists, Presbyte­rians, Methodists,
and Christians, all have spirits peculiar to their own respective organizations
or bodies. These spirits, too, are working spirits, operating through their
members with their teaching on the people. When the spirit of Catholicism
operates it always makes a Catholic, and never makes a Mormon, Baptist,
Presbyterian, Methodist, or a Christian. When the Mormon spirit operates, it
always makes, if any thing at all, a Mormon, and never makes a Catholic,
Baptist, Presbyterian, Methodist, or Christian. To this, all but Catholics and
Mormons will agree. Shall we take another step? When the Holy Spirit operates
with its teaching, it always makes Christians, and never makes a Catholic, a
Mormon, or any thing else. Until all agree to this? “No,” says an objector; “I
see what you are at, and you are mis­taken. I will give you an instance where
the Spirit made Meth­odists, Baptists and Presbyterians. There was a protracted
union meeting in our town (or neighborhood, as the case may be) in which these
several denominations were engaged. The Spirit was profusely poured out, and the
meeting was abun­dantly blessed to the conversion of scores of persons, some of
whom joined each of the denominations mentioned.” Very well. It yet remains to
be shown that this was the work of the Holy Spirit. Let us see. Perhaps this
meeting was gotten up by these parties, not to oppose the powers of darkness, or
put to flight the armies of Satan; but to put down what the preachers were
pleased to call Campbellism. They told the people not to hear such stuff. They
had bolted their doors against all who dared to say as Jesus did, “He that
believeth and is baptized shall be saved,” or as did the Spirit, by Peter,
“Repent, and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the
remission of sins.” But still the people would go to hear, and this union
meeting was gotten up as an effort to create, if possible, a deeper prejudice in
the minds of the people to keep them from hearing. “It is but the teaching of
the Bible, and as sure as the people continue to hear it they will believe it.
Our peculiarities are all in danger, and we must unite to put them out of the
way. This done, we can then fight and devour each other, as we did thirty years
ago.” Now, as the spirit of this meeting was hatred and malice toward those who
taught and acted according to the Spirit’s directions, and as Paul tells us,
“The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, long-suffering, gentleness, faith,
meekness, tem­perance,” etc. (Galatians 5:22-23), fruit so very unlike the fruit
of this meeting, it is clear that the very main spring of the whole affair was
not the Spirit of Christ, but the spirit of anti-Christ. But let us examine the
teaching at this meeting, and see whether or not it resembles the teaching of
the Spirit. The preachers say to sinners, “Ye wicked and uncircumcised in heart,
the Lord’s arms of mercy are open wide to receive and bless you, but you will
not come to Him that He may bless you.” The hor­rors of hell and the joys of
heaven are painted in glowing colors before the audience, until some conclude
they will secure these, and avoid those; and they at once put themselves under
the in­structions of the preachers, with hearts subdued to the will of God, as
far as they know it. And how do they direct them? Do they say to them, as the
Spirit by Peter said to those wishing to know how to be saved on the day of
Pentecost, “Repent, and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus
Christ, for the remission of sins?” Nay, verily! Such a declaration would put
out all the excitement as effectually as water puts out fire. What then? “Come
into the altar or to the mourner’s bench.” Did the Spirit so teach the
Pentecostian inquirers? Nay, did the Spirit ever teach a son of Adam thus, from
the beginning of time until now? Not a word like it. But the sinners, willing to
do any thing to obtain the blessing, come to the altar as directed by the
preacher (not the Holy Spirit). Than what follows? The con­gregation must all
engage in prayer to God for them; and among the first petitions made in their
behalf is something like the fol­lowing: “O God, come now, we beseech thee, and
pardon and bless these mourners.” First they told the people God was will­ing,
but they were not willing; now they are willing, but God is not. Hence they
pray, beg, and beseech God to do that which they had previously declared Him
always ready and willing to do. Is this the teaching of the Holy Spirit? It can
not be. Surely God trifles not with His creatures in this way. But the preacher
prays very earnestly to God, to baptize them (us, says he) “with the Holy Ghost
and with fire, right now.” And per­haps he has prayed for the same thing at
every meeting he has attended, perhaps a dozen times at some of them. Did God
an­ciently baptize the same persons with the Holy Ghost and fire day after day
repeatedly? When we hear such a petition, we in­voluntarily think, if we do not
say, Lord, forbid! But the excite­ment in some is now sufficiently high, and
they rise, shouting, jumping, falling over benches, or on the floor, until it
has become necessary for the friends to interpose, and restrain them by force,
to prevent them from being injured or killed. What is the matter now? Will the
Holy Spirit kill the people in converting them? Not so. If we believed it, the
operation of the Holy Spirit, we would say, hands off, gentlemen, it is God’s
work. Fear not, he will do right. If He kills them, they ought to die. Others,
who are not blessed with a temperament so highly excit­able, are not so easily
moved by excitement (which by the way, is the very pabulum upon which the whole
meeting subsists); hence the preacher says to them, “You have got it. Get up and
shout, and tell the people what the Lord has done for you.” And it takes all the
assurance the preachers and Spirit can all give to get them through. Others, who
have a little higher intel­lectual development, have to get up and go home
without “get­ting through” at all. What is the reason? Did any of the
Pente­costian applicants fail? The preachers told them God was will­ing, and
would bless them if they would come. They have come; and they have honestly and
faithfully done as they were di­rected, and yet they have been disappointed.
What is the mat­ter? Were they not as honest and as humble as they ever could
be? Had they not full confidence in the efficacy of the blood of Jesus? If they
had not, they would not have gone into the altar. Did they not, from the great
deep of their hearts, desire pardon? Were they any worse than those who get
through, that it should cost them a harder struggle? Then we again- ask, why
were they disappointed? Not to be tedious, we must leave these unfortu­nate
subjects to brood over, and account for their disappointment upon the ground
that they are not of the elect, OR by supposing that there is no reality in
religion, and thus merge into the styngian pool of infidelity, while we attend
to those who were for­tunate enough to “get through.” They must each tell an
“experience of grace,” for which there is not a word of authority in the Bible.
Persons under the in­struction of the Spirit anciently were required to confess
their faith in the Son of God, but these tell the workings of their own
imaginations; and, not to be tedious in our examination of the many absurdities
detailed, they usually contained the following four main points: 1st. They felt
like, and therefore believed themselves the worst sinners living. 2d. They felt
like, and therefore believed that their day of grace had forever passed. 3d.
They felt like, and therefore believed that God could not be just and pardon
persons so wicked as themselves. 4th. They felt like, and therefore believed
that God for Christ’s sake had pardoned them. As these four points enter into
almost every experience we have listened to, we will examine them briefly. 1st.
They never had killed any person or stolen any thing; others, having done both,
were worse than they; therefore, when they believed themselves worse than all
others, they believed a falsehood. 2d. They were then telling an “experience of
grace,” claim­ing to have found a day of grace; hence, when they believed their
day of grace forever passed, they believed a falsehood. 3d. They all believed
God to be infinitely just, and were then saying that they believed He had
pardoned them; so, if in this they were not mistaken, when they believed God
could not be just and pardon them, they believed a falsehood. Now? as their
feelings had led them to believe three admitted falsehoods out of but four
propositions, may we not at least sus­pect the truth of the fourth? Paul told
his brethren that they were chosen to salvation “through sanctification of the
Spirit and belief of the truth.” 2 Thessalonians 2 : l3. Then, if these persons
were not mistaken in thinking themselves pardoned, Paul’s rule was reversed as
to them, for they were not chosen in the belief of the truth, but in the belief
of three falsehoods, as they themselves admit; and as the fourth proposition
consists in believing that God had pardoned them without a compliance upon their
part with the conditions upon which He had suspended their pardon, we must be
permitted to think that there is as much probability in the truth of either of
the other propositions as in this one. The vote is taken, however, and they are
received. But we are rather ahead of the proceedings—we must go back a little.
Each one asks: “What church shall I join?” The preachers are all present. No one
will say: “Join my church”— that would be too selfish; but they say: “Go to the
grove, and secretly pray to God to direct you by the Spirit; then come back and
join the church to which the Spirit, through your feelings, may incline you.”
Very well; all go and pray to the same God, and are guided by the same Spirit,
yet when they return, one will join the Presbyterians, and he will have water
sprinkled on him as baptism; another, guided by the same Spirit, will join the
Methodists, and have water poured on him as baptism; another, under the guidance
of the same Spirit, will join the Baptists, and nothing will do him for baptism
but immersion; and though, when he “got religion” twelve months before, he may,
under di­rection of the Spirit, have been immersed by one of the Method­ist
preachers in the present meeting, he must now have it admin­istered by a Baptist
minister. The Methodist preacher who im­mersed him a year before, though now
full,, competent to preach, pray, exhort, sing, and assist in his present
conversion, is nevertheless incompetent to administer baptism, though it be “a
mere non-essential,” and his former baptism is therefore invalid, though it may
have been immersion. Paul says: “By one Spirit are we all baptized into one
body.” 1 Corinthians 12:13. Now, as these were not all baptized into one body,
but into several bod­ies, it is quite clear that they were not guided by the
Spirit of which he spake. Now, kind reader, is this picture over-drawn? Have you
not seen all this and much more? We most solemnly aver that we have seen all
this and many other things at such meetings too absurd to be spoken of in an
essay like this without a compro­mise of our self-respect. Then, in the fear of
God, allow me to ask, Did the Holy Spirit originate, preside over, or conduct
the meeting? There are a few thoughts connected with these revival meet­ings to
which we respectfully invite the attention of those who believe that the Spirit
operates directly, abstractly, or immedi­ately on persons to effect their
conversion. First: Why is it nec­essary that there be a meeting? Is it because
the Spirit can not or will not operate on the people at their respective homes
as well as when they are congregated? Or is it not true that they are called
together that the preacher may have an opportunity of calling their attention to
their spiritual interests. If so, it must follow that the Spirit is expected to
operate through the preacher by such preaching, praying, singing, and
exhortation as he may be able to bring to bear upon them. Again: Why is it
important that the best revivalists be secured to conduct the more successful
meetings? If the Spirit operates immediately on the people, we can not see any
use for a preacher at all; or, if one must be had, it would not matter whether
he have ten talents or one. An immediate operation of the Spirit can not be a
mediate operation, and hence the preacher could have nothing to do with it, and
one preacher would do as well as another. From our stand-point, we can eas­ily
see why one preacher may be more successful in conducting a meeting than
another, but we can not reconcile it with the doctrine of immediate spiritual
influences. The Spirit is in the church and operates through its members with
its teaching upon such material as comes within the range of its influence, and
it is to bring the people where they may hear its teaching that the meeting is
called in the first place. Then, as the Spirit operates not immediately but
mediately, the stronger the medium the more potent the influence. The Word of
God is the sword of the Spirit, and as earthly governments wield their swords
through their soldiery, so God wields the sword of the Spirit through His
solidery; and as an adroit fencer will use the instru­ment of death more
successfully in carnal warfare, even so will skillful workmen more successfully
wield the sword of the Spirit in fighting the battles of the Lord. God gives us
bread by giv­ing us soil, rain, and other means of producing grain of which to
make it, but the richer the soil and better the season the more abundant will be
the crop. So of every thing we enjoy through means—the more patent the means the
Richer the blessing. But we are told that the devil operates on the people
imme­diately. It is assumed that he has no written law or revealed will, nor
does he make any verbal communications to man; hence he must either operate
without words, arguments, or other visible means, or not operate at all. And if
the Holy Spirit only operates on man mediately, and the devil immediately, then
it follows, that the latter has more power than the former. We would
respectfully suggest that the modus operandi of the Holy Spirit is not a
question of power. We care not to examine whether the Spirit can or can not
operate in this or that way. It is sufficient that we know how it does operate.
Nor are we pre­pared to admit that the devil, even now, makes no verbal
com­munications to men; on the contrary, he makes very many, both oral and
written. It is true that there are no books bearing his name as author; nor did
he write immediately any book known to us. But the same may be said of Jesus and
the Holy Spirit. Neither of them wrote any part of the New Testament
immedi­ately, yet we accept it as the last will and testament of the one, and
inspired by the other. We most firmly believe that four-fifths of the books
extant, are doing efficient service in behalf of the devil. Does any one doubt
it? Then let him look at the Mohammedan and Mormon Bibles, leading multiplied
thousands away from Christ, after Mohammed and Jo Smith. Look, too, at the
writings of infidels of every grade and hue, whose avowed purpose is to make the
people believe that the Word of God is a fable, and His Son an impostor. The
time would fail us to men­tion even the genera, to say nothing of the species of
the devil’s literature, and yet we are told that the devil makes no verbal
communications to man at all! Surely, even this is an example of such
communications from his satanic majesty. We have seen that God has His
government, and operates through His sub­jects, with His teaching, upon such
material as comes within the range of its influence; even so, the devil has his
government, and operates through his subjects, with his teachings, upon such
ma­terial as comes within the range of its influence. Jesus said: “He that is
not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me, scattereth
abroad.” Matthew 12:30; Luke 11:23. Therefore, all responsible persons who are
not the disciples of the Lord are the children of the devil, and engaged in his
service. “Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will
do.” John 8:44. When he wished to operate on our progenitors in the garden of
Eden, he talked to them; and as there was no human being through whom he might
address Adam and Eve, he made a medium of the serpent, the most shrewd of all
beasts; for which there would have been no necessity, had wicked men and women
been numerous then as now. When he wished to torture Job he talked to God about
him. When he tempted Christ he talked to Him, and offered Him inducements to
serve him; some of which are not unlike the inducements presented by him now. It
is said in the explanation to the parable of the sower, that the devil catches
away the word sown in the heart. Do we not see this verified almost every day?
Through his sub­jects, he calls it “Campbellism,” and one of his subjects has
re­cently written a book in which he calls if “Bald-faced infidelity,” ’water
salvation,” and many other ugly names, for no other pur­pose than to make it
odious to the people, lest they believe it. Should they believe and obey the
gospel, then he appeals to their ambition, by offering them places of honor in
his govern­ment; or to their avarice by offering them wealth; or to their
ap­petites, passions, or fleshly lusts, by offering them any and every
gratification which their carnal natures can desire. Surely his re­sources are
ample without resort to immediate communications upon any person, or class of
persons. The Word and service of God are our only sure means of defense against
him and his sub­jects. “Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants
to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey.” Romans 6:16. If God has given us
a full and perfect revelation of His mind and will concerning the redemption,
conversion, salvation, gov­ernment, spiritual growth, and final happiness of man
in His Word, what need have we for influences of, or communications from, the
Spirit without the Word? We can not conceive of an impression necessary to be
made upon the heart of man which the Word of the Lord is not capable of making.
If we wish to be enlightened, “The commandment of the Lord is pure,
enlight­ening the eyes.” Psalms 19:8. If we wish to be made wise unto salvation,
“The testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple.” Psalms 19:7. Paul
told Timothy that “From a child thou hast known the Holy Scriptures, which are
able to make thee wise unto salvation, through faith which is in Christ Jesus.”
2 Timothy 3:15. If we wish our souls converted to God, “The law of the Lord is
perfect, converting the soul.” Psalms 19:7. He that is dead in trespasses and in
sins may be quickened by the gospel: “Thy word has quickened me.” Psalms 119:50.
“I will never forget thy precepts; for with them thou hast quickened me.” Ibid,
93. If any one wishes to be spiritually begotten, Paul says: “In Christ Jesus I
have begotten you through the gospel.” 1 Corinthians 4:15. Indeed, the
Corinthians were saved by the gospel, if they were saved at all, Paul says:
“Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you,
which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; by which also ye are saved.”
1 Corinthians 15:1-2. “O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and
knowledge of God!” What can we desire to perfect the scheme of salvation to
which we are not thoroughly furnished in the gos­pel? We can see no use of
sending the gospel to the heathen if the doctrine of abstract spiritual
influences be true. If God converts sinners here where Bibles are plenty,
without the Word, He will certainly be as kind to the heathen and convert them
without the Word where they have no chance to hear it If we believed this
doctrine, we would not contribute one dollar to send Bibles or missionaries to
them, for God will as surely convert them with­out the Word as He will any one
here. If you tell us you do not want influences of the Spirit without the Word,
but an accompa­nying influence with the Word, then is this not an attack upon
the sufficiency and truth of the Word? It seems to virtually say: “I will not
believe and obey the Lord in full assurance of faith in His Word until there is
the accompanying influence of the Spirit through my own feelings confirming its
truth.” If the Spirit makes impressions through our feelings not conveyed by
words, we would like to have the rule of interpretation. How shall we decide
whether it confirms or contradicts the Word? If the message be that God has
pardoned our sins, how shall we determine that it is not a message of
condemnation? We can not see how communications from a dumb spirit can be
reliable. It occurs to us that we would about as soon undertake to trans­late
the tappings of table-legs into good English as any other kind of communications
not made through words. Again: Paul said: “Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing
by the word of God.” Romans 10:17. Then, faith that comes by an ab­stract
operation of the Spirit can not be the kind of faith of which Paul wrote. If he
had been taught in the theological schools of modern times he would have said:
“Faith cometh by feelings, and feelings by the Holy Spirit.” If God gives man
faith and converts him to Christianity by an abstract operation of the Spirit,
we can not see why He will not give him all infor­mation necessary for his
present and eternal happiness in the same way. Certainly, we can as readily
conceive of sanctifica­tion by the Spirit without the Word as of justification
by the Spirit without the Word. Hence, the Bible is a dead book, if not “a dead
letter.” A judge of the circuit court, whose name is quite familiar in this
country, was celebrated for his ignorance of every thing but the law. On one
occasion the connection of Scripture containing the “Lord’s prayer” was read in
his hearing, whereupon “his honor” remarked, in all sober earnestness, “There is
some right good reading in that book.” So, we sup­pose, the Bible may be
respected for its antiquity and the “good reading” it contains; but as a
way-bill from earth to heaven it is worth nothing if the feelings and
speculations of men are al­lowed to supersede it. It was a useless application
of the blood of Jesus when the new covenant was dedicated with it. If there are
new revelations being constantly made by the Spirit, they be­come the last will
of the Saviour, and as the last will abrogates all former wills, these abstract
revelations must supersede the one dedicated by the blood of Jesus; and if these
impressions are not new revelations, but simply the same that are in the Word,
made known without the Word, then they are worthless, nay, mischievous, for it
were much better to have them in the Word where they may be understood. Finally,
this doctrine opens the door to every species of im­position as wide as the
speculations of men may desire it. We can not conceive of a doctrine so odious
that it may not be con­firmed by the same kind of testimony. The feelings of the
Roman Catholic tell him that the priest can pardon his sins for money, and sell
him indulgences to commit others. Surely, he believes it real pardon or he would
not give his money for it. The feelings of the Moslem tell him that Mohammed was
a prophet equal to Jesus of Nazareth, and that he conversed with God and
received the Koran from Him in person as Moses did the law at Sinai. The
feelings of Brigham Young tell him that Jo Smith was the prophet of God and that
the Book of Mormon, and not the Word of the Lord, is the rule of faith and
practice; and can we object to what the Spirit tells him through his feel­ings,
and at the same time offer him the same kind of testimony as evidence of our
acceptance with God? We know not how any man, who admits the doctrine of
abstract spiritual influ­ences, can object to the faith of the Moslem, the
Mormon, the Catholic, the spirit-rapper, or any one else who believes that the
Holy Spirit, or any other spirit, communicated to him that upon which his faith
is predicated, unless they can discredit the spirit which is said to have made
the communication to him. Whenever they claim, as generally they do, that the
Holy Spirit was the source of the communication, further objection can not be
made by those who are committed to that kind of testimony. Before dismissing the
subject, it may be well to call the at­tention of the reader to a few things
which have been improp­erly blended with the ordinary influence of the Spirit in
conver­sion, at least by some. The cases of conversion recorded in the Acts, all
occurred in the days of miracles, and there were mira­cles connected with most
of them. We have taken some pains to disconnect ordinary from extraordinary
manifestations of the Spirit; we need only here remind the reader that, however
prom­inent a miracle may appear in the record of any case of conver­sion as we
do not live in the days of miracles’ he must not expect the miracle to be
reproduced in him. Again: the influence of circumstances, whether accidental or
providential, are not the work of the Spirit in conversion. A merely acc dental
circumstance may take a man within range of the Spirit’s teaching; e.g. a young
man goes to meeting to see a young lady—to see some friend—simply to be in
company, or transact some business; the gospel is preached, he becomes
inter­ested, and is finally converted. The accidental circumstance, whatever it
may have been, which induced him to go to preach­ing, was not the influence of
the Spirit, for this began when he came in contact with the teaching of the
Spirit, through the preaching and other services at the meeting. The Scriptures
fur­nish numerous examples illustrative of this fact. Lydia’s occupa­tion as a
vender of purple, took her from Thyatira to Philippi, where Paul preached the
gospel to her, by which God opened her heart, enlightened her mind, and she was
converted; but the influence of the Spirit upon her heart, began not until
Paul’s preaching saluted her ears. Again: The Jailer’s occupation, as keeper of
the prison in the city of Philippi, caused him to hear the Word of the Lord
preached by Paul and Silas, by which he was converted, but he had not a
spiritual idea until they spoke to him. Even after the miracles had ceased, he
would have committed suicide, had they not prevented him. Had some one else been
keeper of the prison, such one, and not he, might have been the beneficiary of
the preaching. A providential circumstance may prepare a man to favorably
receive the Spirit’s teaching; e.g. the death of a friend or near relative, or
physical suffering. When death fastens upon the vi­tals of a lovely child,
brother, sister, or parent, with whom our affections are borne away to the realm
of spirits; or when our physical powers are exhausted by the blighting influence
of dis­ease and trouble, then it is, that we realize the insufficiency of human
aid, and the instability of all earthy things. Our depen­dence upon God is
brought home to us, and thus the heart is prepared for a favorable consideration
of spiritual instruction; but not a ray of spiritual light can we derive from
such affliction. We are simply prepared to consider what light we pre­viously
had, and to receive additional instruction if it is pre­sented to us. We are not
prepared to regard the mellowing in­fluence of such afflictions as the work of
the Holy Spirit in con­version; nor are they even within the line of special
providences, for they are the common lot of all men—the result of general
providence or natural law. Nor would we be understood to deny the doctrine of
special providence. Nay, we not only admit, but believe it; but it is for God’s
children, and not to convert sinners. Paul says: “We trust in the living God,
who is the Saviour of all men, but specially of those that believe.”1 Timothy
4:10. God has a general providence, of which all are the recipients, but He
specially provides for them that put their trust in Him, according to His Word.
Hence, “We know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to
them who are the called, ac­cording to his purpose.” Romans 8:28. “The eyes of
the Lord are over the righteous, and his ears are open unto their prayers; but
the face of the Lord is against them that do evil.” 1 Peter 3:12. But we have no
disposition to enter upon a discussion of this subject here. It is important to
a proper understanding of the Holy Spirit’s work in conversion, that we keep it
disentangled from every thing foreign to it. If we can do this, and then quit
hunting for difficulties and mysteries, we will not find many. The truths of God
often sparkle as gems upon the surface of His Word, and are unobserved by those
who are always digging tun­nels, but never examine the virgin soil in its native
simplicity. THE RECEPTION OF THE HOLY SPIRIT.

Having seen that the Spirit dwells in the body or Church— that the disciples are
builded together for a habitation of God through the Spirit, and that the church
is the medium through which the Spirit’s power is exerted for the conversion and
salva­tion of man, we come now to consider the relationship it sustains to each
member of the body. Before leaving the disciples, Jesus said to them: “I will
pray the Father, and he shall give you an­other Comforter, that he may abide
with you forever; even the Spirit of truth, whom the world can not receive,
because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him; but ye know him, for he dwelleth
with you, and shall be in you.” John 14:16-17. There are sev­eral very important
matters in this quotation, for which we will have use as we proceed; but at
present, we are here to see that the Holy Spirit was promised as an abiding
guest and comforter to the disciples, and as such it was to dwell with, and be
in them forever. That this was not a figurative, but a literal in-dwelling of
the Holy Spirit in the disciples is plain, from the fact that when the Spirit
came, as promised, “they were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and began to
speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.” Acts 2:4. It will
scarcely be said that the disciples were only figuratively filled with the Holy
Spirit on the day of Pentecost. Nay, it was literally in them, as the Saviour
promised them it should be. Then, are we to be­lieve that it was literally in
them as an inspiring monitor, but as a comforter only figuratively? If not, and
it was literally in the apostles to inspire them, we can see no reason why it
should not be as literally in them as a comforter. And if it dwelt literally in
them as a comforter, and as such was to abide with them for­ever, we conclude
that it must dwell in the disciples now as lit­erally as it was in them. And
here we must not forget that the Spirit was given to man by measure; and we have
seen some of these measures fill their mission and pass away. It was to guide
the apostles into all truth, and bring to their remembrance every thing said to
them by the Saviour. It has done this, and as we have a perfect rec­ord of what
they said and did when inspired by it, we have no use for it now as an inspiring
monitor; but as a comforter it abi­deth ever. But we may be told, that this
promise was made to the apostles only, and was to them fulfilled. And as they
were inspired by its presence, the absence of such inspiration proves the
absence of the Spirit in all who are not so inspired. A careful examination of
the Scriptures wild show that, while there was no promise that the inspiration
should remain, as a comforter it was to abide with the disciples forever. As
such, it was to dwell with, and be in them. As an inspiring monitor it did not
abide forever. Nay, even the apostles, during their lives were not always under
its inspiration. Paul sometimes spake as a man, at other times he thought he had
the Spirit of God (See 1 Corinthians 7:40). How could he so speak if he knew
himself to be at all times under the influence of inspiration? When it was
nec­essary for something to be revealed or confirmed by the Spirit, it took
possession of some spiritual man or men, through whom the work was accomplished.
Had Peter been all the time under the influence of inspiration, it would not
have taken a special miracle to teach him that he might go to the house of
Cornelius with the gospel to the Gentiles. This case clearly shows that the
gospel was progressively developed to the apostles, and that they did not know
all its provisions, when first baptized with the Holy Spirit on the day of
Pentecost. “While Peter thought on the vi­sion, the Spirit said unto him,
Behold, three men seek thee, arise therefore, and get thee down, and go with
them, doubting nothing, for I have sent them.” Acts 10:19-20. Then he knew
some­thing he never knew before. And when the messengers told him for what they
had come, he knew something more. And when Cornelius rehearsed the things seen
and heard by him “Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive
that God is no respecter of persons; but in every nation, he that feareth God
and worketh righteousness is accepted with him.” Acts 10:34-35. These important
lessons, the other apostles’ though in­spired, did not know yet. But Peter
rehearsed the whole matter to them from the beginning, and “when they heard
these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying: Then hath God
also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life.” Acts 11 : l8. Here, for the
first time, these inspired men knew that the Gen­tiles were fellow-heirs with
the Jews in the privileges of the gos­pel. But as a comforter, was it designed
for the apostles alone? If so, why did Jesus promise that it should abide with
them for­ever. They could not live here forever; nor can we conclude that Jesus
intended to promise them the Holy Spirit as a com­forter forever, meaning that
it should go with them into the fu­ture state; for He assures them that there
they should again be with Him. “I go,” said He, “to prepare a place for you; and
if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive you unto
myself; that where I am, there ye may be also.” John 14:2-3. While clothed with
humanity, Jesus was not omnipre­sent, and hence, could only be with and comfort
Elis disciples in a single place at one time. As to the apostles alone, this
would not have made another comforter necessary, for He could have kept them
with Him; but when the time came for them to go into all the world and pro­claim
the gospel to every creature He could not, as son of man, be in Jerusalem, Rome,
Corinth, Philippi, Samaria, and other places at the same time; hence it was
expedient, in this respect, as well as others, that He should go away and send
another Comforter, even the Holy Spirit, who could dwell with, and be in every
disciple, any and every where until He should come again. There is a remarkable
similarity in the style of the Sa­viour when He promised the Comforter to the
disciples, and that of Paul in his letter in his brethren at Rome. He says: “But
ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God
dwell in you. Now, if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.
And if Christ be in you’ the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life
because of righteous­ness. But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from
the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken
your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.” Romans 8:9-11. That this
passage is applicable to Christians now is admitted by all; how strikingly
similar the phraseology to that used by the Saviour. He says: “He dwelleth with
you and shall be in you.” Paul says: “If so be that the Spirit of God dwell in
you.” “If the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you.”
“Shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.” What
can this language mean? We can not say that God will quicken our mortal bodies
by His Spirit that dwelleth figuratively in us; and to say that He will quicken
our mortal bodies by His Spirit that dwelleth meto­nymically in us would be no
better. Nor will it do to say that God will quicken our mortal bodies by His
disposition that dwel­leth in us. To our mind, the passage admits of one
interpreta­tion, and only one; namely, that the Spirit of God—the Holy
Spirit—dwells literally and really in every Christian, and by it God will
re-animate his body in the great day. With this agrees the teaching of Paul,
when he wrote to the disciples at Corinth. He says: “What! know ye not that your
body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you?” 1 Corinthians 6 : l9. He
here manifests astonishment that they should not ever keep this thought before
them. And again: “Know ye not that ye are the temple of God and that the Spirit
of God dwelleth in you?” 1 Corinthians 3:16. Had Paul been seeking to impress
the disciples at Rome and Corinth with the fact that the Spirit did really dwell
in each of them, we know not how he could have selected a set of words better
cal­culated to convey the thought than those he employed in the passages quoted.
Thus far we have not approached our position by any process of reasoning, but by
positive declarations of Holy Writ. “The Spirit dwelleth in you” has met us
everywhere. Upon such scrip­tures there is not much room to reason, and here we
could well afford to rest this position. But we think we can arrive at the same
thought by a process of reasoning altogether satisfactory, even in the absence
of direct testimony. Paul more than once likens the church to the human body, an
example of which may be found, l Cor. 12: 12-27, to which the reader is
referred; we can only transcribe a sentence or two. Addressing the disciples, he
says: “Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particu­lar.” The blood
freighted with the pabulum of life must freely circulate in all the members of
the body, great and small; and should such circulation cease in any member,
death and dis­integration of such member must inevitably follow, and unless it
is separated from the body all must perish. Even so, “the body without the
spirit is dead.” James 2:26. If the Spirit ceases to dwell in and vitalize every
member of the church or spiritual body, spiritual death to such a member is
inevitable; and if the circulation can not be restored, painful as the operation
may be, the amputating knife must be used, for “when one member suf­fers all the
members suffer with it.” As it is “better for one member to perish than for the
whole body to be cast into hell” (Matthew 5:29-30), sacred as the relationship
may have been, a separation must take place. Are we not here taught that the
pres­ence of the Spirit in the Christian is indispensable to the mainte­nance of
Spiritual life? Again: Jesus illustrated the relationship His disciples
sus­tained to Him by a vine and its branches. See John 15:1-7. Said He: ’I am
the vine, ye are the branches. He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same
bringeth forth much fruit.” As every branch must maintain its connection with
the vine, so that the sap may circulate from vine to branch and keep it alive,
even so must every member of the church or body of Christ maintain his
connection with the body, so that the Spirit circulate in and keep him alive,
lest “he be cast forth as a branch and is withered; and men gather such, and
cast them into the fire, and they are burned.” So the Lord taught, and so we
believe. But we are sometimes told that the Spirit dwells in us simply by its
teaching received through the inspired Word; hence all that is meant by it is
that we are well instructed by the Spirit. When Paul told the Romans that God
would quicken their mor­tal bodies by His Spirit that dwelt in them, did he only
mean to teach that God would reanimate their sleeping dust by the in­structions
they had received from the Spirit? If this be all, then we see not why the world
can not receive it. An infidel may be as wise in the Scriptures as the most
devoted disciple. It took a man mighty in the Scriptures to meet Mr. Owen in
debate Upon the authenticity of the Bible, and yet it will scarcely be contended
that the Holy Spirit dwelt in his infidel heart. Every man who is adopted into
the family of God must be taught by the Spirit before he is adopted: but the
Spirit is given to him be­cause he is a son, and not to prepare him for adoption
or make him a son. If the reception of the Word of truth be all that is meant by
the reception of the Spirit, then Paul’s rule is reversed, and every man
receives the Spirit, not because he is a son, but that he may become one. Yea,
Jesus was mistaken when He said: “The world can not receive it,” because they
must receive its instruction while of the world, and before entering the church,
kingdom, or body, as certainly as hearing precedes faith and faith precedes
obedience. Paul said to the Ephesians that they were sealed with the Holy Spirit
after they heard and believed the gospel and trusted in Christ. “In whom ye also
trusted after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in
whom also, after that ye believed ye were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise
which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased
possession.” Ephesians 1:13-14. Then it follows, most certainly, that if we are
now sealed with the Holy Spirit, as these Ephesians were, it takes place after,
and is something more than hearing, believing, and receiving the Word. Their
sealing was to them an earnest of their inheritance; that is, a pledge of God’s
faithfulness in giving them the promised inheritance; hence, he admonishes them
to faithfulness on their part, that they “grieve not the Holy Spirit of God,
whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption.” Ephesians 4:30. The same
apostle writes to the Co­rinthians thus: “For all the promises of God in him are
yea, and in him amen, unto the glory of God by us. Now, he which estab­lisheth
us with you in Christ and hath anointed us, is God; who hath also sealed us, and
given the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts.” 2 Corinthians 1:20-22. God
established them in Christ by giving them the Holy Spirit as an earnest or
pledge of the fact that His promises were yea and amen in Christ, hence they
were sealed with the Spirit. “Now, he that hath wrought us for the self-same
thing is God, who also hath given unto us the earnest of the Spirit.” 2
Corinthians 5:5. That God gave these Corinthians the Holy Spirit as an earnest
of the promised inheritance is clear; and when we associate these quotations
with the language quoted from Ephesians 1:13, it clearly shows that it was given
after they were instructed in and believed the gospel, and hence was something
more than the information thus received by them. From this conclusion we can
conceive of but one possible way of escape— namely, that the measure of the
Spirit by which the Ephesians and Corinthians were sealed was the extra-ordinary
measure by which spiritual gifts were imparted, and not the ordinary mea­sure
following adoption into God’s family. But it is the business of him who so
affirms to furnish the proof of such affirmation and he would do well, in the
meantime, to see that he does not explain away all the Bible in special
applications of it, leaving nothing applicable to us at all. It may not be amiss
to remark here, that the words in which a truth or thought is expressed are not
the thought itself; nor is the thought or truth suggested by a person or thing
the person or thing which suggested it. Hence, the words in which a spiritual
idea is suggested are not the idea; nor is the idea suggested by the Spirit the
Spirit itself. A school-boy may have the words of an author committed to memory
most perfectly, and yet not have the thought which the author designed to convey
by the words, nevertheless the thought was in the words. Even so, he may get the
thoughts of an author without drinking in or imbib­ing the spirit of the author
who suggested the thought, neverthe­less, the spirit was in the thought. Hence
it is possible for us to comprehend a thought or truth suggested by the Holy
Spirit, and yet fail to receive the Spirit which inspired the thought. You will
say these are nice distinctions; we admit it; but they are distinctions
nevertheless, and he who fails to make them, may never fully understand the
subject of the Holy Spirit. BUT HOW DO PERSONS RECEIVE THE HOLY SPIRIT?

Suppose we acknowledge ourselves incapable of answering the question at all;
what then? Does it follow that we must re­pudiate a plainly taught fact, because
we can not comprehend and explain the philosophy of it? For just such a crime
Zacha­rias was made dumb and not able to speak, until the fulfillment of the
words which he refused to believe, because he could not see how he and Elizabeth
were to be blessed with a child when both were well stricken in years. When God
speaks, the man of faith believes, whether he can or can not explain the
philosophy of what He says. Hence, we are prepared to believe that the Holy
Spirit dwells in God’s people, whether we can or can not explain the manner of
its reception, because He says, He will quicken our mortal bodies by His Spirit
which dwelleth in us. But we would not have the reader suppose the Bible a
blank, even on this subject. Paul says: “The love of God is shed abroad in our
hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us.” Romans 5:5. By this we learn
that the Holy Spirit is given to the disciples. But how is it given? This is the
troublesome ques­tion. Well, it is either given mediately or immediately—through
means, or without means. Jesus once said: “If ye then, being evil, know how to
give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your heavenly Father
give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?” Luke 11:13. Here we are taught that
the Father gives the Spirit to such of His children as ask Him for it; but we
are not told how He gives it to them. He gives us bread, and taught His
disciples to pray for it, yet He gives it through means and not otherwise; hence
we may find that the Father has provided a system of means by which to convey
the Holy Spirit to His children. “This only would I learn of you, Received ye
the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?” Galatians 3:2.
Two thoughts are here implied: First, that the Galatians did not receive the
Spirit by the works of the law. Second, That they did receive it by the hearing
of faith. This question, then, is pertinent to our inquiry. We wish to know how
the Spirit is received, and it is here assumed to have been received by the
hearing of faith. But this is a queer sen­tence; what can it mean? Does hearing
belong to faith? No; faith comes by hearing; hence hearing must precede faith;
in­deed, hearing may be where there is no faith. Then the apostles could not
have meant by faith that confidence only with which we receive testimony. He
must mean something more than that. In this chapter, as in many other places, he
is evidently contrasting the Mosaic Law and its service with the gospel and its
service; and the word faith, in the verse quoted, is the syno­nym of gospel, and
comprehends the whole plan of salvation presented in the gospel. If we
comprehend the passage, we must notice the word hearing, for it must mean
something more than the reception of sound. In the New Testament compiled by A.
Campbell, from the works of Doctors George Campbell, Macknight and Doddridge,
the passage is rendered, “The obedi­ence of faith.” We might quote many passages
from the com­mon version, where the word hear implies obedience, but a sin­gle
example must suffice: “And it shall come to pass, that every soul which will not
hear that Prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people.” Acts 3:23.
Certainly the word hear must be understood to mean obedience to the commands of
Jesus. Collating these items, the account stands thus: The Galatians re­ceived
the Spirit by obedience to the gospel, and hence, obedi­ence to the gospel is
the Father’s appointed means of imparting the Holy Spirit to His children. Thus
we see why it is that the world can not receive the Spirit; they do not obey the
gospel that they may receive it. We have seen that it is given by the Father to
His children; hence Paul said to them: “Because ye are sons, God hath sent forth
the Spirit of His Son into your hearts, crying, Abba Father.” The children obey
the Father; hence as the gospel is the law by which He governs His children, and
as obedience to it is the medium through which He gives them the Spirit, by
obeying the gospel the children receive the Spirit. We have seen that there are
two great opposing kingdoms, namely: “The kingdom of God,” and the “kingdom of
darkness.” The subjects of that are called the children or “Sons of God.” 1 John
3:1. The subjects of this are called, “the world,” and Jesus says they can not
receive the Spirit. Nor is it at all strange that they can not receive the Holy
Spirit while citizens of the kingdom of darkness, laboring for and serving their
father, the devil. If we would receive the Spirit of God we must become citizens
of His government—members of His family. Then, and not until then, may we
receive the Spirit of the family which en­titles us to the privilege of calling
God our Father. The men of the world have not the Spirit of God and have not the
right to call Him their Father. Jesus said to such: “Ye are of your father the
devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do.” John 8:44. The church is God’s
spiritual family, into which we enter as “babes in Christ.” 1 Corinthians 3:1.
And we are admonished, “as new-born babes, to desire the sincere milk of the
word, that we may grow thereby.” 1 Peter 2:2. Reading and feeding upon this
spiritual food, the children of God are “filled with the Spirit”— not because
the Word is the Spirit, for it is not—but because the Spirit is ever present in
the inspired Word, and the service ap­pointed therein is God’s ordained means of
giving them the Spirit. Hence, says Paul: “Let the word of God dwell in you
richly, in all wisdom.” Colossians 3:16. By so living we may grow up to the
stature of men and women, full grown in Christ Jesus, the Lord, “till we all
come in the unity of the faith and of the knowl­edge of the Son of God, unto a
perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ.”
Ephesians 4:13. If we take a child of Indian parentage and adopt it into a
family of civiliza­tion and refinement, it ceases to imbibe the spirit of the
family from which it is adopted. It henceforth manifests a different
dis­position and speaks a different language. Its manners, habits, occupation,
every thing save its personality undergoes a corre­sponding change. So, when a
person is taken from “the world” and adopted into the family of God, he or she
ceases to imbibe the spirit of the world, and hence to “conform to the world,”
and imbibes, “drinks into” that measure of the Spirit which the Father promised
to His children by living in the Father’s family, receiving His instruction, and
being governed by His laws. Every time the faithful child obeys a command of the
Father, he drinks into or imbibes a measure of the Spirit connected with that
service. It matters not whether it were the service of the Lord’s day, worship
in the family, visiting the sick, relief of the poor, or any other service
required by the Father of His chil­dren, He has connected Himself through the
Spirit with His ser­vice, and he who faithfully serves Him receives the Holy
Spirit as an earnest of the promised inheritance. Hence, “he that keep­eth his
commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him. And hereby we know that he abideth
in us, by the Spirit which he has given us.” 1 John 3:24. And again: “If we love
one an­other, God dwelleth in us and his love is perfected in us. Hereby we know
that we dwell in him, and he in us, because he hath given us of his Spirit.”
Ibid, 4: 12, 13. The devoted disci­ple goes to the house of worship on the
Lord’s day, and there is greeted heartily by his brethren and sisters in the
Lord, and he feels the cords of love strengthen as he takes them by the hand. He
joins with them in singing psalms, and hymns, and spiritual songs; and as he
makes melody in his heart to the Lord, his thoughts soar away to a place where
he hopes to join with the redeemed in singing the “new song before the throne”
in sweeter strains than mortal tongues can make. A lesson of instruction is read
from the Word of the Lord “whereby are given unto us ex­ceeding great and
precious promises; that by these we might be partakers of the divine nature.” 2
Peter 1:4. Are we made par­takers of the divine nature by the precious promises
of the Lord? Then, what has He promised? Nay, what has He not promised us? Eye
hath not seen nor ear heard, neither has it entered into the heart of man to
conceive the things which God has in reservation for them that love Him; and
though God has re­vealed them by His Spirit, language is beggared when called
upon to furnish drapery in which to present them. He has promised that He will
never leave nor forsake His children; that He will comfort and support them
while crossing the deep, rolling river, that He will quicken their mortal bodies
by His Spirit that dwelleth in them, and give them bodies fashioned like unto
the glorious body of His Son; that their homes shall be in the city of God,
where God and angels shall be their associates; that they shall have right to
the tree of life, and drink of the pure river of life that flows from beneath
the throne; that they shall bask in the sunny smiles of God’s eternal love
forever and ever. Oh, great, exceeding great and precious promises! Who can
contemplate them without partaking of the divine nature; nay, without drinking
copious draughts of the Holy Spirit that is ever present with them? While the
disciple eats of the bread and drinks of the wine which symbolize the broken
body and shed blood of a crucified Saviour, who died that he might live, his
memory fastens by faith upon the scenes of Calvary, and his heart swells with
grati­tude and is stirred with deepest emotion as he feels the love of God shed
abroad in his heart by the Holy Spirit which is given to him through the
appointments of the Lord. He prostrates himself at the golden altar and offers
thereon the incense of an humble and devoted heart. Feeling his unworthiness, he
pleads for mercy through Jesus Christ. Truly grateful for favors re­ceived, he
humbly yet in faith asks his Father for blessings and protection in time to
come. “Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we
should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us
with groanings which can not be uttered.” Romans 8:26. Thus God’s children are
“strengthened with might by his Spirit in the inner man” (Ephesians 3:16) by the
service of the Lord’s day at the house of worship. Oh, precious season of
refreshing from the presence of the Lord! Surely, it is good for them to be
there, that they may sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus, and drink
of that measure of the Holy Spirit with which God designed to comfort and
strengthen His children amid the persecutions and trials incident to their
pilgrimage through life. But Jesus called the Holy Spirit a Comforter, and truly
it did comfort them. It not only dwelt in them, but it inspired men to write and
speak words of cheer for them. It inspired Paul to write a graphic de­scription
of their victory over death and subsequent reign with the Lord. He says: “The
Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the
archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:
then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the
clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.
Wherefore comfort one another with these words.” 1 Thessalonians 4:16-18. THE
WITNESS OF THE SPIRIT.

After Paul had given the disciples at Rome positive assurance of the Spirit’s
presence in them, and that God would quicken their mortal bodies by it, he tells
them that the measure of it re­ceived by them was the Spirit of adoption, by
which they were authorized to call God THEIR Father; and in further confirmation
of this, he said: “The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit that we are
the children of God.” Romans 8:16. The apostle here speaks of two witnesses, the
Spirit itself and our spirit, and these bear witness to the fact that certain
characters are children of God. By the phrase Spirit itself we suppose we are to
under­ stand Paul to mean the Holy Spirit, and by our spins we suppose he means
the human spirit. Then, the Holy Spirit and the human spirit bear testimony with
each other that the disciples are children of God. The passage is generally
interpreted as though it read thus: “The Spirit itself beareth witness TO our
spirit that we are children of God.” And though this makes the Holy Spirit the
only witness, when we inquire of those who thus interpret the passage, for the
testimony of the witness, they give us the testimony of their own spirit, as
though it were the only witness; and thus the testimony of the Holy Spirit is
virtually ex­cluded. Is there not a want of consistency in this? We have
listened attentively to many persons when detailing the testi­mony upon which
they predicated their acceptance with God, and of that given by those who
believe in the doctrine of ab­stract spiritual influences; we remember not a
sentence that was not a statement of what they had felt, imagined or dreamed. In
vain have we listened for one word of testimony from the Holy Spirit—it is
entirely excluded. That this is true may be seen in the fact that such persons
are often in doubt upon the subject themselves; and surely they would not doubt
the testimony of the Holy Spirit. One day their hopes are all bright, and they
feel perfectly sure that they are children of God—the next day they are in
Bunyan’s “slough of despond,” and singing, with plaintive voice, “’Tis a point I
long to know; Oft it causes anxious thought; Do I love the Lord or no? Am I His,
or am I not?” Indeed, doubts are their counterfeit detector, by which the wheat
is separated from the chaff and a genuine conversion is recognized. He who has
no doubts of his acceptance with God is, with them, an egotistic, self-righteous
Pharisee, who is igno­rant of “the work of grace in the soul.” Those who thus
doubt are not like those to whom Paul said: “Let us draw near with a true heart,
in full assurance of faith.” Hebrews 10:22. They can only draw near to God in
full assurance of faith occasionally, if at all. Their faith is not based upon
testimony, but upon their feelings; hence, when they draw near to God it must be
in full assurance of feeling, and only occasionally at that. We do not object to
good feelings; they are proper in their place; but when they con­stitute all the
foundation of hope in Jesus, dark days will be sure to come. When the excitement
of the protracted meeting passes away and the convert begins to grapple with the
trials of life, the ardor of his feelings cools down, and we hear him sing:
“Dear Lord, if indeed I am shine, If thou art my sun and my song, Say, why do I
languish and pine, And why are my winters so long? Oh, drive these dark clouds
from my sky; Thy soul-cheering presence restore; Lord, take me to thee up on
high, Where winter and cloud, are no more. Under such a state of mind, unless
another protracted meeting should speedily drive the dark clouds away and renew
the soul­cheering presence of the Lord, they are apt to imagine them­selves
deceived, and go back into sin, or seek another conversion by which the feelings
of the former excitement may be tempo­rarily renewed; and thus they pass through
life alternating be­tween hope and despair.

We do not know that we are pardoned because we feel good, but we feel good
because we know we are pardoned. He who believes himself pardoned will feel like
a pardoned man whether he be pardoned or condemned, for a falsehood believed
will produce just the same feelings that would have been produced had it been
true. When Jacob believed Joseph to be dead, he grieved and wept in all the
anguish of soul that would have wrung his heart had the fact been really that
way. He refused to be comforted, and confidently expected his gray hairs to go
down to the grave in sorrow for what he believed to be the sad fate of his dear
boy; and it was with great difficulty that he was made to believe that Joseph
was alive and governor of Egypt, but when he saw the wagons which Joseph had
sent to carry him to Egypt, he said: “It is enough: Joseph, my son, is yet
alive; I will go and see him before I die.” Genesis 45:28. He felt like Jo­seph
was dead when really he was alive and governor of Egypt. The Roman Catholic pays
his money to the priest to absolve him from guilt, and dies rejoicing in the
belief of the imposition as though it were really true; and if good feelings are
conclusive proof of pardon, then is he pardoned indeed, for doubtless he feels
as much like he was pardoned as does any one else.

Feelings may prove us sincere, but they alone can not prove the pardon of sin.
It is a moral proposition and can not be proved by physical testimony. Our
feelings may prove that which is wrought in us or done by us, but they can not
prove that which is wrought in or done by another who is not visible to us. They
may bear witness to the sincerity of our faith and re­pentance, because they are
done by us; they may bear witness to our change of heart, because it is wrought
in us; but pardon of sin takes place in the mind of God, the party offended, as
far from us as heaven is from the earth, and hence we can not at­test the fact
by our feelings. When we are hungry, thirsty, sleepy, sick, or in pain, we know
the fact by our feelings, and no amount of moral testimony could convince us to
the contrary, for this character of testimony is not capable of proving such a
fact; but the fact that Jesus died upon Calvary must be proved by moral
testimony, and can not be proved by our feelings, any more than Jacob’s feelings
could prove that Joseph was slain by a wild beast. Sin is a moral evil, and its
forgiveness can not be recog­nized by feelings, like the removal of disease from
the body, but must be known by testimony coming from the party who for­gives it.
By way of illustrating the thought here presented, we beg permission to present
the substantial features of an actual occurrence of the late war. A soldier of
one of the armies, charged with a crime thought worthy of death, was tried by a
court-martial and sentenced to be shot on a specified hour of a certain day. He
had been a good sold er, and the commanding general determined to pardon him,
and, without mentioning the fact to any one, he wrote out his reprieve early on
the morning of the day set for his execution. The condemned man was placed in
POSITION, in the care of an officer and squad of soldiers charged with the
execution of the order, and the whole army was marched out to witness his death.
Within a minute or two of the time appointed for the man to die the reprieve was
handed to the officer in charge, and was read to the prisoner, an­nouncing his
release. Then he had knowledge of his pardon, and for the first time felt like a
pardoned man. Though pardoned early in the morning, his feelings gave him no
evidence of the fact until the written communication came from the pardoning
power in words adapted to his comprehension. Why did not his feelings assure him
of his pardon as soon as it took place in the mind of the general? Because
feelings are not capable of bear­ing such testimony. Had pardon taken place in
his own mind, then his feelings would have given him assurance of the fact. So
the sinner is pardoned in the mind of God; and though he may rejoice with joy
unspeakable and full of glory, he does it in full assurance of faith in the
proclamation which contains the conditions of his pardon. But will this source
of testimony relieve the question of par­don from the doubts which hang about it
in the minds of such as rely upon their feelings alone as the evidence of their
acceptance with God? We may know that our sins are pardoned with as much
certainty as we may know that there is a God against whom we have sinned, a
heaven awaiting the saints, a hell to be the abode of the damned, or that we
have an immortal spirit within us. How do we know that there is a God? “No man
hath seen God at any time; the only-begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the
Father, he hath declared him” (John 1:18), yet he is de­nominated a fool who
“hath said in his heart, There is no God.” Psalms 14:1; Psalms 52:1 Testimony
may be such as to produce a convic­tion in the mind that amounts to knowledge.
We feel just as sure that there is such a place as New York or London, neither
of which we have seen, as we do that there is such a place as Nashville, which
we have seen; then, if we may thus know from human testimony that there is such
a place as New York, why may we not know from divine testimony that there is a
heaven where God and angels dwell? John says: “If we receive the wit­ness of
man, the witness of God is greater.” 1 John 5:9. But does this amount to
knowledge? Job says: “I know that my Re­deemer liveth, and that he shall stand
at the latter day upon the earth; and though after my skin worms destroy this
body, yet in my flesh shall I see God.” Job 19:25-26. How did Job know these
things? Peter said: “Let all the house of Israel know as­suredly, that God hath
made that same Jesus, whom ye have cru­cified, both Lord and Christ.” How were
the Pentecostians to know this? They could not see the Lord as did Stephen, but
they must know it through the testimony which Peter presented to them. Paul
says: “We know that, if our earthly house of this tab­ernacle were dissolved, we
have a building of God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens.’’ 2
Corinthians 5:1. How could these Corinthians have known this? Only through
testimony; yet it amounted to knowledge. John said: “We! know that, when he
appears, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.” 1 John 3:2. How
could the disciples to whom John wrote have known this? Only through testimony;
yet they knew it. Then, if the Pentecostians could know from testimony that
Jesus was crowned Lord in heaven; if the Corinthians could know that there was a
building of God awaiting them in heaven after death; if the disciples knew that
they would be like Jesus Christ when He should appear, why may we not know our
sins forgiven by the same kind of testimony? Luke says: “Forasmuch as many have
taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most
surely believed among us, even as they delivered them unto us, which from the
beginning were eye-witnesses, and ministers of the word; it seemed good to me
also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to
write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, that thou mightest know the
certainty of those things wherein thou hast been instructed.” Luke 1:1-4. Then,
we may as­suredly know the certainty of things from written testimony,
especially when the Spirit of God guided the pen of the writer. Hence, John
says: “These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son
of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life.” 1 John 5:13. Then, we may
know our­selves heirs of eternal life by the things which inspired men have
written. Jesus says: “I have given them the words which thou hast given me, and
they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee.” John
17:8. Here we not only learn that the words of Jesus were sufficient to let the
apostles know assuredly that He came from God, but we also learn that the words
spoken and written by them came from God through His Son to them; hence, in
these words we have the testimony of Jesus Christ and also of God Himself. What,
then, is the testi­mony? In the new covenant, which was dedicated with the blood
of His Son, God said: “I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their
sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.” Hebrews 8:12. This covenant
was the consummation of the Prom­ise which God gave to Abraham, “wherein God,
willing more abundantly to show unto the heirs of promise the immutability of
his counsel, confirmed it with an oath; that by two immutable things, in which
it was impossible for God to He, we might have strong consolation, who have fled
for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us; which hope we have as an
anchor to the soul both sure and steadfast.” Hebrews 6:17-19. Then, we have the
promise of God, confirmed by His oath, that the sins of His peo­ple should be
remembered no more. But on what conditions, if any, He would blot them from His
memory is not here stated. Jesus was the mediator of this covenant—the surety of
a bet­ter testament than the old; hence, to Him we go for the terms of pardon
under the testament of which He is Testator. He says: “He that believeth and is
baptized shall be saved.” Mark 16:16. Here we find that pardon is conditional,
and the conditions are clearly set out. He further says: “The words that I speak
unto you, they are spirit and they are life.” John 6:63. We suppose this at
least implies that the Spirit is ever present in His Word. In this conditional
proclamation of pardon we have the presence of the Spirit, the word of Jesus
Christ, and the oath of God the Father; and they are all pledged for the pardon
of him who be­lieves and is baptized. But our spirit is also a witness that we
are children of God; what testimony does it give? The first condition in the
procla­mation requires us to believe; but we may profess to believe when we do
not; and if so, God is not mocked; “it ii with the heart man believeth unto
righteousness.” Our faith must come from the great deep of our heart; and though
others may accuse us of hypocrisy, our own spirit bears us witness that we do
be­lieve. Hence, says John: “He that believeth on the Son of God hath the
witness in himself.” John 5:10. The witness of what? that he is pardoned? No;
that he does believe. Our spirit is competent to bear witness to the sincerity
of our faith, for it is an act of our own; and hence, no amount of testimony can
con­vince us that we do not believe what our spirit tells us we do believe. But
we must be baptized, for this is another condition of the proclamation. This,
too, may be done from impure motives, and if so, it is worthless, for Paul says:
“Ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you;
being then made free from sin.” Romans 6:17-18. Here again our spirit tes­tifies
that we were baptized with a heart sincerely desirous of honoring God’s
authority in humble obedience to His will. Then, our spirit testifies that we do
believe and trace been baptized, and the Holy Spirit testifies, in the words of
Jesus, that we are saved, and GOD HAS CONFIRMED IT WITH HIS OATH. Thus the
Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit that we are children of God; and
now “believing ye rejoice with joy un­speakable and full of glory, receiving the
end of your faith, even the salvation of your souls.” 1 Peter 1:8-9. Yea, “the
God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing, that ye may abound in
hope through the power of the Holy Ghost.” Romans 15:13. Now, like the jailer,
we “rejoice, believing in God.” Acts 16:34. When the believing eunuch was
baptized, “he went on his way rejoicing.” Acts 8:39. These were wholly unlike
the converts of modern times. They rejoiced in their salvation be­cause they
knew they had complied with the conditions of the proclamation. Now, ask that
rejoicing convert why he feels happy, and he will tell you he is happy because
he knows his sins are pardoned; ask him how he knows he is pardoned, and he will
tell you he knows he is pardoned because he feels good. Thus he reasons in a
circle, proving his pardon by his feedings and his feelings by his pardon. Now,
is there any room to doubt the pardon of a man who has thus complied with the
conditions of the proclamation? None whatever. Can we doubt the word of Jesus
and the oath of God? Can you say, “Yes, I know I did believe, and I know I was
baptized in good faith, and I know the Lord says, ’He that believeth and is
baptized shall be saved, but I am not sure He told the truth; and I know, too,
that God confirmed His promise by His oath, but I am in doubt still.” Our pen
trembles when we record even a supposition of such a thought in any human heart.
Have we any stronger testimony that God is, and that He is the rewarder of them
who diligently seek Him? Have we any stronger evidence that there is a heaven to
be the home of the righteous? Is there any stronger proof that the wicked will
be turned into hell with the nations that forget God? Have we any stronger
assurance that we have a soul to be saved or lost? It occurs to us that he who
will not believe it would not be per­suaded though Jesus were on earth and
should speak to him in person. We have His word, and it confirmed by the oath of
His Father. What more could we have were He here to-day? Many refused to believe
on Him when He was among them con­firming His word by miracles, which they saw
with their own eyes; and they would do so again were He here now; but the
responsibility is with them—not with Him—not with us. When all material things
shall be wrapped in flame—nay, when they shall have passed away—His word will
stand secure. We had many other thoughts which we were anxious to pre­sent, but
we have already gone more than one hundred pages over our contemplated limits,
and must lay down our pen, though we do it reluctantly. We feel that we have
performed our work faithfully as far as we have gone, but we did not wish to
leave our readers until we had shown them the road through “the gates into the
city.” Having told them how to become chil­dren of God, we were anxious to tell
them how to live as Chris­tians, that they might die in the Lord and enjoy the
rest that re­mains for the people of God. We wanted to go with them to the house
of worship on the Lord’s day, where we might teach and admonish each other in
psalms, and hymns, and spiritual songs, making melody in our hearts to the Lord.
We wanted to sur­round the table of the Lord, and with them partake of the
em­blems of His broken body and shed blood, in commemoration of the great
sin-offering made for the world. We wanted to go with them to the family altar,
whence their prayers might ascend, as sweet incense, to the throne of the Most
High. We wanted to go with them through the trials, temptations, and
persecutions inci­dent to their pilgrimage on the earth. We wanted to see them
grapple with and overcome the last enemy when crossing the deep rolling river.
After sleeping in Jesus for a time, we wanted to see them come forth in His
glorified image, clad in the habili­ments of immortality and basking in the
radiant smiles of God’s eternal love, for ever and ever. But all this, for want
of room, we must leave for the work of another pen. Friendly sinner, we have
labored for your interest in the prep­aration of this work under much physical
pain, but God has spared us to its completion, for which we have earnestly
prayed and feel devoutly thankful; for we feel assured that for every one we may
be instrumental in turning to righteousness and guiding in the way of life
eternal we will have a star placed in the crown of glory which will wreathe our
brow in the pres­ence-chamber of our God. You will read these pages when the
hand that guides the pen with which they are written will have grown cold, and
the heart that beats with anxious solicitude for your salvation will have been
stilled in death; then, even then, though dead, may we yet speak through them
some kind word that may feel about the tender chords of your heart and cause you
to love God who first loved you, and Jesus Christ who died to redeem you, that
you may flee from sin and lay hold upon eternal life. Jesus says, In my Father’s
house are many mansions; if it were not so, I would have told you. He has gone
to prepare a place for you, that where He is there you may be also. Oh! do you
not want to be with Jesus? If so, He says, Come unto me, all ye that are weary,
and I will give you rest. The Father says, Look unto me, all ye ends of the
earth, and be ye saved; for I am God, and besides Me there is none else. Then,
God says, Come—Jesus says, Come—the Spirit and the Bride say, Come; and
whosoever will, let him come and take of the water of life freely. Oh! then,
will you come? “Come, all you who see yourselves lost, And feel yourselves
burdened with sin; Draw near, though with terror you’re tossed; Obey, and your
peace shall begin. He, riches has ever in store, And treasures that never can
waste; Here’s pardon, here’s grace—yea, and more, Here’s glory eternal at last.”
And why should you not come? Is it not strange that, while God, Jesus, angels,
and all good men are concerned for you, you, the most directly interested, are
still unconcerned for yourself? What has the devil with which to reward you for
a life of devo­tion to him? Esau was regarded as a profane person for selling
his birthright for a mess of pottage; are you not doing worse, bartering a home
in heaven for the momentary gratification of fleshly lusts, pride, and appetite?
Surely these are not sufficient to compensate you for an eternity of misery and
woe! Were you to acquire the cattle of a thousand hills, yea, and all the gold
of California and Peru, these could not purchase one drop of water with which to
cool your parching tongue in the rude flames of an angry hell; then what will it
profit if you gain the whole world and lose your soul at last? or what will you
give in exchange for your soul? If you could possess the world and its
treasures, the time may come when you would give them all for an interest in the
blood of Jesus—you may now have it without money and without price. How unwise
to reject it, Oh, then flee from the wrath to come and lay hold on eternal life!


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 17: GPS-16-TESTIMONIALS
========================================================================

In presenting the THIRD edition of this work to the public, it is deemed proper
to present, with it, a few extracts of notices of former editions by the PRESS;
and by distinguished men deemed competent to decide upon the merits of the work.

TESTIMONIES OF THE PRESS

The Christian Quarterly, after naming the subjects treated, says: “These
subjects are discussed with great plainness and genera marked abil­ity. Want of
space will not permit us to point out special features; but we have no
hesitation in saying that the work, as a whole, is worthy to be studied—not
simply read, and then laid aside, but carefully and earnestly studied. It will,
we think, be specially acceptable to young preachers and Sunday-School teachers,
as it condenses a large amount of valuable infor­mation from books accessible to
only a favored few. While not so preten­tious as many works upon the subjects of
Anthropology and Soteriology, to the general reader it will be found to contain
several advantages over all other works of its kind. It is simple in its
arrangement, sufficiently compre­hensive in treatment, and relies chiefly on the
Word of God to settle all disputed questions.” The Gospel Advocate says: “Bro.
Brents is a popular writer for the com­mon people. They read his writings
gladly, because they understand them readily. The treatment of his subjects is
his own. No man has a more marked individuality as a thinker and writer than
Bro. Brents. His associa­tion of subjects is also his own. Then the book
occupies a place of its own in Christian literature.... There is a fuller
examination of the subject of baptism, and a more copious collection of
authorities on this subject than can be found elsewhere.... It is opportune that
such full authorities should be presented. We then commend heartily the
circulation of the book among all classes who can be induced to read it. It will
build up and strengthen the faith of the Christian. It will do much to convince
the unbeliever and silence the gainsayer.” The Southern Christian Weekly says:
“We have not had the work long enough to examine it thoroughly; but we have
known Bro. Brents for a number of years, both as a preacher and writer, and have
long been famil­iar with his method of handling most of the subjects treated in
his book. He is a fine reasoner and a good writer. This work is written in a
clear, forcible, nervous style—is both readable and instructive, and will, no
doubt, prove of incalculable value in clearing away erroneous doctrines which
now form one of the chief hindrances to many in receiving and obeying the
Gospel. We hope the book will meet with a ready reception, and that it may be
widely circulated, and thus enabled to accomplish the good it is so well
calculated to do. The mechanical execution and material are, in every way, good
enough.” “We have not time to enter at large upon an examination of the
ques­tions of the work before us. Its style is simple, clear, and natural to the
author. The author’s heart is loyal to the cause of the Bible as the only source
of sound religious instruction. The work is admirably adapted to the average
understanding and intelligence of men, and is thus fitted to accomplish a grand
work among the masses of men; we heartily commend it to the brotherhood as one
of the best books for their own reading, and for distribution among those who
may be willing to be informed concern­ing our religious teaching.” Christian
Examiner. The American Christian Review says: “It is a neatly printed and well
bound volume of 667 pages, in good style. The work contains the pith of near a
lifetime of thought, much reading and extended experience touching the matters
treated, with all the doctrinal difficulties, perplexities, and con­fusion that
He in the way. He has, with a master hand, met, traced out, and explained the
greatest difficulties, and, with the utmost patience and in the most laborious
manner, cleared away the perplexities and confusion that have kept thousands out
of the kingdom of God, and are now keeping thousands, who honestly desire to be
Christians, out of Christ. The work is decidedly well written. It enters into
the matter item by item, and clears up difficult questions Lying in the path of
every man striving to spread the gospel, and deals with them in a most safe and
reliable manner, and makes the truth gleam out at every angle. After clearing
away the difficulties it enters its main work, the ’Plan of Salvation,’ and the
Gospel plan at that. He finds no ’Mosaism’ nor ’Legalism’ in his way, nor
Pauline gospel. The gospel of Christ is sufficient for him. We are rejoiced that
this book has appeared, and hope it will be extensively read. If our young men
desire to understand the gospel, and know how to present it to others so that
they can understand it, believe it and be saved by it, they can do no better
than to obtain this book, and not only read it, but study it.” The Apostolic
Times, though dissenting from the chapter on the fore­knowledge of God, says:
“This entire work is well adapted to the minds of the masses of the people, for
whom it was especially written, and it will be read with avidity and delight by
thousands. We anticipate for it a large and continuous circulation, and we
commend it as a work well worthy of the careful study of our brethren, and of
extensive circulation among the thoughtful of other churches and of no church.”
The Bible Index says: ’It is carefully written, and in good English. The author
does not rely very much upon his logic to establish the conclu­sions which he
draws, but rather upon the supreme and final authority of the Holy Scriptures,
to which he makes constant reference. In the initial chapters he takes in hand,
Predestination, Election, and Reprobation, He­reditary Depravity, etc., and
before he gets through with these illogical and anti-scriptural dogmas, there is
no breath left in them. They are utterly demolished. And we do earnestly
recommend those who are troubled with these creations of the sect-thirst, or
have friends or acquaintances so afflicted, to buy and read, or cause to be
read, Bro. Brents’ book. The identity of the Church, faith, repentance, and
baptism— as to what it is and the proper subject—the gifts of the Holy Spirit,
the operation of the Holy Spirit, and the witness of the Holy Spirit are all
dealt with in a critical and thorough manner, Without a more careful reading
than we have yet been able to bestow on the latter portions, we are not prepared
to say that all Bro. Brents’ conclusions are incontrovertible; but we do
earnestly admire the re­spectful style with which he treats the views which it
is his duty to refute, and especially the respects, so uncommon, which he
displays for the very words of the Scriptures. He does not attempt to jump at a
meaning, but is careful to deduce it directly from the words used according to
the recog­nized rules of interpretation, without regard to the consequences to
which such a course may lead. These are our impressions of this book and we
shall therefore take pleasure in knowing that it has secured the large de­mand
which its intrinsic merits deserve.” “We call the attention of our readers to
this work and ask them to ex­amine it. Bro. Brents is a forcible writer, and he
deals with vital questions in the work named. The great questions that
distinguish us from other religionists are investigated, and there is a
compendium of useful informa­tion on these points. The publishers have done
their work well, as they always do.”—The Christian, of Louis, Mo. “This book is
admirable for its correctness of views, its plainness of style, and is adapted
for a hand book for young ministers and others wish­ing an easy compend upon
these important elementary principles. We heartily commend it, too, for family
reading and a work to be placed in the hands of those untaught upon these
themes.”—The Evangelist, Oskaloosa, Iowa. “As a clear and skillful disposition
of disputed and knotty points in the­ology, the book has decided value. The
author’s style is perspicuous and forcible, and he shows a large acquaintance
with the Scriptures as well as ability to unfold their meaning and rescue them
from false interpretations. . . . To all who are embarrassed with Calvinistic
teaching this book ought to have special interest and value, as the author has
studied that system of doctrines thoroughly and deals with it faithfully. On the
question of Bap­tism, alike as regards action, subjects, and design, the book is
a repository of testimonies and arguments sufficient to meet almost any want in
that line, and furnishes, we judge, as cheap and satisfactory a collection of
evi­dences as can be found. “It is not our purpose to review the chapters in
which we are treated to original views and interpretations such as John 3:5, and
Romans 8:29, or do more than express our dissent from interpretations given....
We have no doubt that it will have, as it deserves, a large sale.”—Christian
Stan­dard. “We have examined the work with care, and read some of the chapters
attentively, and regard it as a valuable work for all inquirers after truth, and
specially for young preachers whose libraries are small and means limited. It
embraces a large amount of valuable information, requiring extensive reading to
collect, particularly on the subject of Baptism. The chapter on the
’Foreknowledge of God,’ as well as some other matters in the work, contains some
statements liable to just criticism. Still the work is valuable on many
accounts, and, on the whole, does credit to the author and the subjects
discussed; and the disciples generally, and young preachers spe­cially, will
find it an excellent compendium of religious information.”—The Watch Tower, New
Berne, N.C.

EXTRACTS OF NOTICES BY DISTINGUISHED PREACHING BRETHREN.

IRA I. CHASE, Peoria, I11.: “I think I own the first copy sold north of the Ohio
River. I am just delighted with it, especially Election and The Holy Spirit. I
must be permitted to use the arguments almost verbatim Though strangers,
personally, I feel quite well acquainted with you through your book. God bless
you. May your book have GREAT SALE.” R. B. TRIMBLE, Mayfield, Ky.: “Your book is
giving perfect satisfaction. I believe it to be THE BOOK of the brotherhood. I
am sure it will more than meet the expectations of the brethren.” J. M. KIDWELL,
Smithville, Tenn.: “Every one is delighted with it. I think the first four
chapters are richly worth many times the price of the book; indeed I think the
entire range of subjects well chosen, and brought so completely within
comprehension of the ordinary reader that great good must result from it. You
have also brought such an amount of critical re­search to bear on some of the
leading questions of the day as will make it profitable to the student of the
Bible.” W. C. HUFFMAN, Enon College, Tenn.: “It is more eagerly read, and its
contents more universally approved than any book published among our brethren
for many years. May the Lord bless you in your efforts to do good. Surely your
investigations and publications must do great good for the cause of our
Redeemer, and add bright stars to your crown.” WASHINGTON BACON, Tecumseh, Ala.:
“I fear I think too highly of it. There is a vacuum in the literature of this
reformation that your book most completely fills. There is no such work amongst
us—it is just the thing; and you can use my name in any way you wish in its
commendation—you can not exaggerate my estimation of it.” G. W. CONE, Newburg,
Ark.: “I think the work is well done—variety and exhaustion well combined. It
would be difficult to select five words in the English language more expressive
of the book than the five given, ’THE GOSPEL PLAN OF SALVATION.’” DR. J. T.
BARCLAY, Wheeler’s Station, Ala.: “Am really delighted with the work. It most
happily supplies a vacuum in our literature long and seriously felt; and should
it not have an extensive circulation I shall; be much surprised.” “I consider it
the most thorough work of the kind I have ever read. The intelligent reader can
not fail to be struck with the force and clearness with which it handles every
subject, and on the subjects of baptism and the Holy Spirit the work is
peculiarly excellent. I most heartily commend the work to all who feel
interested in a clear and lucid exposition of the most important subjects
connected with the scheme of salvation. “You will not find in it the speculative
conclusions of an ingenious writer—but the clear and natural deductions of an
exhaustive accumulation of Scriptural evidences adroitly linked together, so
that the unbiased mind will naturally, easily, and almost, if not quite,
unavoidably yield to the same conclusions. And to such minds many hitherto
perplexed questions will forever be set at rest.”

DAVID ADAMS.

Pine Apple, Ala. “I consider it a prize work. It is simply powerful. It will
take a high POSITION among the standard productions of the literature of the
Current Reformation, and will live when the present generation has passed away.
I am generally parsimonious, very parsimonious, in my recommendations of latest
productions, but I can afford to be liberal in what I say of this work, which
does its work respectfully and does it with a masterly hand. I arrive at the
same conclusions with our talented brother on every topic, especially on what he
calls ’Adam’s sin,’ on which I may hereafter write an essay if I am spared and
feel able, as I am now poorly, and have been for several days past. If I did not
possess a copy of this work, nor had the money to purchase it, I would labor and
earn the money, and place it in my library, for he has routed the Pedobaptist
forces, horse, foot, and dragoons, from their hiding-places. I will now make
some statements relative to the baptismal controversy. But first I hope our
brotherhood will consider the time, expense, labor, research, and learning
necessary to the production of such a work, and not only feel grateful to
Brother Brents but lessen the expense by taking a copy of the work, as well as
to compensate him in some measure for his great mental and bodily labor, and be
grateful that they have such a champion of truth in the South.”

JACOB CREATH.

Palmyra, Mo. “I would like to see your book in the hands of every man and woman
in Tennessee. I would produce a shaking among the dry bones. It combines more of
the elements of Christianity, and concentrates more of the facts, with a clearer
view of the whole, than any book in the English language.”

E. R. OSBORNE.

Union City, Tenn. “Every young preacher should at once supply himself with a
copy of The Gospel Plan of Salvation, and not only read, but study and digest
its arguments. It contains an array of arguments, facts, and authorities nowhere
else to be found in so small a compass. “The authorities may be relied on as
correct. They are taken from the original, and not at second hand, as is often
done. “I commend the book most heartily to our brotherhood, and to all who
desire to understand the great themes of which it so clearly and fully

W. D. CARNES, President of Burritt College Spencer, Tenn.


========================================================================
Source: https://sermonindex.net/books/gospel-plan-of-salvation-tw-brents/
========================================================================