========================================================================
  BAPTIST DOCTRINES
  by Ca Jenkins
========================================================================

Jenkins's introduction to Baptist beliefs and practices, explaining Baptist
principles in light of New Testament Christianity and apostolic practice. He
addresses common misunderstandings about Baptists while establishing their
doctrinal foundations from Scripture.

  Chapters: 24

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

    1. 00.2 Introduction
    2. 01 Baptist Faith and Practice
    3. 02 The Inspiration of the Scriptures
    4. 03 Infant Baptism Unscriptural
    5. 04 Why The Baptists Do Not Baptize Infants
    6. 05 Baptismal Regeneration
    7. 06 Immersion Essential to Christian Baptism
    8. 07 Close Communion
    9. 08 Baptist Churches Apostolical
   10. 09 The Gospel Ministry
   11. 10 The Difference Between a Baptist Church and All Other Churches
   12. 11 The Multiplicity of Denominations an Evil
   13. 12 Missions, The Spirit of Christianity.
   14. 13 Baptists and Missions
   15. 14 The Permanence of the Divine Plan; Or, Special Providence
   16. 15 The Biblical Doctrine of the Trinity
   17. 16 The Divinity of Christ
   18. 17 The Atonement
   19. 18 The Personality of the Holy Spirit
   20. 19 Regeneration Essential to Salvation
   21. 20 Predestination
   22. 21 Perseverance of the Saints
   23. 22 Future Punishment – Character Determines Doom
   24. 23 The Resurrection

========================================================================
  CHAPTER 1: 00.2 INTRODUCTION
========================================================================

Introduction By Rev. C. A. Jenkens, Franklinton, N. C.

“Speak unto the children of Israel, that they go forward.” —Exodus 14:15.

Possibly an overtasked and broken-hearted people had well-nigh forgotten the
gracious promise God had made long years before to Abraham, their father,
saying: “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.” As
their backs smarted under the taskmaster’s lash, or as they gathered straw in
Egyptian fields, like Sarah, they may have laughed at the promise of Jehovah,
and esteemed it but an idle tale that they were ever to be an independent
people, the peculiar favorites of heaven, dwelling in a land every way fitted to
be a type of Paradise. But God is not slack concerning his promise, as some men
count slackness; and to-day, fleeing in wild confusion, six hundred thousand
effective men, besides old men, women, and children, have gathered on the border
of the Red Sea. The vast moving throng numbers hardly less than two million
souls, and this day is the Lord’s word gloriously fulfilled, “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.”

Meanwhile the Egyptians are not idle. Pharaoh and his servants, recovering
somewhat from the shock of plagues, and determining still further to defy the
living God, go forth in hot pursuit of their former slaves. Their serried ranks
march on, “terrible as an army with banners,” until the grating of their chariot
wheels on distant rocks and the thundering tramp of their chargers arouse the
Israelites from their dreams of deliverance and peace.

Destruction seemed inevitable to the chosen seed. Trembling age looks back upon
the neighboring hills crowned with foes, terrified children cling to no less
terrified mothers in Israel, and even the stoutest hearts are dismayed at the
approaching peril. The people murmur against Moses and against God. Escape
seemed impossible. On one hand rose a treacherous mountain; on the other
stretched a desert waste; behind them marched an infuriated host, headed by its
king; while before them rolled the angry waves of an unbroken sea. To show,
perhaps, the strength of his own arm and the glory of his own name, Jehovah
commands Moses to “speak to the children of Israel that they go forward.” Go
forward? How can it be—difficulties on every side! Half doubting, they obey the
strange command, and march to the water’s brink, when, lo, the prophet of the
Lord lifts his rod over the sea, and the waters rise on either side a perfect
wall, through which a redeemed and happy people pass.

Holding up the children of Israel as a type of that Church the Son of God came
to establish, I wish to impress upon the reader the following lessons:

I. Absolute obedience to God, the supreme necessity of the Church.

Demosthenes, when asked what is the first thing in oratory, replied, “Action.”
When asked what is the second, he again said,” Action;” and when asked what is
the third thing, he still said, “Action.” To pilgrims in a land of sin and
death, it matters not so much what are the essential elements of an evanescent
art, but we do know that the first and last thing in the divine life of the soul
and in the prosperity of the Church, is obedience. The whole duty of the Church,
as well as of man, is to “fear God and keep his commandments.” Were it possible
for a heaven redeemed soul to cease to obey, it would also cease to live; and if
a church cease to obey, it also ceases to exist as a divine institution. Had the
children of Israel positively refused to go forward in obedience to the divine
command, or had they presumptuously attempted to scale the mountain range on
their right, or flee through the desert on their left, or to repel the
threatening hosts of Pharaoh at their back, they must have forfeited their
freedom and happiness, and suffered defeat and shame. Is it strange, then, that
there should be found throughout the history of the Church a people ready to
walk in the statutes of the Lord, and willing to suffer persecution and death
rather than depart from his law? Baptists are not unfrequently reminded that
they lay too great stress on literal obedience in ecclesiastical matters; but,
knowing the fearful consequences of disobedience recorded in the Scriptures for
the admonition of men, they do not see how they can act otherwise, even if they
desired to do so. Below will be given a few of the many reasons why Baptists
cling so tenaciously to the Word of God in all points of doctrinal character.

1. Obedience is made by Jesus a test of love. In that chapter of marvellous
sweetness and heavenly tenderness in John’s Gospel, our Lord says, “If ye love
me, keep my commandments.” In another place he makes compliance with his law a
test of friendship, saying, “Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command
you.” Again, a priceless promise, a promise sacred and glorious to every
believer, is connected with the observance of his word: “If ye keep my
commandments, ye shall abide in my love.” Believing, then, that submission to
the will of our Lord is one of the loveliest graces of the renewed heart, we
feel that we cannot depart from his commands without proving false to ourselves
and false to him.

2. On the other hand, disobedience is everywhere held up in the inspired volume
as one of the blackest vices of the human heart—a vice on which rest alike the
unmingled displeasure and withering curse of Almighty God. In order to impress
upon the hearts of men the “exceeding sinfulness” of disobedience, the apostle
Jude penetrates another world to adduce a fitting illustration. He says, “The
angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath
reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great
day.” Can language be more strong, or doom more terrible?

Another sad, but striking instance, may be found in the history of our first
parents. Theirs was as a happy lot—God their companion, Eden their home. For
them, birds sang, streams murmured, fruits ripened, and flowers bloomed. But, at
some evil hour, Satan suggested a rebellious act that resulted in the loss of
all. As they pluck the fruit, it turns to ashes on their lips; and as they gaze
upon the flowers, they fade—fit symbols of their blasted hopes. The fatal
effects of this one treacherous act are seen and felt wherever man lives. Sin
has poisoned the entire race; for in Adam all die. Eden! mystic name—at whose
mention start into being a hundred thoughts—where to-day is Eden? The traveller
may surmise, men may guess, but no man knows. Its general locality may be
ascertained, but it is impossible to say with certainty, of any spot on earth,
“This is the Garden of the Lord.” Thus has Jehovah blotted out the earthly
Paradise as a forceful expression of his wrath against man’s first disobedience.

Fruitful instruction may further be gathered from the case of Moses. This was a
man upon whom rested the dews of heaven, and to whom were granted many and
peculiar privileges. He was at once the favorite of the Father and the type of
the Son. On one occasion, however, Moses was betrayed into an act of
disobedience. The thirsty congregation of Israel gathered about him, clamoring
for water, and the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, “Take the rod and gather thou
the assembly together, thou and Aaron thy brother, and speak ye unto the rock
before their eyes, and it shall give forth his water.” But Moses regarded not
the injunction of his Maker, and “lifted up his hand, and with his rod he smote
the rock twice.” For this unfaithfulness, the great law-giver was not permitted
to enter the Promised Land. The difference between speaking to the rock, and
smiting it, may have appeared small in the eyes of the servant of the Lord, but
in the eyes of the Lord himself, it was very great.

I shall notice next the rash act of Uzziah. The law touching the sanctuary and
its vessels is recorded Numbers 4:15, as follows: “And when Aaron and his sons
have made an end of covering the sanctuary, and all the vessels of the
sanctuary, as the camp is to set forward; after that, the sons of Kohath shall
come to bear it: but they shall not touch any holy tiling, lest they die.” When
the Israelites were bringing up the ark from Kirjath-jearim, “Uzzah and Ahio
drove the cart.” When they came to the threshing-floor of Chidon, Uzzah put
forth his hand to support the tottering ark, “for the oxen stumbled,” thinking,
perhaps, he was rendering timely and acceptable service, but at the same time
forgetting the commandment of the Lord, that they shall not touch any holy
thing, lest they die.” So God’s anger was kindled against Uzzah, and he smote
him. A notable instance of God’s abhorrence of disregard to his word, is
presented in the life of Saul. The king of Israel was commanded to go and smite
Amalek, and utterly destroy all they had, and to spare them not: but “to slay
both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.” Saul
smote the Amalekites, but, contrary to the divine command, preserved Agag and
the best of the spoil, “sheep, oxen, and the chief of the tilings.” The king
declares to Samuel that his purpose was to sacrifice to the Lord; but the
prophet replies, “Hath 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.” The
last instance to be adduced in this connection is the history of Judas Iscariot.
Singularly was this apostle favored. He shared the instructions of the other
apostles. He witnessed the miracles of his Lord. Jesus makes known to him, as to
the rest, the unmistakable requirements of his law. In the full blaze of divine
truth, Judas determines to betray the Redeemer, and, violating the spirit of
every command Clod has given, sells for thirty pieces of silver his Saviour and
his soul.

Remember, then, that by disobedience angels lost heaven; man, Eden; Moses, the
promised land; Uzzah, his life; Saul, his crown; and Judas, his soul.

3. Baptists are unwilling for their practices to vary from the Scriptures, not
only because fidelity to Christ demands it, but because they fear the expansive
power of error. Error is a subtle thing; once begun, it is beyond the science of
numbers to compute its end. It is like artillery that shakes the solid earth,
and fills the heavens with its thunders, until neighboring hills and peaks and
distant valleys are vocal with its echoes. Let me illustrate more fully. Once
suffer human authority to be the governing power in the Church, and that body
will ultimately have, as a Vicar of Christ, a priest, a bishop, or a pope.
Having a human head, it will also have a human body. The moment man began to
control it, it ceased to be a Gospel Church. Admit infant baptism, and the
result will be the unchaste union of Church and State, an unregenerate
membership, or, at all events, a disregard of the Scriptural mode of baptism.
Thus a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.”

4. Baptists hold that Jesus Christ is the founder of the true Church, and that
he alone has the right to give it its ordinances and its laws. To undertake to
make an improvement upon what he has done, is to impeach his wisdom and jmpugn
his goodness. It is to say he knew not how to establish a church best calculated
to promote the interests of men and the glory of his name. If, however, it be
admitted that he had sufficient wisdom to found such a church, and did it not,
the blasphemous conclusion must be reached, that the neglect is due to a want of
goodness and love on his part.

Again, they are assured their churches are well founded. Jesus says, “Upon this
rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against
it.” Glorious truth, and precious promise! I build my church! Not Abraham, not
Peter, not Henry VIII., not John Wesley, not Alexander Campbell, but Jesus
Christ the Son of Clod. The true Church, then, cannot be traced to human origin.

5. The last reason I shall assign for Baptists refusing to depart from the New
Testament church model is, that they have examined the creeds of other
denominations, and have failed to discover anything comparable to their own
faith. With pain, they have observed the tendency of ecclesiastical
organizations, not modelled after the Scriptures, to lose their spiritual power,
and to be absorbed in the world. What, for instance, is the spiritual force of
the Jews? What are they accomplishing for the glory of God, for the conversion
of their own race, or for that of the world? What has been the spiritual
tendency of the Romish Church? Let the blood of God’s martyred saints cry out.
Let the enslaved nations speak. Give a tongue to ignorance, crime, and war, and
they will testify that the Roman Catholic Church has been the fruitful mother of
vice and error, opposing in every way possible the cause of truth and heaven.
The other pedobaptist churches differ, more or less widely, from the Romish
Hierarchy, but as a matter of history, they can be traced as branches of that
prolific vine. Romish errors still find a home in their creeds. They have
inaugurated many reforms, and done many good works; but they have failed to
erect a Scriptural church, or give to the world a pure gospel. The Protestant
churches have not been able to contend successfully with the mother church. As
Dr. Curry observes, “Baptist principles are necessary in their totality for the
final overthrow of Romanism.” Again, “many candid Romanists admit that Baptists
are the only thorough antagonists of their creed.” The same author quotes Dr.
Buckland as saying, “It was truly said, in that day, that whenever the reformers
would find arguments to conquer Rome, they used those of the Anabaptists; and
when they contended with Anabaptists, they were compelled to use the arguments
of Rome,—the authority of the church, and the established customs and traditions
of the past. They could not appeal successfully to the Bible. This inconsistency
was again and again urged upon them by Romanists, and it was declared that there
is not, cannot be, any middle ground between the Baptist faith and the faith of
Rome.”

While other denominations are rising and falling, and while their history has,
for the most part, been a history of blunders and changes, the Baptists have
held on to the even tenor of their way, glorifying God, and blessing the world.
Though their churches are entirely separate and independent, they nevertheless
harmonize in doctrine, because the Scriptures constitute the bond of union. They
are perfectly satisfied with their creed, believing it to be of heavenly origin,
and best suited to the wants of men and the will of God.

Through persecution and ridicule they have come, humbly walking in their
Master’s footsteps and hearkening to their Master’s voice. Others may seek
strange paths and delight in strange creeds, but they will obey Jehovah’s voice,
arid “go forward.”

II. The second lesson we find in the narrative from which the text is taken, is
that there are no nonessentials in the divine commands. Moses was not only
required to order the children of Israel to advance, but first to lift up his
hand, and stretch out his hand over the sea, and divide it. This was not a mere
form or an unmeaning ceremony. It was a high and heavenly mandate, invested with
the glorious dignity of divine authority. Many who are accustomed to select
those truths that are congenial to their creed, and to despise the others, may
discover but slight connection between lifting a rod and dividing a sea. It is
well to remember, however, that the angry waters parted not, nor was deliverance
effected for an imperiled host until this minor command was obeyed. Dr. Tucker
forcibly remarks: “Is it conceivable that the great God could possibly lend the
sanction of his authority to that which is nothing but emptiness! or that he
would command us to do that which might well be left undone? Does disobedience
of any part of his law make no change in our relations to him? A mere form is an
insignificant thing and unworthy of respect. Has God commanded anything that is
insignificant or unworthy of respect? Is any part of his law contemptible? The
soul takes fright at the very thought. God’s commandment is exceeding broad;
each part of it is jealous of the honor of every other, and each is invested
with the majesty of all.” Is there any part of God’s Word that sanctions
disregard for even the smallest of his requirements? On the contrary, are there
not abundant passages that teach his displeasure at such disregard? When Lot was
instructed to leave the doomed city of Sodom, the angel’s warning was: “Escape
for thy life; look not behind thee, neither stay thou in all the plain; escape
to the mountain, lest thou be consumed.” As they were hastening across the
plain, it may have appeared to Lot’s wife a trivial matter to look back toward
the fated city, the scene of past associations, and the home of her children.
Not hearkening to the angel’s voice, she hesitates, turns, and looks; and “she
became a pillar of salt.” Only a look! yes, a look, but a disobedient look. As
it is true that there is life in a look, so it is true that there is death in a
look. “Remember Lot’s wife.” Samson may not have conceived any essential
relation between his long hair and his great strength; yet when he lost the one
he also lost the other. What essential link is there between rams’ horns and the
destruction of a city? Yet the walls of Jericho stood firm until the horns were
sounded. And again: “Moses was admonished of God, when he was about to make the
tabernacle: For, see, saith he, that thou make all things according to the
pattern showed to thee in the mount.” Hebrews 8:5. How minute the details—yet
how important, each one an essential part of the divine pattern. As the
tabernacle of the Father was constructed after a pattern, so was the church of
the Son. His pattern was his own commandments: “teaching them to observe all
things whatsoever I have commanded you.” Matthew 28:20. Who will be bold enough
to assert that the last instructions of our Lord to his church embodied
nor.-essentials? Rather let every believer say with Dr. Gill: “Whatever is done
in a way of religious worship should be according to divine rule; a church of
Christ ought to be formed according to the primitive pattern, and should
consist, not of all that are born in a nation, province, or parish; nor should
all that are born of believing parents be admitted into it; no unholy,
unbelieving and unconverted persons, only such as are true believers in Christ,
and who are baptized according as the word of God directs.”

Jesus has set his people an illustrious example. How careful he was of the minor
points of the law. He kept the whole law, and deemed no prophecy of so small
importance as not to attend, even amid the pangs of the cross, to its
fulfilment. “Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should
follow his steps.” 1 Peter 2:21. To teach that there are non-essentials in the
Gospel, is not only insulting to Jesus but dangerous to men. Who is to decide
what is, and what is not essential? The whole matter is left necessarily to the
wild caprice of misguided men. Men differ as to the importance of the various
doctrines of the Scriptures; they must have, then, different churches as the
expression of their faith. Creeds of every description are framed, confusion
arises, and Christianity is dishonored. Who is to say that it makes any
difference whether Christ or the Pope is head of the church? Who shall condemn
Episcopalians for encouraging the unhallowed union of Church and State? Who
shall decide between Unitarians and Trinitarians, between Methodists and
Mormons, between Presbyterians and Campbellites? In other words, who is to judge
between truth and error? Pedobaptists answer, “I.” Baptists answer, “Jesus.”
There is no middle ground. We must receive the truth, and the whole truth, as
found in the inspired volume. To do otherwise, is to plunge into mists and
endless error.

III. God makes a way for his people. This is the concluding lesson. Hedged in on
every side, humanly speaking, escape was impossible in the case of the children
of Israel. But with God all things are possible. He looks down upon the
bewildered people of his peculiar and unchanging love, and through the depths of
the sea he makes a way for them to pass dry-shod. Strange way—but safe and
glorious and right joyfully did Moses and the people sing a sweet song unto the
Lord, saying: “And with the blast of thy nostrils the waters were gathered, the
floods stood upright as a heap, and the depths were congealed in the heart of
the sea. The enemy said, I will pursue, I will overtake, I will divide the
spoil; my lust shall be satisfied upon them; I will draw my sword, my hand shall
destroy them. Thou didst blow with thy wind, the sea covered them; they sank as
lead in the mighty waters. Who is like unto thee, O Lord, among the gods? Who is
like thee, glorious in holiness, fearful in praises, doing wonders?” In ways
quite as wonderful has Jehovah led those who have delighted to obey him. Enoch
walked with God; and by a path never trod before, entered the gates of glory.
When the stern prophet had ended his mission on earth, the Master honored him
with a chariot of fire and flaming horses; and “Elijah went up by a whirlwind
into heaven.” When sorrow had filled Jacob’s heart, and he cried in bitterness,
“Joseph is not, and Simeon is not, and ye will take Benjamin away; all these
things are against me,” still, all things were working together for his highest
good, and a lovely providence was preparing a way for him to enter a land of
peace and plenty. The world was corrupt and full of violence, and God determined
to destroy our wicked race. One man, however, a preacher of righteousness, has
found favor in his sight. On Noah and his family rests the divine love. When a
guilty race is overwhelmed in ruin, and the footprints of men have been blotted
out from the earth, Noah rides on the universal wave, until the storms are
hushed, the wrath of heaven appeased, and the rainbow of promise beams from the
peaceful clouds. No less remarkably has God preserved his Church. From its
inception until now, it has not lacked enemies. Foes within and foes without
have sought either to change or to destroy it. Early men began to transgress the
commandments of God by their traditions, and to make his word of none effect.
Slight errors, and then grosser errors, crept into the early churches. Slight
deviations from apostolic practices resulted, at length, in bold subversion of
the divine arrangement. Thus arose the “man of” the Church of Rome. The true
churches were persecuted and despised. Ecclesiastical authority was blended with
temporal power, and the civil arm was raised to crush the gospel of God’s
beloved Son. Dark ages brooded over the nations, and over the apostolic
churches. It almost seemed that God had forgotten to be gracious, and Jesus to
remember his promise, “Lo, I am with yon alway, even unto the end of the world.”
Liberty was crushed, and there was scarcely a light to shine amid the unmingled
gloom. The Lord Jesus had, however, faithful witnesses and a peculiar people
dwelling in mountain caverns. The gospel light had burned low, but had not been
extinguished. Forces, divinely ordered, were at work, which resulted eventually
in the Reformation. While apostate churches were seeking alliance with the
State, and reposing in the unchaste embrace of princes, the true church of Jesus
never bowed to temporal power, nor laid her virgin head on the pillows of
royalty. She repelled alike the threats of priests and the flattery of kings. As
the heavenly influences of these churches began to spread, a few great minds
caught the spirit of Christianity, and, under divine guidance, inaugurated the
Reformation. Thus did God make a way for his elect — a way that led through
deserts, wildernesses, persecution, blood, and death. The reformers had too much
of the spirit of the Romish Church remaining in, them to be altogether favorable
to churches holding Baptist views. The heaven-taught doctrine of religious
liberty, so fondly cherished by these churches, was strenuously opposed by the
Protestants. Protestants, true to the spirit of the mother church, soon began to
seek union with the State, or else to assume authority not delegated to men. The
Baptists were again in disfavor, and again persecuted and despised. Under
Protestant sway, there seemed to be no genial soil where a pure gospel could
flourish. A brighter day was soon to dawn. There was a land, basking in the rays
of the western sun, and washed by western seas—a land whose forests as yet had
never resounded with the glad tidings of eternal love and the praises of
Almighty God. America, long reserved for a noble end, is now discovered. Here
liberty has built its temple, and a pure gospel has made its home. Here the
shackles of superstition fall from the captive’s hand, and the blood-redeemed
soul exults in conscious freedom. Here the humblest believer is taught that he
is superior to priests and popes, and destined, under the influences of
immaculate love, to rise superior to ignorance and sin, and wear a crown
brighter than “flaming suns or shining constellations.” The passage of the
children of Israel from a land of bondage, through the Red Sea, to the land of
promise, is strikingly suggestive of the passage of a pure Christianity from the
spiritual bondage of European superstition, across the ocean, to a land of
liberty and peace. We know, at all events, that God has made a way for his
church, and that that church is destined to bless not only America, but the
whole world. Yes, blessed Jesus, thou hast built thy church upon a rock, and the
gates of hell have not prevailed against it! The Baptists of America have done a
noble work, and their influence is even now felt throughout this land. In
numbers they have multiplied from thousands into hundreds of thousands, and from
hundreds of thousands into millions. But their power is not to be estimated by
numbers; they have taught freedom of soul to this nation, and furnished a model
for its great government. Their influence extends far beyond their own ranks. It
is exerted unmistakably in other denominations. How many more persons are
immersed in other communions than formerly. In many communities, where once the
custom prevailed, how seldom are infants baptized. Other changes might be
noticed that are traceable to the same religious power; but it is unnecessary to
relate them now.

Then, “go forward,” Church of the living God; “ye are the light of the world.”
The Saviour’s words find a forceful illustration in an incident related by a
distinguished traveller, and quoted by the late Dr. Richard Fuller. “Being at
Calais,” remarks the writer, “I climbed up into the lighthouse and conversed
with the keeper. ‘Suppose,’ said I, ‘that one of those lights should go out.’
‘Go out, impossible!’ he exclaimed, with a sort of consternation at the bare
hypothesis. ‘Sir,’ he added, pointing to the ocean, ‘Yonder, where nothing can
be seen, there are ships going by to every part of the world. If to-night one of
my burners were to go out, within six months would come a letter, perhaps from
India, perhaps from America, perhaps from some place I never heard of, saying,
on such and such a night, at such and such an hour, the light at Calais burned
dim, the watchman neglected his post, and vessels were in danger. Ah, sir,
sometimes, in the dark nights, in stormy weather, I look out to sea, and feel as
if the eye of the whole world were looking at my lights. Let them go out? burn
dim? O never, never, never!’”

Go forward to greater attainments in grace and to nobler works of love! Remember
that one is your Master, even Christ. Remember that it is his to bind the earth
with fetters of ice, or wreathe it with the flowers of spring—his “to kindle the
fires of suns or quench the light of stars “—his to frame a world or found a
church—his to command, ours to obey!


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 2: 01 BAPTIST FAITH AND PRACTICE
========================================================================

Baptist Faith and Practice By Rev, Thomas Armitage, D. D., N. Y.

“We desire to hear from thee what them thinkest, for as concerning this sect, we
know that everywhere it is spoken against.” Acts 28:22.

Paul had been brought to Rome, a prisoner in chains; he was poor and friendless,
and charged with being a ring-leader in “the sect of the Nazarenes.” His enemies
had inveterate prejudices against him, because he was an abettor of the claims
of Jesus. Still, knowing also his great intellectual power, his refinement of
manner, purity of motive, and spotlessness of character, they professed a
willingness to hear him plead the cause of Christ before they condemned it, or
judged him. This seemed manly. There is an air of equity, fairness and candor
about their words, “we desire to hear from thee,” which commends the men who
uttered them. And this was all that the Apostle asked. Give him an impartial
hearing, in order to a right judgment in the matter, and then, if they rejected
both him and his religion, he could do no more. A man of one religion pays a
poor compliment to a man of another, and a poorer to his own, when he cannot, or
dare not, investigate the religion of his fellowman; but to refuse him a frank
hearing, betrays conscious weakness. The Christians held tenets and practices in
wide distinction from both Jews and pagans, but what difference did that make to
either of them? These “Nazarenes” injured no man, friend or foe, in his
property, character or person. They were gentle in spirit, and harmless in life.
They were not “fornicators, or covetous, or railers, or drunkards, or
extortioners.” They were poor but not morose, and instead of being dangerous, or
even burdensome to the community, they went about doing good, and at the same
time, “ministered to their own necessities” by hard labor. Why, then, were they
“everywhere spoken against?” Could not calumny and reproach let them alone? Why
should hate be stirred to its depths, because truth and its supremacy sanctified
the heart and life of its disciples? Certainly, there was no cause here for the
hiss of proscription, and men reproached them, either in ignorance of their
principles, or despite their better knowledge. In either case they were
inexcusable. If they were ignorant, they could have had light by asking for it,
and if they knew better, then they did violence to their own manhood. The fact
is, that, they were not so ignorant as they seemed to be, but the evidences of
Christianity had silenced their reasoning, and overwhelmed them in shame; so
that, in malice they came to berate that to which they could not reply. This
trick was considerably older than themselves, and has long outlived them. Since
the days of Paul, Christians are divided into sects quite as much as the Jews
were in his day. These in some principles and practices, are wide apart. The
lamentable consequence is, that alienations have sprung up, which subject,
sometimes one sect and sometimes another, sometimes one doctrine and sometimes
another, to denunciation. Then follows the unlovely and unlicensed charge of
“bigot” and “fanatic,” “heretic” and “schismatic.” All this is followed in turn
by the unmitigated evil of misrepresenting and distorting each other’s views and
positions; of subjecting each other to unfounded reports and misrepresentations
of opinion and practice, descending sometimes, even to caricature, greatly to
each other’s prejudice, if not to the point of direct falsehood. In all charity,
this renders it pretty evident that one body of Christians is content to remain
wilfully ignorant of the tenets and practices of others, and of their reasons
therefor. Indeed, it is a very rare thing to find a man of one sect, who could,
if he honestly tried, write a formula of the faith of another sect, which his
Christian neighbor would be willing to subscribe to, as a correct exhibit of his
own principles and practices. Nor can you wonder at this, when you consider how
few there are who can give an intelligent exposition of their own principles,
and their reasons for cherishing them. So, then, I am sorry to say, most of the
Christian denominations speak of each other, either in ignorance, or prejudice,
in something, or somewhere. Now, is there any sense or manliness, not to say
true religion, in this state of things? Can we not frankly, without ill-natured
controversy, calmly, without disturbed passion, and freely, without restraint,
explain to each other what we hold, and why? And then, if we fail to see alike,
we shall mutually respect each other’s convictions. Let me make an honest
attempt to do this, on the Baptist side of the house. Of course it will be
impossible for me to give you all the reasons for what we believe and do, in one
address; this would require volumes. I must be content, therefore, with telling
you what we believe and do, without giving the reasons.

You all know, to begin with, that as a sect we have the unenviable distinction
of being “everywhere spoken against”; for we are not honored in one place, and
subjected to obloquy in another—the detraction is pretty evenly spread. Perhaps
it does us no injury, as “a prophet has no honor in his own country,” but that
makes it no easier to bear; rather a little harder, because a Baptist prophet
has none either there or anywhere else. This may be a true sign of prophethood;
I do not deny that, but I do deny that we enjoy proscription because we find
that it is refreshing. Even this prejudice makes us the more anxious to be
understood by others, as we understand ourselves. We hold, then, to these three
great foundation principles, namely:

1. That the book called the Bible is given by the inspiration of God, and is the
only rule of Christian faith and practice. The consequence is, that we have no
creeds, nor catechisms, nor decretals, which bind us by their authority. We
think a creed worth nothing, unless it is supported by Scriptural authority, and
if the creed is founded on the word of God, we do not see why we should not rest
on that word which props up the creed; we prefer to go back directly to the
foundation itself and rest there alone. If it is able to sustain us, we need
nothing else, and if it is not, then we cannot rest upon a creed to support us
when that creed has no support for itself. Some of our churches have what they
call “Declarations,” or “Articles of Faith,” which are mere statements of what
they think that the Bible teaches, but they are not put forth by any theological
or ecclesiastical authority, and therefore do not bind the consciences of the
churches. Some of our churches have no such” Articles” or “Declarations,”
because they find no need for them, and those who use them do not all use the
same. Our churches hold that Jesus Christ is the only Law-giver, and the only
King in Zion; that his law is laid down in the Scriptures, and is perfect: and,
therefore, they refuse

2. A regenerated church membership. No person can become a member of a Baptist
church, till he professes to have found the remission of his sins, by faith in
the merits of our Lord Jesus Christ. Many fall into the mistake that, in some
way or other, we are sacramentarians; that is, that we associate the moral
renovation of the soul with baptism and the Lord’s Supper. This is a sad
mistake. We believe that man cannot be “born from above, or made a new
creature,” excepting by the sovereign influence of the Holy Spirit on the heart,
leading the sinner to accept the benefits of Christ’s atonement, by faith, to
the free justification of his soul. Then, when he is regenerated, or as the word
means, generated again, we accept him as a fit subject for baptism. In that act,
he professes his faith in Christ as his present Saviour. So far from baptizing a
man, in order that his soul may be regenerated thereby, we administer it to him
because he is already regenerated by the Spirit of God. We say to him, “You have
no right to baptism till you are ‘born again,’ till yon have a new heart, and
are made a temple of the Holy Spirit. All the waters on the globe, and all the
religious services that may be used in connection with water, cannot cleanse
your soul of one stain or blot which sin has left. But now that you are
regenerated from above, it is your duty to be baptized, and your privilege to be
baptized, and by that act to declare that you are already a renewed man. And
because you are now ‘dead indeed unto sin, and alive unto righteousness, you
‘must be buried with Christ in baptism:’ just as Christ was first buried in the
waters of the Jordan, and then in the tomb of Joseph; that like as he was raised
again by the glory of the father, even so should ye walk in newness of life.”
This is the doctrine of baptism as Paul preaches it in the sixth chapter of
Romans, and this is the reason that we immerse men, because when men are
“buried,” they are covered in the tomb. This is what we understand by burying a
believer “with Christ in baptism.” You will see therefore, that we must

3. Reject infant baptism. An infant, we think, cannot be brought to the Lord’s
baptism, any more properly than it can be brought to the Lord’s Supper. It
cannot discern the import of the Lord’s baptism, any more than it can discern
the Lord’s body, therefore, it cannot show forth the significancy of one, any
more than it can the significancy of the other, as is a subject for neither
ordinance. On this point the North British Review exactly expresses our views
when it says: “Scripture knows nothing of the baptism of infants. There is
absolutely not a single trace of it, to be found in the New Testament. The
recognized baptism of the ancient church was that of adults.” But we do not rest
there, on this subject. Professor Lange, of Jena, who is not a Baptist,
expresses our views more fully, when he says: “Would the Protestant church
fulfill and attain to its final destiny, the baptism of infants must of
necessity be abolished.” Now this learned man thinks that infant baptism should
be abolished, if Protestantism would reach its “final destiny.” But he does not
give us his reasons for thinking so. Our own views on the same subject are
these:—It seems to us that infant baptism is in conflict with the great doctrine
of the atonement of Christ. We believe that if an infant dies, it is saved by
the virtue of Christ’s blood-shedding, and not by a few drops of water, nor an
ocean full. It looks to us, therefore, to be laying a great stress on water in
salvation, to be christening the child in death, as well as to foster
superstition; as if the death of Jesus were not enough to save it, whereas in
heaven, the ransomed babe will sing glory, and ascribe salvation “unto him who
has washed us in his blood,” and not to him who christened us. Then we think
that infant baptism is a great evil and should be “abolished,” because, if the
christened child lives, his christening has introduced him into the visible
church, and thereby corrupted the gospel simplicity of the church relation. The
whole of the State churches of Europe are made up of persons who were christened
as infants. No wonder that they are corrupt churches. When infant baptism makes
all the population members of the church, that act blots out all lines of
distinction between a converted church, and an unconverted world. But in those
churches which are not established by law, but who still think that “the church
is composed of believers and their baptized children,” infant baptism corrupts
the church relation. They do not pretend that the christening so renewed the
child’s moral nature as to make him a saint. But they do claim that it
introduced him into the church. Yet, he is not under church obligations and
discipline, and he does not share church privileges, such as the Lord’s Supper.
So that infant baptism, as we see it, corrupts the church by introducing another
sort of members into its fellowship, beside those who are converted to Christ.
Then we hold that the christening of a child inflicts a serious injury upon him.
It leaves the impression upon him, as he grows up, that in some way, he cannot
tell how, he is sealed in a covenant to Christ, as other children are not;
whereas, he finds himself just as wicked as other children. And then, if he ever
wishes to make a profession of religion himself, it robs him of the right to
that religious freedom, by which he can follow his own convictions of personal
duty in baptism, without violating the covenant which his parents made for him,
by repudiating their act of infant baptism. These principles lead us to put
forth the ordinances, baptism and the Lord’s Supper—

4. Just where the Lord Jesus left them. There is no point on which we are more
grievously misrepresented, and on which we are more severely spoken against,
than that of the supper. Scarcely any form of denunciation against us, on this
subject, seems to be thought too severe, even by otherwise lovely Christian
people. And we are sure that these same persons would treat us very differently
if we could get them to listen long enough to our views to understand us. At any
rate, they would respect both our integrity and self-consistency in the matter,
whether they adopted our views or not. What are our views on this point?

1. The same as those of all regenerated churches, namely: that the supper is to
be received only by those who have been converted and baptized. This is exactly
our ground in common with them. But what they call baptism, we call a substitute
for it, unless it be the burial of a believer upon his own confession of faith.

2. We hold that the eternal salvation of a man depends no more on the supper
than on baptism. Bread and wine, taken in the supper, can bring no blessing to
the soul that water in baptism fails to bring, and neither of them has anything
to do with the bestowment of special grace from God. They are both of equal
authority, both of equal solemnity, both of equal benefit, both symbolical acts,
and nothing more. The first preaches Christ’s burial and resurrection, the
second “shows” his death till he comes. As we obey him in submitting to the
first, so we preach him in partaking of the second. They are monuments of
Christ’s great work, but not renovators of the soul. Only the blood of the Lamb,
and the Holy Spirit, can do that, and neither of the ordinances has anything to
do with it—they are both for other purposes. The thief on the cross was saved
without either baptism or the supper.

3. We hold that regeneration is the test of Christian character, and that that
proves the unity of the real people of God, and not a place together at the
Lord’s Table. No man could do a Baptist greater injustice, than to say that he
unchristianizes all those with whom he cannot sit down at the table. A true
Baptist believes that thousands and millions of his brethren, who belong to
other churches, are holy in heart and life, nay, may be better than he is, in
that respect. But he finds nothing in the Scriptures making a common seat at the
table either as a proof of love amongst brethren, or a test of Christian
character. There have been thousands, from the days of Judas Iscariot down, who
have taken a seat at the table, without either love to Christ or his people, or
the possession of Christian character. If I believed that the supper was
intended to be a test of Christian fellowship between regenerated men, then I
would go to the table with any converted man, whether he had been baptized or
not. But I believe nothing of the sort. So far from it, I neither regard it as a
duty or privilege to sit down at the supper table with any other Baptist church,
but that under whose watch-care I live. If we held the Lord’s table to be what
other Christian brethren who are not Baptists seem to regard it, we should
practice what they do in regard to its observance, but we do not believe as they
do about the question. As we understand the matter, we neither Christianize
those that we sit down with, nor unchristianize those that we do not sit down
with; but we simply preach Christ’s death by a symbolical act, as a church, just
as an individual would preach Christ verbally. Christian unity is shown when
believers come to the “unity of the faith,” not the table. When they are
baptized into one body;” and called in “one hope of their calling” —by
regeneration, which adopts them into the family of God—or as Paul puts it, when
they become members of Christ,” of his flesh, and of his bones “—and not when
they sit side by side, and partake of bread from a harvest field, and wine from
a vineyard. That is a very easy way of showing your love to each other. Two
strangers may sit side by side, at the table, who never saw each other before,
and never pass a word to each other, and will never meet again on earth. But
what love have they shown to each other? That is a very cheap sort of love, I
think. But the Christian love that the Bible talks about, as the test of
Christian character and fellowship, is, according to James, to feed and clothe
“a destitute brother or sister”; according to Paul, “to distribute to the
necessities of saints, and in honor to prefer one another,” for the strong to
“bear the infirmity of the weak,” “to bear each other’s burdens,” and so fulfill
the law of Christ,—to “pray for each other,” “to forgive each other,” “to edify
each other,” “to weep with them that weep, and rejoice with them that
rejoice”—in a word, to “do good of every sort to them who are of the household
of faith.” John puts the test even higher than that, when he claims that we
“ought to lay down our lives for the brethren,” if need be. When a man can push
these divine truths aside, and measure his love to Christians by his willingness
to take a sip of wine and a morsel of bread with them, it seems to be worth his
while to ask on his knees, whether it is setting up Christ’s standard of
discipleship and fellowship, or his own.

These are the views that Baptists hold. What is there in all this to justify men
in speaking against us everywhere? I put that question to yon in candor. I am
happy to say to you, that there are some men who do not speak against us, and
they are not Baptists. John Locke ought to know what he was talking about, when
he said, “The Baptists were from the beginning, the firm advocates of absolute
liberty—just and true liberty, equal and impartial liberty.” Sir James McIntosh
says, “The Baptists suffered more than any other, under Charles II, because they
professed the principles of religious liberty.” Jeremy Taylor says, “Freedom of
conscience, unlimited freedom of mind, was from the first the trophy of the
Baptists.” Our own Washington used words just as affectionate; and in August,
1789, at the request of the Baptists, he recommended to Congress that amendment
to the Constitution which says that “Congress shall make no law respecting the
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the exercise thereof.” Bancroft, our
great historian, and Judge Story, our great jurist, speak of us in the same
manner. I can assure you that we never blush, when we remember that Milton and
Bunyan, Sir Harry Vane and John Hampden, and Roger Williams, were all Baptist
laymen. £for when we think that John Gill and Andrew Fuller, Adoniram Judson and
William Carey, Robert Hall and Charles Spurgeon, Horatio Hackett and Thomas
Couant, were Baptist missionaries, scholars and ministers. And as to other
denominations; I only wish that we used the Bible more in public worship, as
Episcopalians do; that we had as learned a ministry as our Presbyterian brethren
have—as much pathos and zeal as our Methodist brethren—as much simplicity as the
Society of Friends—and as much self-sacrifice as the Roman Catholics—and a good
deal more heart-felt religion than either we or they have at present. God knows
I love them all, and if they would stop scolding as, and pray for us twice where
they speak unkindly of us once, they would be happier and we should be better.
God bless them all, I say. Amen.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 3: 02 THE INSPIRATION OF THE SCRIPTURES
========================================================================

The Inspiration of the Scriptures By Rev. J. B. Jeter, D. D., Richmond, VA.

“All Scripture is given by inspiration of God.”—2 Timothy 3:16.

There are among theologians various theories of inspiration; but we shall notice
only two of them. One is that God communicated his truth to the minds of his
servants, prophets and apostles, and they retained it in their memories, and
expounded it in their discourses by the use of their natural faculties, without
divine aid or supervision. The other— that generally held by evangelical
Christians—is that God not only communicated truth to the minds of his servants,
but exercised over them an influence by which they were enabled to reveal it, by
speech or writing, without any mistake, and in the manner best suited to secure
the end of the revelation. It is to the examination of these theories that our
article is devoted. That God can inspire men to reveal his truth infallibly to
the world, it is atheistic to deny. That plenary inspiration seems necessary to
secure the end of the avowed purpose of the Scriptures—that men may believe in
Christ, and by believing secure everlasting life—can hardly be questioned. Still
it must be conceded, that not only the reality, but the measure and manner of
the inspiration of the Scriptures, must be learned from their own testimony.
What do they teach on the subject? Did their writers claim to be divinely
inspired? Did they assume] to be partially or fully inspired? Did they say or do
anything incompatible with their full inspiration? We should come to the
Scriptures, with childlike docility, to learn what they teach on these points.

Moses was the first of the inspired writers. His inspiration is proved by the
present condition of the Jews, accurately described in Deuteronomy 28. The
manner of his inspiration is given in 18: 18. The Lord said unto Moses: “I will
raise them up a prophet like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth, and
he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.” The prophecy relates to
the Messiah, and he was to have the words of God put into his mouth, and in this
plenary inspiration was to be like unto Moses. David, the Psalmist, said: “The
Spirit of the Lord spake by me, and his word was in my tongue.” 2 Samuel 23:2.
“The Lord spake thus to me, * * * and instructed me,” is the language of Isaiah
8:11. His prophecies were a mere reiteration of the words of the Lord: “Thus
saith the Lord, behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone.” etc., Isaiah
28:16. Jeremiah begins one of his prophecies in these words: “The word that the
Lord spake against Babylon and against the land of the Chaldeans by Jeremiah the
prophet.” Jeremiah 50:7. In many other passages, he claimed that his words were
the words of the Lord. Jeremiah 9:11; Jeremiah 13:15, etc. Amos professed to
speak the very words of God: “Hear this word that the Lord hath spoken against
you, O house of Israel.” Amos 3:1. Micah closes a prophecy with the words: “The
mouth of the Lord of hosts hath spoken it.” Micah 4:4. “The Lord put a word in
Balaam’s mouth, and said, Return unto Balak, and thus shalt thou speak.” Numbers
23:5.

It would be easy to multiply quotations of this kind; but if the above passages
do not establish the fact that the writers of the Old Testament claimed plenary
inspiration, it is impossible for language to do it. God spoke by the prophets.
In a sense their words were their own; but in a higher, truer sense they were
the words of God. There was no possibility for them to err in their words,
unless God could be mistaken. When Christ appeared in the world, the writings of
Moses and the prophets, called, by way of eminence, the Scriptures, were held in
high estimation among the Jews. How did Christ respect them? He was “God
manifest in the flesh,” and knew perfectly their origin, history, contents and
authority. He treated them with the greatest reverence; and never uttered a word
to indicate that he deemed them human and fallible, as well as divine and
inerrable. He pronounced them the sure preservative from error: “Ye do err,”
said he to the Jews, “not knowing the Scriptures.” Matthew 22:29. Could this be
true, if the Scriptures themselves abounded in errors! They might, in that case,
have been seduced into error by their knowledge of them. Listen further to the
testimony of Jesus: “The Scripture must be fulfilled.” Mark 14:49. “The
Scripture cannot be broken.” John 10:35. If the Scriptures “must be fulfilled,”
it is because their predictions are true and accurate: if they “cannot be
broken,” it is because there is no defect or weakness in them. Jesus, resting
his claims to the Messiahship on the testimony of the Scriptures, commended them
to the undoubting confidence and careful study of his hearers: “Search,” said
he, “the Scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life; and they are
they which testify of me.” John 5:39. The evangelist John furnishes incidentally
the strongest possible proof of his high estimate of the Scriptures. He says:
“The disciples believed the Scripture, and the word which Jesus had said.” John
2:22. The apostle coupled the Scripture and the word of Jesus as of equal
credibility. Could he have done this without dishonoring Jesus, if the Scripture
had partaken of the errors prevalent in the ages of its several authors?

Let us now examine the testimony of the apostles on the inspiration of the Old
Testament. Their own inspiration we shall now take for granted, and prove in
another place. Peter, proposing to fill the vacancy in the apostleship caused by
the apostasy and death of Judas, said: “Men and brethren, this Scripture must
needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake
before concerning Judas.” Acts 1:16. The apostle had reference to Psalms 69:25.
The text had not a very clear reference to Judas; but Peter, himself inspired,
declared that it was spoken by the Holy Ghost, that the mouth of David was
merely the organ for uttering the prophecy, and that its fulfilment was a matter
of necessity. No advocate for plenary, verbal inspiration has ever expressed it
more clearly or strongly than did Peter on this occasion. To the same effect was
the language of all the disciples, when Peter and John, released from
imprisonment and the power of their enemies, “reported all that the chief
priests and elders had said unto them.” “They lifted up their voice to God with
one accord,” saying, “Thou art God, * * * who by the mouth of thy servant David
hath said, Why did the heathen rage, and the people imagine vain things?” Acts
4:25. These words were not David’s, but God’s. David uttered, but God indited
them; and filled them with a meaning of which probably the Psalmist had but
little conception. 1 Peter 1:11-12. On this subject the teaching of Paul is
explicit and full: “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God; and is
profitable for doctrine (teaching), 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. The apostle affirms, not only that
Scripture, but that “all Scripture” is divinely inspired. The language clearly
means, not merely that every book of Scripture, but that all the contents of
every book, historical, geographical, and scientific, as well as doctrinal, is
inspired of God; and therefore infallible, and fitted to make the man of God
perfect. As Paul teaches the measure, so Peter states the manner, of Divine
inspiration. He says: “Prophecy came not in old time (at any time. Mar.) by the
will of man; but holy men of God spake (and doubtless also wrote) as they were
moved by the Holy Ghost.” God employed holy men to reveal his truth to the
world. They did not speak or -write by their own knowledge or will; but as they
were enlightened, guided and influenced by the Holy Spirit. Their messages were
instructive, threatening, encouraging or consolatory, according to the Divine
will. We think it an error to say that the Scriptures do not teach the manner of
inspiration. We do not see how the manner of Divine inspiration could be more
clearly taught than in this language of the apostle Peter. The manner, too, is
such as to preclude the possibility of error in the Scriptures. Surely the Holy
Spirit, infinitely wise and good, can move holy men to teach only what is true,
and pure, and adapted to subserve the ends of Divine revelation.

Having considered the inspiration of the Old Testament Scriptures, we propose
now to examine that of the New Testament writings. If Christianity is true and a
consummation of the Mosaic economy, the inspiration of the apostolic writings
may be fairly inferred from that of the prophetic Scriptures It is unreasonable
to suppose that the foundation of the edifice was laid with Divine wisdom, and
its completion left to human weakness and fallibility. The Spirit of inspiration
which commenced, we may be quite sure, finished the volume of religions
instruction to men. We are not left, however, to the uncertainty of conjecture
or of logical deduction on this subject. We have the most abundant, evidence of
the plenary inspiration of the writers of the New Testament. When Jesus sent out
his apostles to announce the approach of the kingdom of heaven, he informed them
that they would be subjected to fierce persecutions, delivered up to councils,
scourged in the synagogues, and brought before governors and kings; and for
their encouragement and comfort, he said: “When they shall 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. It is impossible to imagine an
inspiration more full and complete than this promised to the apostles, extending
to matter, language and manner. True, this promise had special reference to the
apostles in their persecutions; but we cannot reasonably suppose that they had
an inspiration less full and perfect for the prosecution of their work, than
they possessed to extricate them from the perils into which it brought them.

Jesus, in his memorable farewell discourse to his disciples, designing to
comfort them under their approaching sorrow, and fit them for their great
lifework, said to them: “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. * * * Howbeit when he, the
Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth; for he shall not
speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak; and he will
show you things to come. He shall glorify me; for he shall receive of mine, and
shall show it unto you.” John 14:26; John 16:13-14. We have nowhere so full an
account of the manner and measure of Divine inspiration as in these passages.
Christ was to be the chief matter of revelation: “He (the Spirit) shall glorify
me (Christ); for he shall receive of mine, and show it unto you.” The apostles
were not to be left to the unaided exercise of their fallible memories in
reporting the truth: He (the Spirit) shall “bring all things to your
remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.” They were to have the fullest
instruction for the prosecution of their mission: “He (the Spirit) shall teach
you all things—shall guide you into all truth.” They were to be endowed with the
gift of prophecy: “He (the Spirit) will show you things to come.” Thus equipped,
they were to enter on the work which Christ commenced, and in the prosecution of
which he sacrificed his life. When Jesus was risen from the dead, he
commissioned his apostles to enter on their life-work, with the promise: “Lo, I
am with you alway, even unto the end of the world.” Matthew 28:20. The presence
which Jesus promised to his disciples was not his personal presence, but the
presence of his representative. “It is expedient for yon,” he said, “that I go
away; for if I go not away the Comforter will not come; but if I depart, I will
send him unto you.” John 16:7. They were commanded “not to depart from
Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father,” which they had heard of
him—the promise that they should “be endued with power from on high.” Luke
24:49. The apostles obeyed the command of their Lord, and continued in
Jerusalem, with the other disciples, men and women, in prayer and supplication.
“When the day of Pentecost was fully come, * * * they were all filled with the
Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them
utterance.” Acts 1:1; Acts 1:4. The promise of their inspiration was most
strikingly fulfilled. They were not only filled with the Spirit, but they spake
as he gave them utterance, in languages which they had never learned. Their
inspiration was clearly verbal, and must have included thoughts as well as
words. Their utterances were not senseless jargon; but clear and convincing and
impressive speech, piercing the hearts of them that heard it, and extorting from
them the cry: “Men and brethren, what shall we do?”

Paul was not a participant in the Pentecostal baptism. He was introduced into
the apostolic ministry by a special Divine arrangement. He said: “I certify you,
brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me, is not after men. For I
neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of
Jesus Christ.” Galatians 1:11-12. Paul, having received the gospel by direct
revelation from heaven, was not left to the exercise of his unaided powers in
its proclamation. To the Corinthians he wrote: “Now we have received, not the
spirit of the world, but the Spirit which is of God; that we might know the
things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in
the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth.” 1
Corinthians 2:12-13. In this language Paul claims for himself and others, not
only to know the things freely given to them of God—the things pertaining to
their salvation—by the revelation of the Holy Spirit; but also that they spoke
them in words which he taught them. The apostles were inspired, not only to
preach but to teach the gospel; and they taught by their writings as well as by
their voices. It is unreasonable to suppose that they were not equally inspired
to teach by their writings and their oral addresses. The apostle Peter classes
the epistles of Paul, which form a large part of the New Testament, with the
Scriptures of the Old Testament, whose inspiration we have already shown. He
says: “Our beloved brother Paul according to the wisdom given unto him hath
written unto you; as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things;
in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned
and unstable wrest, as they do also the other Scriptures, unto their own
destruction.” 2 Peter 3:15-16. The epistles of Paul are not only classed with
other inspired writings, but the peril of perverting them is clearly and
strongly pointed out. If Paul’s epistles were divinely inspired, there can be no
ground to question the inspiration of all the apostolic writings. The apostles
not merely claimed to be inspired; but furnished the most conclusive evidence of
their inspiration. The author of the epistle to the Hebrews exhorted his
brethren to give earnest heed to the things which they heard, and not to neglect
the great salvation, which at first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was
confirmed by them that heard him, (that is, the apostles), “God also bearing
them witness, both with signs, and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts
of the Holy Ghost, according to his own will.” Hebrews 2:1-4. It is easy to
claim Divine inspiration. Impostors have done it in all ages. Miracles are the
seal and proof of inspiration. Even Jesus did not claim to be received on his
own testimony. “If I bear witness of myself,” said he, “my witness is not
true”—should not be regarded. “The works which the Father hath given me to
finish, the same works that I do, bear witness of me, that the Father hath sent
me.” John 5:31; John 5:36. The ministry and the messages of the apostles were
confirmed by miracles which only God could enable them to perform, and by signs
and wonders which only he could show. The words of an apostle, in the execution
of his commission, were of Divine authority. “If any man think himself,” said
Paul, “to be a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I
write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.” 1 Corinthians 14:37.

It would be interesting to show how the exact truth of the writings of the New
Testament is confirmed by the testimony of ancient and authentic history, by the
monuments and coins which have descended to us from the early times, and by the
originality and purity of the sacred Scriptures; but this is quite beyond the
limit prescribed for this article.

Objections to plenary inspiration are founded, as far as we have observed, not
on any scriptural statements on the subjects, but on supposed mistakes and
errors in the sacred writings. These relate chiefly to the creation of the
world—the origin of man—the misquotations and misinterpretations of the Old
Testament Scriptures by the writers of the New. The full discussion of these
subject would fill a volume. A few points we may briefly notice. The Scriptures
were written in remote ages, by different authors, in several languages, and
among people whose tastes, customs, institutions and modes of thought were
widely different from ours. That the interpretation of such documents, admitting
their full inspiration and harmony, would be difficult, we may reasonably
suppose. The lack of a perfect knowledge of the languages in which they were
written would, of itself present a formidable obstacle to a satisfactory
exegesis. To this, however, must be added the difficulties of interpretation
arising from ignorance of the history, modes of computing time and other things,
prevailing opinions, and social and political customs, of the people for whose
immediate benefit these writings were designed. Everybody knows that our laws,
prepared by the wisest and most careful legislators, and written in our own
language, are capable of various interpretations, and lead to almost endless
perplexities. Nothing short of a perpetual miracle could prevent the
misunderstanding of the Scriptures, in many cases, by modern expositors, however
clearly they might have been understood by those to whom they were originally
addressed.

We should seek to harmonize these apparent contradictions of the Scriptures, not
by denying their inspiration, or that of any portion of them; but by subjecting
them to a fair and faithful application of the laws of exegesis. These seeming
inconsistencies usually vanish before candid investigation, as mist before the
rising sun. If there be some which do not yield to exegetical laws and to our
limited investigations, it may be well for us to call to remembrance our own
ignorance and liability to err. “We are but of yesterday, and know nothing.”
Certain it is that many seemingly insurmountable obstacles in the interpretation
of the Scriptures have vanished before patient investigation and increasing
knowledge. We mean to say that we should not infer from our ignorance the
fallibility of the Scriptures. The error, to employ modern phraseology, may be
subjective and not objective. The most plausible and prevalent objection to the
entire inspiration of the Scriptures is based on the Mosaic account of the
creation of the world. Several things on the subject demand our attention. Moses
was undoubtedly one of the greatest, if he was not the greatest, of all the mere
men who have dwelt on our planet. He was trained in the palace of Pharaoh, king
of Egypt, the most learned of all the early nations. He was instructed in all
the arts and wisdom of that renowned people. He was the founder and ruler of the
most wonderful nation of the earth. To him the world is more indebted for its
civilization, laws and morality than to any other mere man. To this day he is
exerting a moulding influence on all civilized peoples. His prophetic
inspiration cannot be disputed. He described 3,000 years ago the present
condition of the Jews, a most singular people, with a precision that cannot be
excelled by any modern observer. When such a man, living in the infancy of the
world, with all the sources of historical and traditional information at
command, gives an account of the origin of the world, it must, apart from his
claims to inspiration, be entitled to the highest consideration. When that
account proceeds from one who furnished the strongest proof of his inspiration,
it should not be set aside without the most conclusive evidence.

There are discrepancies between the popular interpretations of the Mosaic
history and the theories of the earth’s origin adopted by modern scientists. It
should be remembered, however, that science has been constantly changing its
ground, and has not yet reached a permanent footing. It will be time enough when
scientists attain to united and settled opinions, concerning the origin of the
world, for theologians to consider whether they are in harmony with the teaching
of Moses, or what change in the interpretation of the Mosaic history is needed
to conform it to the clear and established decisions of science. We are friends
of true science, and calmly await its discoveries. It has been sarcastically
asked whether the Mosaic history of creation has any settled meaning. We frankly
confess that an account so brief, relating to a subject so far beyond our
experience and observation, and of which mankind, and even the philosophers
among them, are so profoundly ignorant, is of very difficult and uncertain
interpretation. Scientists, however, should remember that their theories of the
origin of the world have been quite as variable and unsatisfactory as have been
expositions of the Mosaic history. No portion of the Mosaic record is so
frequently and confidently quoted to disprove its inspiration as the account of
the origin of man. According to this record, man has not been an inhabitant of
the earth more than 6,000 or 8,000 years. To this estimate we firmly cleave.
Whether we consider the increase of the race, the monuments of the past, or the
progress of arts and science within the historic period—some 3,300 years—we find
not the slightest reason for giving to mankind an earlier origin. Scientists
generally assign to man an origin dating from 10,000 to many millions of years
in the past. We are not disturbed by such estimates. They cast no doubt on the
inspiration of the Scriptures. Suppose the bones and rude works of a biped
resembling man may be found in the remote geological periods; there is not the
slightest evidence, historical, traditional or scientific, to connect the
‘creature with the Adamic race. Whether he was a rational creature, or a moral
agent, or more resembled man or a gorilla, science can give us no information.
That man—the intellectual, moral, religious, progressive being—has been an
inhabitant of the earth only a few thousand years, is a fact in harmony with the
laws of the increase of human population, and all that can be gathered from
history and tradition. Revelation relates to man, the present occupant of the
earth, and not to some being of remote antiquity, real or imaginary.

Another objection to the full inspiration of the Scriptures is derived from
supposed misquotations or misunderstandings of the Old Testament by the writers
of the New. If they really misquoted or misinterpreted the language of the Old
Testament, the fact would be decisive proof of their want of entire inspiration;
but we conclude that no such proof can be furnished. The full discussion of this
subject does not come within the range of our article, or of a dozen such
articles. It belongs appropriately to the department of scriptural exegesis; and
its thorough investigation might occupy a large volume. We submit a few remarks
on the subject. The apostles and evangelists quoted from the Septuagint
translation of the Scriptures as well as from the Hebrew originals. Their
quotations were not made with verbal exactness, after the style of modern
quotations, but with great freedom, preserving the sense and modifying the
phraseology of the Scriptures according to their pleasure. Nothing is clearer
than that many of the prophecies, even historical statements, of the Old
Testament had a double meaning. They were literally fulfilled or enacted in the
days of the prophets; but they had another and a higher accomplishment in later
times. Take for an illustration of this statement, Hosea 11:1; “I called my son
out of Egypt.” This is the statement of a plain fact. God loved Israel and
called him out of Egyptian bondage. The statement was more than a fact: it was a
prophecy to be fulfilled in the life of Jesus. Joseph and Mary, the mother of
Jesus, were providentially directed to go down into Egypt “that it might be
fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have
I called my son.” Matthew 2:15. We know of no quotation from the Old Testament
in the Kew, in which the sense seems to be so clearly misunderstood; and yet we
cannot for a moment doubt that the language of Hosea was designed by the Holy
Ghost to have its fulfilment in the return of Jesus from his exile in Egypt. In
all other cases of like character, it will be found, we judge, that the seeming
misquotations from the Hebrew Scriptures by the writers of the New Testament,
are interpreted by a higher inspiration than that possessed by their authors.
The seeming contradictions between the inspired writers vanish before
enlightened investigation. Take a notable specimen of this class. Paul writes, 1
Corinthians 10:8 : “Neither let us commit fornication, as some of them (the
Israelites) committed, and fell in one day three and twenty thousand.” We turn
to Numbers 25:9, and read: “Those that died in the plague were twenty and four
thousand.” Now, here is a seeming contradiction between Paul and Moses; but it
is only seeming. It was not necessary for the purpose of Paul that he should
state the exact number of the Israelites who perished in the wilderness. He said
there fell in one day three and twenty thousand. That is no contradiction of the
statement of Moses that there died in the plague twenty and four thousand.
Perhaps this number died in several days. Take another solution of the
difficulty. Suppose the number who died was twenty-three thousand seven hundred
and sixty-nine; it would have been awkward and needless for Paul, under the
guidance of the Holy Spirit, to mention the exact number. It was also quite
sufficient for Moses to state the number at (about) twenty-four thousand, as
such round numbers are usually understood. This seeming inaccuracy of the
inspired writers affords no proof of their liability to error and mistakes.

Paul says: “I thank God that I baptized none of yon, but Crispus and Gains; lest
any should say I baptized in mine own name. And I baptized also the household of
Stephanas; besides I know not whether I baptized any other.” 1 Corinthians 1:14;
1 Corinthians 1:16. This passage is supposed to furnish evidence that the
inspiration of Paul did not preserve him from errors of memory. We think the
conclusion illogical. The Scriptures do not teach that inspired men knew or
remembered everything, but that they were so taught and their memories were so
refreshed, that they uttered and recorded only what was true. They exercised
their own understandings and memories; but were so superintended and guided in
their exercise as to be free from mistakes. This language of Paul confirms
rather than refutes this view. He made no mistake. He reported what was true,
and only what was true. He baptized Crispus, Gains and the household of
Stephanas; and it was not necessary for his purpose that he should remember
whether he had baptized any others. Had it been, we may be quite sure that the
Holy Spirit would have brought them to his remembrance. John 14:26. On the
whole, the more carefully the Scriptures are examined, the more obviously their
entire inspiration appears. It is really wonderful to notice how, amid the
conflicting systems of science, philosophy and politics, the inspired writers
steered their course, without falling into errors, which would have discredited
their inspiration. Such, for example, as abound in all the systems of heathen
mythology. Let us, then, reverently receive the Scriptures as an authentic and
perfect revelation from God, interpret them by the laws which common sense and
careful study supply, and live according to their directions, and we shall not
fail to secure a blessed immortality.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 4: 03 INFANT BAPTISM UNSCRIPTURAL
========================================================================

Infant Baptism Unscriptural By Rev. WM. Cathcart, D.D., Philadelphia, PA “Thus
have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.” Matthew
15:6. The baptism of the New Testament must be administered in the name of the
Trinity, and in this respect it stands alone; no other act of obedience must be
performed in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. The
Trinity took part in the baptism of Christ: the Saviour entered the Jordan, the
Spirit descended upon Him in the form of a dove, and the Father, through the
parted heavens, said: “This is my beloved Son in whom I well pleased.” Baptism
is the most important duty a believer can perform; the Trinity L. -3 invested it
with the weightiest sanctions; audit should receive the reverential obedience of
the Saviour’s earthly family. Anything which has for its object to pervert the
baptismal institution is a grievous affront to Jesus and a great wrong to His
people. The nullification of a gospel law aims a rebellious blow at the divine
Founder of Christianity; and as He cannot appoint anything useless, the removal
of a gospel ordinance is a calamity. The

Saviour looks in sorrow upon the sprinkling of unconscious babes, and he feels
about those who receive and practice it, as he regarded the persons about whom
the text was uttered: Thus have ye made the commandment of God of no effect by
your tradition. When the Saviour arose from the dead He was invested with the
dominion of the Trinity over all worlds, and this special sovereignty He shall
retain until His elect are all saved in their souls and bodies; then the royal
dignity bestowed immediately after His resurrection shall be delivered to the
First. Person of the Trinity, and Father, Son, and Spirit shall resume their
eternal and equal empire over the universe. In Matthew 28:18-20, the Saviour
says, “All power (authority) 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 Spirit, teaching them to observe all things
whatsoever I have commanded you; and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end
of the world.” This is the Saviour’s inaugural address as He enters upon His
revived life, His new and exclusive sovereignty over the worlds. He never issued
such an address before. The authority He claims is not divine omnipotence,— that
He always had, and every other attribute of God,—but the sole monarchy of all
worlds; and He never commanded His disciples to teach all nations; previous to
His death, His mission and the toils of His servants were restricted to the lost
sheep of the house of Israel. The instruction to be imparted to the nations is
about the gospel and its facts, doctrines and precepts; the death, resurrection,
intercession, righteousness, and commandments of Christ. These lessons are not
for the unconscious infants of all nations; they would be incomprehensible to
them. When it is said “The Germans are a nation of soldiers,” the statement is
understood at once, and no one dreams that women and children have been drilled
and armed by the first military nation in the world. The verb to “teach” is “to
make disciples,” and the command of the Saviour is to baptize them, not the
nations, but the disciples; the word translated “them “in the Greek text, is in
the masculine gender, and the word rendered “nations” in the neuter. There is to
be no baptism before instruction, unless we have a new revelation from heaven
showing that the Saviour was mistaken when He commanded His apostles first to
teach and then to baptize. After the ambassadors of Christ have made disciples
and baptized them, they are then to teach them to observe all things whatsoever
He has commanded. This commission has nothing to do with unconscious infants,
and as it is the only authority for the practice of baptism in the Christian
Church, there is no pretence for the existence of infant baptism by divine
appointment. The form of the commission given by Mark— “Go ye into all the
world, and preach the gospel to every creature; but he that believeth and is
baptized shall be saved; he that believeth not shall be damned.”—16: 15, 16,
shows faith to be a prerequisite to baptism. Why faith should precede baptism in
the Saviour’s words, unless it should exist in the disciple’s heart before the
baptism, we cannot tell. Unless He meant to mislead His apostle, and the whole
saved family on earth, faith is indispensable to gospel baptism. The two forms
of the commission are agreed in leaving no lurking place for infant baptism. And
the commission is in strict accordance with the Baptist usages of His disciples
while the Saviour walked with them in this world. John says, “When the Lord knew
how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than
John; though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples, he left Judea and
departed again into Galilee.” John 4:1-3. Here the steps of entrance into the
kingdom are clearly marked; the first thing is to be “made a disciple,” and the
next is to be baptized. Infinite wisdom could not point out more clearly the
qualifications for the subjects of baptism. When the day of Pentecost was fully
come, an immense multitude of people gathered around Peter and the other
apostles, and Peter preached to them. The throng was composed of Jews, many of
whom had come from distant countries; there were among them those who “with
wicked hands had crucified and slain” Jesus; and as the memorable discourse was
delivered, the Holy Spirit applied it with great power to the hearts of the
multitude, and they received new hearts, leading them to lament their sins and
to cry out, “Men and brethren, what shall we do? Then Peter said unto them,
“Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the
remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit; for the
promise is unto you and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as
many as the Lord our God shall call.” Then they that gladly received his word
were baptized; and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand
souls.” Acts 2:37-41. This was the first baptism after the descent of the
Spirit. It is a key to the Comforter’s interpretation of the Saviour’s great
commission, as he directed the proceedings of the inspired apostles. The
subjects of the baptism had aided in the Saviour’s death; their grief of heart
made them utter despairing cries; they gladly received Peter’s word about
Christ’s glorious gospel, and after that they were baptized; they were disciples
who believed on Jesus as the commission required. And though there were three
thousand of them, with unconscious infants in their families in many cases, no
doubt, yet all the baptized “received Peter’s word gladly,” and without this
discipleship of the heart they could not have been buried with Christ by
immersion. When Peter says, “The promise is unto you and to your children, and
to all that are afar off, even so many as the Lord our God shall call,” he means
that remission of sins and the Holy Spirit will be given to the children of
those whom he addressed, and to others in distant places whom “God should call”
to repentance and faith in Jesus. The call of God to repentance was never given
to an unconscious infant; it is only given to such “children” of Israel, or of
the Gentiles, as have reached responsible years. When Philip went down and
preached in Samaria, “they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the
kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, and they were baptized, both men
and women.” Acts 8:12. Here the persons baptized had become disciples by putting
their trust in Jesus; and persons of both sexes received the sacred rite. When
Clovis, the first king of the Franks, was baptized, Hincmar, archbishop of
Rheims, says, “Moreover from his army three thousand men were baptized, without
counting women and children the children received the same trine immersion as
the men and women, and the historian of the event does not forget them. Nor is
there any reason to suppose that Luke would have neglected the children, if
Philip had baptized them, since he particularizes the candidates as men and
women.

Simon the sorcerer pretended to believe, and a* an apparent believer he was
baptized at the same time and place. The eunuch was baptized after he professed
faith in Jesus, even though the verse be given up as an interpolation, “And
Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart thou mayest” etc. The
African royal treasurer solicited baptism, and after receiving it, “went on his
way rejoicing,” as a forgiven disciple of Christ. When Paul was smitten down by
the lightning and convicted by the Spirit of God, he speedily put his trust in
the Saviour of whom he had heard much, and felt himself ready for any service
demanded by the divine Redeemer. Ananias, commissioned by Jehovah, commanded him
to “arise and be baptized and wash away his sins calling on the name of the
Lord.” Acts 22:16. Paul’s theology had faith as its mainspring: “I am not
ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God unto salvation to
everyone that believeth.”Romans 1:16. According to Paul, faith grasped Christ,
justified the soul before God, gave it peace, and washed out every one of its
sins. Baptism in a figure washed out the believer’s sins, and consequently it
only belonged to him, who had put his trust in Jesus. The baptism administered
to Paul is a testimony that he professed saving faith in Jesus; it was
believer’s baptism. The household baptisms are regarded by some as strongholds
of infant sprinkling. The family of Cornelius, the Human centurion, is the first
of these baptisms. Luke describes this soldier as a “devout man and one that
feared God with all his house;” and of those under his roof, he says, “They of
the circumcision who believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter,
because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Spirit;
for they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God. Then answered Peter?’
Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, who have received
the Holy Spirit as well as we?’” Acts 10:45-48. If the household of Cornelius
was baptized along with himself and “his kinsmen and near friends,” the
household feared God, for Luke says that Cornelius was a devout man who feared
God “with all his house.” And the people who were baptized received the Holy
Spirit, during Peter’s sermon, and the gift of speaking in strange tongues; and
they magnified God. These persons could not be unconscious infants; they were
true believers. Lydia, a Jewess of Thyatira, was at Philippi, and going out of
the city to worship on the Jewish Sabbath, with her countrymen by the river
side, her heart was opened by the Lord “that she attended unto the things which
were spoken of by Paul.” And “she was baptized and her household,” evidently in
the river. Acts 16:13-15. From the account given by Luke, Lydia herself had a
new heart, and nothing whatever is said about her household. To prove that an
unconscious infant was in it is impossible, and consequently no evidence for the
baptism of such persons can be obtained from her record. It is extremely
probable that she was at the head of her family, and that it consisted of adults
who aided in her business. The jailer at Philippi was roused at midnight by an
earthquake; and at first he was bent on killing himself, but the Spirit of God
through the voice of Paul arrested him, and soon, as Paul and Silas “spake unto
him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house, he and they
believed; and he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes,
and he 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 16:32-34. There is nothing to show that there was an unconscious
infant in this household; the two saintly prisoners “spake the word of the Lord
to him and to all that were in his house”; and he “rejoiced, believing in God
with all his house”; and the conclusion is very natural that infant baptism can
find no favorable testimony here. It is said of Crispus that “he believed on the
Lord with all his house, and many of the Corinthians, hearing, believed, and
were baptized.” Acts 18:8. It is very naturally judged that Crispus and his
household were baptized with the other Corinthian converts; and if the father
and his family were immersed, it is said that “he believed on the Lord with all
his house.” Here again there is nothing to favor the baptism of unconscious
infants. The household of Stephanas was baptized by Paul, and he says of them:
“Ye know the house of Stephanas that it is the first fruits of Achaia, and that
they have addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints.” 1 Corinthians
16:15. Here again there could be no baptized unconscious babe addicting itself
to the ministry of the saints. There is no evidence in any one of these
households which gives the slightest support to infant baptism; there is none in
the commission; and as that practice needs a solid foundation, we are surprised
to discover that it is built on a baseless supposition.

If we had positive evidence that there was an infant in every one of the
households, we would know from the commission that it was not baptized. And even
the words “whole family,” or “household” are often used with a limitation that
would justify such a conviction. A resident of Gloucester, Massachusetts, has
several sons and some very young daughters, and the sons are all engaged with
himself in fishing, and the neighbors freely tell you that the whole family are
employed in fishing, everyone who hears the statement understands in a moment
that the mother and little children are excepted. This use of the word
household, or family, is common to all languages, and it occurs frequently in
the Old Testament and in the New. Paul, in his epistle to Titus 1:11, speaking
of the qualifications of a bishop, and warning him of certain vain talkers and
deceivers, says,” whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses
(families), teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre’s sake.” The
word translated houses is the plural of the word used to describe the
“household” of Lydia, and the “house” of the jailer. It is beyond a doubt that
unconscious infants were not in the mind of the inspired writer when he put
Titus on his guard about deceitful talkers, whose tongues carried away whole
houses from the simplicity of the gospel of Christ. There may have been infants
in them, but the nature of Paul’s advice showed that he did not include them at
that time in the “houses.” And so in the baptized households there may have been
no children, or there may have been little ones, — we can only entertain a
supposition about it. The baptism of Christ required faith, and as Peter and
Paul were filled with inspiration and fidelity when they baptized the
households, it is absolutely certain that they baptized none but professed
believers. In Acts 19:1-7, we have an account of twelve men whom John baptized,
and it is supposed by many that Paul baptized them over again. Paul said to
these men, “Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said
unto him ‘We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.’ And he
said, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, ‘Unto John’s baptism.’
Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto
the people, that they should believe on him who should come after him, that is,
on Christ Jesus.” Then John baptized in the name of Jesus just as we do. And
dropping “this” in the fifth verse, which is not in the Greek, and supplying
“that” we have the true meaning: “And when they heard that, they were baptized
in the name of the Lord Jesus (in John’s baptism) and when Paul laid his hands
upon them, the Holy Spirit came on them and they spake with tongues and
prophesied.” Paul did not baptize these men,—he only put his hands upon them,
and then the Spirit’s power to work miracles came upon them, the regenerating
might of the Spirit having changed their hearts before. But these were men; no
child was with one of them, and twelve men, too. Likely enough some of them had
children. This baptism should have been noticed in the next list, but that Paul
is thought by many to have rebaptized the twelve.

John’s Baptisms.—We entirely concur in the opinion of Calvin about John’s
baptism. He says: “The ministry of John was precisely the same as that which was
afterwards committed to the apostles; for their baptism was not different,
though it was administered by different hands; but the sameness of their
doctrine shows their baptism to have been the same; both baptized to repentance;
both to remission of sins; both baptized in the name of Christ, from whom
repentance and remission of sins proceed. John said of Christ: ‘Behold the Lamb
of God which taketh away the sin of the world,’ thus acknowledging and declaring
Him to be the sacrifice, acceptable to the Father, the procurer of
righteousness, and the author of salvation. What could the apostles add to this
confession? Wherefore, let no one be disturbed by the attempts of the ancient
writers to distinguish and separate one baptism from the other.” Calvin’s
Institutes, II. Lib. 4, cap. 15, sec. 7. Matthew tells us that “there went out
to John Jerusalem and all Judea, and all the region round about Jordan, and were
baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins.” 3: 5, 6. The parties whom
John baptized were old enough to have committed sins, and to make confession of
them. Mark 1:4-5, states that “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 Jordan, confessing their sins.” Similar descriptions of John’s baptism
are elsewhere found in the New Testament, but they all speak the same language;
it was a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins, in which the baptized
confessed their sins. Of this baptism no infant could be the subject, and there
is absolutely nothing in the New Testament which permits the most shadowy
inference that any unconscious child ever received it.

Allusions to Baptisms in the New Testament.—Paul says, in Romans 6:4, “Therefore
we are buried with Christ 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.” Here the subjects of baptism are represented as dead and
buried with Christ, and as rising up to lead a holy life; they have newness of
life which no unconscious infant ever had. In 1 Corinthians 12:13, we read. “For
by one spirit we are all baptized into one body, whether we are Jews or Greeks,
whether we be bond or free, and have been all made to drink into one spirit.”
Here the apostle teaches that all who are the proper subjects of baptism are led
to observe the holy ordinance by the divine Spirit, and through the same rite
they become members of Christ’s body; and they are made to drink in one spirit;
that is, they become sharers in the graces of the great Comforter. These
statements are only true of believers. In 1 Corinthians 15:29, Paul asks: “Else
what shall they do who are baptized for the dead if the dead rise not at all?
Why are they then baptized for the dead? The apostle’s idea is that by baptism
as a figure of death, burial, and resurrection, men profess their faith in the
resurrection of the dead. This restricts baptism to those who have been made
disciples. In Galatians 3:26-27, it is written: “For ye are all the children of
God by faith in Christ Jesus; for as many of you as have been baptized into
Christ, have put on Christ.” Here the believing children of God are spoken of,
who have put on Christ before the world. In Colossians 2:11-12, Paul says: “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.” In these
verses the apostle represents circumcision as a figure of the work of Christ on
the heart, in which his spirit removes the body of the sins of the flesh. Our
circumcision now is not baptism, it is administered with hands, but it is a new
heart given without human effort by the Spirit of Jesus. By baptism, which has
no connection with circumcision, men rise with Christ through the faith of the
operation of God, and their baptism is the immersion of believers. Peter, in his
first epistle, 1 Peter 3:21, says: “The like figure (the ark of Noah) whereunto
even baptism doth 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.” The answer of a good conscience shows that Peter’s baptism was
not for infants, who feel neither the pangs nor praises of conscience, nor for
ungodly adults, but for faithful believers who have their hearts sprinkled from
an evil conscience.

Supposed Allusions to Baptism. — “Except a man be born of water and of the
Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” Nine-tenths of the Christian
family, living and dead, have applied these words of Jesus to baptism, the work
of the Spirit in the heart, and the earthly church. The birth of water is the
baptismal emersion, and the birth of the Spirit is the second birth produced by
the Comforter through the truth; and the subject of both births is not an
unconscious infant, but a person capable of understanding the truth, and of
being “reproved of sin” by the Holy Spirit. Paul is supposed to refer to baptism
in 1 Corinthians 6:11, when he says: “And such were some of you, but ye are
washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord
Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.” If the washing of which Paul speaks was
baptism, the subjects of this baptism, in some cases, had been very wicked men,
as we learn in the ninth and tenth verses, and were now sanctified, and
justified, and, consequently, intelligent believers. Paul is supposed to speak
of baptism in Ephesians 5:25-27, where he says: “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, that he might present it to himself a glorious
church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing.” If this washing is water
baptism, it means that the solemn vows, made in baptism, under the guidance of
God’s word, to die to sin and to rise up to holiness of life, are largely
instrumental in the sanctification of men. But nothing is expressed which in the
remotest degree refers to infant baptism. In Hebrews 10:21-22, Paul is supposed
to speak of baptism when he says: “Having a high priest over the house of God,
let us draw near with a true heart, in full assurance of faith, having our
hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience (by Christ’s blood), and our bodies
washed with pure water (of baptism). If this washing is baptism, those who
enjoyed it were fit persons from their intelligence and piety for an apostle to
exhort to draw near to God and to hold fast the profession of their faith
without wavering. The persons described cannot be infants.

Reasons from Scripture for Infant Baptism, resting upon portions of the Word
which make no allusion to it. —It is strange that the most potent arguments for
infant baptism come from statements of the Sacred Book which make no allusion to
it; and of the force of these reasons I judge, not from anything in them, but
from the frequency and confidence with which men have presented them. Augustine
of Hippo, about fifteen hundred years since, lent all the weight of his great
name and extraordinary talents to establish infant baptism. He was not its
father, but it owes more, a thousand fold, to him for its extension than to any
other mortal. He launches forth the now familiar argument, “Infant baptism
instead of circumcision,” with great confidence. This old weapon has done
immense service in the ranks of Traditionists. It is based, of course, upon the
Scriptures. But what Scripture makes the declaration? Not one. If it were said
that the praises of the glorified took the place of Jewish circumcision it would
be no more absurd. Circumcision represented the cutting away “bf the guilty
passions of the heart of a believer; it has no reference whatever to Christian
baptism. If a million dollars were offered to the bishop of Hippo, or to any of
the great captains of the church militant who have seized his rusty old sword,
for a text of Scripture stating that infant baptism had taken the place of
circumcision, or for a legitimate inference from any portion of the Word of God
justifying such a doctrine, the reward would never be given by impartial
adjudicators. John the Baptist administered his immersion to multitudes of
circumcised Jews; Jesus had both rites; three thousand Israelites, who had the
seal of the Abrahamic covenant, were baptized on the day of Pentecost. Paul,
like his Master, was both circumcised and baptized. This was the law of baptism.
It recognized no relations with circumcision. If it had come instead of
circumcision the new rite would have been for the uncircumcised, and never for
those who had the old rite, whose place it was supposed to take in all coming
time. But until the substitution is proved, and fifteen hundred years have
failed to establish it, I take stronger ground than Dr. Halley, a celebrated and
very able English defender of infant baptism, who says, “The general opinion,
that baptism is substituted for circumcision, as a kind of hereditary seal of
the covenant of grace, appears to be ill-sustained by Scriptural evidence, and
to be exposed to some very serious, if not absolutely fatal, objections;” and
again, “I have, and I ought to confess it candidly, some serious objections to
the acknowledgment of baptism as the substitute for circumcision.” The
Sacraments, pp. 34, 47, London, 1855. These are the utterances of one of the
foremost enemies, in talent and fervor, of believer’s immersion, that ever
lived, and as he stands alone among his brethren, he speaks with unusual
modesty. I take more decided ground than this distinguished writer, and I affirm
that a more baseless assertion never was made on earth than the declaration that
baptism came instead of circumcision. In Matthew 19:13-15, we find another
Scripture often used to sustain infant baptism. It is there written, “There were
then brought unto him little children that he should put his hands on them and
pray; and the disciples rebuked them; but Jesus said, ‘Suffer little children
and forbid them not to come unto me, for of such is the kingdom of heaven’; and
he laid his hands on them.” The advocates of infant baptism regard the Saviour’s
kindness to the children, and his saying “of such is the kingdom of heaven” as
unquestionable testimonies that little children should be baptized. It is worthy
of notice that the .Saviour does not say of the little children, “Of them is the
kingdom of heaven.” If He had, the doom of the adult unsaved world would have
been sealed; only children could have entered the kingdom of heaven. The meaning
of the Saviour’s declaration can be easily seen by comparing it with his
statement in Matthew 18:3-4, “Verily I say unto you, except ye be converted, and
become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.
Whosoever, therefore, shall humble himself as this little child [there was a
child in the midst of them] the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven.” What
is needed to enter the Saviour’s kingdom is not the weeks or the years of a
little child, not its age, but its lowliness; in distrusting itself and in
trusting a dear mother; in feeling that it is not strong, and in keeping near
its loving protector; and in being speedily grieved by its own faults, and
seeking forgiveness. This is exactly the Saviour’s thought when He says, “Of
such is the kingdom of heaven,” not of them, but of those like them in humility,
of such persons as children in their best qualities, Jerome, in the fourth
century, beautifully expresses the Saviour’s meaning, in his commentary on his
own Vulgate, at Matthew 19:14, “Significantly,” the monk writes, “Jesus said, of
such, not of them, to show that not age, but morals should rule, and that to
those who had similar innocence and simplicity a reward was promised.” This is
the Saviour’s idea exactly. The promise is not to children, but to such as
children—those who have the innocence, simplicity, and confiding faith of
children—and consequently, it has nothing to do with infant baptism, or with
adult immersion. The Saviour does not say, “can any man forbid water that these
dear children should not be baptized?” “They brought them to him that he should
put his hands on them and pray,” “and he laid his hands on them, and departed
thence;” and he neither baptized them, nor represented them as subjects of
baptism. He blessed them as near relatives, distinguished servants of God, and
aged persons, have been accustomed to do in all countries. And one would think,
from the ideas of our Pedobaptist brethren, that His disciples would instantly
have recognized the propriety of giving the little children the new supposed
seal of the covenant by plunging them in water; but they knew nothing of the
baptism of children, Jews though all of them were; and they rebuked the parents
for bringing them to Jesus, and only permitted them to approach Him, when He
said, “Suffer little children, and forbid them not to come unto me.” Nothing in
this record favors infant baptism. In 1 Corinthians 7:12-14, there is another
Scripture frequently used to defend the baptism of children. It reads, “If any
brother hath a wife that believeth not (an idolatress probably, or it might be a
Jewess), and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away. And the
woman who hath a husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with
her, let her not leave him; for the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the
wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband; else were your
children unclean but now are they holy.” It is argued that since the children
are holy, therefore, they ought to be baptized. The holiness of the unbelieving
wife and husband of which Paul speaks is a very curious quality: both parties
probably served idols at Corinth; both parties certainly rejected Jesus, and yet
the unbelieving husband and wife were wsanctified,” made holy, by their
companions. This was the legal holiness of the Jews of which Paul was speaking.
In Acts 10:28, Peter says, “Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man
that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath
showed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.” This doctrine
applied to married relationships with more stringency than to any kind of
intercourse between Jews and idolaters. The apostle, to prevent this custom from
separating husbands and wives, writes that, where either companion is a
Christian united to an unbeliever, there shall be no divorce on that account,
that the union is holy, that is, lawful, and so are the children. Some
commentators state that the Hebrew equivalent of the Greek word, rendered holy,
was used to designate a lawful marriage among the Jews, and that the
sanctification of the husband simply means that his marriage was legal; and so
with the sanctification of the wife, and hence the children were holy or legal.
And if they separated, it would be stripping their wedded relations of legal
sanctions, and their children of a virtuous birth. That the holiness of such
children is not from regeneration, is unquestionable, for the adjective
describing it is from the same word as the verb which sanctifies the unbelieving
husband and wife, and leaves them unholy in heart still. If the holiness of
children entitles them to baptism, it gives an equal claim to that holy
ordinance to the idol-worshipping wife of a godly husband, or to the Jewish
Christ-rejecting husband of a saintly wife. A more preposterous claim to baptism
was never urged by reasonable men than the supposed title of these children. The
apostle’s subject is not baptism for either infants or adults, but the enduring
character of marriage ties between believers and unbelievers, and the good name
of the children of such marriages.

Paul writes, “There is one body, and one spirit, even as ye are called in one
hope of your calling: one Lord, one faith, one baptism,” Ephesians 4:4-5 This
one baptism is the believer’s; there is no other in the Saviour’s commission,
nor in any of the baptisms recorded in the New Testament. Neither could there be
another, unless the spirit of inspiration was mistaken when he prompted Paul to
write, “One Lord, one faith, one baptism.” Even the stern Reformer of Geneva,
one of the greatest enemies the Anabaptists ever had, is compelled to admit that
there is no record of infant baptism among the actions of the apostles. His
words are, “Nor is there much plausibility in the objection that it is nowhere
stated that even a single infant was baptized by the hands of the apostles. For
though no such circumstance is expressly mentioned by the evangelist, yet on the
other hand, as they are never excluded, when mention happens to be made of the
baptism of any family, who can rationally conclude from this, that they were not
baptized?” Calvin admits that Luke, the evangelist, who wrote the book of Acts,
does not expressly mention such a thing. There was no need to exclude the
children where a family baptism was recorded, nor their playthings, for
apostolic baptism, like the commission, was believer’s immersion. There is not
in the Sacred Volume a single leaf, or the smallest part of a leaf, under which
the baptism of an unconscious infant can huddle, unless it can find shelter
under that saying of Peter, in his first Epistle, 2: 13, “Submit yourselves to
every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake.” This is the Testimony of the First
Two Centuries of Christianity. Our brethren have hailed the statement of Dean
Stanley with great admiration, which can be found in The Nineteenth Century for
October, 1879, p. 39. “In the Apostolic Age, and in the three centuries which
followed, it is evident that, as a general rule, those who came to baptism came
in full age; we find a few cases of the baptism of children; in the third
century we find one case of the baptism of infants.” The Dean here makes a
distinction between children and infants. And in the third century he first
finds infant baptism. The Dean of Westminster is strictly correct—there is not a
single instance of the baptism of an unconscious infant in the first two
centuries. The Christian literature of that period has been searched by men
whose scholarship and patristic information far surpass those of Dean Stanley,
and they have never pretended that these centuries furnish any evidence of
infant baptism. If Tertullian’s tract, De Baptismo, was written four or five
years before the end of the second century, we have evidence that the baptism of
children, not infants, was discussed for the first time in Christian literature,
and denounced by Tertullian in his orthodox days. We feel no special gratitude
to Dean Stanley for his “concession.” He could not have done otherwise with the
facts before him, if he made any statement on the subject. Baptism in the East
was first given to adults, then to youths, then to children of six or seven, and
lastly, to unconscious infants. Neander, vol. 1: 311, Boston Ed., says:
“Baptism, at first, was administered only to adults, as men were accustomed to
conceive baptism and faith as strictly connected. We have all reason for not
deriving infant baptism from apostolic institution.” During the first two
Christian ages the modern substitute for the believer’s baptism of Christ was
not in existence. The scholarly Bingham takes two men of remarkable learning,
Salmasins and Soicerns, to task, for saying that “For the first two ages, no one
received baptism who was not first instructed in the faith and doctrine of
Christ, so as to be able to answer for himself that he believed, because of
those words,” He that believeth and is baptized.’” Book 11: chap. 4, sec. 5. And
then he adduces several fathers who speak for the necessity of baptism, and he
infers that they must have included infants in this needful baptism; but he is
careful to perform no impossibility, by bringing forward a case of infant
baptism, or a positive account of the rite.

Tertullian says that “those who desire to dip themselves holily in the water,
must prepare themselves for it by fastings, by watchings, by prayers, and by
sincere repentance.” Justin Martyr says, “At many as are persuaded and believe
that the things which we teach and declare are true, and promise that they are
determined to live accordingly, are taught to pray to God, and to beseech Him
with fasting to grant them remission for their past sins, while we also pray and
fast with them. We then lead them to a place where there is water,” &c.,
Patrologia Grseca, vol. 6: 240, Migue, Parisiis. These were the subjects of
baptism in the second century, according to the two most distinguished
Christians of that period. The disciples of the first two centuries were
devotedly attached to the Scriptures, and lived near the days of the apostles;
and, like our honored denomination, they saw only the baptism of believer’s
immersion in the Word of God. The Third and Fourth Centuries Knew Extremely
Little of Infant Baptism. Dean Stanley speaks of one case in the third century.
He refers, no doubt, to the Council of Carthage, held about A. D. 256. Fidus, an
unknown country bishop, wrote to Cyprian, bishop of Carthage, to inquire at what
period an infant might be baptized. Fidus supposed that it might receive the
rite as early as the eighth day, but he needed information on the novel
question, and Cyprian, a leading bishop in Africa and among Christians
everywhere, was ignorant. A council of sixty-six bishops decided the point, and
decreed that one might be baptized as soon as it was born. One of their reasons
for the decision was that baptism took away the heavier sins of persons of
years, and it could more easily remove the guilt of infants; and another, that
the prophet, Elisha, placed his body upon the dead child which he restored, his
mouth to its mouth, his eyes to its eyes, and his hands to its hands, the
spiritual sense of which was, that infants are equal to men, and consequently
should have their baptism. This is the first case of infant baptism in the
records of Christianity. The ignorance of Fidus and Cyprian about the laws of
the rite, and the letter of the bishop, if it is genuine, show that infant
baptism was a novelty. The obscure council of Carthage, of A. D. 256, gave
infant baptism no standing beyond the ignorant Roman colonists of North Africa.
Nor have we any reason to suppose that even among them, either the authority of
Cyprian’s Council, or any other instrumentality, gave infant baptism popularity
for a long period after the meeting of the sixty-six bishops. The great
Augustine, who was born in A. D. 354, in North Africa, and whose mother, Monica,
was an eminent Christian lady, was not baptized till he was thirty-three years
of age. He received the ordinance from St. Ambrose, who was not baptized until
after his election to the See of Milan. There is no positive account of the
baptism of unconscious infants in the third century, except the record preserved
by Cyprian. Clemens Alexandrius and Origen treat of the baptism of children, not
infants. In the fourth century, the greatest men in the Christian world reached
adult years without baptism, we have already named two of them, Augustine and
Ambrose, and of the latter it is said that his family were all Christians. In A.
D. 381, Nectarins was elected archbishop of Constantinople, and though,
according to Sozomen, “he was of advanced age,” and that it was by “the will of
God that so mild and virtuous and exemplary a man was elevated to the
priesthood;’ he had not been baptized when chosen to the greatest ecclesiastical
dignity in the world. Gregory Nazianzen, who was born while his father was
bishop of Nazianzum, in Cappadocia, was baptized in his thirtieth year, and he
was archbishop of the great church of St. Sophia. The learned and illustrious
John Chrysostom, whose parents were both Christians, was baptized at
twenty-eight, and he lived to preside over the church of the chief city of the
Christian world. Basil the Great, one of the most distinguished prelates in
Christendom, whose ancestors were Christians for several generations, was
baptized in his twenty-eighth year, and he died A. D. 379. Jerome, the learned
translator of the Old Testament, and reviser of the New, and the useful
commentator, was born of Christian parents A. D. 331, and about A. D. 366 he was
baptized. The emperor, Theodosius the Great. after subduing’ enemies to his
throne on the banks of the Danube, proceeded to Thessalonica, where he was
baptized, A. D. 380, and Sozomen tells us that “his parents were Christians, and
they were attached to the Nicene doctrines.” The bishops just noticed were not
only the leaders of the Christian world in their day, but they stand unsurpassed
in the ecclesiastical literature of our times. The baptism of the fourth century
required the candidates to be catechized before they received the ordinance, and
to profess faith in Jesus. Ambrose, addressing those about to be baptized, says,
“Thou wast asked,’ Dost thou believe in God, the omnipotent Father, and thon
saidst, ‘I believe,’ and thou wast immersed, that is, thou wast buried. Again,
thou wast asked, ‘Dost thou believe in our Lord Jesus Christ and in His Cross?’
And thou saidst,’ I believe;’ and thou wast immersed, and therefore, thou wast
buried with Christ. * * A third time, thou wast asked, ‘Dost thou believe in the
Holy Spirit*’ And thou saidst, ‘I believe;’ and a third time thou wast
immersed,” Patrol. Lat. 16: p. 448, Migne, Parisiis. With a variety of
ceremonies and professions, the faith demanded by Ambrose was required
everywhere at the baptisms of the fourth century. And masses of Christians were
not baptized at all. They were waiting until death was not far distant, that all
their sins might be washed out at once. Neander, speaking of this century, says,
“Infant baptism, though acknowledged to be necessary, yet entered so rarely and
with so much difficulty into the church life during the first part of this
period.” “Hence many put off baptism until they were reminded by mortal
sickness, or some other sudden danger of approaching death. Hence it was, that
in times of public calamity, in earthquakes, in the dangers of war, multitudes
hurried to baptism, and the numbers of the existing clergy scarcely sufficed for
the wants of all.” Church History, 2: 319-20, Boston. The necessity, which in
some cases was recognized, for the baptism of infants, was the new-born delusion
that baptism would wash out Adam’s sin; hut even in the limited number of cases
where this doctrine was accepted, it was only thought of in connection with the
death of a child. The clergy of the fourth century were continually appealing to
their congregations to be baptized; they exhorted them, and entreated them, and
showed them the dangers of deferring so blessed a rite; and they felt a deep
concern for multitudes of persons whose parents never thought of baptizing them,
and who were not anxious to put on Christ by a public baptism until they neared
the end of life’s journey. It may be safely asserted that outside of North
Africa the baptisms of unconscious infants in the fourth century were so few,
that they scarcely deserve to be named. What a commentary on the commission of
Christ to his apostles! In the very end of the fourth, and for thirty years In
the fifth century, Augustine, bishop of Hippo, in North Africa, advocated infant
baptism incessantly, and forged or furbished most of the weapons by which it is
defended in our own times; his great mind, burning zeal and boundless influence,
carried infant baptism over Christendom in the fifth century —but while it
became common in that age, there is no reason to believe that it was generally
observed; and Dean Stanley is greatly mistaken in his declaration that “after
the fifth century the whole Christian world * * have baptized children.”—The
Nineteenth Century, p. 39, October, 1879. For centuries after the fifth, the
regular baptisms of the Orthodox Church in some of the great centres of the
Christian world were the baptisms of catechized persons who professed their own
faith, not adults, but minors. —Robinson’s History of Baptism, p. 106,
Nashville.

Infant Baptism in All Ages has Required Faith Before it was administered, and so
far it testifies in Favor of the Commission. Augustine himself required faith
before he baptized infants; he asked, “Doth this .child believe in God? Doth he
turn to God?” and he declares expressly in another place that the sponsors
answered for them; Patrol. Lat. Tom. 33: 363; Parisiis. Without commenting on
the person who has the faith, Augustine, the grand propagator of infant baptism
demanded it as a prerequisite to that rite. Martin Luther, in his Smaller
Catechism p. 58, N. Y., 1867, says, “I promised God in holy baptism that I would
renounce the devil and all his works and ways, and believe in God, the Father,
Son and Holy Spirit. I made this promise in holy baptism, through my sponsors.”
The Catechism of the Council of Trent, one of the highest authorities in the
Catholic Church, says: “It is not lawful to doubt but that children receive the
sacraments of faith when they are baptized, not because they believe with the
assent of their minds, but because of the faith of their parents, if they are
believers; but if not, to use the words of Augustine, they are fortified by the
faith of the whole body of saints.”—Question 33, Pars II, p. 144, Lipsiae, 1865.
The Catholic Church demands faith from the child through sponsors before she
baptizes it. In the Greek Church in Russia and elsewhere, before baptism the
priest asks the infant, “‘Dost thou believe in Christ?’ and the sponsor answers,
‘I believe in Him as King and God,’ and then he repeats the Creed.”—King’s Bites
and Ceremonies of the Greek Church in Russia, p. 161, London. The Russian, and
all the Eastern Churches demand faith in baptism. So do the Episcopal Churches
in England and America. The common Catechism of both bodies has this question
and answer: “What is required of persons to be baptized? Repentance whereby they
forsake sin; and faith whereby they steadfastly believe the promises of God made
to them in that sacrament.” These Churches demand repentance and faith for their
baptism, and both are promised by sponsors.

Calvin seemingly thinks that infants have some kind of faith. He says, “As the
Lord therefore will illuminate them (infants) with the full splendor of His
countenance in heaven, why may He not also, if such be His pleasure, irradiate
them with some faint rays of it in the present life? Not that I would hastily
affirm them to be endued with the same faith which we experienced in ourselves,
or at all to possess a similar knowledge, which I would prefer leaving in
suspense.”— Institutes, vol. 2, lib. 4, cap. H). His idea is, probably, that
infants have faith in the germ. The Westminster Confession of Faith, speaking
for British and American Presbyterians, makes the faith of the parents, or of
one parent, a prerequisite to baptism. “Baptism,” it says, “is not to be
administered to any that are out of the visible church, and so strangers from
the covenant of promise, till they profess their faith in Christ, and obedience
to him; but infants descending from parents, either both, or but one of them,
professing faith in Christ and obedience to Him, are, in that respect, within
the Covenant, and are to be baptized.” Question 166, Larger Catechism. Here,
again, baptism is prohibited without faith. In Robinson’s History of Baptism, p.
681, Nashville, here is an account of an English Congregational baptism, at
which the minister stated that “not only those that do actually profess faith
in, and obedience unto Christ, but also the infants of one or both believing
parents, were to be baptized.” This is the ground of the British
Congregationalists now; and it is no doubt the creed, on this question, of their
brethren in the United States. When John Wesley visited this country, in 1736,
he adhered strictly to the baptism of the Episcopal Church, as the following
quotations from his journal will show: “Saturday, February 21.—Mary Welsh, aged
eleven days, was baptized, according to the custom of the first church, and the
rule of the church of England, by immersion; the child was ill then, but
recovered from that hour.” “Wednesday, May 5th.—I was asked to baptise a child
of Mr. Parker, second bailiff of Savannah, but Mrs. Parker told me,’ Neither Mr.
Parker nor I will consent to its being dipped. I answered, ‘If you certify that
your child is weak, it will suffice, the Rubric says, to pour water upon it.’
She replied,’ if ay the child is not weak, but I am resolved it shall not be
dipped.’ This argument I could not confute. So I went home and the child was
baptized by another person.”— Wesley’s Works 1.130-134, Philadelphia, 1826. In
the service for the baptism of infants in the Church of England, the minister
addresses the godfathers and godmothers, saying, among other things, “Dost thou
believe in God the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth? And in Jesus
Christ, His only begotten son, our Lord? * * And dost thou believe in the Holy
Ghost? * * This is from the service for the private baptism of children in
houses, the one probably used by Mr. Wesley when Mary Welsh was immersed. Faith
at this time was a prerequisite to baptism with Mr. Wesley.

Throughout Christendom there has been a general conviction that faith was
indispensible to baptism. Among those who have practiced infant baptism, faith
has been sternly demanded, as a prerequisite to the immersion or sprinkling of a
child, from the very origin of that human rite. The Baptists have never
exhibited greater urgency for faith, as a condition without which baptism could
not be conferred, than Pedobaptists. Dr. Halley, an English Congregationalist,
had his orthodoxy questioned by his own brethren, and his opinions rejected, by
delivering and publishing, about thirty years ago, lectures in which he tried to
prove that the commission required the apostles to teach all nations and baptize
all nations; that faith had nothing to do with baptism; that the command to
baptize might have preceded the order to teach without any impropriety. Probably
Dr. Halley was the only man who ever seriously entertained such a doctrine. The
whole Christian world, except Dr. Halley and men of Quaker opinions, has ever
held, and holds still, that the Baptist principle, which demands faith as a
prerequisite to the initial ordinance of the gospel is a Scriptural doctrine.

Pedobaptists secure this faith in a way somewhat different from Baptists. We
hold that we must not borrow the loan of another’s faith in order to be
baptized—that the candidate must have it himself. We have heard of the formation
of an insurance company, which required a certain amount of capital; the
requisite sum was borrowed, to show the State examiner when he inspected its
assets, and then it was returned. But men of honor have never approved of the
integrity of borrowed bonds, or funds for such a purpose; and we are afraid that
borrowed faith, in order to be baptized, however good the intention may be, is
an attempted imposition upon man’s Divine Friend. The Scriptures know nothing of
loaned faith. A personal faith is a prerequisite to baptism. The believer’s
baptism of the first four centuries, and of multitudes for centuries later, has
been completely set aside by the baptism of infants in all Christian
communities, except Baptist Churches. It is a mournful fact that this grand
ordinance of the Redeemer, speaking of our death to sin, our union with Christ
in the merits of His death, our rising from the watery grave to lead a holy
life, and our resurrection from the dead, should be in its mode and subjects as
completely removed from a large part of Christendom, as if it had never existed.
My text is strikingly applicable to this usurping ceremony and its
administrators. “Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your
tradition.” The Saviour has uttered words that inspire us with great hope for
our dear brethren of the Evangelical churches of our country and of other lands.
He says, Matthew 15, “Every plant which my heavenly Father hath not planted
shall be rooted up.” This is surely one of the plants to which the Saviour’s
words may be fitly applied. The Rev. John Robinson, the father of New England
Congregationalism, whose flock sent the colony which came by the celebrated
Mayflower, while earnestly defending the Scriptural authority of infant baptism,
says: “We grant that the Scriptures nowhere say, in express terms, ‘baptize
infants,’ or that infants were baptized.”—Works of Robinson, I. 416, London,
1851. If there is no such command in the Scriptures in express terms, nor any
such practice, we can readily see, notwithstanding good John Robinson’s strong
reasons, that infant baptism is not Scriptural, and that it is one of the plants
which must be rooted up because our heavenly Father did not plant it. Nay, He is
pulling it up by the roots very actively just now. The Evangelical churches of
our country are evidently drawing nearer the Saviour’s ways and spirit, and in
nothing is this more apparent than in the disuse of infant sprinkling in
Pedobaptist churches. Twenty years ago, a reliable authority quoted by Professor
Curtis says, “In one of the oldest (Congregational) churches in this State,
there had not been, a few years since, an instance of infant baptism for seven
preceding years. Last year there were seventy Congregational Churches in New
Hampshire that reported no infant baptisms. This year ninety-six churches
reported none. If this indifference continues, the ordinance will become extinct
in the Congregational Churches.” Dr. Curtis calculated that less than a third of
the Presbyterian children born in a year, at the time he published his work,
were baptized, whereas a century ago they were all baptised; and that the infant
rite was far less practiced among the Methodists.—Progress of Baptist
Principles, pp. 132-136, Boston. There is every reason to believe that infant
baptism is declining still, and will continue to be observed less and less,
until this plant, which our heavenly Father hath not planted, disappears
altogether, and the servants of Jehovah cease forever to make the commandment of
God of no effect by their tradition, and unite in receiving one Lord, one faith,
and one baptism.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 5: 04 WHY THE BAPTISTS DO NOT BAPTIZE INFANTS
========================================================================

Why The Baptists Do Not Baptize Infants By Rev. W. E. Hatcher, D.D., Richmond,
VA As a fact, Baptists do not baptize their infants. If there be any benefits
springing from Infant Baptism, the children of Baptists miss them. If Infant
Baptism is necessary to the salvation of children, then the children of Baptists
are lost. The motive of the Baptists in refusing baptism to children is no
secret. They hardly consider it necessary to say that it is from no want of
kindness or religious solicitude for their children. They expect many things to
be said against them, and are ready to bear them, but can not believe that their
worst enemies will seriously deny that they love their children and are
concerned for their highest religious safety. Nor does their refusal arise from
an unwillingness to consecrate their children to the Lord. This, every sincere
and intelligent Baptist does. Nor is it from any desire to be eccentric or
singular; but a deep conviction of duty which they cannot but regard. The one
sufficient reason the Baptists have for rejecting Infant Baptist is, that the
Bible does not teach it. With some this is nothing. They follow priests, creeds
and churches. But to the Baptists, the Bible is the end of controversy. They
confess its authority as supreme, and accept nothing as religious duty except
that which it teaches. They do not find that it teaches Infant Baptism. But some
say that the Bible does teach it. It is there! Well, where? Dreamy fancies that
it is taught somewhere in the Word of God are worth nothing. Give the chapter
and the verse where, by law or example, it is taught. If your child’s salvation
depended on a passage in the Scriptures that taught this doctrine, which would
you select?

True, certain passages or incidents in the Bible are presented in support of
Infant Baptism, but even the friends of the doctrine differ widely concerning
them. Without attempting to notice all these texts, I will, as a matter of
justice, select for notice those which are considered the strongest. Perhaps the
most popular proof passage is found in Mark 10:14-16. This to many is a tower of
strength —a refuge in weakness, and quoted on all occasions. What are the facts?
Little children are brought to the Saviour and he takes them in his arms and
blesses them. The surprise and displeasure of the disciples at the presentation
of these children to Christ plainly indicated that the practice of Infant
Baptism was not known to them. It was certainly a capital opportunity for
instituting such an ordinance and explaining its object; but nothing of the kind
was done. The silence of Jesus on the subject is itself a significant argument
against it. The fact that he said nothing about Infant Baptism, and did
something quite different from it, turns this passage into a strong proof-text
against the practice. But there are the Household Baptisms. It is claimed that
if whole families were baptized, there must have been children among them. First
in the list is the family of Crispus. Paul baptized that household. It is enough
to say that it is expressly declared that Crispus “believed in the Lord with all
his house.” Acts 18:8. Next is the house of Stephanas,1 Corinthians 1:13. Here
Paul simply speaks of it as the baptism of a household. Must there not have been
infants? Not unless it can be shown that there are no households without
infants. But observe that in 1 Corinthians 16:15, Paul, in alluding to this
family, calls them “the first fruits of Achaia,” and says they “addicted
themselves to the ministry of the saints.” Macknight is candid enough to admit
that there could have been no infants in the house of Stephanas.

Next is the household of the Philippian jailer.Acts 16:29-34. In reading the
account, you observe that they spake the word of the Lord to all that were in
the house of the jailer—that the jailer rejoiced, believing in God with all his
house.” That is unanswerably plain. Last in the list is the house of Lydia.Acts
16:14-40. Before an argument in favor of Infant Baptism can be wrung from this
case, several impossible propositions must be established: 1. That Lydia was
married. 2. That she had children. 3. That any of these children were at that
time infants. 4. That these infants were baptized. 5. That the term brethren in
verse 40 is used independently of these children.

There is also the argument from circumcision. It is claimed that Infant Baptism
is the substitute for circumcision. That such is the case is nowhere intimated
in the Word of God. The Jews that had been circumcised, when converted to Christ
were baptized. Timothy was circumcised after he had been baptized. If baptism is
the substitute for circumcision, where is the fact stated?

Some who practice Infant Baptism do not claim clear Bible authority for it. They
put it on the ground that it is a “form of consecration “—” a beautiful
ceremony”—” may do some good “and “can do no harm.” That there is any wrong or
injury in the simple act of sprinkling a child with water and praying for its
salvation, no one would be so foolish as to assert. But when this act is
performed on the plea that it is commanded by the word of God, it becomes sin
evil. It is to claim scriptural authority for what is not taught in the word of
God. Besides, the observance of this practice is a practical abolition of
believer’s baptism, which is clearly required by the law of Christ.

It is an injury to the child. It infringes his right of choice in the matter of
baptism. Tt confuses his mind in regard to his relation to the Church. It leaves
him in doubt as to his regeneration. It is calculated to foster in his mind
false religious hopes.

It is an injury to the Church. The scriptural idea of a Church is that of a body
of baptized believers. Only those who have been pardoned and regenerated are
entitled to membership. Upon the preservation of this idea of a spiritual
membership is dependent the purity of the churches. This idea is assailed by
Infant Baptism, and the universal triumph of that doctrine would be the
introduction of all classes of persons within the ranks of some external church.
The truth of this statement is abundantly proved by the condition of the
Lutheran Church in Germany, and that of the Established Church of England.

If it be true that Infant Baptism is not taught in the word of God—that it is
injurious to those who are its subjects, and unfriendly to the New Testament
idea of a Church, then the Baptists are amply justified in rejecting it.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 6: 05 BAPTISMAL REGENERATION
========================================================================

Baptismal Regeneration By Rev. Charles H. Spurgeon. London, England

“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 16:15-16. In the preceding verse our Lord
Jesus Christ gives us some little insight into the natural character of the
apostles whom He selected to be the first ministers of the Word. They were
evidently men of like passions with us, and needed to be rebuked even as we do.
On the occasion when our Lord sent forth the eleven to preach the gospel to
every creature, he “appeared unto them as they sat at meat, and upbraided them
with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which
had seen him after he was risen;” from which we may surely gather, that, to
preach the Word, the Lord was pleased to choose imperfect men; men, too, who of
themselves were very weak in the grace of faith, in which it was most important
that they should excel. Faith is the conquering grace, and is of all things the
main requisite in the preacher of the Word; and yet the honored men who were
chosen to be the leaders of the divine crusade needed a rebuke concerning their
unbelief. Why was this? Why, my brethren, because the Lord has ordained evermore
that we should have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellency of the
power may be of God, and not of us. If you should find a perfect minister, then
might the praise and honor of his usefulness accrue to man; but God is
frequently pleased to select for eminent usefulness men evidently honest and
sincere, but who have some manifest infirmity by which all the glory is cast off
from them and laid upon himself, and upon himself alone. Let it never be
supposed that we who are God’s ministers either excuse our faults or pretend to
perfection. We labor to walk in holiness, but we cannot claim to be all that we
wish to be. We do not base the claims of God’s truth upon the spotlessness of
our characters, but upon the fact that it comes from him. You have believed in
spite of our infirmities, and not because of our virtues. If, indeed, you had
believed our word because of our supposed perfection, your faith would stand in
the excellency of man and not in the power of God. We come unto you often with
much trembling, sorrowing over our follies and weaknesses; but we deliver to you
God’s Word as God’s Word, and we beseech you to receive it, not as coming from
us, poor, sinful mortals, but as proceeding from the eternal and thrice-holy
God; and if you so receive it, and by its own vital force are moved and stirred
up towards God and his ways, then is the work of the Word sure work, which it
could not and would not be if it rested in any way upon man. Our Lord having
thus given us an insight into the character of the persons whom he has chosen to
proclaim his truth, then goes on to deliver to the chosen champions their
commission for the holy war. I pray you mark the words with solemn care. He sums
up in a few words the whole of their work, and at the same time foretells the
result of it, telling them that some would doubtless believe and so be saved,
and some on the other hand would not believe and would most certainly,
therefore, be damned; that is, condemned forever to the penalties of God’s
wrath. The lines containing the commission of our ascended Lord are certainly of
the utmost importance, and demand devout attention and implicit obedience, not
only from all who aspire to the work of the ministry, but also from all who hear
the message of mercy. A clear .understanding of these words is absolutely
necessary to our success in the Master’s work; for if we do not understand the
commission, it is not at all likely that we shall discharge it aright. To alter
these words were more than impertinence: it would involve the crime of treason
against the-authority of Christ and the best interests of the souls of men. Oh
for grace to be very jealous here!

Wherever the apostles went they met with obstacles to the preaching of the
gospel, and the more open and effectual was the door of utterance, the more
numerous were the adversaries. These brave men so wielded the sword of the
Spirit as to put to flight all their foes; and this they did, not by craft and
guile, but by making a direct cut at the error which impeded them. Never did
they dream for a moment of adapting the gospel to the unhallowed tastes or
prejudices of the people, but at once directly and boldly they brought down with
both their hands the mighty sword of the Spirit upon the crown of the opposing
error. This morning, in the name of the Lord of Hosts, my helper and defence, I
shall attempt to do the same; and if I should provoke some hostility—if I
should, through speaking what I believe to be the truth, lose the friendship of
some and stir up the enmity of more— I cannot help it. The burden of the Lord is
upon me, and I must deliver my soul. I have been loth enough to undertake the
work, but I am forced to it by an awful and overwhelming sense of solemn duty.
As I am soon to appear before my Master’s bar, I will this day, if ever in my
life, bear my testimony for truth, and run all risks. I am content to be cast
out as evil if it must be so; but I cannot, I dare not, hold my peace. The Lord
knoweth I have nothing in my heart but the purest love to the souls of those
whom I feel imperatively called to rebuke sternly in the Lord’s name. Among my
hearers and readers, a considerable number will censure if not condemn me; but I
cannot help it. If I forfeit your love for truth’s sake I am grieved for you;
but I cannot, I dare not, do otherwise. It is as much as my soul is worth to
hold my peace any longer; and, whether you approve or not, I must speak out. Did
I ever court your approbation? It is sweet to everyone to be applauded; but if
for the sake of the comforts of respectability and the smiles of men any
Christian minister shall keep back a part of his testimony, his Master at the
last shall require it at his hands. This day, standing in the immediate presence
of God, I shall speak honestly what I feel, as the Holy Spirit shall enable me;
and I shall leave the matter with you to judge concerning it, as you will answer
for that judgment at the last, great day.

I find that the great error which we have to contend with throughout England
(and it is growing more and more), is one in direct opposition to my text, well
known to yon as the doctrine of baptismal regeneration. We will confront this
dogma with the assertion that baptism without faith saves no one. The text says,
“He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved;” but whether a man be
baptized or no, it asserts that “he that believeth not shall be damned:” so that
baptism does not save the unbeliever; nay, it does not in any degree exempt him
from the common doom of all the ungodly. He may have baptism, or he may not have
baptism; but if he believeth not, he shall be in any case most surely damned.
Let him be baptized by immersion or sprinkling, in his infancy or in his adult
age: if he be not led to put his trust in Jesus Christ—if he remaineth an
unbeliever —then this terrible doom is pronounced upon him, “He that believeth
not shall be damned.” I am not aware that any Protestant church in England
teaches the doctrine of baptismal regeneration, except onel and that happens to
be the corporation which, with none too much humility, calls itself the Church
of England. This very powerful sect does not teach this doctrine merely through
a section of its ministers, who might charitably be considered as evil branches
of the vine, but it openly, boldly, and plainly declares this doctrine in her
own appointed standard, the Book of Common Prayer, and that in words so express,
that, while language is the channel of conveying intelligible sense, no process
short of violent wresting from their plain meaning can ever make them say
anything else.

Here are the words—we quote them from the Catechism which is intended for the
instruction of youth, and is naturally very plain and simple, since it would be
foolish to trouble the youth with metaphysical refinements. The child is asked
its name, and then questioned, “Who gave you this name?” “My godfathers and
godmothers in my baptism; wherein I was made a member of Christ, the child of
God, and an inheritor of the kingdom of heaven.” Is not this definite and plain
enough? I prize the words for their candor: they could not speak more plainly.
Three times over the thing is put, lest there should be any doubt in it. The
word regeneration may, by some sort of juggling, be made to mean something else;
but here there can be no misunderstanding. The child is not only made “a member
of Christ,”—union to Jesus is no mean spiritual gift,—but he is made in baptism
“the child of God “also; and, since the rule is, “if children, then heirs/’ he
is also made “an inheritor of the kingdom of heaven.” Nothing can be more plain.
I venture to say that, while honesty remains on earth, the meaning of these
words will not admit of dispute. It is clear as noonday that, as the Rubric hath
it, “Fathers, mothers, masters and dames are to cause their children, servants
and apprentices,” no matter how idle, giddy, or wicked they may be, to learn the
Catechism, and to say that in baptism they were made members of Christ and
children of God. The form for the administration of this baptism is scarcely
less plain and outspoken, seeing that thanks are expressly returned unto
Almighty God because the person baptized is regenerated: “Then shall the priest
say, ‘Seeing, now, dearly beloved brethren, that this child is regenerate and
grafted into the body of Christ’s church, let us give thanks unto Almighty God
for these benefits; and with one accord make our prayers unto him, that this
child may lead the rest of his life according to this beginning.’” Nor is this
all; for, to leave no mistake, we have the words of the thanksgiving prescribed:
“Then shall the priest say, ‘We yield thee hearty thanks, most merciful Father,
that it hath pleased thee to regenerate this infant with thy Holy Spirit, to
receive him for thine own child by adoption, and to incorporate him into thy
holy church.’”

This, then, is the clear and unmistakable teaching of a church calling itself
Protestant. I am not now dealing at all with the question of infant baptism: I
have nothing to do with that this morning. I am now considering the question of
baptismal regeneration, whether in adults or infants, or ascribed to sprinkling,
pouring, or immersion. Here is a church which teaches every Lord’s Day in the
Sunday school, and should, according to the Rubric, teach openly in the church,
all children that they were made members of Christ, children of God, and
inheritors of the kingdom of heaven when they were baptized! Here is a
professedly Protestant church, which, every time its minister goes to the font,
declares that every person there receiving baptism is there and then
“regenerated and grafted into the body of Christ’s church.”

“But,” I hear many good people exclaim, “there are many good clergyman in the
church who do not believe in baptismal regeneration!” To this my answer is
prompt—Why, then, do they belong to the church which teaches that doctrine in
the plainest terms? I am told that many in the Church of England preach against
her own teaching. I know they do, and herein I rejoice in their enlightenment,
but I question, gravely question, their morality. To take oath that I sincerely
assent and consent to a doctrine which I do not believe, would to my conscience
appear little short of perjury, if not absolute, downright perjury; but those
who do so must be judged by their Lord. For one to take money for defending what
I do not believe—for me to take the money of a church, and then to preach
against what are most evidently its doctrines—I say for me to do this (I shall
not judge the peculiar views of other men), for me or for any other simple,
honest man to do so, were an atrocity so great that, if I had perpetrated the
deed, I should consider myself out of the pale of truthfulness, honesty and
common morality. Sirs, when I accepted the office of minister of this
congregation, I looked to see what were your articles of faith. If I had not
believed them I should not have accepted your call; and when I change my
opinions, rest assured that, as an honest man, I shall resign the office; for
how could I profess one thing in your declaration of faith, and quite another
thing in my own preaching? Would I accept your pay, and then stand up every
Sabbath-day and talk against the doctrines of your standards? For clergymen to
swear or any that they give their solemn assent to what they do not believe, is
one of the grossest pieces of immorality perpetrated in England, and is most
pestilential in its influence, since it directly teaches men to lie whenever it
seems necessary to do so in order to get a living or increase their supposed
usefulness: it is in fact an open testimony from priestly lips that, at least in
ecclesiastical matters, falsehood may express truth, and truth itself is a mere
unimportant nonentity. I know of nothing more calculated to debauch the public
mind than a want of straightforwardness in ministers; and when worldly men hear
ministers denouncing the very thing which their own Prayer-book teaches, they
imagine that words have no meaning among ecclesiastics, and that vital
differences in religion are merely a matter of tweedle-dee and tweedle-dum, and
that it does not much matter what a man does believe so long as he is charitable
towards other people. If baptism does regenerate people, let the fact be
preached with a trumpet tongue, and let no man be ashamed of his belief in it.
If this be really their creed, by all means let them have full liberty for its
propagation. My brethren, those are honest Churchmen in this matter who,
subscribing to the Prayer-book, believe in baptismal regeneration, and preach it
plainly. God forbid that we should censure those who believe that baptism saves
the soul, because they adhere to a church which teaches the same doctrine. So
far they are honest men; and in England, wherever else, let them never lack a
full toleration. Let us oppose their teaching by all scriptural and intelligent
means, but let us respect their courage in plainly giving us their views. I hate
their doctrine, but I love their honesty; and as they speak but what they
believe to be true, let them speak it out, and the more clearly the better. Out
with it, airs, be it what it may, but do let us know what you clean. For my
part, I love to stand foot to foot with my honest foeman. To open warfare, bold
and fearless hearts raise no objections but the ground of quarrel; it is covert
enmity which we have most cause to fear and best reason to loathe. That crafty
kindness which inveigles me to sacrifice principle, is the serpent in the
grass—deadly to the incautious wayfarer. Where union and friendship are not
cemented by truth, they are an unallowed confederacy. It is time that there
should be an end put to the flirtations of honest men with those who believe one
way and swear another. If men believe baptism works regeneration, let them say
so; but if they do not so believe it in their hearts, and yet subscribe, and yet
more, get their livings by subscribing to words asserting it, let them find
congenial associates among men who can equivocate and shuffle, for honest men
will neither ask nor accept their friendship. We, ourselves, are not dubious on
this point: we protest that persons are not saved by being baptized. In such an
audience as this, I am almost ashamed to go into the matter, because you surely
know better than to be misled. Nevertheless, for the good of others, we will
drive at it. We hold that persons are not saved by baptism; for we think, first
of all, that it seems out of character with the spiritual religion which Christ
came to teach, that he should make salvation depend upon mere ceremony. Judaism
might possibly absorb the ceremony by way of type into her ordinances essential
to eternal life; for it was a religion of types and shadows. The false religions
of the heathen might inculcate salvation by a physical process; but Jesus Christ
claims for his faith that it is purely spiritual, and how could he connect
regeneration with a peculiar application of aqueous fluid? I cannot see how it
would be a spiritual gospel, but I can see how it would be mechanical, if I were
sent forth to teach that the mere dropping of so many drops upon the brow, or
even the plunging a person in water, could save the soul. This seems to me to be
the most mechanical religion now existing, and to be on a par with the praying
windmills of Thibet, or the climbing up and down of Pilate’s staircase to which
Luther subjected himself in the days of his darkness. The operation of water
baptism does not appear, even, to my faith, to touch the! point involved in the
regeneration of the soul. What is the necessary connection between water and the
overcoming of sin? I cannot see any connection which can exist between
sprinkling, or immersion, and regeneration, so that the one shall necessarily be
tied to the other in the absence of faith. Used by faith, had God commanded it,
miracles might be wrought; but without faith or even consciousness, as in the
case of babes, how can spiritual benefits be connected necessarily with the
sprinkling of water? If this be your teaching, that regeneration goes with
baptism, I say that it looks like the teaching of a spurious church, which has
craftily invented a mechanical salvation to deceive ignorant, sensual, and
groveling minds, rather than the teaching of the most profoundly spiritual of
all teachers, who rebuked Scribes and Pharisees for regarding outward rites as
more important than inward grace. But it strikes me that a more forcible
argument is, that the dogma, is not supported by facts. Are all persons who are
baptized children of God? Well, let us look at the divine family. Let us mark
their resemblance to their glorious Parent! Am I untruthful if I say that
thousands of those who were baptized in their infancy are now in our gaols? You
can ascertain the fact, if you please, by application to prison authorities. Do
you believe that these men, many of whom have been living by plunder, felony,
burglary, or forgery, are regenerate? If so, the Lord deliver us from such
regeneration. Are these villains members of Christ? If so, Christ has sadly
altered since the day when he was holy, harmless, undented, separate from
sinners. Has he really taken baptized drunkards and harlots to be members of his
body? Do you not revolt at the supposition? It is a well-known fact that
baptized persons have been hanged. Surely it can hardly be right to hang the
inheritors of the kingdom of heaven! Our sheriffs have much to answer for when
they officiate at the execution of the children of God, and suspend the members
of Christ on the gallows! What a detestable farce is that which is transacted at
the open grave, when “a dear brother,” who has died drunk, is buried in a “sure
and certain hope of the resurrection to eternal life,” and the prayer that “when
we shall depart this life we may rest in Christ, as our hope is that this our
brother doth.” He is a regenerate brother, who, having denied the village by
constant uncleanliness and bestial drunkenness, died without a sign of
repentance; and yet the professed minister of God solemnly accords him funeral
rites which are denied to unbaptized innocents, and puts the reprobate into the
earth in “sure and certain hope of the resurrection to eternal life.” If old
Rome in her worst days ever perpetrated a grosser piece of imposture than this,
I do not read things aright; if it does not require a Luther to cry down this
hypocrisy as much as Popery ever did, then I do not even know that twice two
make four. Do we find—we who baptize on profession of faith, and baptize by
immersion in a way which is confessed to be correct, though not allowed by some
to be absolutely necessary to its validity—do we, who baptize in the name of the
Sacred Trinity as others do, do we find that baptism regenerates? We do not.
Neither in the righteous nor the wicked do we find regeneration wrought by
baptism. We have never met with one believer, however instructed in divine
things, who could trace his regeneration to his baptism; and on the other hand,
we confess it with sorrow, but still with no surprise, that we have seen those
whom we have ourselves baptized, according to apostolic precedent, go back into
the world and wander into the foulest sin, and their baptism has scarcely been
so much as a restraint to them, because they have not believed in the Lord Jesus
Christ. Facts all show that whatever good there may be in baptism, it certainly
does not make a man “a member of Christ, the child of God, and an inheritor of
the kingdom of heaven,” or else many thieves, whoremongers, drunkards,
fornicators, and murderers are members of Christ, the children of God, and
inheritors of the kingdom of heaven. Facts, brethren, are dead against this
popish doctrine; and facts are stubborn things. Yet further, I am persuaded that
the performance styled baptism by the Prayer-Boole is not at all likely to
regenerate and save. How is the thing done? One is very curious to know when one
hears of an operation which makes men members of Christ, children of God, and
inheritors of the kingdom of heaven, how the thing is done. It must in itself be
a holy thing, truthful in all its details, and edifying in every portion. Now,
we will suppose we have a company gathered round the water, be it more or less,
and the process of regeneration is about to be performed. We will suppose them
all to be godly people. The clergyman officiating is a profound believer in the
Lord Jesus, and the father and mother are exemplary Christians, and the
godfathers and godmothers are all gracious persons. We will suppose this: it is
a supposition fraught with charity, but it may be correct. What are these godly
people supposed to say? Let us look at the Prayer-Book. The clergyman is
supposed to tell the people, “Ye have heard also that our Lord Jesus Christ hath
promised in his gospel to grant all these things that ye have prayed for: which
promise he, for his part, will surely keep and perform. Wherefore, after this
promise made by Christ, this infant must also faithfully, for his part, promise
by you that are his sureties (until he come of age to take it upon himself J
that he will renounce the devil and all his works, and constantly believe God’s
Holy word, and obediently keep his commandments.’” This small child is to
promise to do this; or, more truly, others are to be taken upon themselves to
promise, and even row that he shall do so. But we must not break the quotation,
and therefore let us return to the Book: “I demand, therefore, dost thon, in the
name of this child, renounce the devil and all his works, the vain pomp and
glory of the world, with all covetous desires of the same, and the carnal
desires of the flesh, so that thon wilt not follow, nor be led by them?” Answer:
“I renounce them all.” That is to say, in the name and behalf of this tender
infant about to be baptized, these godly people, these enlightened Christian
people, these who know better, who are not dupes, who know all the while that
they are promising impossibilities, renounce on behalf of this child what they
find it very hard to renounce for themselves,—”all covetous desires of the world
and the carnal desires of the flesh, so that they will not follow nor be led by
them.” How can they harden their faces to utter such a false promise, such a
mockery of renunciation, before the presence of the Father Almighty? Might not
angels weep as they hear the awful promise uttered? Then in the presence of High
Heaven they profess on behalf of this child that he steadfastly believes the
creed, when they know, or might pretty shrewdly judge, that the little creature
is not yet a steadfast believer in anything, much less in Christ’s going down
into hell. Mark, they do not say merely that the babe shall believe the creed,
but they affirm that he does; for they answer in the child’s name, “All this we
steadfastly believe.” Not ire steadfastly believe, but J, the little baby there,
unconscious of all their professions and confessions of faith. In answer to the
question, “Wilt, thou be baptized in this faith?” they reply for the infant,
“That is my desire.” Surely the infant has no desire in the matter, or at least
no one has been authorized to declare any desire on his be-half. But this is not
all; for them these godly, intelligent people next promise on behalf of the
infant that “he shall obediently keep all God’s holy will and commandments, and
“walk in the same all the days of Ins life.” Now, I ask you, dear friends, you
who know what true religion means, can you walk in all God’s holy commandments
yourselves? Dare you make this day a vow on your own part, that you would
renounce the devil and all his works, the pomps and vanities of this wicked
world, and all the sinful lusts of the flesh? Dare you, before God, make such a
promise as that? You desire such holiness; you earnestly strive after it; but
you look for it from God’s promise, not from your own. If you dare make such
vows, I doubt your knowledge of your own hearts and of the spirituality of God’s
law. But even if you could do this for yourself, would you venture to make such
a promise for any other person?—for the best-born infant on earth? Come,
brethren, what say yon? Is not your reply ready and plain? There is not room for
two opinions among men determined to observe truth in all their ways and words.
I can understand a simple, ignorant rustic, who has never learned to read, doing
all this at the command of a priest and under the eye of a squire. I can even
understand persons doing this when the Reformation was in its dawn, and men had
newly crept out of the darkness of Popery; but I cannot understand, gracious,
godly people standing at the font to insult the All-gracious Father with Tows
and promises framed upon a fiction, and involving practical falsehood. How dare
intelligent believers in Christ to utter words which they know in their
conscience to be wickedly aside from truth? When I shall be able to understand
the process by which gracious men so accommodate their consciences, even then I
shall have a confirmed belief that the God of truth never did and never will
confirm a spiritual blessing of the highest order in connection with the
utterance of such false promises and untruthful vows. My brethren, does it not
strike you that declarations so fictitious are not likely to be connected with a
new birth wrought by the Spirit of truth?

I have not done with this point: I must take another case, and suppose the
sponsors and others to be ungodly; and that is no hard supposition, for in many
cases we know that godfathers and parents have no more thought of religion than
that idolatrous hallowed stone around which they gather. When these sinners have
taken their places, what are they about to say? Why, they are about to make the
solemn vows I have already recounted in your hearing? Totally irreligious they
are, but yet they promise for the baby what they never did, and never thought of
doing, for themselves,—they promise on behalf of this child, “that he will
renounce the devil and all his works, and constantly believe God’s Holy Word,
and obediently keep his commandments.” My brethren, do not think I speak
severely here. Really, I think there is something here to make mockery for
devils. Let every honest man lament that ever God’s church should tolerate such
a thing as this, and that there should be found gracious people who will feel
grieved because I, in all kindness of heart, rebuked the atrocity. Unregenerate
sinners promising for a poor babe that he shall keep all God’s holy
commandments, which they themselves wantonly break every day! How can anything
but the long-suffering of God endure this? What! not speak against it? The very
stones in the street might cry out against the infamy of wicked men and women
promising that another should renounce the devil and all his works, while they
themselves serve the devil and do his works with greediness! As a climax to all
this, I am asked to believe that God accepts that wicked promise, and, as the
result of it, regenerates that child. You cannot believe in regeneration, by
this operation, whether saints or sinners are the performers. Take them to be
godly, then they are wrong for doing what their conscience must condemn; view
them as ungodly, and they are wrong for promising what they know they cannot
perform; and in neither case can God accept such worship, much less infallibly
append regeneration to such a baptism as this. But you will say,” Why do you cry
out against it?” I cry out against it because I believe that baptism does not
save the soul, and that the preaching of it has a wrong and evil influence upon
men. We meet with persons who, when we tell them that they must be born again,
assure us that they were born again when they were baptized. The number of these
persons is increasing, fearfully increasing, until all grades of society are
misled by this belief. How can any man stand up in his pulpit and say “Ye must
be born again” to his congregation, when he has already assured them, by his own
“unfeigned assent and consent” to it, that they are themselves, every one of
them, born again in baptism. What has he to do with them? Why, my dear friends,
the gospel then has no voice; they have rammed this ceremony down its throat,
and it cannot speak to rebuke sin. The man who has been baptized or sprinkled,
says, “I am saved; I am a member of Christ, a child of God, and an inheritor of
the kingdom of heaven. Who are you, that you should rebuke me? Call me to
repentance? — call me to a new life? What better life can I have? for I am a
member of Christ—a part of Christ’s body. What! rebuke me? I am a child of God.
Cannot you see it in my face? No matter what my walk and conversation is, I am a
child of God. Moreover, I am an inheritor of the kingdom of heaven. It is true I
drink and swear, and all that, but you know I am an inheritor of the kingdom of
heaven; for when I die, though I live in constant sin, you will put me la the
grave, and tell everybody that I died’ in sure and certain hope of the
resurrection to eternal life.’”

Now, what can be the influence of such preaching as this upon our beloved
England? — upon my dear and blessed country? What but the worst of ills? If I
loved her not, but loved myself most, I might be silent here; but, loving
England, I cannot and dare not; and having soon to render an account before my
God, whose servant I hope I am, I must free myself from this evil, as well as
from every other, or else on my head may be the doom of souls.

Here let me bring in another point. It is a most fearful fact, that, in no age
since the Reformation, hits Popery made such fearful strides in England as
during the last few gears. I had comfortably believed that Popery was only
feeding itself upon foreign subscriptions, upon a few titled perverts, and
imported monks and nuns. I dreamed that its progress was not real. In fact, I
have often smiled at the alarm of many of my brethren at the progress of Popery.
But, my dear friends, we have been mistaken, grievously mistaken. If you will
read a valuable paper in the magazine called Christian Work, those of you who
are acquainted with it will be perfectly startled at its revelations. This great
city is now covered with a network of monks and priests and sisters of mercy,
and the conversions made are not by ones or twos, but by scores, till England is
being regarded as the most hopeful spot for Romish missionary enterprise in the
whole world; and at the present moment there is not a mission which is
succeeding to anything like the extent which the English mission is. I covet not
their money, I despise their sophistries, but I marvel at the way in which they
gain their funds for the erection of their ecclesiastical buildings. It really
is an alarming matter to see so many of our countrymen going off to that
superstition which as a nation we once rejected, and which it was supposed we
should never again receive. Popery is making advances such as you would never
believe, though a spectator should tell it to you. Close to your very doors,
perhaps even in your own houses, you may have evidence ere long of what a march
Romanism is making. And to what is it to be ascribed? I say, with every ground
of probability, that there is no marvel that Popery should increase when you
have two things to make it grow: first of all, the falsehood of those who
profess a faith which they do not believe, which is quite contrary to the
honesty of the Romanist, who does through evil report and good report hold his
faith; and then you have, secondly, this form of error known as baptismal
regeneration, and commonly called Puseyism, which is not only Puseyism, but
Church-of-Englandism, because it is in the Prayer-Book, as plainly as words can
express it,—you have this baptismal regeneration, preparing stepping-stones to
make it easy for men to go to Rome. I have but to open my eyes a little to
foresee Humanism rampant everywhere in the future, since its germs are spreading
everywhere in the present. In one of our courts of legislature, but last
Tuesday, the Lord Chief Justice showed his superstition, by speaking of “the
risk of the calamity of children dying unbaptized!” Among Dissenters you see a
veneration for structures, a modified belief in the sacredness of places, which
is all idolatry; for to believe in the sacredness of anything but of God and of
his own Word, is to idolize, whether it is to believe in the sacredness of the
men, the priests, or in the sacredness of the bricks and mortar, or of the fine
linen, or what not, which you may use in the worship of God. I see this coining
up everywhere—a belief in ceremony, a resting in ceremony, a veneration for
altars, fonts and churches,— a veneration so profound that we must not venture
upon a remark, or straightway of sinners we are chief. Here is the essence and
soul of Popery, peeping up under the garb of a decent respect for sacred things.
It is impossible but that the Church of Rome must spread, when we who are the
watchdogs of the fold are silent, and others are gently and smoothly turfing the
road, and making it as soft and smooth as possible, that converts may travel
down to the nethermost hell of Popery. We want John Knox back again. Do not talk
to me of mild and gentlemen, of soft manners and squeamish words: we want the
fiery Knox; and even though his vehemence should “ding our pulpits into blads,”
it were well if he did but rouse our hearts to action. We want Luther, to tell
men the truth unmistakably, in homely phrase. The velvet has got into our
ministers’ mouths of lute, but we must unrobe ourselves of soft raiment, and
truth must be spoken, and nothing but truth; for of all lies which have dragged
millions down to hell, I look upon this as being one of the most atrocious,—that
in a Protestant church there should be found those who swear that baptism saves
the soul. Call a man a Baptist, or a Presbyterian, or a Dissenter, or a
Churchman,—that is nothing to me: if he says that baptism saves the soul, out
upon him, out upon him: he states what God never taught, what the Bible never
laid down, and what ought never to be maintained by men who profess that the
Bible, and the whole Bible, is the religion of Protestants.

I have spoken thus much, and there will be some who will say, spoken thus much
bitterly. Very well; be it so. Physic is often bitter, but it shall work well,
and the physician is not bitter because his medicine is so; or if he be
accounted so, it will not matter, so long as the patient is cured; at all events
is no business of the patient whether the physician is bitter or not: his
business is with his own soul’s health. There is the truth, and I have told it
to you; and if there should be one among you, or if there should be one among
the readers of this sermon when it is printed, who is resting 011 baptism, or
resting upon ceremonies of any sort, I do beseech you, shake off this venomous
faith into the fire as Paul did the viper which fastened on his hand. I pray you
do not rest on baptism.

“No outward forms can make you clean: The leprosy lies deep within.”

I do beseech you to remember that you must have a new heart and a right spirit,
and baptism cannot give you these. You must turn from your sins and follow after
Christ; you must have such a faith as shall make your life holy and your speech
devout, or else you have not the faith of God’s elect, and into God’s kingdom
you shall never come. I pray you never rest upon this wretched and rotten
foundation, this deceitful invention of antichrist. Oh! may God save you from
it, and bring you to seek the true rock of refuge for weary souls.

I come with much brevity, and I hope with much earnestness, in the second place,
to say that Faith IS THE INDISPENSABLE REQUISITE TO SALVATION.

“He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved: he that believeth not shall
be damned.” Faith is the one indispensable requisite for salvation. This faith
is the gift of God. It is the work of the Holy Spirit. Some men believe not on
Jesus; they believe not, because they are not of Christ’s sheep, as he himself
said unto them: but his sheep hear his voice: he knows them and they follow him;
he gives to them eternal life, and they shall never perish, neither shall any
pluck them out of his hand. What is this believing? Believing consists in two
things. First, there is an accrediting of the testimony of God concerning his
Son. God tells you that his Son came into the world and was made flesh; that he
lived on earth for men’s sake; that after having spent his life in holiness he
was offered up a propitiation for sin; that upon the cross he there and then
made expiation—so made expiation for the sins of the world that “whosoever
believeth in him shall not perish, but have everlasting life.” If you would be
saved, you must accredit this testimony which God gives concerning his own Son.
Having received this testimony, the next thing is to confidence. Indeed, here
lies, I think, the essence of saving faith, to rest yourself for eternal
salvation upon the atonement and the righteousness of Jesus Christ, to have done
once for all with all reliance upon feelings or upon doings, and to trust in
Jesus Christ and in what he did for your salvation. This is faith, receiving of
the truth of Christ: first knowing it to be true, and then acting upon that
belief. Such a faith as this—such real faith as this —makes the man henceforth
hate sin. How can he love the thing which made the Saviour bleed? It makes him
live in holiness. How can he but seek to honor that God who has loved him so
much as to give his Son to die for him? This faith is spiritual in its nature
and effects; it operates upon the entire man; it changes his heart, enlightens
his judgment, and subdues his will; it subjects him to God’s supremacy, and
makes him receive God’s Word as a little child, willing to receive the truth
upon the ipse dixit of the Divine One; it sanctifies his intellect, and makes
him willing to be taught God’s Word; it cleanses within; it makes clean the
inside of the cup and platter, and it beautifies without; it makes clean the
exterior conduct and the inner motive, so that the man, if his faith be true and
real, becomes henceforth another man to what he ever was before.

Now that such a faith as this should save the soul, is, I believe, reasonable;
yea, more, it is certain, for we have seen men saved by it in this very house of
prayer. We have seen the harlot lifted out of the Stygian ditch of her sin, and
made an honest woman; we have seen the thief reclaimed; we have known the
drunkard, in hundreds of instances, to be sobered; we have observed faith to
work such a change, that all the neighbors who have seen it have gazed and
admired, even though they hated it; we have seen faith deliver men in the hour
of temptation, and help them to consecrate themselves and their substance to
God; we have seen, and hope still to see yet more widely, deeds of heroic
consecration to God and displays of witness-bearing against the common current
of the times, which have proved to us that faith does affect the man, does save
the soul. My hearers, if you would be saved, you must believe in the Lord Jesus
Christ. Let me urge you with all my heart to look nowhere but to Christ
crucified for your salvation. Oh! if you rest upon any ceremony, though it be
not baptism—if you rest upon any other than Jesus Christ—you must perish, as
surely as this book is true. I pray you believe not every spirit, but though I,
or an angel from heaven, preach any other doctrine than this, let him be
accursed; for this, and this alone, is the soul-saving truth which shall
regenerate the world—” He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.” Away
from all the tag-rags, wax candles, and millinery of Puseyism! away from all the
gorgeous pomp of Popery! away from the fonts of Church-of-Englandism! We bid you
turn your eyes to that naked cross, where hangs as a bleeding man the Son of
God.

“None but Jesus, none but Jesus Can do helpless sinners good.”

There is life in a look at the Crucified; there is life at this moment for you.
Whoever among you can believe in the great love of God towards man in Christ
Jesus, yon shall be saved. If yon can believe that our great Father desireth us
to come to him— that he panteth for us—that he calleth us every day with the
loud voice of his Son’s wounds; if yon can to follow all forms of tradition and
ecclesiastical ordinations whatever, bowing only to the behests of inspired
precept, and the recorded practices of the apostolic churches, as their record
is found in the Scriptures.

2. Baptists hold that God has given to every person the right to interpret the
Scriptures for himself. As we cannot be Baptists without the Bible, we must know
personally for ourselves, what order of obedience it requires at our hands. To
give up one of these positions is to give up both. But do not mistake me here,
as to what we mean by private judgment, as a divine right. We do not think that
men are at liberty to think of the Bible or not, to obey it or not, just as they
please. But we think that they are bound to use their judgment, and to govern
it, by the facts and truths of the Bible. The liberty that we claim, is not to
follow our own fancies, or predilections, in investigating the Bible, not merely
to speculate upon it, and then diverge from its teachings if we choose to do so,
because that would be criminal trifling. The right to investigate the truth does
not carry with it the right to disobey it, or to doubt it,—that would convert
the doctrine into rebellion against its author, which is an evil, and cannot
become a right. God allows every man to interpret the Bible for himself, in
order that he may discover its facts and truths, and then honestly follow them
in obedience. Hence”, no church, or class of men in the church, can step in
between the personal investigations of the man and the Bible, to interpret it
for him by authority.

3. That a man is responsible to God, and to him only, for his faith and
practice, so far as the infliction, of any punishment for disobedience to God is
concerned. Right here we deny the right of the civil magistrate, or the State,
either to prescribe a form of religion for us, or to punish us for not following
any religion they may prescribe. This we call soul liberty, a freedom which we
have obtained at a great price; the rack, the dungeon, the “bloody tenet,” the
stake and the gibbet. Baptists have ever resisted the right of the State to
establish the church bylaw, to tolerate the conformists of that church, and put
its nonconformists under pains and penalties—or to interfere with the free
exercise of a man’s religion, be it what it may. We may regret that all men are
not Christians, and wish that they were, and we may wish that they held
Christian principles as we hold them, but we have no right to enforce our
doctrines by law, and others have no right to force their doctrines upon us by
human statute. We hold that if a man chooses to be a Mohammedan, a Jew, a Pagan,
a Roman Catholic, a Protestant or an Infidel, he has a right to be that, Bo far
as the civil law is concerned. Therefore, all persecution for the maintenance of
this or that religion is radically wrong. And where Baptists have founded a
State, or been the most numerous in a State, there has never been an act of
persecution inflicted. The State of Rhode Island was founded by Baptists 240
years ago, and in that State no man has yet been persecuted for his religion by
the civil power. And the same liberty which we claim for ourselves, we are bound
to claim for others, for if their rights can be taken away, ours may be also.
When a Baptist shall rob one man of soul-liberty, by statute, penalty and sword,
he will cease to be a Baptist for that reason Baptists have ever sealed this
great doctrine of soul-liberty with their blood. Their bones are bleaching
everywhere in the Alpine valleys, amongst the eternal snows; their ashes have
flitted over the pavements of Smithfield, on the winds for centuries. The sighs
and sobbings of Baptist sufferers haunt the “coal hole” of Lambeth Palace, and
the dungeons in Lollard’s Tower to this day. In the long list of martyrs. Arnold
of Bresica, the star of Italy, Jerome of Prague, the most accomplished man of
his day, and Hubmeyer of Ratisbon, sealed this doctrine with their blood. And
then there followed them men in humbler walks, the good Hans of Overdam, the
beautiful young Dosie of Leeuwardeu, and Richard Woodman, the sturdy yeoman; all
these shed their blood as its witnesses. Baptist women also have sent up their
shrill cry of martyrdom, till the blood of humanity has curdled at the heart.
One sharp shriek after another comes, rending the air of the ages, from these
brides of Christ, Maria of Monjou, Ann Askew, from the nobility of the British
realm, Elizabeth Gaunt, a mother in Christian charity, and Joan Boucher, the
heroine of Canterbury. Out of their very ashes, which crumbled at the stake,
joint by joint and limb by limb, God has raised up modern Baptists, as from the
dead, to re-assert the doctrine of soul-liberty.

Yon will readily see that out of these three great principles, spring up:

1. The doctrine of church independency. Hence, the Baptist denomination is not a
church, but a body of churches. That is to say, each church or congregation is
entirely independent of each other church or congregation, in all that relates
to its government. Every separate Baptist church chooses its own minister and
other officers, receives and dismisses its own members, makes its own rules and
regulations, and is sovereign in its self-control throughout. Baptists have no
legislative, judicial, nor executive body, known as a convocation, conference,
council or synod. A body of churches voluntarily organize themselves into an
association, but simply for fraternal and missionary purposes. Associations have
no power over the churches, each church governing itself on democratic
principles, and being as free from outside interference as so many private
families, in this or any other city. The next result of these principles is:
believe now that in Christ there is pardon for transgressions past, and
cleansing for years to come; if you can trust him to save you, you have already
the marks of regeneration. The work of salvation is commenced in you, so far as
the Spirit’s work is concerned; it is finished in you so far as Christ’s work is
concerned. Oh! I would plead with you, lay hold on Jesus Christ. This is the
foundation: build on it. This is the rock of refuge: fly to it. I pray you fly
to it now. Life is short; time speeds with eagle’s wing. Swift as the dove
pursued by the hawk, fly, fly, poor sinner, to God’s dear Son: now touch the hem
of his garment) now look into that dear face, once marred with sorrows for you;
look into those eyes, once shedding tears for you. Trust him, and if you find
him false, then you must perish; but false you never will find him while this
word standeth true,” He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he
that believeth not shall be damned.” God give us this vital, essential faith,
without which there is no salvation. Baptized, re-baptized, circumcised,
confirmed, fed upon sacraments, and buried in consecrated ground—ye shall all
perish except ye believe in him. The Word is express and plain; he that
believeth not may plead his baptism, may plead anything he likes. “But he that
believeth not shall be damned;” for him there is nothing but the wrath of God,
the flames of hell, eternal perdition. So Christ declares, and so must it be.
But now to close, there are some who say, “Ah! but baptism is in the text; where
do you put that?” That shall be another point, and then we have done. THE
BAPTISM IN THE TEXT IS ONE EVIDENTLY connected With Faith. “He that believeth
and is baptized shall be saved.” It strikes me, there is no supposition here
that anybody would be baptized who did not believe; or if there be such a
supposition, it is very clearly laid down that his baptism will be of no use to
him, for he will be damned, baptized or not, unless he believes. The baptism of
the text seems to me, my brethren,—if you differ from me I am sorry for it, but
I must hold my opinion, and out with it,—it seems to me that baptism is
connected with, nay, directly follows belief. I would not insist too much upon
the order of the words; but, for other reasons, I think that baptism should
follow believing. At any rate, it effectually avoids the error we have been
combatting. A man who knows that he is saved by believing in Christ does not,
when he is baptized, lift his baptism into a saving ordinance. In fact, he is
the very best protester against that mistake, because he holds that he has no
right to be baptized until he is saved. He bears a testimony against baptismal
regeneration in his being baptized as professedly an already regenerate person.
Brethren, the baptism here meant is a baptism connected with faith, and to this
baptism I will admit there is very much ascribed in Scripture. Into that
question I am not going; but I do find some very remarkable passages in which
baptism is spoken of very strongly. I find this: “Arise, and be baptized, and
wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.” I find as much as this
elsewhere. I know that believer’s baptism itself does not wash away sin, yet it
is so the outward sign and emblem of it to the believer, that the thing visible
may be described as the thing signified. Just as our Saviour said, “This is my
body,” when it was not his body, but bread; yet, inasmuch as it represented his
body, it was fair and right according to the usage of language to say, “Take,
eat, this is my body.” And so, inasmuch as baptism to the believer represented
the washing of sin, it may be called the washing of sin; not that it is so, but
that it is to saved souls the outward symbol and representation of what is done
by the power of the Holy Spirit in the man who believes in Christ.

What connection has this baptism with faith? I think it has just this, baptism
is the avowal of faith; the man was Christ’s soldier, but now in baptism he puts
on his regimentals. The man believed in Christ, ‘but his faith remained between
God and his own soul. In baptism he says to the baptizer, “I believe in Jesus
Christ;” he says to the church, “I unite with you as a believer in the common
truths of Christianity;” he saith to the onlooker,” Whatever you may do, as for
me, I will serve the Lord.” It is the avowal of his faith.

Next, we think baptism is also to the believer a testimony of his faith, he does
in baptism tell the world what he believes. “I am about,” saith he, “to be
buried in water. I believe that the Son of God was metaphorically baptized in
suffering; I believe he was literally dead and buried.” To rise again out of the
water sets forth to all men that he believes in the resurrection of Christ.
There is a showing forth in the Lord’s Supper of Christ’s death, and there is a
showing forth in baptism of Christ’s burial and resurrection. It is a type, a
sign, a symbol, a mirror to the world,—a looking-glass, in which religion is as
it were reflected. We say to the onlooker, when he asks what is the meaning of
this ordinance, “We mean to set forth our faith that Christ was buried, and that
he rose again from the dead; and we avow this death and resurrection to be the
ground of our trust.”

Again, baptism is also Faiths taking her proper place. It is, or should be, one
of her first acts of obedience Reason looks at baptism, and says, “Perhaps there
is nothing in it; it cannot do me any good.” “True,” says Faith, “and therefore
I will observe it. If it did me some good, my selfishness would make me do it;
but inasmuch as to my sense there is no good in it, since I am bidden by my Lord
thus to fulfill all righteousness, it is my first public declaration that a
thing which looks to be unreasonable and seems to be unprofitable, being
commanded by God, is law to me. If my Master had told me to pick up six stones
and lay them in a row I would do it, without demanding of him, ‘What good will
it do?’ Cui bono? is no fit question for soldiers of Jesus. The very simplicity
and apparent uselessness of the ordinance should make the believer say,
’Therefore I do it because it becomes the better test to me of my obedience to
my Master.’” When you tell your servant to do something, and he cannot
comprehend it, if he turns round and says,” Please, sir, what for?” you are
quite clear that he hardly understands the relation between master and servant.
So when God tells me to do a thing, if I say,” What for?” I cannot have taken
the place which Faith ought to occupy, which is that of simple obedience to
whatever the Lord hath said. Baptism is commanded, and Faith obeys because it is
commanded, and thus takes her proper place.

Once more, baptism is a refreshment to faith. While we are made up of body and
soul as we are, we shall need some means by which the body shall sometimes be
stirred up to co-work with the soul. In the Lord’s Supper my faith is assisted
by the outward and visible sign. In the bread and in the wine I see no
superstitions mystery: I see nothing but bread and wine; but in that bread and
wine I do see to my faith an assistant. Through the sign my faith sees the thing
signified. So in baptism there is no mysterious efficacy in the baptistry or in
the water. We attach no reverence to the one or to the other; but we do see in
the water and in the baptism such an assistance as brings home to our faith most
manifestly our being buried with Christ, and our rising again in newness of life
with him. Explain baptism thus, dear friends, and there is no fear of Popery
rising out of it. Explain it thus, and we cannot suppose any soul will be led to
trust to it; but it takes its proper place among the ordinances of God’s house.
To lift it up in the other way, and say men are saved by it—ah! my friends, how
much of mischief that one falsehood has done and may do, eternity alone will
disclose. Would to God another George Fox would spring up, in all his quaint
simplicity and rude honesty, to rebuke the idol-worship of this age; to rail at
their holy bricks and mortar, holy lecturns, holy altars, holy surplices, right
reverend fathers, and I know not what. These things are not holy. God is holy;
his truth is holy: holiness belongs not to the carnal and the material, but to
the spiritual. Oh that a trumpet tongue would cry out against the superstition
of the age! I cannot, as George Fox did, give up baptism and the Lord’s Supper;
but I would infinitely sooner do it, counting it the smaller mistake of the two,
than perpetrate and assist in perpetrating the uplifting of baptism and the
Lord’s Supper out of their proper place. O my beloved friends, the comrades of
my struggles and witnessings, cling to the salvation of faith, and abhor the
salvation of priests. If I am not mistaken, the day will come when we shall have
to fight for a simple spiritual religion far more than we do now. We have been
cultivating friendship with those who are either unscriptural in creed or else
dishonest; who either believe baptismal regeneration, or profess that they do,
and swear before God that they do when they do not. The time is come when there
shall be no more truce or parley between God’s servants and time-servers. The
time is come when those who follow God must follow God, and those who try to
trim and dress themselves and find out a way which is pleasing to the flesh and
gentle to carnal desires, must go their way. A great winnowing time is coming to
God’s saints, and we shall be clearer one of these days than we now are from
union with those who are upholding Popery, under the pretence of teaching
Protestantism. We shall be clear, I say, of those who teach salvation by
baptism, instead of salvation by the blood of our blessed Master, Jesus Christ.
Oh, may the Lord gird up your loins! Believe me, it is no trifle. It may be that
on this ground Armageddon shall be fought. Here shall come the great battle
between Christ and his saints on the one hand, and the world and forms and
ceremonies on the other. If we are overcome here, there may be years of blood
and persecution, and tossing to and fro between darkness and light; but if we
are brave and bold, and flinch not here, but stand to God’s truth, the future of
England may be bright and glorious. Oh for a truly reformed Church in England,
and a godly race to maintain it! The world’s future depends on it under God; for
in proportion as truth is marred at home, truth is maimed abroad. Out of any
system which teaches salvation by baptism must spring infidelity, an infidelity
which the false church already seems willing to nourish and foster beneath her
wing. God save this favored land from the brood of her own established religion.
Brethren, stand fast in the liberty wherewith Christ has made you free, and be
not afraid of any sudden fear nor calamity when it cometh; for he who trusteth
to the Lord, mercy shall compass him about, and he who is faithful to God and
Christ shall hear it said at the last, “Well done, good and faithful servant:
enter thou into the joy of the Lord.” May the Lord bless this word, for Christ’s
sake.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 7: 06 IMMERSION ESSENTIAL TO CHRISTIAN BAPTISM
========================================================================

Immersion Essential to Christian Baptism By Rev. Henry S. Burrage, Portland,
Maine

“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; and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto
the end of the world” Matthew 28:10; Matthew 28:20.

“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 16:15-16.

“And Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name
of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the
Holy Ghost.” Acts 2:38. In these passages of the Gospels by Matthew and Mark, we
have what is called the Great Commission. Beginning at Jerusalem, the disciples
were to go into all the earth and preach the gospel to every creature. As
messengers of Christ they were to make prominent in their preaching the saving
truths which they had received from their Master’s lips. Yet this was not all.
Having done this, having made disciples by their divine message, they were to
baptize these disciples. “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them
in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” The words in
Mark’s gospel are of like import, although the form of expression is different.
“Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. He that
believeth and is baptized shall be saved.” First, as we see, there was to be
instruction leading to discipleship, then baptism as the profession of
discipleship. That the apostles so understood the Saviour’s words is evident
from the New Testament records. Peter’s injunction, on the day of Pentecost, is
an illustration. When the multitude, moved by the apostle’s preaching, cried
out, “Men and brethren what shall we do?” Peter replied, “Repent and be
baptized.” It was as if he had recalled the very words of the Great
Commission,—” teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded
you “—or those other words of Christ, which bring before us the Saviour’s test
of true discipleship,—” Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you.”
The Saviour, however, was addressing not merely the little company gathered
around him on that hillside in Galilee, but all who should believe on him, in
all the ages of the Christian Church. In one comprehensive glance, as it were,
he took in the work of converting the nations; and he added words which show
that in his injunction concerning the work of evangelization, and the
administration of the ordinance of baptism, his followers were to find a
perpetual obligation,—” Lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the
world.” But while it is generally conceded that baptism is an ordinance divinely
instituted, and of perpetual obligation, there are many who profess and call
themselves Christians, who deny that immersion is essential to Christian
baptism. They will admit, especially if they are familiar with the recent
literature of the subject, that immersion was the primitive act. The references
to the administration of the ordinance which we find in the New Testament, they
say, make this plain. Thus, John baptized the multitudes “in the Jordan,”
(Matthew 3:6); “in the river Jordan,” (Mark 1:5); while the Saviour he baptized
“into the Jordan,” (Mark 1:10.) Moreover, in those passages in our English
version where we find the words “with water,” as in Matthew 3:11, “I indeed
baptize you with water,” the Greek has “in water.” Stanley thus recognizes the
requirements of the Scripture narrative, when, referring to those who were
baptized in Jordan, he says, “John plunged them under the rapid torrent.” [1]
[1] Sinni and Palestine, p. 306

We are also told in the New Testament, they add, that leaving the Jordan, John
baptized at “Ænon near to Salim,” and the reason given is “because there was
much water there,” (John 3:23); from which it is certainly a fair inference
that, had there not been “much water” there, the Baptist himself would not have
been there. Condor, of the British Royal Engineers and officer in charge of the
Survey Expedition of the Palestine Exploration Fund, recognizes this fact in his
Tent-work in Palestine, [2] when, referring to the probable site of Ænon in the
valley near Shechem, he says: “The valley is open in most parts of its course,
and we find the two requisites for the scene of the baptism of a huge
multitude—an open space and abundance of water.”

[2] Vol. I., p. 98. In the Acts of the Apostles also, in the case of the eunuch,
the primitive act is very clearly indicated. Having been instructed by Philip in
reference to the great facts concerning salvation by Christ, and the way in
which the disciple confesses his faith in Christ, the eunuch exclaims, “See,
hero is water, what doth hinder me to be baptized?” Philip replies, “If thou
believest with all thine heart thou mayest.” And having answered, “I believe
that Jesus Christ is the Son of God,” the eunuch commanded the chariot to stand
still, “and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch, and
he baptized him.” It has been said by some that the words here translated “into
the water” may be translated “unto the water,” and they picture the eunuch
standing by “an evanescent roadside rain-pool.” while Philip, with a few drops
of water upon the tips of his fingers, administers the sacred rite. But though
it is true that the Greek preposition here used may sometimes mean “unto,” it
will be seen that in this passage it stands opposed to another preposition in
the following verse, which can only be understood “out of;” so that Philip and
the eunuch must have gone down into the water in order to come up out of the
water. As Prof. Plumptre, in Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers, in which
are embodied the results of recent scholarship, says: “The eunuch would lay
aside his garments, descend chest deep into the water, and be plunged under it
‘in the name of the Lord Jesus.’” [3] [3] Note onActs 8:38. And with this view,
that immersion was the primitive act of baptism, the best church histories are
in agreement. Kurtz says, “Baptism was administered by complete immersion in the
name of Christ, or else the Triune God. (Matthew 28:19).”[4]Pressense says:
“Baptism, which was the sign of admission into the church, was administered by
immersion. The convert was plunged beneath the water, and as he rose from it he
received the laying on of hands.” [5] Stanley says: “There can be no question
that the original form of baptism, the very meaning of the word, was complete
immersion in the deep baptismal waters, and that for at least four centuries any
other form was either unknown or regarded, unless in the case of dangerous
illness, as an exceptional, almost a monstrous case The Latin church has wholly
altered the mode, and, with the two exceptions of the Cathedral of Milan and the
sect of the Baptists, a few drops of water are now the western substitute for
the three-fold plunge into the running rivers or the wide baptisteries of the
East.”[6] These testimonies might be greatly multiplied, but those we have given
are sufficient to show that the evidence is clear and decisive that immersion
was the primitive act of baptism, and that scholars of every name agree in
accepting it.

[4] Church History, p. 70.

[5] Early years of Christianity, p. 374.

[6] History of the Eastern Church, p. 117

There are many, however, as we have already remarked, who, though they admit
that baptism in the primitive church was administered by immersion, nevertheless
deny that immersion is essential to the proper administration of the rite. They
say: “We find nothing in the original institution, or in the nature or uses of
the rite, requiring it to be administered in one precise mode.”[7] According to
Dean Stanley there is in this matter such a thing as “a wise exercise of
Christian freedom,” [8] or “the triumph of common sense and convenience over the
bondage of form and custom,” [9] and so by him, and many others who agree with
him, immersion, this “singular and interesting relic of primitive and apostolic
times” is politely discarded in deference to the supposed requirements of the
age in which we live and the circumstances by which we are surrounded; an
illustration, adds Stanley, showing” how the spirit which lives and moves in
human society can override even the most sacred ordinances.” It is this position
in reference to baptism, which just now, as Baptists, we are compelled to meet.
Indeed, for the most part, from the other positions which have been taken—like
the one to which we have already referred, that immersion was not primitive
baptism—those who have defended them have one after another quietly withdrawn.
But we are persuaded that this position is as indefensible as the others, and
purpose in this discourse accordingly to present the grounds for our belief that
immersion is essential to Christian baptism.

[7]Christian Mirror,April 16. 1879 [8] Sinai and Palestine, p. 307 [9] Article
on Baptism, inNineteenth Centuryfor Oct. 1879.

1. And first, we say, immersion alone meets the requirements of the divine
command. When the Saviour said to his disciples, “Go ye therefore, and teach all
nations, immersing them,” we have every reason to believe that he meant just
what he said. But the objection will be urged, That is your interpretation of
the Saviour’s words. Not at all. It is not an interpretation, but a translation.
The word which we find in the Great Commission, and which is used throughout the
New Testament wherever mention is made of baptism, is baptizein, and the
evidence is abundant and conclusive that this word, which we say means to
immerse, to submerge, has this signification, and this signification only. Not a
passage has been found, in sacred or profane literature, in which baptizein
means either to sprinkle or to pour. Its place in the Greek language is
precisely that of the verb to immerse, in our own language. We cannot, of
course, give this evidence here, but it will be found in Conant’s “Meaning and
Use of Baptizein,” which is “an exhaustive examination of examples of the
lexical and grammatical use of the word, drawn from writers in almost every
department of literature and science,” belonging to different countries, and
living in different ages of the world’s history. But we shall he told that the
Greek-English Lexicon of Liddell and Scott, which is in use in all of our
classical schools and colleges, defines baptizein to dip repeatedly, dip under,
to bathe, to wet, to pour upon, drench, to dip a vessel, to draw water. This is
true of their first edition. Under what influences some of these words were
introduced into that edition we cannot say. But their introduction was
challenged—challenged, too, by scholars not Baptists—on the ground that the
passages cited in support of these definitions could not be forced to yield such
a support; and in the second edition the words to steep, wet, pour upon, drench,
were omitted as without authority, and have never reappeared. But the second
edition of Liddell and Scott retained the definition to dip repeatedly, and the
question has been asked by partisan objectors, “Do our Baptist friends practice
immersion in accordance with this definition?” It happens that Liddell and Scott
have found it necessary to continue the work of revision, and in the sixth
London edition of their, Lexicon— which is the last, instead of to dip
repeatedly we have to dip in or under water, while to the definition to draw,
for example to draw wine from bowls in cups, they have added in parenthesis, as
if to prevent all possible misapprehension or misrepresentation, the significant
words, “of course by dipping them.” The history of these changes in the
definition of baptizein in the successive editions of this standard lexicon is a
very significant one, and furnishes the most striking proof of the correctness
of the conclusions reached by Dr. Conant in his learned and exhaustive work. But
it may be said that this is the classical use of the word—that many words in
common use among the Greeks were taken up by the sacred writers, who gave to
them a signification which they did not have before. So far as baptizein is
concerned the statement cannot be sustained. One of the first Greek scholars in
this country is Prof. E. A. Sophocles of Harvard University. He is a Greek by
birth, and is familiar with the use of baptizein by classic and sacred writers.
In his Greek Lexicon of the Roman and Byzantine Periods, he says: “There is no
evidence that Luke and Paul, and the other writers of the New Testament, put
upon this verb meanings not recognized by the Greeks.” And with him agree the
best New Testament lexicographers of our day. Wilke’s Lexicon of New Testament
‘Greek, revised and edited by C. L. W. Grimm, 1858, and now in process of
translation by Prof. J. Henry Thayer, of Andover Theological Seminary, defines
baptizein, 1, to immerse repeatedly, to immerse, to submerge; 2, to bathe, Inre,
cleanse with water by immersion or submersion.

Crerner, in his Biblico-Theological Lexicon of the New Testament Greek, defines
baptisein, to immerse, submerge, and adds that the New Testament use of the word
denotes “immersion, submersion for a religious purpose.” And with these
lexicographers agree the most prominent exegetical scholars of every
name,—Tholuck, Meyer, DeWette, Olshausen, Lange, Fritsche, Light foot, Ellicott,
Plumptre, Godet, and a host of others. Of even the passage in Mark 7:4, where,
by so many controversialists, it has been maintained that baptizein cannot mean
to immerse, Meyer, in his Critical and Exegetical Commentary, says: “Except they
wash is not to be understood of washing the hands, but of immersion, which the
word in classic Greek and in the Now Testament everywhere means, i. e. here,
according to the context, to take a bath.”

There can be only one meaning, therefore, to the command, “Be baptized.” With
the New Testament records lying open before us, it is worse than vain to suggest
such frivolous objections as the impossibility of immersing three thousand
converts on the day of Pentecost; the insufficiency of water in Jerusalem for
the immersion of such a multitude; and other objections even less worthy of
notice. The Saviour commanded the apostles to immerse those who should believe
on Him through their word; and the several writers tell us that they obeyed the
divine injunction. They seem never to have asked whether under any circumstances
something less than immersion would not answer. They evidently deemed it enough
that Christ had fixed the solemn rite, and they insisted upon immersion as alone
fulfilling the words of the Saviour, “Teaching them to observe all things
whatsoever I have commanded you.” It will be remembered that Jesus at his
baptism by John, in Jordan, said, “Suffer it to be so now, for thus it becometh
us to fulfil all righteousness.” (Matthew 3:15), that is, as Meyer interprets
the words, “all which as duty it is obligatory on us to do.” But there is a duty
in this matter which rests upon the disciple as well as upon his Lord, and that
duty is made plain. It was in obedience to the Saviour’s words, “Go ye
therefore, and teach all nations, immersing them,” that Peter, on the day of
Pentecost, exclaimed, “Repent and be immersed.” It is in obedience to the same
injunction that as Baptists we insist on immersion as essential to Christian
baptism. Immersion alone meets the requirements of the divine command.

II. But again, immersion is essential to Christian baptism in order to preserve
the symbolical signification of the ordinance as presented in the New Testament.

1. In the first place baptism is there referred to as a symbol of the believer’s
purification from the defilement of sin. When the devout Ananias came to Saul at
Damascus with the divine message that God had chosen him to be his witness unto
all men of what he had seen and heard, Ananias added, “And now why tarriest
thou? Arise and wash away thy sins.” (Acts 22:16). The thought is precisely that
of Peter on the day of Pentecost, when he said, “Repent and be baptized every
one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins.” This is not
baptismal regeneration. As the Scriptures plainly show, we are not saved in or
by baptism. But sin is a defilement, and the removal of this moral uncleanness
is secured by repentance and faith, which are the conditions of salvation. But
how is this grout doctrine of the New Testament symbolical? By baptism, that is
by immersion. The so-called Epistle of Barnabas, which is believed to have been
written before A. D. 119, the date to which it is commonly assigned, says: “We
go down into the water full of sins and pollutions, but come up out again
bringing fresh fruit, having in our heart the fear and hope which are in Jesus
by the Spirit.” How expressive, then, the command, “Wash away thy sins,” and
what else except immersion, especially to a Jew, could fittingly symbolize the
great truth to which this command has reference! Says Maimonides, a Jewish
writer, “Wherever, in the Law, washing of the flesh or of the clothes is
mentioned, it means nothing else than the dipping of the whole body in a laver:
for if any man dip himself all over, except the tip of his little finger, he is
still in his uncleanness.” Only immersion, therefore, is the proper symbol of
this spiritual cleaning, which baptism expresses.[10]

[10] “There was one form of this idea which continued far down into the middle
uges, long after it had been dissociated from baptism, but may be given as an
illustration of the same idea represented by the same form. The order of
knighthood in England, of which the banners hang in King Henry the Seventh’s
Chapel in Westminster Abbey, and which is distinguished from all the other
orders as the ‘most honorable,’ is called the order of the Bath. Why is this? It
is because in the early days of chivalry the Knights, those who were enlisted in
defence of right against wrong, truth against falsehood, honor against dishonor,
on the evening before they were admitted to the order, were laid in a bath, and
thoroughly washed, in order to show how bright and pure ought to be the lives of
those who engage In noble enterprises.”—Stanley’s article on Baptism,
inNineteenth Century,for Oct., 1879

2. But baptism is also a symbol of the believer’s death to sin and of his rising
to a new life. In his Epistle to the Romans (Romans 6:2; Romans 6:4), Paul says:
“Then shall we that are dead to sin, live any longer therein? 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.” [11] A like thought Paul expresses in Colossians 2:12. Here
also, then, a great Scripture truth is presented. The old man no longer lives,
but is buried, and in his place is the new man in Christ Jesus. In baptism, as
the crowning act of repentance and faith, these two facts are symbolically set
forth. Buried in the baptismal waters, the old man with his sinful nature
disappears, but, in the emergence from the watery grave, he rises to the new
life in Christ. And this great truth, immersion, and immersion alone, fitly
symbolizes.

[11] Says Meyer, in his comment on the passage, the very form of the Inquiry
“presupposes an acquaintance with the moral nature of baptism “; and he adds,
“it must in fact have been an experimental acquaintance.”

3. Baptism is also a symbol of the believer’s participation in the death and
resurrection of Christ. Says Paul in his epistle to the Romans 6:5, “For if we
have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the
likeness of his resurrection.” That is, as in that most intimate union of being,
which subsists between the believer and his Lord, ours is that moral death to
sin in which spiritual communion in death with Christ consists, so shall we
share in the glory of his resurrection.

There is a fellowship of death, and there is a fellowship of immortality. And of
this sublime teaching of Scripture, immersion, “in the disappearance beneath the
water and the emergence from the water,” is not only the appropriate symbol, bat
a most expressive one.

Baptism, then, is something more than a rite, it is a symbol which expresses the
grandest, sublimest truth of our evangelical faith. But let immersion give place
to sprinkling or pouring, and the symbolical significance of this divine
ordinance is at once destroyed. As Stanley says: “It is a greater change even
than that which the Roman Catholic Church has made in administering the
Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper in the bread without the wine. For that was a
change which did not affect the thing that was signified: whereas the change
from immersion to sprinkling has set aside the larger part of the apostolic
language regarding baptism.” By some this is regarded as a matter of slight
importance. But is it? Who instituted this ordinance, in which such great truths
are so impressively set forth? Was it not our King, who just before he entered
the swiftly flowing stream, addressing the hesitating John, exclaimed, “So it
becometh us to fulfil all righteousness?” As I write these lines, on the other
side of the globe, in the mountain fastnesses of Afghanistan, English troops are
standing in battle array. A sacred silence rests upon the long lines—the solemn
hush which precedes the deadly charge, and now the colors are unfurled.
Beautifully they wave in the soft breeze of the early morning. Strong hands
grasp the staff. Soon the order to advance is given, and the troops are in
motion. The roar of artillery follows, and then, as the assailants near the
enemy’s works, the crack of musketry. The color-bearer falls. A comrade seizes
the flag, and it is borne on with the advancing lines. Again and again it falls,
but again and again it is caught up by those who love it, and are ready to die
for it. But why this devotion to the flag? Is it not seen that it draws from the
enemy his deadliest fire. [12] Let it then be furled, or substitute something
for it! It is only a symbol? A symbol? Yes, and because it is a symbol, these
men reply, we cherish it. It is our country’s flag, and was placed in our hands
by our gracious queen as a sacred trust. Nothing else can take its place. And on
they go. What though the ranks are thinned by every successive volley! There is
something worse than death to such men; and as we follow them with straining
eyes, our hearts are stirred as in the battle front, dimly seen through the
smoke of the conflict, moves the flag which they faithfully bear.

[12] Article on Baptism, inNineteenth Centuryfor Oct., 1879 So it is with
baptism. It is only a symbol, some tell us. Yes, but it was committed to our
care by our heavenly King, with the promise of his presence and aid in the
conflict in which we are engaged. To uphold it courage may at times be required;
but a true soldier will have courage. And when the order is given, “Go ye
therefore, and teach all nations, immersing them in the name of the Father, and
of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,” he will neither furl his flag nor cast it
aside; but with a desire to be true to his sovereign, bearing aloft the sacred
symbol of the sacramental host of God’s elect, he will press forward conquering
and to conquer.

Upon these two facts, therefore, that immersion alone meets the requirements of
the divine command in reference to baptism, and alone preserves the symbolical
significance attributed to the ordinance in the New Testament, we rest in
maintaining our position that immersion is essential to Christian baptism. When,
therefore, it is said, that there is nothing in the original institution or in
the nature and uses of the rite of baptism “requiring it to be administered in
one precise mode,” it is evident that those who use these words have failed to
consider the testimony which the New Testament furnishes in reference to this
ordinance.

What, then, is the answer that is made to facts like these which we have now
presented? Dean Stanley, [13] admitting that there can be no question but that
the original form of baptism was complete immersion in the deep baptismal
waters, and alluding to the fact that “To this form the Eastern Church still
rigidly adheres; and the most illustrious and venerable portion of it, that of
the Byzantine Empire, absolutely repudiates and ignores any other mode of
administration as essentially invalid,” adds; “The Latin Church, on the other
hand, doubtless in deference to the requirements of a northern climate, to the
change of manners, to the convenience of custom, has wholly altered the mode,
preferring, as it would fairly say, mercy to sacrifice.” And this altered mode,
introduced by the Church of Rome, Stanley himself defends as “a wise exercise of
Christian freedom” and “a striking example of the triumph of common sense and
convenience over the bondage of form and custom.” It is defended, on the same
ground, by its advocates in this country. Says the editor of a Congregational
journal: [14]“We feel warranted by the principles of Christian liberty in such
cases, while we reverently cherish the ordinance itself, to consult in its mode
of administration those considerations of health, of delicacy, and even
convenience, which seem to us more fitting in the times and circumstances in
which we live.”

[13] Eastern Church, p. 11 [14]Christian Mirror,April 12, 1879 The answer, then,
is this: The Saviour indeed said, “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations,
immersing them,” but there are considerations of health, delicacy and
convenience which warrant us in wholly altering the mode. As to the first of
these considerations there are doubtless, in rare instances, those who would
gladly obey the divine command were they not denied the privilege on account of
ill-health. Others are prevented by the circumstances in which they find
themselves. The dying robber on the cross could not be buried with Christ in
baptism. But Christ does not ask of his disciples i service which they cannot
render, nor does he suggest, in case immersion is impossible, an abridgement of
the rite. Indeed, they certainly make too much of baptism, who wholly alter the
mode in order that in these exceptional cases there may be an appearance of
conformity to the divine command. But what shall be said of the second
consideration, that immersion is indelicate? Did it ever occur to those who take
this position that in so doing they impute to the Saviour a lack of wisdom, and
even of the finer feelings, in instituting a rite, designed to be perpetual,
which should in any age, and among any people, be an offense to the moral sense
of those who witness it or participate in it?

Equally frivolous, as it seems to us, is the consideration of convenience which
is presented as an additional reason for the adoption of a “wholly altered
mode.” Convenience! Certainly immersion is no more inconvenient now than in the
New Testament times; and yet neither in the Acts nor in the Epistles do we
anywhere read that the Apostles wholly altered the mode for the sake of
convenience! Their Master had not said, Go ye therefore, and teach all nations,
immersing them if it is convenient, but immersing them; and how faithfully they
obeyed the divine injunction the inspired record clearly shows.

Indeed, the position of those who, on the ground of these considerations,
discard immersion, is precisely that which Ralph Waldo Emerson, a half century
ago, took in reference to the Lord’s Supper. He was pastor of the Second
Unitarian Church in Boston. In a sermon on the Lord’s Supper he said to his
people: “The use of the elements, however suitable to the people and the modes
of thought in the East where it originated, is foreign and unsuited to us. Most
men find the bread and wine no aid to devotion, and to some it is a painful
impediment.” And he added: “This mode of commemorating Christ is not suitable.
That is reason enough why I should abandon it. If I believed that it was
enjoined by Jesus or his disciples, and that he ever contemplated making
permanent this mode of commemoration, every way agreeable to an Eastern mind,
and yet, on trial, it was disagreeable to my own feelings, I would not adopt
it.” And so he urged the members of his church to abandon the ordinance as
hitherto observed, and “suggested a mode in which a meeting for the same purpose
might be held free of objection.” It is understood that his suggestion was that
the bread and wine should remain on the table at the communion season, and as
the German philosopher told his students to;’ think the wall,” the members of
Mr. Emerson’s church were to think the Lord’s Supper. But they were unwilling to
conform to Mr. Emerson’s suggestion. It seemed to them that this would be an
unwarrantable violation of the plain commandment of the Saviour, “Take,
eat-drink;” “This do in remembrance of me;” and so, rather than yield cherished
convictions of duty, they accepted the pastor’s resignation, and Mr. Emerson’s
ministry suddenly came to an end. That the position of those who discard
immersion is the same, is evident. In reference to the Lord’s Supper the command
is, “Take, eat.” No, says Emerson, the ordinance is foreign and unsuited to us;
indeed it is disagreeable to my feelings. In reference to baptism the command
is, “Be immersed.” No, reply the advocates of Christian liberty, immersion is
inconvenient, not suited to the times and circumstances in which we live, and is
an offense to the finer feelings of our nature. And so, in place of the one
baptism, we have another which takes its place as a substitute. Surely, when Mr.
Emerson announced his position in reference to the Lord’s Supper half a century
ago, and the members of the church which he served as pastor were willing to let
him go rather than abandon a plain commandment of the Lord, he could little have
imagined that in so short a time this very doctrine of Christian liberty would
be urged even in evangelical circles, in advocating changes as radical in
reference to the ordinance of baptism as he had recommended in reference to the
Lord’s Supper.

It is sometimes said that the cry of the Baptists is “Water, water!” Dr.
Landels, of London, was right, when, at a meeting of the Baptist Union in
England not long ago, he replied, “No! The cry of the Baptists is not ‘Water,
water!’ but’ Obedience, obedience!’” As a denomination, Christian liberty is
very dear to us. At a great price, as all men know, obtained we this liberty. We
glory in it, and like our fathers, as we trust, we are ready to die if need be
in maintaining it. But there are some things which are no less sacred to us than
Christian liberty, and among these we cheerfully give to the commands of Christ
an abiding place.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 8: 07 CLOSE COMMUNION
========================================================================

Close Communion By Prof. R. M. Dudley, D. D., Georgetown College, Georgetown,
Kentucky.

“And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?”—Luke 6:46.
This sermon is devoted to a discussion of the question of Close Communion. In
one word, this is our plea:

We ask, for ourselves, the simple liberty to administer the ordinances of the
Lord’s House in such a way as our consciences tell us that His Word requires.

We ask the charity of others that they recognize our right to do this, and that
they charge our course to this motive alone—not to bigotry, uncharitableness, or
illiberality. We ask no more, and surely there will be granted no less, than
this. We do not arrogate to ourselves a wisdom or piety superior to others; but,
“with malice towards none, and charity for all,” we ask that we be allowed to
follow our conscientious convictions in all matters pertaining to the Kingdom of
Heaven. As it is by the Word of God that we are to be approved or condemned, we
feel bound to follow that Word just where it leads us.

Throughout the land there is an outcry against Baptists, because of their Close
Communion. This is because their views and motives are misunderstood. There are
persons who never will be brought to understand the true position of Baptists in
this matter. Not that the position itself is difficult, or that the persons lack
the ability to understand, but they do not care to understand. The cry of “Close
Communion” is a convenient cudgel with which to pound Baptists; and a ringing
rally-word with which to excite popular passion and prejudice against them. To
reason with such persons is the idlest of idle tasks; and Baptists may as well
make up their minds to endure their carping. But we are glad to believe that
this class is a very small minority, while the large majority of their fellow
Christians of other names honestly and really misunderstand. To those who are
willing to hear and consider, and who would be glad to be relieved of any wrong
impressions they may have received, these words of explanation and argument are
addressed.

Let it be premised that, rightly considered, the very fact that the position of
the Baptists on the question of Communion is one of odium, instead of being a
ground of rash condemnation, constitutes a presumption in its favor, since there
must be very strong reasons to urge its adoption and maintenance in the very
face of its odiousness. The love of approbation is instinctive and very strong.
Censure is a thing which men flee. So great is the aversion of men to censure,
that many will give up their principles rather than endure it. To go out of
their way to incur it, or to expose themselves to its fury when it may as well
and as easily be avoided, is an unheard of thing, except among fanatics. If a
man of probity and intelligence firmly set himself in a way that will bring
odium upon him, and calmly pursue his course despite the scorn and condemnation
of his neighbors, if it be in a matter not beyond his judgment, the probability
is that he will be found to be not only honest, but right. Such was the position
of Paul at Antioch, when Peter and Barnabas were carried away by the popular
current. Such we believe to be the position of Baptists upon the question of
Communion. What a world of pressure has been brought to bear against their
position, because of its odiousness. It is unpopular, and so is condemned
without any attention to its merits. If a minister or church has declared for
open communion, with what laudation has that declaration been received. Far and
near, it is sounded abroad; and the world is given to know what a burst of
applause would follow, if all Baptists were to do likewise. Are Baptists so
unlike all other men, so unnatural, that they choose the heritage of shame and
condemnation without cause? Or, does not the fact that they have calmly
withstood opposition and reproach at least entitle them to a candid and patient
hearing, lest, after all, they may be found to be in the way of the true
followers of the Nazarene, “the sect everywhere spoken against.”

It is freely conceded that the words “Close Communion” are not found in the
Bible. No sane man would expect to find them there, when he remembers the
character of the Apostolic churches,—that they were essentially the same, each
one being substantially like every other one. But what we do find in the Word of
God is this: Certain restrictions thrown around the Lord’s Supper, which, in the
present condition of the religious world, force upon Baptists one of two
things,—cither to set aside the restrictions imposed by the Word of God; or to
refuse a free invitation to the Supper. The former they cannot do without
setting aside the cardinal principle that the Scriptures are divinely inspired,
and constitute -an infallible and supreme rule of faith and practice. The latter
being the only course left to them, they have refused to give a free invitation
to the supper. What is called “Close Communion” is simply the practical
application of the terms and conditions which the Scriptures have imposed upon
all who would approach the Lord’s Table.

What are those terms or conditions?

1st. The first is conversion. By this we mean that the individual must be, so
far as we can judge, a true disciple of Jesus Christ. (a) This accords with the
Commission which Jesus gave to his Apostles. “All power is given unto me in
heaven and in earth. Go ye, therefore, and teach [disciple] all nations.”
Matthew 28:18-19. (b) It accords also with the practice of the Apostles under
that Commission. On the day of Pentecost Peter preached Jesus to the multitudes
gathered together in Jerusalem. The first marked effect of his discourse is
recorded in these words: “They were pricked in their hearts.” When they cried
out, “What shall we do?” he bade them repent. A little further on we are told
that thousands of them “gladly received his word.” Acts 2:37; Acts 2:41. To
gladly receive his word about Jesus is the same as to receive Jesus himself. Now
we are told that to receive Jesus is to “to believe on his name.” “He came unto
his own [the Jews] but his own received him not. But to as many as received him,
to them gave he power [right or privilege] to become the sons of God, even to
them that believe on his name.” John 1:11-12. Those Pentecostal converts then,
were penitent believers. The true character of the penitent believers is still
further developed in that they are declared to be the sons of God, and the
subjects of a divine and spiritual birth. “Which were born not of blood, nor of
the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. John 1:13. Or, in
ordinary parlance, we say that they were converted. This proposition might be
very much enlarged upon, but the reader is invited to examine the New Testament
for himself; and to note particularly the character of the apostolic churches,
as described in the epistles addressed to them. Let only one example be cited:
“Paul, an Apostle of Jesus Christ * * * * to the saints which are at Ephesus,
and to the faithful [the believers] in Christ Jesus. Ephesians 1:1.

3d. The Bible teaches that a second qualification for the Lord’s Supper is
baptism, (a) Again, we find that this accords with the Commission. “Go ye,
therefore, and teach [disciple] all nations, baptizing them,” etc. Matthew
28:19. (b) Again, it accords with the practice of the Apostles under the
Commission. “Then they that gladly received his word were baptized.”Acts 2:41.
So also it is the faith and practice of the various denominations of Christians
to give the supper to the baptized only.

What constitutes the act of baptism, I will not discuss here. Only this much in
general: If, in this controversy about the act of baptism, Baptists stood alone,
with the whole world against them, they might well distrust the strength and
correctness of their views and practice. If, for example, classical scholars,
who have no interest in the baptismal controversy, said, with united voices,
that the word baptize, in its various uses, never involved the idea of
immersion; if the modern Greeks, who speak a modified form of the ancient
language, said the same thing; if the leading church historians said that, as a
matter of fact, sprinkling was the primitive practice, and they could point to
the time when immersion was first introduced, and detail the causes and
circumstances which led to the change; if the character of the references to the
rite found in the New Testament was incompatible with immersion, and perfectly
accordant with sprinkling; if, in addition to all this, hosts of the most
learned and pious Baptist leaders had arisen, who said that we were mistaken in
our assumptions, incorrect in our statements, and that we had departed from the
primitive practice,— if all these things were so, I should admit at once that
the presumption that we were wrong amounted to almost a demonstration. But this
is the case with those who practice sprinkling or pouring. The independent
classical scholars of the world, ancient and modern, I suppose were never more
united on the meaning of any word than this, and that it means immersion. The
modern Greeks say the same thing. Ecclesiastical historians not only tell us
that immersion was the primitive practice, but they point to the time when
sprinkling was introduced, and detail the causes and circumstances that led to
the change. The references to the rite in the New Testament are incompatible
with the idea of sprinkling, and suitable to immersion. [15] And, in addition to
all this, hosts of the most learned and pious scholars of those denominations
that practice sprinkling, conspicuously Luther, Calvin, Wesley, etc., tell us
plainly that there has been a change of the ordinance, and that immersion was
the primitive practice.

[15]See remarks of Dean Stanley, quoted on pages 94, 156 and 228-30.—Ed. With
regard to the subject of baptism, we are content to say but little. Yet we say
that the New Testament affords neither precept nor example for any baptism,
except the baptism of the believer. Like the sprinkling of adults, the
sprinkling of infants had its origin in the idea that baptism washes away
original sin, and that the only safety for the child dying in infancy is the
water of baptism. In other words, the practice of sprinkling infants had its
origin in the mischievous dogma of baptismal regeneration.[16] Apart from this,
I think that it is quite impossible to give any satisfactory reason for the
practice of infant baptism. Its strongest defense is tradition. But such a
defense is against the corner-stone of Protestantism.—that the Bible, and not
tradition, is the religion of Protestants; that the Holy Scriptures are our
guide in all matters of faith and practice. This is the great battle-ground
between Protestants and Catholics, and nothing is more common than for Catholics
to twit Pedobaptist Protestants with their inconsistency in this particular.
“You reject tradition, and yet you retain infant baptism.”

[16] These words were written before the publication of Dean Stanley’s now
famous article on Baptism. Had I possessed the power to summon a witness from
the rank of Pedobaptists, I could not have selected a better one than the Dean
of Westminster. And had I possessed the authority to dictate the words that he
would utter, I could not have made so complete a defence of the truth of the
above statement as to the origin and spread of infant baptism. If he has not,
the reader is urged to read the Dean’s article.

3d. A third qualification for the Lord’s Supper is church membership. Concerning
these Pentecostal converts, we read, “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. Added unto whom? The ellipsis is supplied in verse 47. “And
the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.” Now, concerning
those baptized converts that had been added to the church, we read, “And they
continued steadfastly in the Apostle’s doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking
of bread and prayers.” Acts 2:42. The Scriptures teach further that the Supper
is not an individual, or social, or family ordinance, but a church ordinance.
One of the main points of the Apostle’s earnest admonitions in 1 Corinthians 11,
is that the Supper is not a social ordinance, in which a few might join as a
social repast, but that they should wait one for another; and with the whole
church assembled, they should partake of the Supper. Again, he declares, “For we
being many, are one bread and one body; for we are all partakers of that one
bread.” 1 Corinthians 10:17. In accordance with this, the disciples at Troas
came together on the first day of the week to break bread. Acts 20:7. Though
there is no specific mention of a church being established at Troas, as this the
third time Paul had visited that city, and as he himself tells us that a door
was opened to him of the Lord, the presumption is that a church had been
established there. This is the opinion of Conybeare and Howson. Besides, to omit
the mention of such a fact is not uncommon in Acts. If, in opposition to this,
it should be urged that the Supper was observed from house to house, and was,
perhaps, a social Christian ordinance rather than a church ordinance, — the
reply is ready. The writer of the Acts seems to be careful to keep up the idea
of the disciples as one company. “And all that believed were together, and they
[all that believed] continuing daily with one accord in the temple and in
breaking bread from house to house,” etc. Acts 2:44-46. Besides, the idea is not
that of going from house to house, but, as Olshausen says, “The stress is to be
laid upon the opposition between εν τω ίερω and χατ᾽ οιχον.” They worshipped
daily in the Temple; they broke bread in private, or, as the marginal renders
it, at home. From these Scriptures it appears that the Lord’s Supper is a church
ordinance; that it is also an expressive symbol of church fellowship; and that
it is to be shared by those who are truly united in church relation. The New
Testament says nothing of the intercommunion of churches; but it seems
reasonable to infer that there may be consistent intercommunion between those
churches whose doctrine and order so agree that membership in the one church may
justly entitle an individual to membership in the others; but between such
churches only.

Let us now see how these qualifications for the Supper, which are of the nature
of restrictions thrown around it, force upon Baptists the practice of Close
Communion.

Since conversion is an indispensable qualification in the Scriptural
communicant, Baptists are compelled to refuse an invitation to all those who
deny or practically ignore conversion as such a qualification; or they must,
with their own hand, remove the restriction which the Lord has imposed. They
have no right to do the latter, and so are compelled to do the former. It is
absolutely painful to consider how largo a part of the professed Christian world
this excludes. But if the reader will cast about him and discover who it is that
demands a credible profession of faith in Christ, as a condition of church
membership, or of participation at the Lord’s Table, he will also discover that
nine-tenths of the Christian world are excluded by this simple but unspeakably
important test.

Again, since we believe that baptism is a qualification of the communicant, and
that immersion alone is baptism, how can we consistently invite one who has not
been baptized [immersed]? We do not admit to the Table persons whom we ourselves
have received for church membership, until they have been baptized. It not
unfrequently happens that persons are received for membership in Baptist
churches; but before they are baptized the church observes the Lord’s Supper.
Yet these persons are not invited to partake, because they have not been
baptized. How can we consistently admit others who have not been baptized? Shall
we so discriminate against our own members? Does not the same Scripture which
compels us to withhold the Supper from those who have signified their wish to
join our churches, because they are unbaptized, compel us to withhold it from
all others who are unbaptized? We do not admit those who have been sprinkled to
membership m our churches without baptism; neither can we admit them to the
Lord’s Table without baptism. Now is the one practice any more rigid or
exclusive than the other? We may as consistently admit the unbaptized to our
churches as to the Lord’s Table. Particularly does this appear when we remember
that the Supper is a church ordinance.

Again, if baptism is a scriptural qualification of the communicant, and is
scripturally administered to the believer only, how can Baptists, unless they
set aside the teaching of the Scriptures, invite one who was only sprinkled in
his infancy? and who cannot claim that even that was done as the prompting of
his own desire and choice, but wholly at the dictation of another. How can they
receive the sprinkling of an unconscious babe as a substitute for the voluntary
immersion of a conscious believer in Jesus Christ? This brings to the surface
the fact that the real difference between Baptists and Pedobaptists is not one
of Communion at all, but of baptism. And for our Pedobaptist brethren to cry out
“Close Communion” is not only wide of the mark, but is ignoring the real issue.
As has been said the thousandth time, perhaps, “It is close baptism.” They will
not give the Supper to the unbaptized. We say no more than that. So the question
between them and us is, “What is baptism?” Until it is shown that something else
than immersion is baptism, to upbraid Baptists for not inviting them to the
table is to upbraid them for what they will not do themselves — commune with
those whom they consider unbaptized. Is it not plain that in the present
condition of the religious world the practice of “Close Communion” is the
practical application of the restrictions which the Word of God has thrown
around the Lord’s Table? If Baptists are wrong anywhere, it is in the principles
which they have drawn from the Word of God; not in the practical application of
those principles in the administration of the Supper. If their principles are
wrong, they should abandon them, by all means. If their principles are of little
worth, why, let them go along with their failure to practice them. But if their
principles are right and important, let them have the manliness and fidelity to
stand by them, and God and good men will approve their course. In these days of
religions latitndinarianism, when, under the cloak of charity, men are crying
down creeds and formulas of faith, and calling upon their fellow Christians to
give up, or submerge from view, this or that Bible doctrine, that all the Lord’s
people may appear to be on?, is it not worthwhile that Baptists should stand
firm, as the representatives of the grander principle that the Word of God is
the supreme rule of life; that to do just what God says is of far greater
importance than the exercise of a charity that vaunts itself over the Bible,
while professing to reverence and Jove it? To maintain such a position as this
at this present time is of the greatest moral value to the world, to say nothing
of the sacrifice of principle and conscience involved in yielding their
position.

Objections.—There are many plausible objections to Close Communion, which are
persistently thrust forward with a skill and energy “worthy of a better cause.”
These have been answered over and over again; but as the thoughts of men are
particularly occupied with the objections to Close Communion, rather than with
its true meaning and significance, there is no alternative but to expose their
unsoundness once more. The strongest objections will be selected and their full
force given to them.

First.—“It is the Lord’s Table; you have no right to prevent the Lord’s people
from approaching it.”

It is strange to see how differently different minds will reason and conclude
from the same premises. To my mind it appears that, because it is the Lord’s
Table, is the greatest of all reasons why we have no voice in the matter one way
or another, to say who shall, or who shall not come to it. We can afford to be
generous with what belongs to us, but with what belongs to another, we have no
right to do anything at all, save what he has directed. If the Table were ours
we might have some discretion as to what we would do with it. Or, if the Table
were the Lord’s, but he had left the administration of it to our choice, still
we might have some discretion about it. But the Table is the Lord’s, and he has
left the directions for the administration of it in the New Testament, and we
must do as he has said, or prove recreant to our trust. I agree with those who
urge this objection, that the Table is the Lord’s. “Therefore,” say they, “it
should be open to all.” My mind works in the exactly opposite direction. The
Table is the Lord’s; therefore, I have no voice in the matter at all, except to
follow the directions he himself has given us. The reader can decide which
conclusion is right.

Moreover, a fallacy lurks under this specious plea in that it asserts what no
recognized body of Christians, believes,—that no other qualification is
necessary but conversion; whereas it is almost universally conceded that baptism
is a qualification for the Supper. The objection properly stated would be this:
“It is the Lord’s Table; you have no right to prevent the Lord’s baptized people
from approaching it.” The objection thus stated (and it covers a fallacy when
not thus stated), carries its own answer along with it; for it clearly implies
that the Lord’s unbaptized people have not the Scriptural qualifications for the
Supper.

Second.—” The Scriptures say: ‘Let a man examine himself;’ from which it is
inferred that, if he is satisfied with his own fitness and right to the Supper,
we have no right to interpose a barrier.” The fallacy of the objection becomes
apparent when we remember that altogether a different state of things exists
among us to-day, from what existed when Paul penned these words. We have a score
of different sects, each claiming to be the Church of Christ, and this language
is so interpreted as to make it mean that if the members of one of these sects
are satisfied with their fitness and right to the Supper, that that entitles
them to admission to the Supper, whensoever and by whomsoever spread. According
to this we may have intercommunion not only of Presbyterians, Episcopalians,
Methodists, Congregationalists, Reformers and Baptists, but of Catholics,
Unitarians, Universalists, &c., &c.; because, according to his own examination
of himself, each one is satisfied with his right to the Table. But who, among
evangelical Christians, believes in carrying intercommunion that far? Nobody!
And so it turns out that the objection is not believed by the very ones even in
whose mouths it is formed!

Besides, let it be remembered that this language was not addressed to a score of
sects, for the purpose of leaving the question of fitness for the Supper to the
individual determination of each, as the objection supposes; but it was
addressed to the members of one church, (Corinth), and was designed to prevent
the very thing which this objection tacitly sanctions. At Corinth, the Supper
had been greatly abused, and the source of this abuse was the idea that each
might act for himself. Against this Paul protests. Hear what he says:
“Wherefore, whosoever shall eat this bread and drink this cup of the Lord
unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man
examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he
that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself,
not discerning the Lord’s body. For this cause many are weak and sickly among
you, and many sleep, [have died].” Instead of sanctioning loose communion, this
language enjoins carefulness, strictness; and instead of leaving each individual
merely to be satisfied with himself, it expressly commands him to examine
himself lest he be guilty of a violation of the ordinance, and so bring
condemnation, and perhaps sickness and death. [See Hodge in loc.] But passing
all this by, is it pretended by those who urge this objection that the right of
individual judgment, flowing from individual self-examination, shall supersede
the right of judgment by the whole collective body of the church? Certainly not,
I suppose. Then, if not, suppose there should be a conflict between the judgment
of an individual as to his fitness, and the judgment of the church, which should
yield? Does Jesus Christ expect nothing of his churches, and everything of
individuals? Should an individual override the conscience of the whole church?
May a church seek refuge from the responsibility of having tolerated a known
violation of the requirements of the Divine Word under the plea that every man
must judge for himself? The answer is, When the requirements of the law are made
known, churches are responsible for themselves, as well as an individual for
himself. And it is as unmanly and as unfaithful in a church, as in an
individual, to try to shirk the responsibility or performance of a delicate and
unpleasant duty. The Lord’s Supper is a church ordinance, and the laws governing
that ordinance have been plainly revealed; and it is the duty of an individual
to examine himself, and so cat and drink; and it is the duty of the church to
enforce the laws which have been left to her to administer. In 1 Corinthians
5:11, this duty of the church is distinctly urged and commanded: “But now I have
written unto you not to keep company if any man that is called a brother be a
fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with
such an one no not to eat.” This means “not to eat at the same table with such:
whether at the love feasts (Agapae) or in private intercourse, much more at the
Lord’s Table.”[17] (Fausset Com, in loc.) That the communicant should be a
converted man, a baptized man, a church member, is as plainly declared in the
Scriptures as that he should be a moral man and just in his deportment. If it is
the province and duty of the church to judge the communicant as to his
possession of a part of these Scriptural qualifications, and the apostle
distinctly asserts that it is, no less can it be the province and duty of the
church to judge the communicant as to his possession of all the Scriptural
qualifications. And if the church has not this right, aye, if this duty does not
solemnly rest upon her, then the Lord’s Table is a prey to designing men, and
the church herself is impotent to determine or preserve her own character.

[17] Italics mine.

Third—Another common objection which we hear is this: I do not believe that it
is right to separate Christian people. I think they ought to meet together at
the Lord’s Table.

1. It is difficult to see the consistency of the outcry against Close Communion,
while separation into different denominations is at once tolerated and
justified. If the Lord’s people can consistently come together at the Lord’s
Table, what reason is there for their living in and maintaining separate Church
establishments? If their differences should not keep them apart at the Lord’s
Table, why should they anywhere? To say that there may be consistent
intercommunion between the different sects is to brand them as being so many
schismatics. Upon the basis of the consistency of intercommunion, one of the
greatest sins of the Christian world is its division into so many sects; because
there can be no consistent intercommunion except between those churches whose
views of divine truth are so accordant that membership in the one may justly
entitle an individual to membership in the other. But for two such bodies to
live apart is not only schism, but it is a wicked consumption of talent and
wealth which might otherwise be employed in the evangelization of the world. But
if the diverse denominationalism of the Christian world is not a rank and crying
sin, intercommunion is a sham, all the worse that it wears the cloak of piety
and love. And such a sham it is when two persons sit down side by side at the
Lord’s Table, while in their hearts there is a lack of Christian confidence and
fellowship, and so a betrayal of their honest convictions, and a moral cowardice
that shrinks from the responsibility of standing by one’s principles.[18]

[18] If any one has no principles which would be so violated, his feelings and
opinions cannot form a rule of conduct for one who has such principles

2. This objection seems to overlook the fact that Christians are already
separated, and that independently of the Table. But for this separation, whether
at the Table, or elsewhere, we allege that Baptists are not responsible. Let us
look at separation at the Table. It has already been seen that the question
between the bulk of the religious world and Baptists is not one of communion at
all, but of baptism. Now there is a common ground between them, upon which they
may meet and compose their differences, and that ground is the validity of
immersion. Those who practice otherwise admit the validity of immersion, for
they accept it without hesitation, and occasionally practice it. But they say
that another act will suffice, and, as more convenient and popular, they prefer
it. Baptists cannot see it in this light. It appears to them that immersion
alone is baptism; that to speak of baptism by sprinkling is as much a solecism
as to speak of running by crawling. Others can conscientiously practice
immersion; Baptists cannot conscientiously practice sprinkling. Which should
yield? Should conscience yield to convenience, or convenience yield to
conscience? Should principle yield to preference, or preference to principle?
Now, as a Baptist, I am frank and bold to say that, if our positions were
reversed, I would gladly yield to them. If we believed that either immersion or
sprinkling was valid, and they could not conscientiously accept immersion, but
sprinkling only, we would cheerfully relinquish our preference for immersion as
the more beautiful and expressive rite, and practice sprinkling. Not for a
moment would we allow our convenience and preference to weigh in the balances
against their conscience and principle; but instantly they should be
relinquished, that we might strike hands in fellowship and love upon this
question. But while our brethren are in this position to yield without the
sacrifice of principle, we are not. Which of us is the more responsible for the
separation? By just as much as conscience should be above convenience, as
principle should be above preference, by just so much does the responsibility of
the separation not rest upon Baptists.

Fourth.—It is objected that Baptists make too much of baptism. It is not a
saving ordinance; why make such an ado about it?

If we were disposed to retort, we might say that the charge comes with bad grace
from those who practice sprinkling or pouring; since it was the belief that
baptism is a saving ordinance that first led to the change in the primitive
practice, in such cases as the sick, when baptism was deemed impracticable and
dangerous. Yet that they might not die without the regenerating fluid, in such
cases sprinkling or pouring was substituted for baptism. Baptists have neither
unduly exalted nor debased the ordinance of baptism. They keep it just where the
Master put it. The same with the Supper. They do not seek to exalt the Supper
above baptism. Both are divine ordinances, and were established by the same
lips. The Master placed one at the entrance of the church, the other within the
church. No one has the right to run over the one ordinance, baptism, to get to
the other, the Table. All the commands of Jesus are full of power, sweetness and
beauty. Obedience is the test of love, in small matters as well as great. A
command to pick up a pin is as sure a test of love as a command to put out a
fire that is burning down a house,—perhaps a surer one. To put out the fire is
of so great importance that it would be done without a command; whereas, the
command to pick up a pin carries with it no reason for obedience save that it is
commanded. But underlying this question about baptism is one that is not of
minor importance,—the Headship of Christ. If Christ ordained immersion, have we
any right to change it? The Catholic Church says,” Yes; and we have done it.”
Calvin says on Acts 8:38 : “They went down into the water. Here we see the rite
used among the men of old time in baptism; for they put all the body into the
water. Now the use is this, that the minister doth sprinkle the body or the
head. * * * * It is certain that we want nothing which maketh to the substance
of baptism. Wherefore the church did grant liberty to herself since the
beginning to change the rites somewhat excepting the substance.” (Edinburg: by
Calvin Translation Society, quoted by Jeter.) But if we claim the right to
change what Christ has ordained, where will the matter end? Where has it landed
the Catholic Church, which arrogates to herself the right to change the laws of
Christ? Look at her to-day and contrast her with the teachings of God’s word,
and let that be our answer.

Jesus Christ is the head of the Church and the King in Zion, and among the last
words which he caused to be spoken is a curse upon him who should “add to” or
“take away from the words of the book.” Rather let my hand or tongue be palsied
than do or attempt such a thing.

Conclusion.—We conclude as we began. Baptists simply ask for themselves the
liberty to administer the ordinance of the Lord’s House in such a way as their
consciences tell them that His Word requires. They ask their fellow Christians
of other names to recognize their right to do this, and charge their course to
this motive alone, not to prejudice, bigotry, uncharitableness, or an
affectation of a superior piety or wisdom. The practice of Close Communion is
the logical result of the principles which they have learned from the
Scriptures. If they are wrong, either in the principles themselves, or in their
practical application, we think they have the candor and manliness to
acknowledge the wrong, when it is pointed out to them. On a question like this,
argument is more agreeable to them, and more becoming those who differ from
them, than harsh words and bitter upbraidings. They desire to live on terms of
brotherly kindness with all Christian people. They do not shrink from criticism
and investigation. They would be glad to have the world study their principles
in the light of God’s Word, and will cheerfully abide the result. To my Baptist
brethren I say, we should remember that we hare naught to gain, but everything
to lose by compromising the principles which we hold. Should fidelity to God’s
Word lead us to separation from those we love as well as our own lives, we
should still be firm; remembering that true love to Jesus, as well as to our
friends, should lead us to stand firmly by the truth. Baptists have accomplished
a noble work for the world. We do not believe that their mission is ended. Our
fathers suffered imprisonment, stripes, banishment, death, that they might
bequeath to us the rich legacy which we enjoy. Shall we barter that legacy for
popular applause? The early Christians were the “sect everywhere spoken
against.” Our Master bore suffering and shame for us. If our principles bring
reproach upon us, let us bear that reproach. Let us be careful to avoid
bitterness and unholy strife. Let our lives abound in patience, forbearance,
gentleness, goodness and truth, while we commit ourselves, not to men, but to
God, who judgeth righteously.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 9: 08 BAPTIST CHURCHES APOSTOLICAL
========================================================================

Baptist Churches Apostolical By Prof. Albert H. Newman, Rochester Theological
Seminary, New York.

“If ye love me, keep my commandments.” John 14:15.

“Teach them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you; and lo! I am
with you alway, even unto the end of the world.” Matthew 28:20.

“Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.” 2 Corinthians 3:17. The aim
of the present discourse will be to show that Baptist churches are Apostolical,
alike in spirit and in form; and that Baptist churches alone of all the churches
are Apostolical in spirit and in form.

We shall attempt to show, furthermore, that the formal elements of Apostolical
and Baptist churches constitute the expression, and by far the best expression,
within the knowledge of man, of the spirit of Christianity. That Baptist
churches are coincident inform with Apostolic churches we shall find no
difficulty in proving, for the testimony of Scripture and that of scholars of
all leading denominations of Christians is ample and clear. The fact that
Baptist churches alone consistently adhere to the New Testament as an absolute
and complete guide, in matters of practice as well as in matters of doctrine, is
freely and heartily admitted by many of the ablest defenders of other systems.
That Baptists hold to Apostolical forms in Apostolical spirit, and that
Apostolical and Baptist church order best expresses for all ages the spirit of
Christianity, would be denied by the great majority of the scholars of other
denominations than Baptists,— even by men who admit that the teaching of the New
Testament is final in matters of doctrine.

We may best accomplish our purpose by sketching first, the essential features of
the Apostolical churches as set forth in the New Testament, as interpreted by
scholars of various denominations and as understood by ourselves; and
afterwards, the essential features of Baptist churches as they are observed in
the history and the actual state of Baptist churches.

I. The Essential Features of the Apostolical Churches.

We freely admit at the outset that in many minor matters of form the Baptists
differ from the first Christians. Such points of difference, alike in matters
superadded and in matters omitted, will be considered hereafter. We may further
observe that our brethren of other denominations, while admitting the
correctness of our specifications of characteristics of the Apostolical
churches, would probably deny these characteristics of them to be essential.

1. The most fundamental thing in the Apostolical churches was their ascription
of absolute lordship to Jesus Christ. The expression “our Lord Jesus Christ,”
and expressions of like import, constantly meet us throughout the “Sew Testament
writings. And in the mouths of the first Christians these words meant
something,—more, alas! than they commonly mean with us. The chief question with
those early disciples was, “Lord, what wilt thou have me to do?” The Apostles,
under the special inspiration of the Holy Spirit, preached not themselves “but
Jesus Christ, as Lord.” Whatever they did by way of giving form to the outward
expression of Christianity, they did as they thought themselves directed to do
by Christ himself, through his remembered words and through the Holy Spirit.

Far, far would it have been from any one of the Apostles, to have made changes
in matters with regard to which Christ himself was known to have given express
commands. So far as the words of Christ went, they were regarded as the final
test and the only allowable guide. Where definite directions from the Master
were wanting, the Apostles and their disciples acted as they felt impelled by
the Spirit of God to act. This lordship of Christ was in the minds of the early
Christians based upon the fact that Christ had by his own blood redeemed them,
so that they felt themselves no longer their own, but Christ’s, by right of
purchase. The spirit of obedience was not slavish, but loving. “If you love me,
keep my commandments,” said our Lord Jesus Christ.

Christ promised to his disciples spiritual guidance into all truth, and the
evidence is abundant that in all of their missionary work, whether in teaching
or in organizing and developing Christian life and activity, they relied upon
and received this promised divine aid. The most fundamental thing, therefore, in
Christianity, and hence in the Apostolical church organization, is the
recognition of Christ as Lord, on whom alone salvation depends, to whom alone
his followers are responsible, to whom alone in spiritual matters implicit
obedience is due, on whom alone his followers depend for guidance in their inner
life and in their outward activity.

2. The feature of Apostolical church polity next in importance is, if we mistake
not, that of regenerate church-membership. The Apostolical churches were made up
exclusively of such as gave credible evidence of saving belief in Christ, who
professed themselves ready to separate themselves from the world, to crucify the
flesh and the lusts thereof, to devote themselves wholly to the service of
Christ.

Unregenerate men crept into the churches from time to time, it is true; but when
their ungodliness was revealed, when they were seen to be wolves in sheep’s
clothing, there was little hesitation on the part of the churches in “separating
themselves” from such interlopers. The Christian life of the Apostolical
churches was, as a matter of fact, far below the ideal. Pagan morals and pagan
conceptions could not be shaken off completely, at once, even by the truly
regenerate; but the ideal constantly kept in view was pare and Christ like; if
impurity existed it was recognized as abnormal. The Apostolical Christians did
not argue from the impracticability of attaining to the ideal, that the ideal
should be lowered; that no effort should be made to secure regenerate
church-membership, as many Christian scholars do at the present day. Though he
knew that disorder and corruption prevailed in the Corinthian church, Paul
writes “to the Church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in
Christ Jesus, called to be saints.” The word which we render saints (ἁγιοι)
—what does it mean? It means “holy” “consecrated to God,” “separated from the
world.” A Church which is designated “saints” can hardly be regarded as
including normally any but regenerate members. Whatever in that Corinthian
church did not conform to this characterization, Paul regarded as entirely
abnormal. If unregenerate members were in the Apostolical churches they surely
were not of them. (1 John 2:19.) In the same epistle to the Corinthian church
Paul writes: “Know ye not that ye are God’s temple, and that the Spirit of God
dwells in you. * * * for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.” (1
Corinthians 3:16-17.) Our position, otherwise unassailable, would be still
further fortified, if, as some suppose, the very word which we translate Church
(ἐκκλησία) contains in itself an allusion to the calling of Christians out of
the world by the Gospel, so as to form a distinct class. The words calling
(χγῆσις), the called (χγητοι), and similar words, occur so frequently in the New
Testament (and always with reference to the regenerate) that the application of
the word, already in common use to designate an assembly, to Christian
assemblies and to the great Christian brotherhood could hardly have failed to
become tinged with the same idea.

Those only were members of the Apostolical churches who gave credible evidence
of change of heart through faith in Christ, and who symbolized their death to
sin and resurrection to newness of life, the washing away of the stains of sin
through the blood of Christ, in baptism. This assertion the great majority of
scholars of all denominations would probably assent to.

3. Another leading characteristic of the Apostolical churches was that of each
local church’s entire independence of any other and of all other local churches,
and of any individual. Each church was self-governing, the only authority
recognized being the will of Christ as it was made known to them immediately
through the inspired Apostles, and immediately through the Holy Spirit. The
church at Jerusalem, for example, does not transmit its instructions to the
church at Corinth, — does not threaten them with excommunication when it learns
of the disorderly walk of some of the Corinthians. The churches established by
Apostles looked upon these Apostles as spiritual fathers, sought their advice
when difficulties arose, acted upon their advice freely, because they recognized
it as wise and as in accordance with the will of Christ. When deacons were to be
appointed (Acts 6) to administer the charities of the church at Jerusalem, what
course do the Apostles pursue? On any prolatical hypothesis they might have been
expected to take the matter into their own hands and to appoint them. But this
would have been unapostolic. What they did was truly Apostolic. “So, brethren,”
said they, “look ye out among you seven men of good repute, full of the Spirit
and wisdom, whom we will appoint over this business. * * * And the saying
pleased the whole multitude, and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and the
Holy Spirit, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas,
and Nicolas, a proselyte of Antioch, whom they set before the Apostles; and when
they prayed they laid their hands on them.” This is a fair specimen of the
relations of the Apostles to the Apostolical churches. They told the churches
what to do, but they were careful that the execution should in every instance be
the act, unconstrained save by a sense of duty, of the entire church. The
office-bearers having been chosen, the Apostles gave their approval and set them
apart to the work, ceremonially.

Take another instance: “Then it seemed good to the Apostles and the elders, with
the whole church, to choose out men of their own company and send them to
Antioch with Paul and Barnabas.” (Acts 15:22). But does not the mission of these
men to Antioch itself contradict what we have said? The brethren at Antioch had
been greatly distressed by Judaizers who, pretending to have received a
commission from the church, had endeavored to force upon the consciences of the
Christians at Antioch the entire Jewish ceremonial law. The present delegation
was designed to free the minds of the Christians at Antioch from this disturbing
influence. It was no effort to assert absolute authority, but simply an effort
to set themselves right in the eyes of the Antiochians. As a younger and less
experienced church, it was expected, of course, that the Antiochian would be
influenced by the Jerusalem church.

If the Antiochian church had become heretical, the Jerusalem church would
probably have refused to recognize the members as brethren. But further than
this there was no thought of dependence of one church upon another.

One church might seek the advice of another, but the church seeking advice
remained entirely free to adopt or reject any advice given. One church might,
unsolicited, admonish a sister church, but neither the church admonishing nor
the church admonished would have felt that any obligation other than moral,
other than the recognition of the truth and importance of the admonition would
induce, rested upon the church admonished to yield to the admonition. The New
Testament churches, therefore, were independent one of another; yet as being
subjects of one Lord, brethren beloved, the members of each church felt a
profound interest in the members of every other, so far as their circumstances
were known. Each church felt bound to admonish churches and individuals when
they were seen to be in error, to encourage them in adversity, to aid them with
their counsel, their prayers and their means. There was a fellowship of
churches, but no organic union. The relation of the Apostles to the churches
which they founded was an exceptional relation, a relation which is well
illustrated in the history of modern missions. To them the churches looked at
first as the only external source of Christum truth; their word was in the
estimation of their converts, as it was in reality, the very truth of Christ. As
their living words were authoritative in the churches which they founded and in
which they labored, so now their word, written under the guidance of the same
Holy Spirit, by whom all their Christian activity was directed. As specially
commissioned and specially equipped by Christ for a special work, the Apostles
claimed and exercised more of authority than it could be lawful for any
individual not so commissioned and not so equipped to exercise or to claim. But,
as we have seen, even the Apostles brought to bear upon the churches only moral
suasion, and they recognized fully the right of each congregation of believers
to administer its own affairs. In maintaining the entire independence of the
Apostolical churches, we encounter more of opposition than in maintaining the
recognized lordship of Christ or the insistance on regenerate membership in the
Apostolic churches. Yet we believe that we are amply sustained by Scripture in
the statements we have made.

4. A fourth leading feature of the Apostolical churches was the recognition, of
the entire equality in point of rank and privilege of all the members. Every
Christian has become a child of God, an heir of God and a joint heir with
Christ. “For as many as are being led by God’s Spirit these are sous of God. For
ye received not a spirit of bondage that ye should fear again, but ye received a
spirit of adoption, wherein we cry Abba, Father. The spirit itself bears witness
with our spirit that we are children of God, and if children heirs also, heirs
of God and joint heirs with Christ.” (Romans 8:14-17.) This applies not to a
class of believers, but to all believers, to “as many as are led by God’s
spirit.” If such alone as are led by God’s spirit are recognized as proper
members of Christian churches, as we have already seen to be the case, and if
such as are led by God’s spirit are sons of God, heirs of God and joint heirs
with Christ, if every believer has been brought into a mystical union with
Christ, if every believer is a priest of God, with power to offer up to God the
sacrifice of prayer and to plead the merits of Christ Jesus for himself and for
others; if to his own Master every Christian standeth or falleth; if unto every
Christian is promised the continued presence of Christ, through his Holy Spirit,
as a comforter and a guide; if every Christian is responsible, not simply for
himself, but in great measure for those within the reach of his influence;—if
such are, according to the Scriptures, the prerogatives and duties of each
individual Christian, the idea of ranks or grades of Christians is utterly out
of place and preposterous. The equality in point of rank of all the members of
Apostolical local churches as well as of the church universal, may be made to
appear still more clearly from a consideration of the metaphors employed in the
New Testament to set forth the relations of Christians to Christ and to each
other. “I am the vine, ye are the branches.” (John 15:5.) Surely it could not be
said that one branch of a particular vine outranks another. One may be more
advantageously situated, more ample, more fruitful, but all are alike in kind,
all draw their vitality from the same source, no one is differentiated from
another in any essential particular.

Again, take the metaphorical representation of the church under the figure of
the human body. All the parts of the body are one flesh and blood. Each part has
its function. Upon the presence of each member and the performance of its proper
function does the completeness and the efficiency of the entire body depend.
Each member has an important function of its own, all minister to the whole,
each member ministers to every other member. The function of one member may be
more conspicuously important than that of another; but, on examination, the
utility of each part and its necessity in the formation of the organism is
clearly to be seen. There is, therefore, not the slightest basis in the New
Testament for any sacerdotal idea. The church is a democracy. Church officers
are not priests mediating between God and man, but servants, ministers.

“The most singular evolution,” writes Renan, “that has ever been produced in a
democracy, was brought about in the bosom of the Church.[19]The ecclesia, the
free union of persons, established on a footing of equality among themselves, is
the thing democratical par excellence.”

[19]He refers to the growth of hierarchical principles in the churches of the
second century.

5. The headship of Christ, acknowledged by the Apostolical churches, the
spiritual character of the aims of the churches, the equality of rights, duties
and privileges, the entire independence of each church of all other
churches,—all taken together make the idea of any organic union between Church
and State utterly unthinkable as an element of the Apostolical churches. Not
only was any union of Church and State entirely absent from the thought of the
Apostles, but it was entirely contradictory to all the most fundamental
principles of the Apostolical churches. The Apostolical churches, therefore,
believed that Christ’s kingdom was not of this world ^ that Christianity was to
accomplish its mission, not by assuming the reins of civil government, but by
bringing individuals to yield themselves up in obedience to Jesus Christ. The
triumph of Christ over all things in heaven and on earth and under the earth was
not to be mediated by intriguing political prelates, but by the gradual
transfusion from heart to heart of the spirit of Christ.

6. To descend now to particulars, the Apostolical churches, in accordance with
the principles already stated above, chose out of their own ranks individuals
for the performance of special functions in the churches. However democratic a
body may be, it is still indispensable, in order to its proper efficiency, that
some organization find place. The choosing and the functions of the officers of
the churches must have been in accordance with the above statement of
principles. The officers were chosen by the entire membership of the churches,
under the advice, in most instances, of the Apostles or their missionary
disciples. The officers were chosen not to rule but to serve the churches, and
interests were committed to them not for their own sakes but for the sake of the
churches. If a certain authority was delegated to them, it was not for the sake
of the office but for the sake of the general weal. When officers had been
elected by the assembled church, they were set apart to their special work by
the Apostles, the object of this setting apart being to impart to them spiritual
gifts, and to secure their general recognition and support in their service of
the church.

There certainly was no thought of exalting such officers into a class apart from
and above the general body of the church.

Men that had been thus set apart had authority to perform certain functions in
the church, and in that alone, whereto they belonged, and by which they were
elected to perform such functions.

If they performed similar functions in other churches, it must have been in
accordance with a similar election by such churches, and if they, on any
account, ceased to perform the functions whereunto they were called, there is no
reason to believe that they retained the authority conferred upon them for the
performance of such functions. The number of officers that found place in the
Apostolical churches (apart from the Apostolate, which was a special provision
by Christ for a special purpose, and which was not perpetuated) there were two
classes of officers and only two, viz: Bishops or Presbyters, and Deacons. That
the terms Επισχοπος and Πρεσβυτερος are employed in the New Testament to denote,
not two classes of officers, but one, is clear from an examination of the use of
the terms, and is admitted by most advocates of Episcopacy. We shall, in the
first place, show that the terms are used interchangeably in the New Testament,
and afterwards quote a few of the more striking admissions by advocates of
Episcopacy. The term most frequently employed in the New Testament to denote
pastors of Churches is Πρεσβυτερος—Elder. Various other terms are also used, as
Ποιμην—Pastor;Διδάσκαλος— Teacher. The term Πρεσβυτερος occurs in the New
Testament seventeen times, to denote church officers. The term
Επισκοπή—Overseer, Bishop, occurs only five times. The term
επισχουντες—performing the functions of a Bishop, occurs once. In all instances,
except in the one instance where it is applied to Christ, the “shepherd and
bishop of our souls “(1 Peter 2:23) the term επισχοπος is used in such a manner
as to make it absolutely certain that those designated Bishops are no other than
Presbyters or Elders. In 1 Timothy 3:2, the term Bishop is used in connection
with the term Deacon, as if these two classes of officers exhausted the
category. The qualifications of Bishops are given at length, and afterwards
those of Deacons, no mention whatever being made of Presbyters. In Titus 1:5
sq., Paul, having spoken of the work which he has entrusted to Titus as that of
appointing Presbyters, and having pointed out in general the essential
qualifications of such officers, assigns as a reason for insisting on such
qualifications: “for the Bishop must be blameless as God’s steward, etc.” It is
perfectly evident that the terms Bishop and Presbyter are here used with
reference to the same individual.

Again, in Php 1:1, Paul salutes “all the saints in Christ Jesus who are in
Philippi, together with Bishops and Deacons.” If there had been Presbyters as
distinct from Bishops, Paul would hardly have failed to mention them in such a
connection. So also in 1 Peter 5:1-2, we read: “The Presbyters, therefore, who
are among you, as a fellow presbyter and witness of the sufferings of Christ * *
* I exhort, fulfilling the office of Bishops (επισχοπουντες) shepherd the flock
of God among you,” etc. That is, presbyters are exhorted to perform the
functions of bishops or overseers.

Again in Acts 20:17, we read: “Having sent from Miletus to Ephesus he (Paul)
called for the Presbyters of the church.” Having addressed to these presbyters a
most touching account of his past relations to them and the church, and having
signified his prospective departure, perhaps never to see their faces more, he
exhorts them as follows: “Take heed therefore to yourselves and to the whole
flock in which the Holy Spirit appointed you Bishops (επισχοπος) to shepherd the
church of God [or of the Lord] which he purchased through his own blood.” (vs.
28). The identity of the persons denominated Presbyters with those denominated
Bishops is here perfectly evident, and perhaps none would venture to question
it. The term Presbyter was derived probably from the Jewish Synagogue, and was
the term in common use among Jewish Christians to denote the office of those
that had the especial oversight of Christian churches. The term with Christians,
as with Jews, was therefore, one of dignity. The term Bishop was confined to
Gentile churches, and was a word in common use among; the Greeks to denote the
office of oversight or superintendence. The word Bishop, therefore, refers not
so much to the dignity as to the duties of the office.

We subjoin a few statements from Roman Catholic and Anglican writers, all men of
highest authority in matters of ecclesiastical history:

Alzog[20](Roman Catholic) admits that “the words επισχοπος and ερεσβυτερος are,
in the New Testament, applied indifferently to the same person. * * * “Peter and
John, though Apostles, call themselves Πρεσβυτεροι.” * * * “The name ‘Bishop
‘signifying a title of authority, was of later origin. In churches whose members
were composed of Jewish converts, the word Elders (πρεσβύτεροι) was used to
designate those holding offices of dignity, while in those frequented by pagan
converts the word used for the same purpose was overseers (ἐπίσκοποι), and hence
Peter and James uniformly use ερεσβυτερος not ἐπίσκοπος.

[20]Univ. Ch. Hist. i., p. 201-2

Lightfoot (an Anglican, now Bishop of Durham, and universally recognized as
standing at the very head of theological science in England) writes: [21] “It is
a fact now generally recognized by theologians of all shades of opinion, that in
the language of the New Testament the same officer in the church is called
indifferently ‘bishop’ (ἐπίσκοπος) and ‘elder’ or ‘presbyter’ (ερεσβυτερος) * *
* Episcopus— ‘bishop,” overseer’—was an official title among the Greeks. In the
Athenian language it was used especially to designate commissioners appointed to
regulate a new colony or acquisition, so that the Attic ‘bishop’ corresponded to
the Spartan ‘harmost’ * * * In the LXX., the word is common. In some places it
signifies ‘inspectors,’ ‘superintendents,” taskmasters’; in others it is a
higher title, ‘captains’ or ‘presidents’.” * * * [21] St. Paul’s Epistle to the
Phippians, 2 ed., p. 93 sq.

“The earlier history of the word presbyteros, (elder, presbyter or priest) is
much more closely connected with its Christian sense.” * * * “Among the chosen
people we meet at every turn with presbyters or elders in Church and State from
the earliest to the latest times.” * * * “Over every Jewish synagogue, whether
at home or abroad, a council of ‘elders,’ presided. It was not unnatural
therefore that, when a Christian synagogue took its place side by side with the
Jewish, a similar organization should be adopted, with such modifications as
circumstances required.” Bishop Lightfoot then goes on to prove, from a
consideration of the New Testament passages cited above,” the identity of the
‘bishop’ and ‘presbyter’ in the language of the apostolic age.”

Jacob (an Anglican theologian of good repute) writes: [22] “The only bishops
mentioned in the New Testament were simple presbyters; the same person beings
‘bishop’— επισχοπος; i.e. a superintendent or ‘overseer,’ from his ‘taking an
oversight’ of his congregation, as is distinctly shown by Acts 20 and other
passages; and a presbyter— ερεσβυτερος or elder, from the reverence due to age.
It may, however, be observed that the office of elder is of Hebrew origin; while
the term επισχοπος is Hellenic, and is applied in the New Testament only to the
officers of Gentile churches, though it did not supersede the use of the word
presbyter among them.”

[22] The Ecclesiastical Polity of the New Testament. p. 72, sq.

Conybeare and Howson (Anglicans) write [23] “Of the officers concerned with
church government, the next in rank to that of the apostles was the office of
overseers or elders, more usually known (by their Greek designations) as bishops
or presbyters. These terms are used in the New Testament as equivalent, the
former (επισχοπος) denoting (as its meaning of overseer implies) the duties, the
latter (ερεσβυτερος) the rank, of the office.”

[23] Life and Epistles of St. Paul, (Treat’s Am. Ed.) p. 433 sq Such citations
from Episcopalian writers might be multiplied. The Reformers, e. g. Luther,
Melancthon, Calvin, Cranmer, Coverdale, etc., were of the same opinion. The
Protestant church historians of the present century, and especially the German
church historians, who have studied church history more scientifically and more
exhaustively than it was ever studied before, are well-nigh unanimous in their
assertion of the identity of presbyters and bishops in the Apostolical churches.
Among many who distinctly teach the identity, I may mention Neander, Gieseler,
Guericke, Hase, Kurtz, Herzog, Ritschl, Hagenbach and Bunsen. The second class
of officers in the Apostolical churches (probably the first in point of time)
were Deacons. There seems to us to be no sufficient reason to doubt but that the
diaconate was established when the Apostles advised the Jerusalem Christians to
choose out from among them suitable men to take charge of the church charities
(Acts 6). The meaning of the word διακονέω is minister, and hence the essential
idea is that of service. As older, more experienced men were commonly appointed
to the presbyterate or eldership, so younger, more active men were, we may
suppose, commonly appointed to the diaconate. The seclusion of females in
eastern society made it important that females should minister to them. Hence
deaconesses existed in the Apostolical churches. (Romans 16:1. comp. 1 Timothy
5:3-16.)

7. The Apostolical churches were characterized by the regular observance, in the
spirit of loving obedience, of certain ordinances instituted by Christ.
Christianity was not designed to be a ceremonial religion. The spirit of the
gospel is a spirit of freedom. “Where the spirit of the Lord is, there is
liberty.” But Christ himself instituted two ordinances, for perpetual
observance, which are most appropriate as bringing frequently before the
believer, in an impressive manner, the central truths of the Christian faith. As
to the number and the names of these two ordinances all Protestants, we may
assume, are at one. They are Baptism and the Lord’s Supper.

Let us ascertain, if we can, the precise nature of the rite, which in the
Apostolical churches was designated by the term Baptism. How was it performed?
The meaning of the term, as it is generally admitted, is sufficient to make it
perfectly evident to an unprejudiced mind, that the outward form of the rite was
the immersion of the subject in water. That such is the meaning of the term will
be abundantly confirmed, as we proceed, by the testimony of scholars who can
certainly have not the slightest interest beyond the interest of truth, in
maintaining this view. The circumstances connected with the performance of the
rite are of such a nature that even if the designation of the rite were
equivocal, there would be no sufficient reason to doubt but that the thing
actually performed under the name of baptism was immersion in water.

Again, even if the meaning of the word “baptism” were doubtful and we were left
without the circumstances, the practice of the western churches until the middle
ages, and the persistent practice of the oriental churches, would make it
morally certain that the rite denominate a baptism was from the very beginning
the immersion of the subject in water. This is not the place for an elaborate
philological discussion. The discussions of the subject by others are so
exhaustive and so conclusive that I shall content myself with citing a few
striking passages from the writings of those who defend the validity of baptism
by other methods than immersion.

Such, in our judgment, and, as we shall see, in the judgment of the scholarship
of the ages, is the outward form designated baptism in the Apostolical churches.
What was the aim and significance of the rite? Was it in the Apostolical
churches an opus operatumi. Did the Apostles and their followers receive and
administer the rite with the feeling that it produced a magical effect?

They certainly regarded baptism as important, from the fact that Christ himself
had submitted to it, and that he had made it a part of his Great Commission. As
an act of obedience to Christ they certainly did not feel at liberty to neglect
it.

They certainly expected that in this as in all other acts of obedience to Christ
they would receive the divine blessing.

They regarded it as an initiatory ceremony into the visible Church of Christ—as
an act of consecration to Christ—as an outward symbol of the inner spiritual
cleansing which they experience, through repentance for sin and faith in Christ
Jesus as the Saviour from sin and from death.

They certainly regarded baptism as symbolical of the death of the believer to
sin, and his resurrection to newness of life, in imitation of the burial and
resurrection of Christ. But that baptism was regarded in the sense of an opus
operation is entirely contrary to the spirit of the New Testament, to the direct
teachings of the Apostles, to the circumstances under which the rite was
performed. “By faith ye are saved “is, in substance, reiterated constantly
throughout the New Testament. If it is added that” faith without works is dead,”
the reference is far more to works of mercy, to Christian life and Christian
effort for the salvation of others, than to the performance of any outward
rites. It is never said or intimated that” by baptism ye are saved.” “The blood
of Jesus Christ cleanses from all sin,” not “baptism.” “He that believeth and is
baptized shall be saved; he that believeth not shall be damned.” Not “he that is
not baptized shall be damned.” The passages that have been especially relied
upon for the support of baptismal regeneration are: Acts 2:38; Acts 22:16;
Ephesians 5:26; 1 Peter 4:11. Now, taken apart from their connection, and
interpreted without any regard to the particular teachings of the Apostles with
regard to the way of salvation, and the general tone of New Testament
Christianity, these passages might easily be supposed to attach something more
than a symbolical meaning to baptism. Let us consider these passages one by one:

Acts 2:38. “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ
for the remission of sins,” is entirely inadequate for the purpose for which it
is employed. Evidently the repentance is regarded as the first and most
important step, and this alone is indispensable to the remission of sins. But
Peter couples the two together, from the fact that the one followed immediately
upon the other in Apostolic practice, and the two-fold act, the inner change and
the outward recognition of the change, are represented jointly as securing
remission of sins. The passage, therefore, is perfectly explicable in itself;
but even if it were less so, our duty would be to interpret it in accordance
with the numerous explicit teachings of the Apostles on this subject, and not in
such a way as to contradict such explicit teachings and the entire spirit of the
gospel.

Let us consider the passage, Acts 22:16 : “Arise and be baptized and wash away
thy sins.” This passage occurs in Paul’s account of his own conversion. He had
been struck down on the way to Damascus, had yielded himself up in entire
submission to Christ (“What shall I do Lord?”); in obedience to the divine
command he had gone to Damascus for further instruction as to his duty; it is
revealed to him by Ananias that he has been chosen by God to be a witness for
him unto all men. His repentance and his faith in Christ are certainly
presupposed. The washing away of his sins in baptism, which Ananias enjoins,
can, therefore, be only a symbolical washing. Paul, who relates this of himself,
certainly regarded salvation as entirely of grace, through faith in Christ
Jesus, who died for sinners. We must, therefore, suppose that Paul understood
the words of Ananias in accordance with this fundamental principle of all his
preaching.

So, also, the passage, Ephesians 5:26 : * * * “Christ also loved the church, and
delivered himself up for it, that having cleansed it with the washing of the
water he might sanctify it by the word,” must be taken in connection with Paul’s
constantly emphasized doctrine of justification by faith. The washing of water
is only symbolical of the inner washing through the Spirit of God. In 1 Peter
3:21, we read: “And now as an antitype, baptism saves you.” But, lest this
should be misunderstood, the Apostle explains: “Not a putting away of the filth
of the flesh, but the answering of a good conscience unto God, through the
resurrection of Jesus Christ.” Evidently, Peter has in mind here the symbolical
significance and not a magical effect of baptism. We must admit that by those
who are otherwise inclined to attach a magical efficacy to the baptismal rite,
these passages can easily be made to favor such a view. But if we interpret
these passages in accordance with the otherwise well-known Apostolical views of
salvation, we shall be in no danger of going astray.

Such was the nature of the external rite, such its aim and significance. Who
were the subjects of this rite? Even if we had no facts on which to base our
answer to this question, we should be at no loss to decide. If baptism is an
initiatory rite, and if the Apostolic churches, as we have shown to be the case,
were, theoretically at least, composed entirely of believers, then the subjects
of baptism could be none other than believers; if, as we have seen to be the
case, baptism is spoken of in the New Testament, only in connection with faith
and repentance, this indicates as clearly as possible, that the subjects of
baptism are so far advanced in age as to be capable of repentance and faith,
capable of turning away from sin and self, and turning unto Christ.

There is no passage in the New Testament that lends any probability to the view
in accordance with which unconscious infants were baptized in the New Testament
time. In cases where households were baptized, it is certain, in accordance with
the plain teachings and the general spirit of the New Testament, either that no
infants were members of the households, or else that they were left entirely out
of account in a matter which, according to Apostolic conceptions, could sustain
no possible relation to them.

We may supply the place of elaborate argumentation, by making a number of
citations’ from writers of recognized authority and whose consistency would best
be subserved by an entirely reverse explanation of primitive Christianity.

Dr. Jacob (an Anglican) writes: [24] “It may at once be inferred from the words
of the original institution, that this sacrament was to be an initiatory rite in
the church. It was to be administered to those who believed in the One God, the
Father of all; who acknowledged Jesus as the Christ, the Son of God, the long
promised and now manifested Saviour; who accepted the doctrine that the Divine
Spirit is the author of holiness in man, and would lead them to the knowledge
and practice of the Christian life; and who with this amount of understanding
and conviction were desirous to renounce the dominion and deeds of sin to become
obedient servants of Christ’s Spiritual Kingdom, and to join themselves to him
and to his church. To such persons their baptism was to be the sign and seal of
their discipleship; and thus to be the formal evidence of their Christian
profession,—their actual admission into the visible fellowship of the church—the
symbol of their union with Christ, and of their participation in the privileges
which that union imparts.”

[24] Eccl. Polity of the N.T., p. 245

Dr. Jacob’s view is evidently the same as that which we have stated above, with
regard to the aim and significance of baptism. What does he say as to the mode
of baptism?

“Baptism in the primitive church was evidently administered by immersion of the
body in the water —a mode which added to the significance of the rite and gave a
peculiar force to some of the allusions to it.”[25] [25] Eccl. Polity of the N.
T. p. 258.

We surely have no fault to find with Dr. Jacob’s statement with regard to the
mode of baptism practiced in the Apostolic churches. What then does he say
concerning the subjects of baptism in the Apostolic churches?

“Notwithstanding all that has been written by learned men upon this subject, it
remains indisputable that infant baptism is not mentioned in the New Testament.
No instance of it is recorded there; no allusion is made to its effects; no
directions are given for its administration. * * * It ought to be distinctly
acknowledged that it is not an Apostolic ordinance.”

We shall have space for only a few more citations on this subject. We cannot do
better than to give a few striking passages from the recent article on the
subject “Baptism,” [26] published by Dr. A. P. Stanley, a Dean of Westminster,
whose name is as widely known and as universally respected as that of any other
churchman of the present time.

[26] Nineteenth Century. Oct, 1878.

Having stated that the primitive idea of baptism is that of cleansing, the
outward rite symbolizing the inward spiritual state, Dean Stanley proceeds:
“‘Baptism’ was not only a bath, but a plunge—an entire submersion in the deep
water, a leap as into the rolling sea or the rushing river, where for the moment
the waves close over the bather’s head, and he emerges again as from a momentary
grave; or it was the shock of a shower-bath, the rush of water passed over the
whole person from capacious vessels, so as to wrap the recipient as within the
veil of a splashing cataract. This was the part of the ceremony on which the
Apostles laid so much stress. It seemed to them like a burial of the old former
self, and the rising up again of the new self. So St. Paul compared it to the
Israelites passing through the roaring waves of the Red Sea, and St. Peter to
the passing through the deep waters of the flood. ‘We are buried,’ said St.
Paul, ‘with Christ by baptism at his death; that like as Christ was raised, thus
we also should walk in the newness of life.’”

Having described more minutely the baptismal rite with its circumstances, as it
was practiced in the Apostolic churches, he proceeds: “These are the outer forms
of which, in the Western churches, almost every particular is altered, even in
the most material points. Immersion has become the exception, and not the rule.
Adult baptism, as well as immersion, exists only among the Baptists. The
dramatic action of the scene is lost.” The learned Dean goes on to enumerate and
discuss the changes that have taken place in the ordinance. He shows, with
perfect right, as we humbly believe, that the first change was a change in
doctrine: “There was the belief in early ages that it was like a magical charm,
which acted on the persons who received it without any consent or intention,
either of administrator or recipient, as in the case of children or actors
performing the rite with no serious intention. There was also the belief that it
wiped away all sins, however long they had been accumulating, and however late
it was administered. * * * There was the yet more dreadful superstition, that no
one could be saved unless he had passed through Baptism.” The second change,
according to Dean Stanley, was a change in form (logically and chronologically
the change in subject preceded the change in form, but we retain Dean Stanley’s
order). “For the first thirteen centuries “he writes, “the almost universal
practice of baptism was that of which we read in the New Testament, and which is
the very meaning of the word ‘baptize’—that those who were baptized were
plunged, submerged, immersed into the water. That practice is still continued in
Eastern churches. In the Western church it still lingers amongst Roman Catholics
in the solitary instance of the Cathedral of Milan, amongst Protestants in the
austere sect of the Baptists. It lasted long into the Middle Ages. Even the
Icelanders, who at first shrank from the waters of their freezing lakes, were
reconciled when they found that they could use the warm water of the Geysers. *
* * Baptism by sprinkling was rejected by the whole ancient church (except in
the rare case of death-beds or extreme necessity) as no baptism at all.” The
third change discussed by Dean Stanley is the change of subjects. From the
expressions that have already been cited, we might readily infer the course of
his discussion of this change. “In the Apostolic age, and in the three centuries
which followed, it is evident that, as a general rule, those who came to baptism
came in full age, of their own deliberate choice. We find a few cases of the
baptism of children; [27] in the third century we find one case of the baptism
of infants.[28] [27] He does not mean in the Apostolic age, but in the first
three centuries

[28] This last clause may be misleading. If the Dean states the matter too
strongly on our side, we do not think that we ought to take advantage of it, but
to correct it. We may observe that in the instance which Dean Stanley doubtless
has in mind here, the discussion of the subject in one of Cyprian’s letters, the
question is not as to whether infants may lawfully be baptized, but whether they
may be lawfully baptized before the eighth day, Cyprian decides that the
ceremonial impurity of the child ought to furnish no obstacle, and that if
grown-up people, who are full of pollution, are fit subjects of baptism, much
more are infants, who have personally committed no sin. We should be inclined to
infer from this passage, if its genuineness be admitted, that baptism of infants
was becoming common by the middle of the third century.

“The liturgical service of baptism was framed entirely for full-grown converts,
and is only by considerable adaptation applied to the case of infants Gradually,
however, the practice spread, and after the fifth century the whole Christian
world, East and West, Catholic and Protestant, Episcopal and Presbyterian, (with
the single exception of the sect of the Baptists before mentioned) have baptized
children in their infancy.[29]

[29] As we took the liberty of explaining a misleading passage to our hurt, so
now we object to the sweeping statement contained in the last sentence. In the
Middle Ages, the Petrobrusians, Henricians and many of the Waldeuses rejected
infant baptism. So also the Anabaptists and the Socinians in the sixteenth
century.

“* * * What is the justification of this almost universal departure from the
primitive usage? There may have been many reasons, some bad, some good. One, no
doubt, was the superstitious feeling already mentioned, which regarded baptism
as a charm, indispensable to salvation, and which insisted on imparting it to
every human being who could be touched with water, however unconscious.”

Here, as on the identity of presbyters and bishops, it would be easy to multiply
citations from English, German, French and American authors—men who stand
highest in scholarship and in general esteem, agreeing substantially as to the
nature, mode and all subjects of the baptismal ordinance as practiced in the
primitive churches.

We should find that almost complete unanimity exists among the scholars of the
world, (Roman Catholic and Protestant), with regard to the form of Apostolic
baptism; as to the subjects of baptism in the Apostolic churches, the unanimity
would be found considerably less; as to the nature of the rite, still greater
diversity of opinion would appear. The other ordinance of our Lord, designed for
perpetual observance, and practiced as such in the Apostolic churches, is the
Lord’s Supper. The significance of this ordinance, in the Apostolical churches,
was two-fold: First, to commemorate the incarnation and the death of the Lord
Jesus Christ. “This do in remembrance of me.” “As often as ye eat this bread and
drink this cup, ye do show forth the Lord’s death till he come.” Secondly, it
was a communion of believers with Christ and among themselves. “The bread which
we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? for we being many are
one bread and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread.” The word
rendered “communion,” in the passage just cited, means simply “participation
in;” but the expressions that follow show that the idea of joint participation
was also present in the Apostle’s mind.

We shall not attempt, on this occasion, to refute the doctrine of the real
presence of the body and blood of Christ in the ordinance under its two-fold
aspect of transubstantiation and consubstantiation; nor the theory in accordance
with which the Lord’s Supper partakes of the nature of a sacrifice. Such a
discussion would require more space than can be given to it, and would probably
interest few of the readers of this article.

Who, in the Apostolic age, were the participants in this ordinance? No one will
pretend that any but baptized believers were such. Believers, in the Apostolic
times, were promptly baptized; baptism forming, in the eyes of the Apostles, an
integral part of the profession of belief in Christ.

Certainly no one would have thought of partaking of the Lord’s Supper without
having made full profession of his conversion to Christ. Most Christian
churches, throughout the entire Christian era, have not only understood the New
Testament practice thus, but have themselves practiced close communion, i.e.,
have regarded communion as an ordinance to be participated in only by those who
have fulfilled all the conditions of church-membership.

II. Apostolical And Baptist Churches COMPARED AS TO FORM AND SPIRIT.

Such, as we humbly believe, were the essential characteristics of the
Apostolical churches. They acknowledged Christ as the only head, and regarded
his will, as communicated to them by the Holy Spirit and through the Apostles,
as absolutely binding. The Apostolical churches were composed theoretically, and
practically as far as rigid discipline could make them so, of true believers, of
the regenerate. Each Apostolical church was absolutely independent of all other
churches and of any men or class of men. The members of these churches were
possessed of equal rights and privileges, there being manifest nothing of the
nature of a hierarchy or sacerdotal class. Anything like a union of Church and
State is utterly repugnant to the Apostolical teachings with regard to the
nature and end of the church. The Apostolical churches chose out of their own
ranks officers for the performance of special functions, which officers regarded
themselves and were regarded, not as lords, but as servants or ministers of the
churches for which they performed functions. These officers were divided, in the
Apostolic times, into two general classes: bishops or presbyters, and deacons.
The ordinances instituted by our Lord for perpetual observance, and which were
faithfully performed in the Apostolical churches, were two: Baptism and the
Lord’s Supper.

Such were the Apostolical churches. What are the essential characteristics of
Baptist churches? Do Baptist churches correspond with Apostolical churches in
the first specification? They do most perfectly. As the Apostolical churches
depended for doctrine and for methods of organization upon Apostolical teaching,
representing to them the mind of Christ, so Baptists make the Scriptures, and
especially the Apostolical writings, given as they believe by Divine inspiration
for the perpetual guidance of Christians, and interpreted by the aid of the Holy
Spirit, their rule of faith and practice. As the New Testament churches were
organized in accordance with Apostolical direction, so Baptists believe that
churches for all time ought to be organized in accordance with Apostolical
direction, and, where express direction is wanting, they feel and maintain that
churches ought to proceed in accordance with the spirit of the New Testament
precept and example.

Baptists may make innovations within certain limits, but these limits are very
definitely fixed. There may be, in their view, development to meet the
exigencies of the times and the circumstances in which a church may be placed;
but such development must be strictly in a line with the New Testament precept
and example. No fundamental principle of Apostolical Christianity and church
order must be violated, however expedient such violation may, to human
comprehension, appear.

Christ is the supreme head of the Church, the Lord of the consciences of all
believers. His will is and must be the supreme rule for believers. Now Christ
either has revealed and does reveal his will to believers, or not. Either the
Scriptures set forth the will of Christ with regard to us, or not. If they do,
then we have a firm foundation whereon to stand, and we ought to stand upon it.
If not, we are left entirely to human caprice. The church order laid down in the
New Testament is exceedingly simple; but church order, Baptists hold, ought to
be simple.

Some minor matters, of Apostolical example, that bear no necessary relation to
what is fundamental in Christianity, Baptists may and do put aside.

Matters of practical expediency, which do not conflict with any fundamental
principal of Apostolical Christianity, but can be clearly shown to be in harmony
with such principles, Baptists wisely super add. But Baptists are and ought to
be exceedingly careful and conservative with regard to any such changes. They
recognize the fact that it is better to err on the side of conservatism than on
the side of liberalism.

Let us illustrate. Baptists have, for the most part, abandoned the Love Feast,
which was commonly observed in Apostolic times, in connection with the Lord’s
Supper, partly as a charitable arrangement for providing for destitute
Christians, and partly as a means of Christian social intercourse. Love Feasts
were not appointed by Christ, they were not enjoined by Apostolic precept, they
are rendered necessary by no fundamental law of Christianity. The fundamental
ideas which it was designed to subserve—liberal provision for destitute
Christians and fraternal intercourse among Christians— are of perpetual
obligation, and these ends are at present better subserved in other ways. On the
other hand: The Apostolic churches had no costly structures in which to worship;
had no musical instruments with which to accompany their singing of psalms; had
nothing, probably, which corresponded entirely with our Sunday preaching
services; had no regularly appointed Associations, Conventions, or Mission
Boards; had nothing corresponding exactly with our Sunday-schools.

Yet no fundamental principle of Apostolical Christianity is violated by the
building of costly structures for Christian worship, provided only that they are
paid for; that their building does not conflict with other Christian duties, the
caring for the poor, the dissemination of the truth at home and abroad, etc.;
and that they do not foster in the members of such churches a spirit of
self-sufficiency and pride, or deter the poor from the privileges of the
sanctuary. The use of musical instruments, in connection with Christian worship,
violates no fundamental Christian principle, in so far as it does not tend more
to sensuous gratification than to the intensifying of the religious aspirations.
The regular employment of the Lord’s Day for special preaching services by an
elder, one of whose chief functions is pulpit oratory, violates no fundamental
principle of Apostolical Christianity, so far as it does not weaken the sense of
responsibility in individual church members, so far as it does not foster the
habit of attending church services largely for the merely intellectual
gratification furnished by eloquent speaking, so far as it does not foster a
sacerdotal spirit; and so far as it does prove itself to be a great element of
power in winning souls to Christ and in promoting Christian intelligence and
Christian development. The evils which might otherwise flow out of this practice
are obviated to a great extent by the social meetings which are, in our
judgment, an elemental part of Christian church order. So also, in annual and
other associations of churches no Apostolical principle is violated, so long as
freedom of discussion is maintained, so long as they do not become practically
mere means of getting registered the decisions of a few; and so long as they do
promote Christian fellowship among the churches, knowledge in the individual
churches of the religious needs and the efforts to supply these needs in the
outside world, activity in the churches, (and of course in the individual
members of the churches) in every good word and work. Not only are such
associations not contrary to the Apostolic spirit, but they are clearly in
accordance with the Apostolic spirit. The aim of Christianity, and hence the
proper aim of every church, is the highest development of its members in
spirituality and in Christian knowledge, and the extension of the knowledge of
the truth to the greatest possible number of those that are without.

Whatever really favors this aim is sure to accord with the will of Christ and
with the spirit of the Apostolic churches. Yet we may well be on our guard
against incidental evils, such as those suggested above. That Baptists insist
upon regenerate church-membership has always been at the same time their glory
and the occasion of their being persecuted and treated with contempt by other
Christians. This principle, as it was the second fundamental principle in the
Apostolical churches, so it is the second fundamental principle in Baptist
churches. It was this, and not the rejection of infant baptism, that lay at the
bottom of the Anabaptist movement in the sixteenth century. Zwingle was inclined
to agree with Grebel, Manz and Hübmaier in their rejection of infant baptism,
until, all at once, it dawned upon him that something lay behind the rejection
of infant baptism in the minds of these earnest, godly men namely, a belief in
the necessity of a church of the regenerate. So, to-day, a belief in the
necessity of using all available means for the securing of regenerate
church-membership is the most fundamental principle of Baptist churches. From
this New Testament principle, this principle which cannot be eliminated from
Christian churches without great and constantly increasing harm, all other
distinctive points of Baptist, as of Apostolical, church polity, naturally flow.

If saving belief in Christ is necessary to church membership, then saving belief
in Christ is prerequisite to the validity of Baptism, an initiation into
church-membership involving a profession of such saving belief. Hence, infant
baptism was never thought of in the Apostolic age, and has been utterly
abolished by the Baptists, who have made the Apostolic churches their model, the
Apostolic spirit their guide.

Again, if all church-members are saints, regenerate, separate from the world,
united with Christ, sons of God, then there can be no such thing as difference
of rank or difference of privilege in churches of such constituency. All
sacerdotalism thus falls to the ground. Whatever officers the church may have,
they stand upon precisely the same footing as other members. Natural gifts may
fit one above another for the performance of certain functions, but the
performer is not elevated thereby, is put in no different relation to Christ, is
simply doing his duty according to the ability that has been given him, just as
the humblest Christian does his duty to the extent of his ability.

Again, as the Apostolic churches were independent, each of all other churches,
and relied upon the teachings of the Apostles at; embodying the revealed will of
Christ, but interpreted such teachings each one for himself,—”each one being
fully persuaded in his own mind,” and acting according to such persuasion,—so
Baptists believe that each individual church-member has the inalienable right to
interpret the Scriptures for himself, with the light which his education, his
reason, and the Holy Spirit give him, and to think and act according to the
dictates of his own conscience. This involves freedom of each individual in the
congregation, and freedom of each congregation from any outside interference,
whether of prelate, presbytery or State. As the Apostolic churches scrupulously
observed the two ordinances that Christ entrusted to them as matters of
perpetual observance, so Baptists preserve these ordinances in spirit, in form,
in subjects, to the best of their ability.

Baptists insist that the rite of baptism be performed by baptism, not by
rhantism. Just as only believers were baptized in the Apostolic churches, and
just as the ordinance is in its nature and design suitable only to believers, so
Baptists maintain and practice to the best of their ability.

Just as, in matters of great importance, Apostolical churches sought the counsel
of other Apostolical churches, and acted on such counsel freely when received,
so Baptist churches, as a matter of expediency, frequently consult with other
Baptist churches, on important local matters and on matters affecting the runs,
of Christ in general.

Again, just as the Apostles, as representatives of Christian work in different
regions, met at Jerusalem, in convention, to discuss questions of importance, so
now Baptist churches appoint delegates to assemble from time to time, to discuss
matters pertaining to the progress of Christ’s cause; and just as this
Apostolical convention appointed certain Apostles to a special work, so Baptist
churches by their delegates form missionary societies for the more efficient
carrying forward of the work of Christ at home and abroad.

III. Concluding Remarks.

Such are, in brief, the principles and the practices of Baptist churches, as
held to theoretically by the great Baptist brotherhood. Most institutions with
which men have to do are inferior to their ideals, especially if their ideals
are exalted and Christ like.

Although Baptists claim to make absolute obedience to Christ their fundamental
principle, how many Baptists give the lie to their profession by impure,
selfish, unevangelical lives!

Although Baptists insist theoretically upon regenerate church-membership, how
many Baptist churches tolerate, on account of financial and social
considerations, members that give abundant evidence of being members of Satan
rather than members of Christ!

Although Baptists believe in the divine right of every individual Christian to
interpret the Scriptures for himself, and to act freely according to the full
persuasion of his own mind, how scantily is this freedom, as a general thing,
accorded! Baptist churches have a standard of orthodoxy, partly written, partly
traditional, the aim and effect whereof is in many cases to hamper the freedom
of individual consciences. The amount of bigotry and intolerance to be found in
Baptist churches is, when compared with the fundamental principles of Baptists,
appalling!

Again, Baptist churches are theoretically democratical; but to how great an
extent are they governed oligarchically! Elders and deacons are theoretically
servants, ministers of the churches. How often, alas! do they insist upon
“lording it over God’s heritage.”

Even with regard to the ordinances, which Baptist churches alone keep
theoretically to the Apostolical norm, how much bigotry and Phariseeism often
find place in Baptist churches! As forms appointed by Christ, these ordinances
are important, but how sad it is to see large numbers of Baptist churches
exalting them practically above the spiritual elements of Christianity!

We can show, as we believe, that every important innovation upon the Apostolical
church order is evil in its tendency, and has been historically evil in its
results. We could show, for example, if time permitted, that the perversion of
the idea of the nature of baptism into a magical rite, containing in itself a
means of grace and securing remission of sins, led to the belief that without
baptism there is no salvation. This in turn, led to the introduction and the
general adoption of infant baptism, and hence to the discontinuance of effort to
limit church-membership to actual believers. This practice, in time, greatly
facilitated the union of Church and State, and the growth of hierarchy, with all
the corruption inherent in State churches and hierarchical churches.

It is not denied that circumstances may, in certain cases, hinder a similar
downward development, as a result of departure from New Testament principles;
but such being the tendency, and such the historical facts, we cannot be too
careful to avoid any departure from the principles of Apostolical Christianity,
however slight it may appear in itself, and however expedient it may seem, on a
given occasion, to make such a departure.

“The truth is immortal,” wrote Dr. Balthazar Hübmaier, the great Baptist of the
sixteenth century, on the title-pages of all his books. He thought he possessed,
and he did possess, the truth. He preached the truth, he lived the truth, he
died heroically at the stake for the truth. The principles that he taught were
too exalted for his age. He was hunted down by Protestant, and burned by Roman
Catholic, Scribes and Pharisees. But these principles—the supreme lordship of
Christ, the necessity of regenerate church-membership, the independence of the
local church, absolute freedom of conscience, and freedom in manifesting
religious thought and feeling in religious life and in church organization—
have, in their marvellous extension and general recognition, justified
abundantly the faith of this man of God.

It is never really expedient to sacrifice the truth. Let us teach the truth, let
us live the truth, let us die for the truth, if need be; and our reward will not
be wanting when we come to stand before Him who is the Author of Truth—nay, who
is Himself the Truth.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 10: 09 THE GOSPEL MINISTRY
========================================================================

The Gospel Ministry By J. M. Stifler, D. D., Pastor First Baptist Church, New
Haven, Conn.

“This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop he desireth a
good work.” 1 Timothy 3:1.

There was good reason for the writing of the words of the text. The condition of
things in the origin of the church evoked this emphatic utterance from the pen
of inspiration. The gospel ministry, in any such form as we possess it to-day,
was just begun. Apostles had been busy for years, but bishops and elders came
later to the oversight of the churches. Their function had not attained to the
dignity and honor that attend it to-day, nor that accrued to it long ago, when
bishops were the masters of kings, and when popes claimed universal authority.
When the text was written, the churches still existed which had emerged fresh
and pure from the slums of heathenism, or the darkness of Judaism—emerged
perfect and clean, like a diamond from the gutter. The “work of faith and labor
of love” was abundant among them. They were self-contained, and had a holy
self-sufficiency. But while they abounded in good works, and were “enriched to
all bountifulness ““able also to admonish one another,” they were not complete.
They had not surveyed the whole round of good works. Hence Paul must write such
words as in Php 4:8 : “Whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest,
whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are
lovely, whatsoever things are of good repute; if there be any virtue, and if
there be any praise, think on these things.” And since the office of the bishop
came to them after they had already exercised the other functions of a church,
it seems they questioned it. The members of the Apostolic churches, possessing
as they did the holy spirit in a miraculous way, being able to edify one
another, did not feel the need of a mere formal ministry. They could and did
exist without it. They abounded in good works without it.

How long this pastorless condition of the churches prevailed cannot be
ascertained. In some cases longer, in others not so long, in some perhaps not at
all. But that it existed is certain. Only in Paul’s returning missionary tours
did he ordain elders in the churches called out by the labors of his first tour.
Titus was sent, as we learn from the epistle to him, to ordain elders in
churches that existed we know not how long before his mission to them. And now
this pastorless condition, in which the word of the Lord prevailed, is the very
key to the text. What need of an elder, or an eldership, in churches doing the
work of the Lord? Is he who seeks such an office seeking a good work? Is not the
service he intends supererogatory, a service already being performed by the more
than half inspired membership?

Paul answers such suppositive questions in the words of the text. If a man
desire the office of a bishop, even in churches as complete in themselves as
these Apostolic ones, he desires a good work. The strength of the opposition to
the office can be guessed in the emphatic little preface to the text: “It is a
true saying.” It calls on the church to hear, and though well able to minister
to itself, to admit and honor the office. Let qualified men hear; and if,
through doubt or humility, hesitating to enter this office, hesitate no longer.
It is a good work. If any were disposed to despise the youthfulness of Timothy
in his labors in this office, the words of the text would be a help to him, and
a rebuke to them. The text suggests four points, which are also clearly brought
out in other Scriptures:

I. First. The state of things in which the gospel ministry arose.

II. Second. Some sort of induction into the office is implied.

III. Third. The place of female ministry in the work of the church is definitely
set forth.

IV. Fourth. The question of different orders of ministry is looked at.

I. The text suggests the state of things in the midst of which the office of
bishop had its birth. And an understanding of this original condition will shed
light on the topic of gospel ministry. Before the office was known, the churches
already existed. Their work and worship was complete. The churches arose not for
the ministry, but the ministry for the churches. The churches had and have an
existence independent of the office (we do not say of the need) of the bishop.
The simple fact that the churches of Icon him, of Derbe, of Lystra and of
Antioch existed for a time without elders (Acts 14:23), and without the presence
of an Apostle (and the same seems to be true of the churches in Crete,—Titus
1:5), raises a number of questions: Who led the worship? Who administered the
ordinances? Or were these duties omitted until the appointment of elders? But in
the membership of these churches, statedly meeting, admonishing and edifying one
another (Hebrews 10:24-25) must have been men who perceived the headless state
of affairs, perhaps often the lack of order (1 Corinthians 14:23-40), men whose
hearts longed to take the oversight, who desired the office of bishop. The
Apostles, or Apostolic agents like Titus, travelling among the churches to
ordain elders, would soon learn, on coming to each city, who such men were. The
church already existing for some time would have learned to know them and would
be able to say who had the qualifications for the bishopric (Titus 1:6-9). Or if
any church was too dull to know them, or felt complete in itself and quietly
ignored their superior ministrations, it was instructed in this matter. For so
we find Paul writing to the Thessalonians: “We beseech you, brethren, to know
them which labor among yon, and are over you in the Lord, and admonish you; and
to esteem them very highly in love for their work’s sake. And be at peace among
yourselves.” This passage is worthy of careful study. It was written a few
months after they had been called from darkness to light. (Acts 17:1-9). Timothy
had visited them once (1 Thessalonians 3:1; 1 Thessalonians 3:9) but hurriedly,
and in such a time of persecution that to ordain elders was impossible. This
visit, too was so shortly after their conversion that they would all be novices
(1 Timothy 3:6); and furthermore, if the elders had been formally inducted in
their office, by an Apostle, or any Apostolic agent, before the epistle was
written, whence the need of “beseeching” them now to “know” them? It would seem
probable, then, that the elders were as yet without their appointment, but
showing by their work their ultimate destination in the organization of the
church. They were over them “in the Lord,” to be over them in due time by formal
appointment; a condition of things which the Thessalonian church did not
understand, and hence were rejecting their coming elders’ service in a way to
disturb harmony. And so Paul must write this verse to the end that they may “be
at peace among themselves.” This exhortation to know God’s ministers is useful
for all time, the present especially. The churches should recognize the men
among them whom God has qualified to be overseers. Their divine credentials are
in their hearts. See to it that they are not hindered by withholding the
churches from their hands.

Such seems to have been the state of things in the churches at their origin—for
a time without elders, not fully recognizing the need of them, and not certain
that the office was divine. The words of the text were necessary. If in any
church men were desiring the office of a bishop, that desire was not to be
overlooked by the church, and the office was not to be considered unnecessary.
Its work was good. But whence came these men with holy aspirations for this as
yet but half-acknowledged office? They were in the church, participating in all
its privileges, its work, its trials, and yet they were something more than the
standard church member. They promised something more. In the appointment of the
Lord they were “over” the church. Saul, the first king of Israel, had the
designation, and the anointing to his office in secret. Israel was not aware of
it. Their lot cast subsequently was ultimately not theirs. The whole disposing
of it was of the Lord. (Proverbs 16:33.) The elders had a secret pre-appointment
of the Lord. The Scriptures give abundant answer to the question of their
source. Ephesians 4:8-12 gives us their origin. When he ascended on high he gave
gifts to men. These gifts were (and are) special, qualifying them for, and
warranting them to seek, the office of the bishop. It was a gift not of nature,
but of grace. For the gift is specifically connected with the ascension of
Christ, and his triumph at the cross. And not alone of grace, but of special and
distinguishing grace, so that they who received it could be recognized before
hands had been laid on them, or before they had been formally admitted to their
office.

Here, then, is light on what is familiarly termed the call to preach. If a man
desire. The unconsciously held gift will stir up desire in the soul. Again, the
words that the called, but as yet unrecognized, man utters in public or social
worship, his prayers and his general bearing, will mark him, so that the wise
and spiritual “know” him, and will perceive that already he is “over “them in
the appointment of the Lord. The gift of special grace within will manifest
itself without. Hence, for a man to assume this office without the special
qualifications which constitute the call is an unholy intrusion like that in 2
Chronicles 26:16-21. And though the ministry may seem to be crowded, it is
worthy to ask if we should not still pray the Lord of the harvest to send forth
laborers. For it is those which he sends that do his work, and not such as run,
no matter how good they may be otherwise, without being divinely sent.

II. Some sort of induction into the bishopric is suggested. The work and worship
of the Apostolic churches was conducted for months, and doubtless in some cases
for years, in a headless fashion. The extraordinary gifts of the Spirit
qualified them for this, and the need of special ministry was not recognized at
once. Furthermore it was not certain everywhere that it was right, else why the
text? There are hints that when offered it was not accepted. A careful perusal
of John’s third epistle will show this. It was some order of gospel laborers of
whom he says: “We ought to receive such,” the same persons whom Diotrephes did
not receive. The passage already quoted, 1 Thessalonians 5:12, shows that one
church at least was a little obtuse in the treatment of its elders. To the same
church it was said: “Despise not prophesyings.” And almost every epistle has
some good word for the elders, as if their status was not wholly settled. But
this must be carried in mind, that while to-day the elder or bishop, for the
words are synonymous, is often not wanted on account of the deadness of the
church, then he found no place from the very opposite state of the case—the
churches were so alive they ministered to themselves.

Now, in such an atmosphere how was the man, gifted by the ascended Lord and
already exercising these gifts—how was he to be formally recognized as leader
without some form? How was he to get his office, how his authority? Preach and
rule to some extent, and govern he already did. But how is he to be known as the
preacher and ruler in his particular church, where everybody else did the same.
See 1 Corinthians 14:26, and mark the words “every one.” It needed the strong
hand of an Apostle to put him there. Hence Paul qualifies Timothy for this work,
sends a Titus forth directly, and often attends to it himself. He writes to
Titus: “For this cause left I thee in Crete that thou shouldst set in order the
things that are wanting and ordain elders in every city as I had appointed
thee.” It needed a formal setting apart to put a man in the office in any other
way in which he was not in it already. It needed the authority of an Apostle to
convince the churches that he that desired the office was desiring a good work.
As to the details of that ordination, perhaps the Scriptures do not settle
everything. But some—the vital ones, seem certain.

First. The special mission of Titus (see 1st chapter) did not convey the
spiritual validity of the ordination. There is no hint in the prescription to
him or to Timothy that the ordaining agents did more than to regulate, to
direct, and perhaps to bring about the ordination of elders. Titus went to the
churches not to make bishops. God had already made them, and already they had
been doing the work pertaining to the office, else how was it known who was “apt
to teach.” The gift of ordination pertained to the eldership. Hence it was said
to Timothy: “Neglect not the gift that is in thee which was given thee by
prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery.” It was the will of
the Holy Ghost to invest him with the office of ruling and governing the church,
and this will one of the prophets uttered at the time of laying on of hands. The
verse in 2 Timothy 1:6 does not conflict with this. Paul was present at the
ordination (Acts 16:1-3) and doubtless laid on hands with the elders. The elders
were appointed on Paul’s return in his first missionary tour. The ordination of
Timothy occurred on his second tour. But it must not be forgotten that this
ordination of Timothy was something special, not strictly that of an elder; and
yet the elders’ hands designated him, just as the hands of the prophets and
teachers who sent forth Barnabas and Saul. And now that the eldership conveyed
whatever of gift was conveyed, what was this but the church acting through its
representatives, the church conveying the gift? A man desired the office of
bishop, for God had qualified him for it, and the church through the eldership
gave him that office. If there was no eldership as yet, a Titus goes forth to
establish it.

Second. As already implied, it is evident that the bishops discharged duties
pertaining to the office before that office was formally given to them. They had
at first an unpaid and an unrecognized ministry. How else could it be known who
was apt to teach? (1 Timothy 3:2.) As Titus went from church to church in Crete,
he would doubtless ask, as he came to each, Who among you has shown the
qualifications for a bishop, “holding fast the faithful word as he hath been
taught. * * * Able by sound doctrine both to exhort and convince the
gainsayers?” (Titus 1:9.) Who is apt to teach? Such inquiry would be exactly
equivalent to our examination, preliminary to ordination; and the fact that Paul
enjoins that these qualities are to be looked for, recognizes both God’s work in
the making of the minister and Titus’ incapacity to convey the grace to preach.
Titus went not to prepare a ministry. He went to find one that had already
evinced its preparation by its known and acknowledged works.

Third. It seems evident that hands would be laid 0n. Acts 13:1-3; 1 Timothy
4:14; 1 Timothy 5:22. The second of these Scriptures shows how Timothy was
ordained himself. The third, if it refers to ordination, implies unmistakably
that imposition of hands was already practiced in the setting apart of elders.
Ellicott, against the authority of Chrysostom and Theodoret, denies its
reference to ordination. But Alford shows, and what is still better, the context
shows, that it has no other. But it is a fact to be noted that nowhere in the
Scriptures does an Apostle lay hands on an elder. If Titus did it there is
absolutely no record of it, and this passage, which implies certainly that
Timothy might do it, also implies that it was to be done along with others. “Be
not partaker of other men’s sins.”

Fourth. It would then seem that the power of ordination resided in the churches.
Their elders were all already among them, graciously given and qualified of God.
They had already exhibited their aptness to teach and their fitness for the
sacred office. Nothing was needed but to grant it to them. This was done by
themselves under the direction of an Apostolic agent, to whom they pointed out
their own men. Does anyone suppose that Titus, or even Paul could have placed a
man over an Apostolic church that shook its head. It must not be forgotten that
churches felt themselves complete, possessed of an authority and dignity
equivalent to that of an Apostle; so that Apostles themselves were tried by
them. Revelation 2:2. They were instructed to test prophets. 1 John 4:1. They
hesitated not to question even Paul. 2 Corinthians 11:16; 2 Corinthians 13:3-6.
They were plainly instructed in their almost divine dignity. (See 1 Corinthians
6:2-3;1 John 2:27.) One can fancy with what righteous indignation they would
have spurned the attempt to impose the minister of a modern church conference
upon them. The Apostolic church carried its vitals within itself. It contained
the ministry, the ministry did not contain it.

Here, then, with the condition of the Apostolic churches before us, we can see
both what was the need of and what essential to, ordination. And have we not
just about that which belongs to the service as exhibited in the practice of
Baptist churches? Two things would materially help in the ordinations of to-day:
First, if it was seen just what the word means—a recognition and an appointment.
And when they had ordained them elders.—Acts 14:23. “Who having appointed for
them elders.”—Hackett. The word “ordain” savors of Rome and of more modern
ecclesiasticism. Secondly, if in seeking the evidences of a call we paid more
attention to the qualifications accompanying it,” not a novice,” “apt to teach,”
“sound doctrine,” and all the rest that in the epistles to Titus and to Timothy
is so explicit. That man’s desire to be ordained, who has not exhibited these
qualifications before his brethren, should not be hastily allowed, if at all.

III. The relation of female ministry is definitely set forth. If a man desire
the office of a bishop. And the emphasis is not in the word, for in the original
it is indefinite—any one—but most strikingly in the context, which goes on to
give the bishop’s qualifications entirely in the masculine gender. He must be
the husband of one wife, having his children in subjection. There are no
qualifications for a female bishop anywhere. This is the more striking, when we
remember that, a female deaconship being allowed, (Romans 16:1, original),
qualifications for the same office are given for females,—1 Timothy 3:11—a
passage wholly obscured by translating interpolations. “Women in like manner
when engaged in the same office,” is the way Ellicott puts it. The New Testament
knows no such office as a female pastorate, and in express terms forbids it. The
work of teaching is pointedly limited to men. For see 1 Corinthians 14:34, and 1
Timothy 2:12 : “I suffer not a woman to teach.” But it may be inquired, do not
such sweeping and general statements exclude women from the Sunday-school,
condemn female missionaries to the heathen, and contradict the plain
implications to the contrary in other Scriptures. For, said Peter in his
quotation, Acts 2:18, “And on my hand-maidens will I pour out in these days of
my Spirit, and they shall prophesy,” which always includes giving instruction.
And did not Philip, the evangelist, have four daughters, “which did prophesy:’?
Acts 21:8-9. Does not 1 Corinthians 11:5, fairly imply that even in this very
church where it was forbidden, Paul recognized a lawful prophesying on the part
of women? To note three points will do much to reconcile the whole,—what is
forbidden, and where and why. First, what: “I suffer not a woman to teach.” The
word “teach” is not general, else Philip’s daughters had their gift in vain, the
female Sunday-school teacher is in error, and the foreign missionary sister is
violating God’s appointment, and Peter is going too far when he says of the
hand-maidens: “They shall prophesy.” The word is specific. “And they commanded
them not to speak at all nor teach in the name of Jesus,” Acts 4:18, where it is
contrasted with speaking. “Teaching and preaching the word, Acts 15:35, where we
have again an instructive contrast. In like manner in Romans 13:6-8, the
teaching is contrasted with prophecy, ministry, exhortation and ruling. To
forbid teaching does not, in itself, forbid any of those works with which it
stands here in contrast. Christ gave pastors and teachers. The two are linked
together in Ephesians. And so in forbidding teaching, the pastorate is
forbidden, nothing more. There are several parts of music for the female voice
without singing bass. But in the office of teacher she is to be absolutely
silent. If it is insisted that in Corinth it was said: “Let your women keep
silence. It is not permitted unto them to speak,” the second question is raised:
where was it forbidden? In the churches. It is not forbidden in the informal
meetings, as the Sunday-school, the prayer meeting. It is not forbidden one
female to teach others. We do not see that anything but the pulpit is denied.
For, third, what is the ground of the prohibition? And this will elucidate the
whole matter. Teaching implies and includes superiority and authority. We have
seen that the bishop, the teacher, was set over the church as leader or ruler.
We are told of the elder that” ruled “well. In some sense the bishop was made
head of the church in which he ruled. Now if a woman were put in the place of
the bishop, she would be head, leader, ruler of her own husband, a violation, of
the law, (1 Corinthians 14:34; Genesis 3:16), a violation of the order and
intent of creation. 1 Timothy 2:13-14. For this seems to be the one grand reason
of the prohibition, that it makes woman the head of the man. It is this that
makes it a shame for them to speak. But suppose the woman have no husband? She
has a father, it may be, or someone who is head. And then, the prohibition gets
force, too, not alone from the marital relation, but from the order of creation.
Adam was first formed, then Eve. Man is ever to be first. The bishopric, that
highest place of honor on earth, belongs to him alone.

IV. Does the office of bishop in the text have any similarity with the office
bearing the same name in modern church building? None whatever. One bishop in
modern episcopacy implies several churches. One New Testament church implies
several bishops. The modern bishop implies a union of local churches under one
name and government. The New Testament bishop belonged to his own local church,
and the union of the churches of a state or country in one is unknown in
Apostolic times. We have not the “church of Galatia,” “the church of Judea,” but
the “churches.” Each one was separate, independent, having no bond of union in
itself or beyond itself except the possession of a common experience in the
membership of the redemptive power of Jesus, faith in whom was expressed and
confessed by baptism. The churches existed for a time without officers. And now,
when these come to be bestowed, bishops and deacons alone are given. The same
authority which it took to introduce the elder would have been required to
promote an officer over him. And if that authority was ever exercised, we have
no record of it. Again, from the qualifications left us for church officers, we
gather that there were but two orders, bishops and deacons. Where in the New
Testament do we find the qualifications fora dean, or a presiding elder, for an
arch-bishop or for a pope; where for a class leader, or a circuit-rider? There
are rules for just two officers, and to take those in Timothy referring to the
bishop, and to apply them to anyone else than the local preacher, ruling a
single local body, is a palpable misuse of them. The New Testament knows but two
officers for the church of which the bishop is head, but head of the local
church only. And here he is over men, too, his equals in Christ. They do not
call him master.

We find qualifications for but two officers. Incidentally those of an Apostle
are mentioned, but in such a way as to show that the office was limited to the
cotemporaries of Jesus. Acts 1:21-22. In the case of Paul, there was a
miraculous manifestation of the risen Lord, nothing short of which could give
another Apostle. Prophets and evangelists are mentioned, but are nowhere given
any official connection with the church. They were only church members, having
these special gifts, the prophets in more than one case being women, to whom the
official relations of the eldership were denied.

It is trifling to attempt to break the force of this argument from the
qualifications by saying that none are prescribed for church clerk, church
treasurer or sexton. These are not church officers, or only so much so as the
servants of the family,—necessary to it, numbered with it, but not having a
vital relation. But the Scriptures speak of both elders and bishops. They never
contrast these words, never conjoin them. But they do distinctly identify them.
The bishop is an elder, as Titus 1:5, compared with 7, or Acts 20:17, compared
with 28, distinctly shows.

Finally, the Apostolic salutation, in the epistle to the Philippians, is
instructive, both as to the organization of the church, and the relative dignity
of the church and its officers. The address is as follows: “Paul * * to all the
saints * * at Philippi with the bishops and deacons.” He mentions first the
saints, or church, secondly the bishops, and thirdly the deacons. The epistle
was not among the earlier ones, as that to the Thessalouians, but written when
the church in Philippi was fully organized. On this passage Dean Alford, himself
a Churchman, comments: “The simple juxtaposition of the officers with the
members of the church, and indeed their being placed after these members, shows,
as it still seems to me, against Ellicott, in lac., the absence of hierarchical
views such as those in the epistles of the Apostolic fathers.” When, then, Paul
wrote the text, he had one of the two officers of Christ’s church in mind, an
officer of the local body only, and possessed only of so much authority as gave
him the front rank of his own brethren in Christ,—a simple, beautiful relation,
like that of a father in his own family. And one of the marvellous features of
the perversity of the human heart is, that while the spirit of Christ is
simplifying human governments, lifting up the masses and limiting the rulers;
while the Lord’s prayer, “Our Father which art in heaven,” is fostering and
bringing on a universal brotherhood; in the church in some quarters the opposite
tendency is at work, and all the machinery of tyranny exists. How strange that
there is in the world a strong tendency toward that simple form of government
which God loves, while in some religious realms the tendency is the contrary
way!—the children of this world wiser than the children of light.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 11: 10 THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A BAPTIST CHURCH AND ALL OTHER CHURCHES
========================================================================

The Difference Between a Baptist Church and All Other Churches By Thomas
Henderson Pritchard, D. D., President of Wake Forest College, N. C.

“It was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should
earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.”—Jude
1:3.

“No religious denomination has a moral right to a separate existence unless it
differs essentially from others. Ecclesiastical differences ought always to
spring from profound doctrinal differences. To divide Christians, except for
reasons of great import, is criminal schism. Sects are justifiable only for
matters of conscience, growing out of clear Scriptural precept or inevitable
logical inference. Human speculation, tradition, authority of pope, or council,
or synod, or conference, or legislature, is no proper basis for an organization
of Christians. Nothing short of the truth of revelation, the authoritative force
of God’s word, rising above mere prejudice, or passion, or caprice, can justify
a distinct church organization.”

We accept this luminous statement of an important truth, made by Dr. J. L. M.
Curry in a recent premium tract, and claim the right of a Baptist church to
exist on the ground that it differs from all other churches in its constitution,
membership, ordinances and doctrines, and that these differences are authorized
by the Word of God. If other denominations, which hold to sprinkling and pouring
as baptism, teach infant baptism, infant membership, and open communion, can
justify themselves in maintaining a separate ecclesiastical organization, then
much more can the Baptists, who differ from all in many essential and important
points, vindicate their right to existence, and free themselves from the charge
of bigotry, schism and intolerance. I propose to answer to-day the question, How
do Baptists differ from other Christian denominations? I will first present a
brief summary of our distinctive doctrines, as given by Hiscox in his Baptist
Church Directory, p. 118, and then discuss the principles on which they are
based:

“First.—As to Baptism, we believe that immersion or dipping is the only way of
administering this ordinance as taught in the New Testament, and practiced by
Christ and his Apostles, and the only way in which Christians can obey the
command to be baptized. Consequently, the mode is essential to the ordinance,
and nothing but immersion is baptism. Therefore, persons poured upon or
sprinkled upon are not baptized at all.”

“Second.—As to the subjects for baptism, we believe that the only suitable
persons to receive this ordinance are those who have exercised a saving faith in
Christ, and are regenerated by the Holy Spirit. Consequently, unconscious
infants ought not to be, and cannot be scripturally baptized, since they can
neither exercise, nor profess that faith in Christ; and to baptize such is
contrary to the teachings and practice of Christ and his Apostles, and most
hurtful and injurious to the spiritual welfare of the children so baptized.”

“Third.—As to the subjects for church membership, we believe that such persons
only as are truly regenerated, and have been scripturally baptized on a
profession of faith in Christ, can properly become members of a Christian
church. Consequently, neither persons sprinkled, instead of being baptized, nor
unconscious infants, nor unregenerated persons, are suitable to become members
of a church. To receive the unregenerate to its fellowship would destroy the
distinction between the Church and the world, and contradict the entire spirit
and genius of the gospel.”

“Fourth.—As to the subjects for communion, we believe that the Lord’s Supper is
to be partaken by members of the church alone, being such persons as are
regenerated and baptized on a profession of their faith in Christ, and are
walking in the faith and fellowship of the gospel. Consequently, neither
unregenerate persons, nor unbaptized persons, through regenerate, nor persons
walking disorderly and contrary to the gospel, even though baptized, can
properly be invited to partake of this ordinance. Therefore, Baptists do not
invite sprinkled members of Pedobaptist churches to their communion, because
such persons are not scripturally baptized; nor do they admit immersed members
of Pedobaptist churches, because such persons are walking disorderly as the
disciples of Christ, by holding membership in, and walking in fellowship with
churches which receive sprinkling instead of baptism, thereby sanctioning and
sustaining a perversion of Christ’s ordinance and a disobedience to his
commands. For the same reason, they decline to commune in Pedobaptist churches,
as being contrary to good order.”

“Fifth.—As to church government, we believe that each separate and individual
church is entirely independent of all other churches, persons and bodies of men,
either civil or ecclesiastical, and is to be governed by its own members alone,
without aid or interference of any other person or persons whatever.
Consequently, churches governed by popes, bishops, synods, presbyteries,
conferences, or in any other way than by their own members directly and
exclusively, are not constituted on the model of the primitive churches, nor
governed according to the gospel rule.”

“Sixth.—As to the scriptural officers of a church, we believe there are but two,
viz: the pastor, called in the New Testament “bishop,” or “overseer,” “presbyter
“or “elder,” and deacons. Consequently, those churches which admit more than two
officers or orders in the ministry, have departed from the gospel rule and the
construction of the primitive church.” This plain statement of our principles
shows clearly that there is a wide difference between a Baptist church and all
other churches—a difference which affects, not a few unimportant points, but
which enters into the very constitution of a gospel church, and which, from the
very nature of the case, places the Baptists in opposition to all other
professing Christians. The world, therefore, has a right to ask, By what
authority do you array yourselves against all Christendom in maintaining these
doctrines! The question is pertinent and reasonable, and I will endeavor to
answer it. In the first place, I reply, that it is not because of sectarian
bigotry. There is a spirit of sectarianism among us, as there is and must be
among all denominations, so long as they maintain a separate existence; and a
certain measure of this feeling is by no means to be condemned, though when
carried to excess it is hurtful to Christian character. I am ready to grant,
too, that the Baptists are under greater temptation than other Christians to
cultivate the spirit of sectarianism unduly, by reason of the fact that they
stand alone in maintaining their principles, and necessarily antagonize all
other churches; but I am at the same time very sure that I speak the truth, when
I declare that we cherish as kindly and as Christianly a spirit towards other
denominations as they do towards us, or as they do towards each other. I venture
to assert that there is to-day as much, if not more, good feeling between myself
and the pastors of the Pedobaptist churches of this city, and between this
church and the churches they represent, as among themselves; and this
notwithstanding we maintain close communion, while they enjoy the gracious
influence of open communion, usually regarded as an unfailing source of union
and good fellowship. It is, therefore, no want of Christian charity which makes
us hold these doctrines. Nor is it because ought of earthly honor or earthly
interest ever has or ever will accrue to us in holding this exclusive and
independent position among the Christians of the world, for they that hold these
doctrines must suffer persecution. Their maintenance in all ages past has cost
untold sacrifices of treasure and of blood. History will prove that of all the
people who have suffered for conscience sake the Baptists have been the victims
of the most unremitting and relentless persecution. The first and the last
martyrs who sealed their faith with their blood on British soil were Baptists;
and it is even true now, that while many of their principles have fought their
way to an honorable recognition among the best thinkers of the world, “this is
still the sect everywhere spoken against,” as in the days of the Apostles.

No, my brethren, it is not that we do not hold the members of other churches to
be Christians; nor that we do not esteem them for their works of faith and
labors of love; not that we do not heartily cooperate with them in many
departments of Christian labor; not that we would not profoundly rejoice if we
could all see eye to eye and face to face, and think and speak the same thing,
and thus form a united army of “the sacramental hosts of God’s elect”; but
because we believe the great principle of respect for God’s holy Word compels us
to differ from those we love, and constrains us to maintain and vindicate what
we regard as important and imperishable truth. And this brings us to the great
cardinal principle of all Baptist churches:

First.—The Sovereignty of God’s Holy Word We hold that the Bible is the supreme,
the sufficient, the exclusive and absolute rule in all matters of religious
faith and practice, and it is a rigid adherence to this principle which
separates us from all other churches, Romish and Protestant, and constrains us
to hold and propagate at all hazards, the doctrines which distinguish us as a
people. To quote authorities (and this I do freely, for my object in this
discourse is usefulness, not originality), the great Dr. Francis Wayland says,
in his Principles and Practices of the Baptists, page 85: “We propose to take as
our guide in all matters of religious belief and practice, the New Testament,
the whole New Testament, and nothing but the New Testament. Whatever we find
there we esteem as binding upon the conscience. What is not there is not
binding. No matter by what reverence for antiquity, by what tradition, by what
councils, by what consent of any branches of the church or of the whole church
at any particular period, an opinion or practice may be sustained, if it be not
sustained by the command of Christ or his Apostles, we value it only as an
opinion or a precept of man, and we treat it accordingly. We disavow the
authority of man to add to or take from the teachings of inspiration, as they
are found in the New Testament. Hence, to a Baptist all appeals to the Fathers,
or to antiquity, or to general practice in early centuries, or in later times,
are irrelevant and frivolous. He looks for divine authority as his guide in all
matters of religion, and if this be not produced, his answer is, “In vain do ye
worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.” The same sentiment
is admirably put by Dr. Curry in the tract already referred to.

“Baptists differ fundamentally from Pedobaptists in practically adhering to the
New Testament as the sufficient, the exclusive, and the absolute rule of faith
and practice. The soul of Baptist churches is submission and conformity to the
New Testament. Individual liberty is to be regulated by divine law. The end of
revelation is the limit of moral and religious duty. Loyalty to Christ must in
all things take precedence to personal inclination. The New Testament is not to
be supplemented by tradition, nor the syllabi of popes, nor the decrees of
councils or synods, nor by the acts of civil government, nor by motives of
personal convenience, nor by parental constraint. No Christian can take as
obligatory upon his conscience the belief or practice of any person, family or
church, or nation, except as sustained by the Word of God.” We know that other
denominations claim that they, too, take the Bible as their only guide in all
matters of religion. We do not question their sincerity, but at the same time we
are obliged to regard them as having forsaken this great principle in respect to
points cited as representing our distinctive tenets. In maintaining these
principles we feel that we are under the most sacred obligations to protest
against the errors of Protestantism itself, and that God calls us to a
responsibility and imposes upon us a dignity such as he put upon Luther, Calvin,
and Knox, and other reformers of the sixteenth century.

II. Closely allied to this high doctrine of regard for God’s holy Word as
exalted to supreme authority, and indeed growing out of it, is another, very
dear to Baptists, which is “the personality of all religious duties “—the
individual responsibility of every man for the performance of his own duty. The
Old Testament dealt with man in families and nations; the language of the New
Testament is, “every man must give account of himself unto God.” Daniel Webster
once remarked that “death brought every man to his individuality.” So does the
Christian religion. In the performance of a religious duty there can be no
sponsor or proxy. No one, however close his relationship, can answer for
another.

Each human soul is responsible to God for the discharge of its own duty.
Everyone must repent for himself, believe for himself, and obey for himself. The
faith and obedience of my parents or friends will not avail for me, and
“compulsory or involuntary baptism is no more allowable than compulsory or
involuntary taking of the Lord’s Supper.” If faith, prayer, obedience of any
kind, is an individual duty, then baptism, which, in the Scripture is always
joined with faith, is also an individual duty, and, therefore, the baptism of an
unconscious, unbelieving infant is a violation of this principle, since it not
only lacks the elements of personal faith and personal obedience, but robs the
child, when it can believe, of the unspeakable privilege of personally obeying a
command of Christ, as baptism is an ordinance to be administered but once. There
are duties, very important religious duties, which parents owe to their
children; they should not only feed, clothe and educate them, but bring them up
in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, and by constant prayer and earnest
effort seek to secure their salvation; but, as the Scriptures do not require
them to repent, believe and be regenerated for their children, and as, in the
nature of the case, it is impossible for them to perform these personal acts for
their offspring, so baptism, which is equally a personal act, cannot be
performed by a parent for a child.

III. A legitimate deduction from this principle of the personality of religious
duty gives us the sublime doctrine of soul-liberty—freedom to worship God
according to the dictates of each man’s conscience. If each human soul alone is
responsible to God for the discharge of its duty, then no human authority has a
right to come between that soul and its God, and therefore, all interference
with the faith and practice of man in matters of religion, whether that
interference be from human government, parental authority, or religious
teachers, under the name of priests, pastors, or what-not, is a violation of the
sacred rights of conscience, and not to be tolerated. Many think this doctrine
of religious liberty the outgrowth of modern Christianity—a development not so
much of the Gospel as of experience and enlarged Christian liberality. So far as
civil governments are concerned it is certainly a new doctrine, for Judge Story
says, “In the code of laws established by the Baptists in Rhode Island we read,
for the first time since Christianity ascended the throne of the Cæsars, the
declaration that conscience should be free, and men should not be punished for
worshipping God in the way they are persuaded he requires.” But in religion it
is not a new doctrine. The New Testament plainly lays down the principle that
while taxes and tributes belong to human governments, conscience and souls
belong to God alone; and this doctrine the Baptists have always steadily
maintained. As Chevalier Bunsen, for twelve years the esteemed ambassador of
Prussia at the Court of England, and a Lutheran, declares, “the principles and
polity of the Baptist church will not allow it to persecute;” while the great
American historian, George Bancroft, has said, “Freedom of conscience, unlimited
freedom of mind, was from the first the trophy of the Baptists.” For seventeen
hundred years the Baptists stood alone in the world as the advocates of
religious liberty. Papists and Protestants, Lutherans and Calvinists,
Episcopalians and Presbyterians, all repudiated this doctrine as the dreadful
dogma of the despised and persecuted Ana-Baptists. But while all hierarchs and
State religions have sought to destroy this principle, it has never been
extinct. Handed down from generation to generation; entertained, sometimes for
ages in succession, only by those who were cursed as heretics; driven from
country to country by the cruel hand of persecution—its history all gory with
the blood of the saints, it is vital in every part, and has been preserved by a
gracious Providence, and will live on to bless the world “till the last syllable
of recorded time.”

IV. The twin brother of religious liberty—offspring of the same cradle—is
another principle ever held sacred by the Baptists: the right of private
judgment in interpreting God’s Word. If the Bible is our supreme and exclusive
rule of duty, and if each individual is personally accountable for the discharge
of that duty, then it follows, as a logical necessity, that every man has a
right to read and interpret the Bible for himself. “The Baptists have always
held that the Bible was given by God, not to a priesthood, to be by them
diluted, compounded and adulterated, and then retailed by the pennyworth to the
people, but on the contrary, that the whole revelation in all its abundance of
blessings, with all its solemn warnings and its exceeding great and precious
promises, is a communication from God to every individual of the human race. It
is given to the minister in no higher, better or different sense than it is
given to everyone who reads it. Every one to whom it comes is bound to study it
for himself and govern his life by it.

“The wisdom of Omniscience has tasked itself to render this communication plain,
so that he that runs may read, and that the way-faring man, though a fool, need
not err therein. The Holy Spirit, moreover, has been sent to assist everyone who
will, with an humble and devout heart, seek to understand it. With such a
revelation and such spiritual aid, every man is required to determine for
himself what is the will of God. He has, therefore, no excuse for disobedience.
He cannot plead before God that he could not know His will. He cannot excuse
himself on the ground that his minister deceived him. The revelation was made to
the man himself, and the means were provided for his understanding it. Every one
of us must give an account for himself unto God.” This extract I have quoted at
length from Wayland’s “Principles and Practices of the Baptists,” page 132, for
two reasons—first, because the idea is admirably presented, and also because, as
the opinion of one of our great representative men, it carries with it more
weight than any utterance of my own.

Having thus stated our doctrines, and the principles on which they are founded,
I propose to present, in closing, several conclusions which seem to me to be
legitimately derived from the principles discussed.

First.—The Christian religion is the religion of a book. That book is its
supreme law, and contains all we know or need to know of that religion. Whatever
precept, doctrine or ordinance is found in that book has authority to bind men’s
consciences in matters of religion. Whatever is not in that book is only of
human origin and is not binding upon men’s hearts and consciences; therefore, we
stand upon a foundation of solid rock when we take that book as our only rule of
faith and practice. We are often asked what is the creed, confession of faith,
or standard authority of the Baptist churches? To this question we have but one
reply: “The New. Testament is our rule of faith and practice; we have no creed,
confession of faith, book of discipline, Book of Common Prayer or book of church
law but this.” If other denominations reply to this answer— “We, too, take the
Bible for our guide, but we have also authorized confessions, creeds and
formularies, which have been prepared by our wisest men and adopted by our
highest ecclesiastical tribunals, and to a greater or less degree all our
members subscribe to and are governed by them. Indeed we see not how we could
preserve our unity and protect ourselves from serious errors and divisions, if
we had not some authorized standards;” —to all this we reply, that we cannot
recognize the authority of any earthly tribunal, and the nature of our polity
forbids the adoption of any such standards. Every church, therefore, when it
expresses its own belief, expresses simply the faith of its own members. We
believe in the perfect independence of every church of Christ. If several
churches understand the Scriptures in the same way, and adopt the same
confession of faith, then they simply say thereby that they understand God’s
Word as teaching the same truths, and they adopt them because they believe they
accord with the Holy Scriptures, and not because any tribunal other than
themselves has given such interpretation to the Scriptures. The authority is
still in the Scriptures; and we repeat with emphasis, that we believe the
Scriptures are a revelation, not to popes, or bishops, or presbyters, or
pastors, or to councils, synods, assemblies, or conferences, but to each
individual man, to be read and interpreted by himself and for his own guidance.
And, strange as it may seem to others,—several Pedobaptist churches have
expressed their surprise to me at the fact—wo have never felt the need of
authorized standards and confessions of faith to preserve our unity and secure
us from division and heresy. The truth is, there does not now, nor ever did
exist, a denomination of Christians, which has for so long a period, and with
such entire unanimity, held the same doctrines as the Baptists. It is a most
extraordinary fact that the confessions of faith put forth by the Baptists in
the days of Henry VIII., who began to reign in 1509, and later, in the times of
Cromwell and Charles II., are almost identical with those now generally
entertained by Baptist churches. Authorized standards, enforced with pains and
penalties of the most fearful kind, have not secured uniformity of faith to the
Church of Rome, nor protected this great hierarchy from heresy and schism. Nor
have the Episcopalians, the Lutherans, the Presbyterians, or the Methodist
churches been more fortunate in this particular; while the Baptists have at the
same time preserved their liberty and enjoyed the blessing of harmony. And why
should it not be so? If the Bible is given to every man to be read and
understood for himself, why should we be surprised that the greatest amount of
unity attainable among men has been produced by a resort, not to human
standards, which are fallible, but to the infallible Word of God, which we know
is true, and which affords the most solid basis of unity to be found among men?
The second remark I wish you to note is that the reliance upon the pure Word of
God has not only been the means of preserving us from divisions, but it has
preserved us from error as well, and reserved to us a purer faith than that of
any other people under heaven. Do any object to the assertion of such high
claims on our part, because we have numbered among our members not many of the
great and learned of this world? We reply by saying that, doubtless, we owe our
singularly pure faith to the fact that we have not had such guides to follow. As
another has well said, “Our fathers for the most part, were plain and unlearned
men. They had no learned authorities to lead them astray. They mingled in no
aristocratic circles whose overwhelming public sentiment might crush the first
buddings of earnest and honest inquiry. As little children they took up the
Bible, supposing it to mean just what it said, and willing to practice just what
it taught. Having nowhere else to look, they looked up in humility to the Holy
Spirit to teach them the meaning of the Word of God, and they were not
disappointed. It was thus that they arrived at truth which escaped the learned
and the intellectually mighty.”

Finally, brethren, consider the exhortation of the Apostle that you should
earnestly contend for the faith, once for all, delivered to the saints. The
principles we have hero discussed constitute our peculiar inheritance as a
people. In my judgment, they bring with them a dignity, and involve a
responsibility, such as God bestows upon no other denomination of Christians.
These principles are the hope of the world. They constitute the impregnable
foundation whereon all forms of religious error, whether Papal or Protestant,
Pagan or Scientific, can be encountered and overcome. Let us hold them with a
tenacity, esteem them with a reverence, and circulate them with an energy and
enterprise such as never distinguished the Propagandists of Rome, in the days of
their greatest prosperity. To do this, we must understand these principles and
appreciate their unspeakable importance. The great German, Krummacher, said some
years ago to Dr. Sears, “You Baptists have a future.” May the God of all truth
keep us true to these great and glorious doctrines, and give us grace that we
may ever be faithful to the honorable trusts committed to our charge. Let us be
careful, however, always and everywhere, that we contend for those principles in
the proper spirit. The truth we must speak, the whole truth, and nothing but the
truth, but it should be spoken in love. We have no right to discharge one duty
by violating another in the spirit in which we do it. As for myself, I have
never been able to see why a man should cease to be a Christian gentleman
because he was a Baptist, oncease to love Christians of other denominations
because we differ from them. Of these three, faith, hope and charity, the
greatest, God says, is Charity.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 12: 11 THE MULTIPLICITY OF DENOMINATIONS AN EVIL
========================================================================

The Multiplicity of Denominations an Evil By Rev. J. B. Gambrell, Clinton, Miss.

“They have healed also the hurt of the daughter of my people slightly, saying,
Peace, peace, when there is no peace.” Jeremiah 6:14.

Taking these words as suggestive, I shall proceed directly to the discussion of
a matter which has long appeared to my mind to be of grave concern to all
Christian people. It requires no argument to convince Bible-readers that the
first churches had a common faith, as they had also a common Lord and a common
baptism. At the beginning there was unity in belief and practice. This is clear
upon the face of the inspired records, and it is equally clear that it was the
will of our Lord that this happy state of things should continue. A caution was
given against those who caused divisions contrary to the doctrines of Christ.
Our Saviour prayed for the unity of his disciples. The whole tenor of the New
Testament Scriptures strongly indicates unity. But in the course of time changes
came. Instead of visible bodies known as the churches of Christ, all holding the
same doctrines and practicing the same things, there are hundreds of schismatic
bodies, each with its special doctrines and peculiar forms of worship. The
heresy of schism is not only acquiesced in by great multitudes of professing
Christians, but it has been elevated into a doctrine and boldly proclaimed from
many a pulpit. The present state of things is extolled as tending mightily to
the conversion of the world. This is the popular view, and I am aware that to
take a strong stand against it will bring upon me the charge of bigotry,
narrowness, etc. Nevertheless I have stern convictions upon the subject, and
taking all risks I shall write on the question as the Lord helps me.

“The Multiplicity of Denominations an Evil” is what I shall attempt to show.
Taking the text as a guide I shall notice—

I. The injury inflicted upon the cause of Christ by the multiplicity of
denominations.

II. The pleas for divisions, insufficient, unreasonable and unscriptural.

III. The impossibility of a settled peace under existing circumstances.

I. Under this head let us in the first place look at the mangled form of truth.
The Scriptures present a perfect body of divinity, grand but simple. It was
constructed and rounded out under the master hand of Deity. It is perfect. And
more, it is exactly suited to the wants of our race. It needs no emendations nor
reconstructions. And to realize the most perfect unity it is only necessary that
all men humbly accept the simple system of truth revealed in the Scriptures.
This has not been done. From very early times down through all the ages a
process of adding to and taking from has been going on. Hence the various
denominations of to-day. This is historically true, beyond dispute. The Romish
hierarchy is the slow growth of centuries, mainly the work of men’s hands. Other
sects around us have a kindred history, as might be shown did time and occasion
allow. They all have some truth. Let us thank God for that! Yes and I will thank
God that even in the Romish system there is truth, saving truth. The foundation
rock is there in the doctrine of the divinity of Jesus which Catholics hold. It
is fearfully overlaid by tradition and superstition, but it is there, and again
I thank God! I will add that it is my hope and belief that in Rome even and all
her Protestant branches, there are many of God’s own elect people. But while all
these sects hold truth, they do not hold all the truth, and they maintain much
that is not truth. Thus the Divine system of truth has been mangled. Will any
one say there is no harm in all this. He would be a daring man who would do so.
A traveler, writing from Rome, laments that the petty nobility of that city
irreverently tear down the magnificent old temples and take the stones to mix
with other material in the construction of their private residences. And just so
have men done with, God’s grand temple of truth. This cannot be right. Such a
procedure is attended by the most serious consequences and deserves the gravest
censure. It is a work in which we will have no part and to which we will give no
sanction. But let us pass to notice that these divisions obstruct the course of
truth. I accord to ministers of other denominations—many of them—the sincerest
desire to forward the cause of our common Saviour. This is done with the utmost
pleasure, and it detracts nothing from what I am about to say. These good men
are hindered by the errors of their own systems. There have been Christ-loving,
soul loving preachers in the Romish church, who sought earnestly to bring the
truth savingly near the hearts of the people. But their congregations were
wrapped about with the grave-clothes of ritualism. They fought bravely, but the
sword of truth was encased in a lifeless formalism, and could not cut its way to
the heart. All error is a hindrance, as all truth is a help. It is painful to
see good men struggling with their own errors. Take the English church: it has
much precious truth in its creed, but this is neutralized in large measure by
much error. It is so everywhere. Even our Presbyterian brethren, with a
doctrinal base all of pure granite, are embarrassed by their views of infant
baptism and other kindred doctrines. A man .who is bound to maintain that
baptism is the seal of the covenant cannot so powerfully enforce the doctrine of
salvation wholly by the sovereign grace of God. And more: whatever tends to
hinder the free preaching of all truth in due proportion, must be an evil. The
multiplicity of denominations has this tendency. In many places it is very
unpopular to preach upon certain doctrines concerning which the sects are not
agreed. Although clearly in the Bible, they are put under ban by a misguided
public sentiment, lest the preaching of them should give offense. Many a man,
too weak to stand against the prevalent sentiment, yields. The temptation to be
silent is great, and the voice of truth is smothered. Men, who have been set for
the defense of the gospel, speak with bated breath, because there are those
before them who would take it as a personal unkindness, and an attack on their
denomination, if the whole truth should be spoken plainly. Many a man who sees
clearly that salvation must be entirely by grace, will not tell dying sinners so
in unmistakable terms, because of the Arminian element in his congregation.
There is a nervousness in pew and pulpit which is not favorable to the advance
of scriptural views. Why! in many places certain denominations have pre-empted
the ground, and it is held improper to go there and preach as the Scriptures
most clearly teach.

Again: downright opposition to the truth is another evil growing out of the
multiplicity of denominations. Truth is exclusive. It will form no alliance with
error; nor will it agree to a truce with heresy. From this inherent disposition
of truth it follows that often it must be crushed to make room for that which is
not the truth. It is no part of my plan to discuss baptism in this article, but
I will allude to the baptismal controversy for an illustration of the truth of
the statement just made. It is no more than just to say, that if ever any
question ought to be regarded as settled beyond doubt, it is that which now so
much disturbs the world. By every proof, immersion is the act which Christ and
his Apostles both taught and practiced. Yet in how many ways is this divine
institution attacked? Every theory is invented which tends to subvert it.
Ridicule and even the charge of indecency are employed to destroy this
institution of the gospel and make room for innovations.

Other truths have fared no better. How much the cause of Christ has been impeded
by such opposition to his truth no one can know. I do not mean to say that men
have wantonly opposed the truth, but only that they have been under the
influence of a strong denominational bias, and so have done what they otherwise
would not have done. The evil effects, however, are the same.

I have said that the existence of conflicting sects prevents the free preaching
of the truth. Look at the other side of the question. The multiplicity of
denominations greatly promotes the preaching of heresy. Men will propagate the
creed of their church, and that, too, without taking any great pains, as a rule,
to find out whether the creed has the sanction of the Scripture. Now, no one can
fail to know that where there are so many differences there is no little heresy.
Things differing from each other cannot be equal to the same thing. All are not
right; all cannot be right. There are, beyond dispute, grave heresies abroad,
and these heresies are the life of the sects. Take from Rome her “Infallibility
dogma,” her “Baptismal Regeneration,” etc., and she would be Rome no more. And
so, if what is unscriptural were taken from all, there would be a great deal
accomplished toward unity. But with what energy do preachers uphold the
inventions of men. How earnestly, even bitterly, do men contend for
denominational peculiarities unknown to Apostolic times, and how blind are many
to all reason. I suppose, if I say that a full half of all the preaching done in
the world is in support of denominational dogmas for which there is no
scriptural warrant, you would hardly doubt it.

Let us reflect for a few moments upon the difficulties thrown in the way of the
ungodly by the multiplicity of denominations, each with its peculiar teachings.
Many a time I have gone to an ungodly man to urge him to seek Christ, and have
been met with something like this. “I hear so many different things, that I
don’t know which is right. Sometimes I think they are all wrong, and that my
chance is about as good as any.” The world is confused, and no wonder it is. Not
long ago I was assisting in a protracted meeting. There was a young man
attending the meeting, who seemed to be under deep concern for his soul. We
tried to point him directly to Christ for salvation. Others advised him to join
their church, telling him that he would be more likely to be converted in that
way. Others still urged him to be baptized right away, assuring him that in this
act of obedience his sins would be washed away. There were still others who told
him of the power of the church to do what was needful for him. The poor man,
confused, went back to the world, and is now utterly hardened. This is only one
case of thousands.

Now, just for a little time think how the path of obedience is blocked up before
the feet of young converts by denominational influences. A person gives his
heart to Jesus, and wishes at once to obey his dear Lord and Saviour. In the
Scriptures the path of duty is very plain, but he is not sent to the Bible to
learn his duty. He is told to go with his family, or to consult his convenience,
or he is urged by one to do this, and by another to do that. Confusion is spread
around him. Maybe he goes to his Bible and reads the simple law of Jesus
touching baptism, the first public Christian act. He sees his duty; but he is
not let alone to perform it. If he cannot be argued out of his conception of the
meaning of the command, he may be persuaded that he need not obey it, seeing
that it is not essential. If he is a minor, or if the subject is a daughter or a
wife, sterner measures may be employed. This is no fancy picture.

I must just mention here that, under the influence of sectarian zeal, the Word
of God is trampled underfoot of men, and the authority of the Highest set at
naught. In proof of this, I need only refer to the hundreds who readily confess
that they believe immersion to be of divine origin, but who, nevertheless,
refuse to leave their denomination to obey Christ. Are there not some such among
my readers? I must call your attention to another point which, to my mind, is
important. By the injection of error into the religious world, we are called
upon to repel it. There are some men among us who seem greatly to enjoy this
business. They are properly called “heresy hunters,” and, so far as appearances
go, they would be extremely miserable if the whole world were to come suddenly
right. As for preaching Christ simply, they seem not to have been called to do
that. The denominational wars have given us a race of theological pugilists from
whom we may well pray in the language of the prayer-book, “Good Lord, deliver
us.” But, after all, error must be met! Straightforward, peace-loving men are
often compelled to leave a work they love better, to repel the attacks of error
upon the citadel of truth. The necessity is thrust upon us, and often we must
leave off building the walls to repel the enemy. Thus time and effort are lost,
and, what is still more serious, often an unholy spirit is fostered. I verily
believe the low state of religion in many places is to be attributed to
denominational wars, which have been warmer and longer, perhaps, than was
necessary. In the next place, I must briefly call your attention to the untold
waste caused by the multiplicity of denominations. Take almost any village of a
thousand inhabitants, and you will see from five to six churches. These have
generally, with much inconvenience, built houses of worship, and are maintaining
a sickly existence. As many ministers, as churches, address handsful of people,
for which they receive a mere pittance. The strength of these bodies, in many
cases, is wasted in strife among themselves, instead of being directed unitedly
upon the ungodly in the community.

Now, I ask, in all reason, what is the use of this waste? Let us suppose that
instead of all these churches, there was one, with one house and one minister,
preaching the truth, all the truth, and nothing but the truth, and that all the
people of God were united in every good word and work. How much better it would
be for that community. And then, think of those other men going out to preach
the same truth to the destitute. On this plan, how quickly could the gospel be
sent to every community on the face of the earth! This is an intensely practical
point. It is a matter that ought to lie with ponderous weight upon the
conscience of the Christian public. The present state of things is wrong,
radically wrong. The last point that I will mention under this head is the
promotion of infidelity by the multiplicity of denominations. Our Saviour prayed
that his disciples might be one, even as he and his Father are one, that the
world might believe that his Father had sent him. There is a powerful force in
unity to strengthen faith; there is a powerful force in division to weaken
faith. The prayer of Christ teaches this truth, and reason and observation
confirm it. Not all the avowed infidels in the world can inflict so deadly a
wound upon the faith of the age as Christians and professed Christians are doing
by their open divisions. Their diverse teachings, open strife, petty jealousies,
palpable denials of the doctrines of Christ, and the changes which they take to
themselves the liberty of making in the divine order of things, act disastrously
upon the highest interests of the world. We have but glanced at the evils
growing out of a multiplicity of denominations. Time would fail us to enumerate
all of them, or to adequately discuss them. But let us pass on to notice that: —

II. The pleas for division are insufficient, unreasonable and unscriptural.
There are many such pleas. Only a few of the more prominent can be mentioned
here.

“There is variety in all the works of God, and it is reasonable that there
should be variety in religion.” This is very specious. If God had not prescribed
a religion, I would agree that endless variety might be right. As it is, there
is no serious objection to variety in the mere circumstances of worship. If my
Episcopal friend wishes to preach in a gown and surplice, I will not deny him
the pleasure, though it is not at all to my taste. That is a circumstantial
matter, and differences concerning it amount to nothing important. But when my
friend teaches “baptismal regeneration,” etc., then we must part, for the point
is vital. Yet we cannot hold different views on that question without sin on one
side or the other. If baptismal regeneration be the truth of God, clearly we all
ought to accept and teach it. If, as I believe with all my heart, there is no
such thing taught in the Scriptures, then my friend in the surplice is very
wrong to palm off such a notion upon the world. There is no room for variety, if
we all keep to the truth on the question. Now, this reasoning applies to every
doctrine of the Bible. If God had meant that there should be different churches,
with different creeds, he would have made different revelations to suit. As he
has revealed but one Lord, one faith, one baptism, and one system of doctrines
throughout, it is clear that he meant there should be unity in all these
matters.

“People cannot all believe alike, and therefore we must not expect them to do
so.” Is there any natural difficulty in the way of any one’s believing what God
has revealed for our acceptance? Let those who are willing to risk it tell the
Judge in the last day that they could not believe what he taught them. There is
no valid excuse for not accepting the truth, and God will have none. We may be
sure of that.

“It is wise to have different denominations, so that all may be suited.” This
plea proceeds upon the notion that people are to be pleased in religion. The
idea is radically wrong. It reverses things. It is our duty to please God by an
humble and willing obedience to the truth. The Almighty has not undertaken to
suit the world. Besides, if this plea be well founded, we have need of still
other denominations, for there are many people yet unsuited. Such excuses will
not heal the hurt inflicted upon the cause of Christ.

“All the denominations are branches of the church, and right, each in its own
way.” Is this true? is the first important inquiry. We have all heard much of
the branches of the church. Where is the proof that the church has branches
differing one from the other? Looking into the New Testament, we find many
churches, but they were of the same faith and order. In vain do we search the
sacred records for a trace of these divergent and antagonistic branches. Has the
church really branched I Whence come the denominations of the present time?
History informs us. If I say that they are branches of the Romish apostacy, I
speak only an historical truth. Let no one say that I am uncharitable. I must
speak the truth. That may humble, but should not offend. Is it not known to
everyone that John Calvin led out the Presbyterian branch, Martin Luther the
Lutheran branch, and Henry VIII. the Anglican branch? Methodism is a branch of
the last named. Is Rome the true church of Christ? No Baptists and but few
Protestants think so. Rather, she is the scarlet-robed persecutor of Christ’s
Church. If Rome be not the real church, then are not these denominations
branches of the true church; for they are the offshoots of that body, and, as
the celebrated Methodist minister, Dr. Bond, aptly said, “The hues of Romanism
are inlaid throughout all Protestantism.” So much in vindication of the truth,
as touching the branch theory which satisfies and misleads the consciences of
many.

Upon the last part of this plea, I wish to say that no one exactly believes it.
It sounds broad and charitable to hear men say,” all are right, each in his own
way.” But people frequently say more than they mean. In this case, they say more
than they can mean. The mind of a sane man is not constructed to believe that
“yes “and “no,” with reference to the same thing, can both be true. We cannot
believe both sides of a contradiction. When my brother, down the street,
preaches up infant baptism and I preach it down, everyone knows that somebody is
wrong. It is idle to say that each one is right in his own way. There is but one
right way, and that is the Scriptural way. If he affirms that the Scriptures
teach such a doctrine, and I deny it, one of us has the misfortune to be wrong.
When our Calvinistic brethren preach up the doctrines of grace, and our Arminian
brethren preach them down, somebody is point-blank wrong. And just so it is with
every point of disagreement. With all the charity which characterizes our
brethren of other persuasions, I have always noticed that they do not think as
much of our doctrines as they do of their own. This is very natural, I will
admit; but, at least, if we are all right, each in his way, they should not
inveigh against what we hold to be the truth. I have a decided impression that
if any or all of them could succeed equal to their wishes, the Baptist branch
would soon be no more; we would be converted to other views. As for myself— and
I am persuaded I speak the honest sentiments of my brethren — I would be glad to
see the whole world converted to Baptist views. I cannot say that a man is
right, and straightway seek to change him. The all-right theory is clearly
all-wrong.

I must come now to the last division of the subject, and speedily to a close.

III. The impossibility of a settled peace under existing circumstances. We hear
the cry, “Peace, peace!” “when there is no peace,” and there can be none till
truth is triumphant. Error is a disturbing element, and those who have foisted
innovations upon the Christian system are responsible for disturbing the peace
of Israel. Those who maintain these errors are also responsible. The
responsibility lies altogether with those who have forsaken the old paths. To
earnestly defend the faith once delivered to the saints, is a high Christian
duty. As matters now stand, there can be no peace; we will not hold our peace;
we dare not do it. Sprung directly from Christ and his holy Apostles, and
descended through a long line of martyrs, Baptists have a duty to perform, in
vindicating the old faith, which they must not shirk. Our obligations to Christ
and a proper regard for the highest interest of the race alike urge us to stand
fast by the old landmarks of gospel faith. We have no terms of compromise to
offer, and there are none we can accept. Our orders have been received from the
Captain of our salvation; it only remains for us to obey them, and insist, to
the last, that others do the same. Just as long as men preach baptismal
regeneration, we will preach against it. If men will insist on an unregenerate
church-membership, we are bound to oppose them. We will not even agree to the
substitution of sprinkling or pouring for gospel baptism. Nor will we take
infants instead of believers as proper subjects for baptism. And just as sternly
will we oppose the inversion of the ordinances, putting communion before
baptism, though this would please many people whom, in other matters, we would
gladly accommodate. I trust that we know well the difference between servants
and Master, and that, being servants, we will make it our chief concern to obey.
We will have no personal feelings in our advocacy of the truth, but in love we
will speak the truth fully, plainly, constantly, till, under God, it prevails
over the world.

It is related that there was great commotion and anxiety in the Romish Council
which passed the Infallibility dogma. Many of the more prudent bishops feared
the rupture of the church by such a bold measure. After the famous dogma was
passed, surrounded by an excited crowd of prelates, Archbishop (now Cardinal)
Manning, of England, holding the paper aloft in his hand, said, “Let all the
world go to bits, and we will reconstruct it on this paper.” The religious world
is going to bits. Gradually, but surely, Protestantism is growing out of its
Romish wrappings. Infant baptism is not now believed in as it once was. Right
views of both the design and act of baptism prevail more and more. Even Rome
cannot now hold the masses in her grasp as she has done in the past. The age is
one of unrest. The means of communicating knowledge are constantly multiplying.
Men are everywhere coming into a larger inheritance of personal liberty and
responsibility. Truly, the old world of thought and faith is going to bits, and,
under God, Baptists are called upon to reconstruct it, not around an infallible
(?) man, but upon the infallible Word of God, which endureth forever. The very
times admonish us to stand fast in the old ways, and to give to the simple truth
of Jesus, which makes men free indeed, a consistent, earnest, and life-long
advocacy. And may the God of all grace, the God of peace, give us evermore the
help of his Spirit, and, through the truth, hasten the day when all lovers of
Jesus shall see eye to eye and speak the same things. Amen.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 13: 12 MISSIONS, THE SPIRIT OF CHRISTIANITY.
========================================================================

Missions, The Spirit of Christianity. By Rev. J. B. Hartwell, D. D., San
Francisco, California [30]

[30] Twenty-one years Missionary to China, of the Foreign Missionary Board of
the Southern Baptist Convention; now Missionary of the Home Mission Board of the
Southern Baptist Convention to the Chinese in California.

“For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works
of the devil.”—1 John 3:8. From the time that the angels who fell left their
first estate, from the time that the first faint thought of self-exaltation cast
its blighting shadows across the unsullied heart of the Son of the Morning,
there has been going on in the universe a struggle between good and evil,
between truth and falsehood, between holiness and sin, between God and Satan.
That there is a personal devil, and that he has set himself to mar, and has
miserably marred, the fairest works of God; that, in his hellish antagonism
against all holiness, and everything that exalts and honors God, he has, by wily
and malignant deception, succeeded in alienating our race from holiness and from
God, are truths so plainly taught in the Bible and manifested in the world
around us, that only the willfully blind can fail to perceive them.

Deceiving our first mother, and through her overcoming our federal head, Satan
corrupted the very fountain of human life, and from that time he has found the
human heart, in every country and every age, an easy prey to his artifices.
Artfully concealing his purpose and his agency from his victims, with an angelic
wisdom and foresight, he has led man on from sin to sin, from one degree of
depravity to another, till the race now wraps itself in iniquity as a garment;
aye, luxuriates like a carrion worm, in its native corruption and filth.
Availing himself of his superior wisdom and ability, and of man’s weakness;
perverting even the noblest and most heavenly sentiments of the human heart, he
has, to the utmost of his power, subordinated to his own antagonism against God
and truth, everything, good and bad, in man, who has allowed himself to be led
willingly captive. Like a roaring lion, he has gone forth to destroy. Like a
cheat, he has deceived the nations. He has attacked the mind, the heart, the
body. He has corrupted the languages, the tastes, the customs, the faith of all
the nations. Perverting man’s tendency to religion, which is innate, he has led
him into idolatry. Jeroboam, the son of Nebat, when he had led the ten tribes to
revolt against the house of David, the rightful sovereigns of Israel, lest their
love of religion, taking them to Jerusalem and to the sanctuary of Jehovah, that
glorious temple that Solomon had built, should restore the people to their
rightful Lord, set up golden calves in Bethel and in Dan, and proclaimed these
the gods of Israel; and by satisfying thus, with a pretense and a lie, the
religious tendency of the people, he kept them away from the true God, and from
their lawful sovereign. And no name has come down to posterity stained with a
blacker infamy than attaches to Jeroboam, the son of Nebat, who caused Israel to
sin.

Just this, on a far grander scale, Satan has done. Having led the world into sin
and alienated man from God, lest his inborn tendency to worship should lead him
back to God, he has perverted this heavenly gift, and made it the grand means of
separation between God and the human soul, by instituting Idolatry. Walk with me
in China, and I will show you gods by the wayside, gods at the bridges, gods of
the fields and gods of the cities, gods of the courts, and gods of the kitchen,
gods of the sea, and gods of the streams, gods of wealth, and gods of disease.
Listen to the languages of the nations, and you find superstition and
devil-worship ingrained into them, and unconsciously breathed by the youngest
child who has learned to speak. The forms of conception, the habits of life, the
foundations of society, are built upon superstition and religious error. Go with
me to ancient Greece and Home, to Africa, and the islands of the sea, and I will
show you as religious worship, orgies involving the violation of every moral
sense, every sense of decency and virtue. Custom, custom makes right; and
Satan’s shrewdness is nowhere more exercised than in the institution among all
people of customs, involving immorality and degrading crime. Who but Satan could
have instituted the custom of Ancestral worship, appealing to some of the
tenderest and noblest sentiments of the human heart, by which the Chinese have
been enslaved for thousands of years? Who but Satan could have instituted
foot-binding, which in China, for scores of centuries, has crippled, and almost
annihilated for all good, nearly one-sixth of the human race? Satan understood
too well the power and influence of woman as a strategic force, to allow her to
escape his observation and special care. Hence the customs involving female
degradation that prevail everywhere, except where the pure gospel of Jesus
Christ has shed its light and influence. The natural delicate tenderness, the
strong tendency to purity and goodness, the tenacity to truth and virtue, that
characterize uncorrupted women; the tender mother-love, the almost unbounded
mother-influence, are all checked or perverted by the arch-fiend, by female
degradation and ignorance. The moral sense of the ancient Greeks and Romans must
have revolted at the horrid lewd rites involved in their religious worship. Yet
Satan had made custom sanction them, and thereby the horror was modified, and
the devil continued to be worshipped. But when, revolting at the absurdities of
heathenism, the human mind demanded something better, Satan was equal to the
occasion, and Mohammedanism arose, which, for eleven hundred years, has blighted
with its curse many of the fairest lands of Asia, Africa and Europe. And Satan
ventures on holier ground. He enters the arena of truth, and, by its perversion,
establishes man in his opposition to God. Judaism, at first the earthly
embodiment of the truth of God, has been perverted to opposition to God’s own
truth; and now, the descendants of “the friend of God,” to whom pertained the
promises and the sanctuary, and by whom, as pertained to the flesh, the Christ
came, are the inveterate and irreconcilable enemies of the truth, to which their
own existence as a scattered, peeled, despised, yet separate and distinct
people, bears the strongest testimony. Christ came to his own, and his own
received him not, but cried, “Away with him, his blood be upon us and upon our
children.” And till to-day they know not his saving grace; but, calling
themselves the people of God, and believing that they are serving God, they are
marshalled in Satan’s army, and direct all their mighty energies against God’s
plan for destroying the works of the devil. Would God Satan had stopped here!
God-defiant, he has entered the very holy of holies, and, in the Church of Jesus
Christ, has raised up Antichrist, so which, veiled in the garb of the very Bride
of Christ, but in heart charged with the venoms of the pit, has gone forth his
chosen emissary to deceive the nations. O Rome, Rome, Rome! what hast thou done?
From every land whore thou hast held thy sway comes the wail of superstition,
ignorance and blood—energy stifled, mind enslaved, heart poisoned, truth
crashed, vice rampant, God defied, Satan enthroned. But the mind of man will
not, cannot remain always bound by the absurd superstitions and slavish
subserviency of Rome; and, breaking loose from its shackles, it rushes, led
still by the arch-deceiver, into the mazes of infidelity. Like the pendulum,
from the one extreme of credulity, giving up soul and body to the dictum of the
priest, the mind swings to the other extreme of infidelity. And here the enemy
avails himself of every agency. Education, incipient science, the art of
printing, the telegraph, literature, are all perverted to his service and to
opposition to truth, to holiness and to God. On the other hand, however, the
Bible teaches, with equal plainness, that Jesus Christ was sent into the world
to overcome all this evil. For this purpose was the Son of God manifested, that
he might destroy the works of the devil. In this struggle between good and evil,
between God and Satan, the Bible represents all created intelligences as
interested; and especially in the work of reconciliation that Christ is
effecting, are their interested feelings and sympathies elicited. Paul speaks of
himself and his fellow-apostles as appointed unto death, and as a theatre, a
spectacle to the world, to angels and to men; representing the world, the angels
and men as gazing with intensest concern, as if upon one of the gladiatorial
shows, in which persons appointed to death were set to struggle in mortal combat
with wild beasts. The angels are interested, they desire to look into this
mystery. From the time of their creation they had been wont to bow in adoration
before the Son of God. Now they behold a mystery involving his humiliation, his
ignominy, his suffering, his death. It staggers them, and they desire to look
into the mystery. They are all ministering spirits sent forth to minister to
them who shall be the heirs of salvation. And they seem anxious to take part in
the .conflict. Right gladly they visited the saints under the Old Testament
dispensation and under the New. Right gladly they ministered to the Saviour in
the hour of his extremity in Gethsemane.

So, too, the saints are concerned. When it was permitted to Moses and Elijah to
visit the Saviour at the time of his transfiguration on the mount, the only
theme that could claim their conversation in that precious hour was the
sacrifice that he should accomplish at Jerusalem. And God also himself is intent
upon the struggle, and upon the manifestation of his glory which is to result
therefrom. Paul says, “Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is
this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable
riches of Christ, and to make all men know what is the fellowship of the mystery
which, from the beginning of the world, hath been hid in God, who created all
things by Jesus Christ to the intent that now, unto the principalities and
powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of
God, according to his eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our
Lord”—(Ephesians 3:8-11)— i. e., unto Paul was granted the privilege of
preaching among the heathen, and of letting all men know the fellowship of the
mystery which had been hid in God from the beginning, but was now revealed
through his holy Apostles; vis., the mystery of God’s purpose in creation; that
he had created all things by Jesus Christ, to the intent that now unto the
principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the
manifold wisdom of God; that he had made the world expressly that, through his
redeemed here, he might manifest to all the intelligences of the universe such
glories in his character and workings, as, in all eternity, there had been no
opportunity of exhibiting before. With God this has become, if I may so speak,
the grand theme, the supreme thought. The great themes of the Bible, its
stupendous truths, are Man’s Apostacy and God’s Redemption. The Old Testament
history was evidently written with an eye expressly to these doctrines. They
constitute the burden of the prophets, they give all their music, all their
sweetness to the Psalms, and the New Testament is but a final and authoritative
reiteration of the same doctrines. The central figure of Christianity is Christ.
Around him cluster all its glories, in him centre all its joys, all its
affections, all its hopes. He is the great sun of the Christian system, around
which revolve its doctrines, its principles, its ordinances, its theories, its
promises, its threats. He is the great source whence emanate all the Christian
inspiration, all its light, its warmth, its vivifying power. And Christianity is
the central system of God’s universe. As the suns of God’s numerous systems are
supposed to revolve about a common centre, towards which they gravitate, so
about Christ and Christianity revolve, and towards Christ and Christianity
gravitate God’s purposes, his providences, his works, his glories and his
affections. Here is his peculiar joy, here his highest glory. Man has sinned,
but Christ has redeemed him. Satan has corrupted man, but Christ purifies him,
and makes him meet for companionship with angels and with God. Man has degraded
himself to hell, but Christ exalts him to heaven. The essence of Christianity in
the individual soul is likeness to Christ, union with Christ. The key-note of
the Christian life and character is fellowship and sympathy with Christ. The
Christian’s fellowship with Christ in this life and the life to come wax the
object of the death of Christ. “Our Lord Jesus Christ died for us, that whether
we wake or sleep, we should live together with him.” 1 Thessalonians 5:10. Our
Lord Jesus docs long for the companionship and fellowship of his people. He did
when he was on the earth. From among the multitude of his disciples he chose a
dozen men that they might be with him. One object of our Saviour in selecting
the Twelve doubtless was that, by their being constantly associated with him,
witnessing his miracles, listening to his instructions, and imbibing his spirit,
they might be the better prepared, after his removal from the earth, to build up
and establish his kingdom in the world. But one object, also, was that they
might be with him. And accordingly we find that, during his public ministry,
only on those occasions when, though he was God, he felt it necessary to
withdraw from all human companionship, and spend a season in communion with his
Father in heaven, did he separate himself from his chosen disciples. When he was
about to go away from the earth, his heart seems to have yearned over those
disciples. “I go,” he says, “but I will not leave you comfortless. I go to
prepare a place for you, and if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come
again and take you to myself, that where I am there ye may be also.” Again, he
says to thorn, “Because I live ye shall live also,” as though there was a
necessity in the fact of the Saviour’s living that his disciples should live
also; as though life would not be life for Christ unless his disciples, too,
should live. And, then, in that last prayer to his Father, recorded in the
seventeenth chapter of John, he says, “Father, I will that they whom thou hast
given me be with me where lam;” as though heaven would not be heaven to Christ
unless his disciples were there to share its glories with him. Strange!
Incomprehensible! It almost seems as if the Lord Jesus were stooping to that
which is unworthy of him as God, that he should long for the companionship and
fellowship of such poor, miserable creatures as ourselves. And yet we are taught
as plainly as language can express it, that the Lord Jesus longed for this, and
so longed for it as to be willing to die to attain it. The fellowship with
Christ here spoken of, is to be begun in this life. The Christian is not to wait
till he passes beyond the river to the other shore, to live with Jesus. It is
“whether we wake or sleep,” i.e., whether we live or die, whether here or in the
spirit land, that we are to live with Christ.

There is such a thing as the Christian’s living along with Jesus here in this
life. Our Saviour, before he left the world, promised his disciples that he and
his Father would come and take up their abode in the hearts of his people. Aye,
there is more, even a conscious presence of the Lord Jesus. He promised that he
would manifest himself to his own as he would not manifest himself to the world.
He lets the Christian know of his presence and his love. I remember to have read
somewhere of a man who was to spend the night in the same room with Bengel, the
author of the Gnomon. Bengel was a holy man, and the Christian felt it would be
a privilege to witness his devotions. He watched him, saying to himself: “Now, I
shall see Bengel pray.” But when the hour grew late, the old man, weary, closed
his books and laid aside his papers, and, lifting his eyes to heaven, said; “O
blessed Saviour, the same old relation between thee and me continues,” and
quietly laid himself down to sleep. It was not necessary for the old man, worn
as he was with his day’s labors, to go through with even the form of prayer.
There was a fixed, established relation between him and his Saviour, Bengel
loved Jesus, and Jesus knew it; Jesus loved Bengel, and Bengel knew it; and it
was only necessary for him to say to his Redeemer: “Blessed Saviour, the same
old relation between thee and me continues,” and in perfect confidence he could
lay himself down to rest. The afflicted Christian sometimes attains this same
spirit of confidence, union and harmony with the Divine will. Oft repeated and
long continued suffering has brought him into a state of acquiescence in the
Divine will and purposes, and he feels, “Whatever God wills, I will; whether for
joy or for sorrow, for comfort or for pain, for life or for death.” And it is
the Christian’s privilege always to live in this state of harmony with God and
companionship with God. And if his privilege, then his duty. But how can two
walk together except they be agreed? Two men, all whose tastes, affections,
purposes, aims, hopes are diverse, cannot walk together in love. Every subject
that arises for discussion involves a dispute. There is a jar, a discord. They
do not think alike, feel alike, act alike; and before they can walk and live
together in peace, they must come to have some common character, some common
principles, some common interests, aims, purposes, affections. Now, if our Lord
Jesus Christ died for us that we should live with him, it follows, necessarily,
that he died for us that we might be united with him in sympathy, in character,
and in desire.

If space permitted, it would be pleasant and profitable here to study the
character of Jesus Christ, and to dwell upon some of those features in his
character in regard to which we must be like him if we would live with him. Mark
his humility. Though God, and knowing himself to be God, he yet moved an humble
man among humble men. When reviled, he reviled not again; when rebuked, he
threatened not, but ^meekly, gently, lovingly bore all. Go to Jesus Christ and
learn how to live humbly before God, humbly among men. Note, too, his diligence.
Whatever his surroundings, in the crowded city, or in the solitude of the
desert, always ready to work. Having left the multitude on one occasion,
expressly to seek a little rest for himself and his disciples, the multitude
hearing of his whereabouts and following him, he was not too weary to come forth
and preach to them. And when, journeying through Samaria, he sat wearied at noon
upon the curbing of the well near the city of Sychar, while his disciples went
into the city to buy food, there came a woman of Samaria to draw water, Jesus
was not too weary to talk to her of the water of life, nor to preach two whole
days to the Samaritans concerning the kingdom of God. Go, reader, to Jesus
Christ and learn how to labor. Contemplate his tenderness and sympathy,—always
touched with the woes of the distressed. Go to Jesus Christ and learn how to
succor the needy and the suffering. And there is a fellowship of suffering, too,
which it is the church’s privilege to share. Note, also, the spirit of
confidence in his Father which characterized the Christ, saying in his last
moments on the cross, “Father, into thy hands I commit my spirit.” Go to Jesus
Christ and learn how to die. But space does not allow a consideration of these
points. Let it be clearly fixed in the mind, however, as a point in our
argument, that the Lord Jesus Christ died for us, to the end that we should be
united with him in character, in sympathy, and in desire. The fellowship with
Christ which is thus begun here is to continue in the life to come. Whether we
wake or sleep, we are to live with him. To the Christian there are not two
lives. There is only one life here and hereafter. There are those who teach that
the soul sleeps with the body from death till the resurrection; but the Bible
knows nothing of any such doctrine. Had Paul believed that for him to die would
be to lie down and sleep, would he ever have been in a strait betwixt two, not
knowing what to desire—to depart and be with Christ, which, he said, would be
far better, or to continue in the flesh for the benefit of the church? Ah, no!
That man loved Christ too much. He would rather have lived and labored,
sacrificed and suffered if need be, for the advancement of the Redeemer’s
kingdom on the earth, than to have laid down to sleep. Paul knew that for him to
die was to go into the more immediate, visible presence of the Lord Jesus than
was possible even for him while he lived in the flesh. He longed to go. For him,
to live was Christ; to die, gain. I was at the death-bed of a holy man once (a
Presbyterian Missionary in China), and as he drew near to his earthly end he
lifted up his eyes and said to us: “I see things that you cannot see, I know
things that you cannot know. Death? Is this death? There is NO DEATH. It is just
one living right straight on—just the expanding of temporal life into eternal
life.” And there is the true idea of the Christian’s death: “Just living right
straight on.” There is no stop at death, no cessation of existence, of
consciousness, or of identity. It is a heathenish idea that at death we change
into something or somebody else. We carry with us our consciousness, our
identity, our memory, our character, our fellowship, and our love, just so far
as these are pure and holy and in accord with the Divine will. When I go across
the ocean to China I do not cease to be myself. I am there, as it were, in a new
world, surrounded by people whose appearance, dress, language, tastes, habits,
characters, are all different from what I have been accustomed to in America.
But I am myself. My character, my aims, my hopes, my purposes, my fellowships,
my loves, are unchanged. I do not change because I have crossed the water. And
just so when I cross the little river of death. I shall be myself. I shall carry
my character with me into the other world. If a tree fall toward the north or
toward the south, in the place where a tree falleth, there it shall be. He that
is holy shall be holy still, and he that is filthy shall be filthy still. The
man who loves the world, who loves self, who loves sin here, will love self and
sin over there, and the man who loves purity, and holiness, and God and Heaven
here, will love purity, holiness, God and Heaven over there. Death will work no
such change in any one, as that from being a lover of sin, of Satan and of the
world, he will turn and begin to love holiness and God.

I shall carry, also, with me my fellowships and lores, so far as these are pure
and holy. I know and love my friends in Jesus Christ here—I shall know and love
them on the other shore. Why not? I shall be myself, and they will be
themselves. We shall know what we are, and what we were, and why we are what we
are. Punish a child without letting him know the ground of the punishment, and
it ceases to be punishment—it is cruelty. So, take away from the rewards of the
other world a knowledge of the grounds thereof, and they cease to be rewards. We
shall carry our memories unimpaired into the future life. When the rich man
lifted up his eyes in torment and saw Lazarus afar off in Abraham’s bosom, and
begged that he might be sent to cool his tongue with a little water, Abraham,
said to him: “Son, remember.” Shall the damned in hell remember and the saints
in heaven forget? Never! We shall remember our struggles, our labors, our
sacrifices, our temptations, our sins. We shall remember and love each other
there. It will not be wrong to love some more than others. Christ did so when on
earth. The Twelve were dearer to him than the multitude, the Three nearer than
the rest of the Twelve, and one is specially designated as the disciple whom
Jesus loved. Those of us who have lived long on earth have come to feel that we
have as many and as tender ties in the other world as in this, and one of the
sweetest anticipations of the future life is the hope of reunion with our loved
and lost. And we shall carry with us our fellowship with Christ. For this he
died, that whether we wake or sleep, live or die, we should live with him. In
heaven every desire, every emotion that finds expression in the Saviour’s
breast, will find an echo in the breasts of his saints; every cord that vibrates
in the Saviour’s bosom will find a cord vibrating in unison in the bosoms of his
own. Otherwise heaven will be no heaven. What of joy or comfort is there to the
sin-loving man of the world in the company of the devout men of the earth while
they talk of joy in the Holy Ghost! To him there is no joy. he would prefer to
be among those of his own character and passions. So a soul in heaven not in
sympathy with Christ would find heaven a hell. His presence would mar the
harmony of heaven, and ruin it, which God can never allow. Dr. McCosh somewhere
uses an illustration like this: Here is a clock. It is a beautiful piece of
machinery. Every wheel, and every cog in every wheel moves in perfect harmony
with every other, and with the grand design of the maker. There is beauty, there
is symmetry, there is accuracy. But mark! Every time the hand reaches a certain
point on the dial, there is an hour. The clockmaker searches to find the cause.
One cog on one wheel is out of position, out of harmony with the purpose of the
maker. He may ply his nippers and twist it, or he may ply his file and rasp it.
he will bring it into position and harmony if it will be brought. Otherwise he
will destroy it. he cannot allow his whole machine to be ruined for the sake of
one miserable cog. So with God. The universe is God’s grand machine, which he
has built for a grand and glorious purpose. We are cogs in that machine. If we
are in harmony with the rest of the machine, and with the purposes of the great
Maker, all is well; if not, he will destroy us. God cannot help it. He cannot
allow his universe to be ruined for the sake of a miserable sinner. God must
destroy the sinner just because he is out of harmony and sympathy with himself.
The heavenly bodies move, each in its appointed orbit. There is beauty, there is
symmetry, there is accord, there is silence. The attractions and.
counter-attractions balance each other, and all move in harmony with each other
and with the purpose of the Maker. But let one of those orbs leave its orbit,
however little, and the longer it strays, the further it strays. The equipoise
is destroyed. The orb must be brought back, or, darting hither and you through
the heavens without law, God must destroy it. So with us. While we are in
sympathy and harmony and cooperation with the Divine will and purpose, all is
well; but, out of sympathy with God, all must perish.

Now, if it be true that sympathy with Christ here is necessary to our sympathy
and life with him hereafter, it behooves us to ask: Is there any one thing upon
which Christ has set his heart supremely? If so, in that we must sympathize. We
look into the Bible and there learn that the one grand, absorbing, and, if I may
so speak, consuming thought ‘with the Christ is the saving of the souls of men
all over this world. It was this that brought him from heaven, that carried him
through all the scenes of his humiliation and suffering on earth, that took him
to the cross and the grave. For this he lived, for this he labored, for this he
sacrificed, for this he died, for this he arose again, and for this he now lives
and pleads—aye, reigns in heaven.

All things were made by and for the Christ. For him the heavens were created,
and all the angelic host; for him the orbs of light and beauty that roll hi
grandeur above us, the planets with all their inhabitants, if they have them.
But upon none of these has the Son of God set his affections supremely. The
angels sinned, but no provision was made for their redemption, and to-day they
await in chains the day of the revelation of God’s wrath. But on this little
planet of ours God seems to have centred his love in a peculiar manner. Here is
to be the scene of his triumph over evil. The redeemed of the earth are called
the “glory of Christ.” In them he finds his glory above every other glory.
Through them God is to manifest such glories in his own character as in all
eternity there has been no similar opportunity of exhibiting. For this purpose
he made the worlds. He created all things by Jesus Christ, to the end that now
onto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known, by the
church, the manifold wisdom of God. To the accomplishment of his purposes in
Jesus Christ God has subordinated every other purpose, every power, and every
agency in the universe. Because Jesus Christ has suffered, God also hath highly
exalted him, and given him The Name that is above every other name, that at the
name of Jehovah Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven (angels), of
things on earth (men), and of things under the earth (devils and damned
spirits). Everything in heaven, earth and hell shall conspire to accomplish the
work of Christ, which is the saving of men, and thereby the destroying of the
works of the devil. If there be power in God Almighty to make Jesus Christ
triumph, he will triumph. And sympathy with Christ in this work of saving the
souls of men everywhere is just the missionary spirit. It is inconceivable that
a man should love Jesus and not love that which Jesus loves, not labor for that
for which Jesus labors, sacrifice for that for which Jesus sacrificed, and die,
if need be, for that for which Jesus died. Sympathy with Christ is the essence
of Christianity, and is identical with the Spirit of Missions.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 14: 13 BAPTISTS AND MISSIONS
========================================================================

Baptists and Missions By Rev. A. H. Burlingham, D. D., New York.

We use the term Foreign Missions, as embracing modern efforts to evangelize
heathen nations. And we view the relation of the Baptist denomination to this
movement, in only a few particulars. In tracing the connection of Baptists with
the origin of Foreign Missions, we must, of necessity, traverse familiar ground.
The names of Carey, Fuller, Ryland, Hall, Sutcliff, Morris and Pearce, are
household words to those who have read the history of the rise of Missions in
England. As early as 1784, at an associational meeting at Nottingham, by the
suggestion of these and other Baptist ministers, a resolution was passed,
recommending a Monthly Concert of Prayer, for “the spread of the gospel to the
most distant parts of the habitable globe.” This was the origin of the
Missionary Concert, and was an unpurposed prophecy of the formation of the
Baptist Foreign Missionary Society. This resolution was carried out for several
years of the incipient period of this missionary movement. But these good men
did not apprehend the silent meaning and drift of their prayers. The thought
that they were making way towards forming a Missionary Society did not dawn upon
them. It was three years after this, that John Ryland, Sen., rebuked William
Carey, who, at a ministers’ meeting at Northampton, timidly asked: “Have the
churches of Christ done all they ought to have done for heathen nations?” The
words of rebuke are standard, and show how little good men may comprehend the
greatness and purpose of Christ’s redemption: “Young man, sit down; when God
pleases to convert the heathen world, he will do it without your help or mine
either.” The effect of this severe attack was to quicken and strengthen Mr.
Carey’s convictions with regard to the duty of Christians towards the heathen.
Pour years after this, the ministers’ meeting was held at Clipstone, and here
Carey pressed the subject of establishing a mission. But all that was done was
to request him to publish a pamphlet upon the subject. The next year, 1792, May
30th, the Association was again held at Nottingham. Here Mr. Carey preached his
memorable sermon from Isaiah 54:2-3, making two points: “Expect great things
from God; attempt great things for God.” Dr. John Ryland, Jun., says of this
sermon: “If all the people had lifted up their voice and wept, as the children
of Israel did at Bochim, I should not have wondered at the effect; it would only
have seemed proportionate to the cause, so clearly did he prove the criminality
of our supineness in the cause of God.” But still they hesitated to move
forward. When about to part, and do nothing, Mr. Carey, unable to hold himself
longer, said to Mr. Fuller, most beseechingly, “And are you, after all, going
again to do nothing?” This brought a decision. A resolution was passed, “That a
plan be prepared, against the next ministers’ meeting, at Kettering, for forming
a Baptist Society for propagating the Gospel among the heathen.” When the
meeting occurred, Oct. 2d, 1792, the Baptist Missionary Society was formed, and
a subscription made of £13. 2. 6. This Society was said by friends in other
denominations to have been “as disinterested in design, and as strenuous in
execution, as any that the Christian world ever did or ever will employ, for the
illumination and conversion of idolaters; and surpassing, beyond comparison, all
of former missions, and all other undertakings in the grand article of
translating the Bible into the languages of the heathen.” “Former missions,” in
this quotation, must refer to the efforts of the Roman Catholic Church, of the
Moravians, of Danish Christians, and of the Wesleyan Methodists, to plant
missions. But up to the period of the formation of the Baptist Missionary
Society of England, no organization existed for the purpose of sending the
Gospel to the heathen, unless we must recognize as such the old “Society for the
propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts,” an institution mostly sustained by
governmental patronage, and confined in its operations to the British Colonies.
This Society had its origin in 1701, and received its charter from William III.
Its object was “to provide for the ministrations of the Church of England in the
British Colonies, and to propagate the Gospel among native inhabitants of those
countries.” This institution has done and is still doing great good, yet in its
inception it was not so widely missionary in its spirit and purpose as are
modern societies. It contemplated no broader range than British arms and rule
marked out. But William Carey saw the whole race in ruin, and saw in the Gospel
the only remedy. Into his sweeping vision came mankind, regardless of
nationality, and much less of British confines. The Society whose founding he
inspired, covered by its reach and purpose all benighted lands. Carey was raised
up for this work. Dr. Byland says of him: “As to the immediate origin of a
Baptist Mission, I believe God himself infused into the mind of Carey that
solicitude for the salvation of the heathen, which cannot be fairly traced to
any other source.”

Carey was moved toward the heathen by studying “Cook’s Voyages Round the World.”
It is well known that while at work on his shoe-bench, having rudely-constructed
maps conveniently arranged, he studied the geography of these heathen countries,
and was educating himself in this respect, as well as by his pursuit of
linguistic studies, for the sphere which God was calling him to fill. He was the
first missionary of the Society whose formation, under Divine guidance, he
forced upon the Baptist denomination in England. His own brethren were timid. He
was ridiculed by others as a fanatic, and was satirized as the “consecrated
cobbler” by Sydney Smith in the Edinburgh Review. He was opposed by his wife in
his missionary longings, and encountered barriers to his embarkation from the
East India Company; but, nerved by irrepressible conviction, and encouraged by
Divine sanction—as he thought—he pushed his way on, and reached the place where
God sent him; not Otaheite, where he intended to go, but India. He was willing
to be thus turned in his plans. A committee of the Society had determined his
destination. This committee meeting was held in Andrew Fuller’s study, at
Kettering. It was at this meeting that Mr. Fuller said: “There is a gold mine in
India, but it seems almost as deep as the centre of the earth; who will venture
to explore if Mr. Carey listened, and said: “I will go down, but remember, you
must hold the rope.” Those present solemnly engaged to do so, nor while they
lived would they desert him.

Carey embarked for India, June 13th, 1793, and for forty years worked for the
salvation of the heathen, becoming—from a “rustic youth plying the humble trade
of shoemaker and advancing at length into a village schoolmaster and pastor, but
poorly paid and limitedly known in all of these vocations—as noted a man, in
learning, in philology, in science, in philosophy, as India could boast; and as
to benevolence, as someone has said, “deserving a place by the side of Clarkson
and Wilberforce.” The founding of the Baptist Mission at Serampore by Carey, and
prosecuted by him and his coadjutors, Messrs. Marshmau and Ward, for so long a
time, have vital relation to the enlistment of the Baptists of the United States
in the work of Foreign Missions. The wants, the success, the appeals, the
heart-throbs of this mission were felt by us as well as by our brethren in
England. As early as 1811 and 1812, a year or two before anyone in this country
dared to think aloud that the American Baptists would ever organize a Foreign
Mission Society, the churches of our denomination in Boston and Salem alone,
sent 8-1,600 to aid the Serampore Mission. Even as early as 1802, a Baptist
Missionary Society was formed in Massachusetts, whose object was “to furnish
occasional preaching, and to promote the knowledge of evangelical truth in the
New Settlements within the United States, or further if circumstances rendered
it proper.” The letters of Carey, Marshman and Ward, I have no doubt, had much
to do with the insertion of this italicized sentence.

Undefined and hidden principles seemed intimating themselves, which blindly
promised embodiment sometime in a Baptist organization avowedly for the purpose
of giving the Gospel to the heathen. But where was the leader? We had no Baptist
Carey; nor had we an Andrew Fuller in our ranks, though one of our subsequent
leaders much resembled him —the Rev. Thomas Baldwin. Among the fathers we look
in vain for a master, aggressive mind, to descry these intimations of Foreign
Mission interest in our denomination, and to lay hold of our Baptist forces and
marshal them for the Master’s work in regions benighted. Foreign Missions must
be precipitated upon us by a strange and circuitous Providence. The story of the
“Consecrated hay-stack” of Williamstown; of the Andover Students; of the
Organization of the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions, in
1810, and the turning of three of the first Missionaries whom this honored
society sent to India from Congregationalists to Baptists, is too well known to
be dwelt upon in detail. By their convictions, Mr. and Mrs. Judson and Mr. Rice
were obliged to throw themselves upon American Baptists for support in their
work as Missionaries. As soon as this strange and startling news reached this
country, there was as a quick response to the rallying cry of Providence. Our
people seem to have been made ready to heed the call. They came together from
near and far as if challenged by a bugle blast. And it was no uncertain sound
that called the tribes of our Israel together. The voice was too manifestly of
God to allow doubt or debate. All minds were one. Letters from Messrs. Judson
and Rice came from India at once upon their change of ecclesiastical relations
consequent upon their conviction that immersion of believers is the only
Scriptural baptism, and reached the Rev. Dr. Baldwin, Pastor of the Second
Baptist Church of Boston, in February, 1813. It is well known that, immediately
upon receipt of these letters, a meeting of the leading Baptist ministers of
Massachusetts was summoned, and they organized the “Baptist Society for
propagating the Gospel in India and other foreign parts.” That Mr. Rice, under
the exciting emergency that had arisen, came at once to America to rouse our
churches to the perils of the perishing millions and to gather them in
convention to devise measure? for bringing the aggregate forces of our
denomination to bear upon the work of heathen evangelization, is also a fact
patent to all who have ever read the thrilling story of our early enlistment in
this cause. Rice’s gifts were rare. His soul was ablaze. He went through our
land, north and south, and the people in masses listened to his eloquent
portrayals of heathen wants and woes, to his moving appeals for action and help,
and to his glowing and comprehensive exposition of the Great Commission, as to a
rapt prophet, and his arguments and burning exhortations were heard with as
breathless attention as was the voice of that rugged forerunner in leathern
girdle, who broke upon our world crying in the wilderness of Judea.

Delegates assembled from eleven different States, and from the District of
Columbia, in convention, thirty-three in number, in the First Baptist church,
Philadelphia, on Wednesday, May 18, 1814. The mighty men of our denomination,
the leaders of our tribes, from Massachusetts to Georgia, were there, and in
their councils there was not a jarring note. As the Holy Spirit had called them
together, he brooded over them and kept them in hushed oneness. The Rev. Dr.
Furman, of Charleston, S. C., was made President, and the Rev. Dr. Baldwin, of
Boston, Secretary. After days spent in repeated seasons of prayer, in listening
to sermons and addresses, in deliberations and fraternal conferences, a
Constitution for a National Baptist Missionary Society was brought forth by a
committee appointed for that purpose, and was unanimously adopted by a rising
vote. This was a glorious day for the Baptists of this country, and hopeful in
its prophecy and promise for the world. The preamble to this Constitution is
well worth recording:

“We, the Delegates from Missionary Societies and other religious bodies of the
Baptist Denomination in various parts of the United States, met in convention in
the city of Philadelphia, for the purpose of carrying into effect the benevolent
intentions of our constituents, by organizing a plan for exciting, combining and
directing the energies of the whole Denomination, in sacred effort for sending
the good tidings of salvation to the heathen, and to nations destitute of pure
Gospel Light, do agree to the following rules or fundamental principles.” The
original designation of this Society was “The General Missionary Convention of
the Baptist Denomination in the United States of America, for Foreign Missions.”

It was provided in the constitution that the body should meet once in three
years, hence the popular name, “Triennial Convention.” For more than thirty
years this preamble remained unchanged, and the constitution continued
substantially the same, though slight alterations were introduced from time to
time. This old “Triennial Convention,” till 1846, commanded the support and
combined the moral and religious elements of our whole denomination, north and
south. The Rev. Luther Rice was appointed the first Missionary of the Board, and
the Rev. Adoniram Judson the second. But though Mr. Rice was appointed a
Missionary, the Board gave him special instructions “to continue his itinerant
services in these United States for a reasonable time, with a view to excite the
public mind more generally to engage in Missionary exertions, and to assist in
originating societies and institutions for carrying the Missionary design into
execution.” He expected to go back to India after “a reasonable time.” Such was
Mr. Judson’s hope, and concerning which he and Mr. Rice were in anxious
correspondence. But the work of quickening the energies of the churches, and of
gathering funds, so grew in importance, that Mr. Rice remained the agent of the
Board till 1826, and then left the position to enter upon the work of collecting
funds for Columbian College at Washington. In all he spent twenty-three years in
agency work, falling asleep near Edgefleld, S. C., in 1836. Long before this,
most of the fathers of this sublime enterprise had passed away. They had wrought
and others had entered into their labors. The great movement inaugurated by them
has proved to be the grandest of all the achievements of our Denomination, and
the names of its founders are immortal.

Having looked at the relation of Baptists to the origin of Foreign Missions, we
now give a passing thought to the attitude of the denomination towards this
inaugurated work of foreign evangelization in its progress, or while it is in
its tentative state.

Mr. and Mrs. Judson soon found themselves, after being driven from Bengal by the
East India Company, at work in Burmah. They toiled on for six years before the
first convert rewarded their faith and patience. From time to time this mission
was reinforced, and others were established. These evangelizing agencies were
slow in development, but they made sure progress, as was prophesied by the
spirit and consecration which attended their inception. It is a stupendous work
to plant and grow a mission in the midst of unbroken heathenism. Language must
be mastered; habits must be studied; confidence must be won; instruction must be
communicated by speech and press; God’s word must be translated; the Gospel must
be preached; hard ground must be broken up, the seed of truth sown, and the
harvest waited for with patience, faith and hope. During all the time this
initial work was going on under our Foreign Mission Board by those sent abroad,
our people at home were praying and waiting, but not weary and heart-sick from
hopes deferred any more than the toilers on the field. From the natal day of our
missions to this, our churches have been growing in missionary enlistment and
consecration. They have never questioned that the Divine pillar of cloud and
fire was leading them on to larger and better missionary possessions. Sustained
by faith and a steadiness of purpose which faith inspires, not doubting the
ultimate and large success of their undertaking, they have increased in their
charities and gifts, in the ratio of growing numbers, as the steady movements or
exigencies of our missions have demanded. As Baptists were the pioneers in
England of organized and general missionary work at the dawn of the new
missionary era and by the signal interposition of God, were obliged to be nearly
abreast with the first movement in this country to carry the Gospel to the
heathen nations, so we have kept on in our missionary interest, not as a whole
denomination to be sure, but in the fair support of our Society, in all the
years needed for sowing the fields specially ours by the providence of God. For
the most part, during the history of our foreign work, there has been a
reasonable balance or agreement between our home interest and our mission growth
abroad. Money has been wanting at times, but when the demand has sorely pressed,
our churches have risen and met the exigency of the hour. In the necessarily
slow growth of our work at first, amid the discouragements which must needs
beset its early progress, to have held on, to have believed God, to have had
faith in the ultimate triumph of the Gospel preached to the benighted, is proof
of God’s grace vouchsafed to us, and a cause of unceasing gratitude to Him who
says, “Lo, I am with you always.” There have been times when despair might have
well-nigh come to faith, discomfiture to patience, discouragement to hope, but
God kept us toned and strong through these crises. We have waited for God,
waited for blessings upon our Missionaries and for heavenly dews upon their
fields; and, meanwhile, have with moderate promptitude, steadiness and strength,
held the rope, while our brethren have been exploring the mines.

If our faith had been stronger, our prayers more fervent and full, and our gifts
far larger, men for missions would have multiplied, and results have been
quicker and ampler. But let us be thankful that for sixty-five years the
Baptists of this country have steadily cherished the spirit of Missions, n,
spirit that has grown with their growth, and strengthened with their strength,
and that now, as never before, Missions have the hearts of our people. Is it too
much to say, that having kept pace, in some degree, with the progress of our
missions, we are better fitted, both by the general commitment of our brethren
to the cause, and by the inspiration coming from abundant blessings upon our
efforts abroad, to enter upon the new missionary epoch already come?

Though of gradual accumulation, taking our mission history together, the
aggregate results of our work are great. In the summary of achievements we have
in mind, and of which we predicate a grandeur and a glory which divine power and
love alone can create, we take into the view our whole Foreign Mission work as a
denomination, north and south. We contemplate American Baptists as a unit in
missions. We speak as if no rupture between north and south had occurred in our
missionary administration. We unite the Missionary Union and the Foreign Mission
Board of the Southern Baptist Convention, as we were originally united from 1814
to 1846, in surveying the results of our great Foreign Missionary enterprise.
Statistics to any considerable extent do not befit this article. But no one can
contemplate our work without pride and thanksgiving. In the sixty-five years of
our Foreign Missionary life, we have gained an enviable place among the hosts of
God’s chosen ones who have heard and heeded the Great Commission of the Lord
Jesus. The men and women whom we have sent forth have been as the finest of the
wheat. The renowned and sainted Judsons, who first cast themselves upon us from
the promptings of conscience and duty, are the head of a long line of immortal
names which have made our missionary annals glorious. Adoniram Judson and his
earliest heroic, wife are the first of a grand procession of shining ones whom
the Lord has honored us in sending as messengers of salvation to the destitute.
Though the first blaze in peerless resplendency never to suffer eclipse, they
have had many, many worthy successors. What interest will cluster to the final
scene when all these toiling, weary, shining ones shall say to the Master, Here
are we and the multitudes thou hast given us from heathen realms! How will we,
that have prayed and given for their success, share in the raptures of that
hour! And these trophies of saving grace brought to that final crowning shall be
many—from the north they shall come, and from the west, and from the land of
Sinim; the abundance of the Sea and the forces of the Gentiles shall swell the
numbers which they shall bring to the great coronation. We need to be in such
relations of working fellowship and spiritual reciprocity to these honored
missionaries, by our faith, love and gifts, that their works and glory shall be
ours, and ours theirs.

It cannot be questioned, that in results the missions of the American Baptists
stand preeminent. If this were the place to array them, and it were needful to
do it, we could show by comparative figures that our missions, with less money
than either of the other three of the great Foreign Missionary Societies of this
country, have had larger results in conversions than all of the missions of
these other societies combined! Not boastingly must this truth be set forth, but
humbly and gratefully, and as a pious recognition of God’s grace and approval.
In our missions there have been times of great fruitfulness, followed by seasons
of lull, if not of spiritual impoverishment. As at home in our churches, so
abroad, God’s blessing comes in waves. There are large ingatherings in our
missions at seasons. Between these periods profitable spaces often come, in
which the work of compacting, centralizing, strengthening, marshalling Christian
forces goes on. The first most notable period of blessing to our missions, after
the long, patient faith-struggle of Judson, crowned finally by the conversion
and baptism of Moung Nan, was the great Karen Movement. In a very short time
about ten thousand of these people were converted and gathered into churches.
Sinco that time the work has gone steadily on among that people, but not so
rapidly. Perhaps twenty thousand of these Karens are now in churches, and
thousands of Christian Karens have died in faith. After years of comparative
quietness on the foreign field generally, and of weakness, despair, agony, at
that particular mission, comes a flood of blessing upon the Teloogoo people. For
years back, converts have been multiplied there “as doves flying to their
windows,” till the crowning year came, and that the last of which we have
definite report—1878—during a few of the latter months of which ten thousand
converted Teloogoos were baptized into the church at Ongole by the Rev. Mr.
Clough and his helpers! Now that seems not the crowning year after all, but
this, whose report we shall have in a few months, 1879, it may be is; for Mr.
Clough said, in February of ‘79 that forty thousand more of the Teloogoos were
converted and awaiting baptism! And 1879 may not be the crowning year, but we
may be nearing the fulfillment of the promise that “A nation shall be born in a
day.” The great year shall be signalized by that, and soon the banner may be
seen opening its crimson folds, to the joy of earth and heaven. May God hasten
the time! Surely we are brought to a day, by the wonders of Divine grace, when
we must praise the God of missions as never before, for his blessings upon our
efforts as a denomination in giving us this demonstration of the saving power of
the Gospel, unequalled since the day of Pentecost, if even then; and we are
brought to a time when the demands upon us for enlargement are unmistakable and
imperious. The accumulated appliances and interests of our long established
missions, and the signal blessings of God upon them, have vastly increased their
wants. To be indifferent to these, or not fully to meet them, is a turning back
upon ourselves, an insult to our antecedents and traditions altogether unworthy
of us. These demands upon us are at least threefold—relating to knowledge, men,
money.

We put knowledge first, because if facts connected with our missions are known,
helpers and means will follow. The rank and file of our church members have but
little intelligence as to missions. Their early and thrilling history is a
sealed book. The course of events filling up this history down to the present is
not in our minds. The leaders of our churches, ministers, prominent laymen and
influential women, in many instances are poorly informed as to missionary
matters. The papers and periodicals giving current news concerning them are
lamentably neglected. The weekly religious newspapers, and the missionary
monthlies, are full of good things which are never seen by great numbers of us,
because we are too poor, careless, mean or lazy, to avail ourselves of these
repositories of intelligence. A good religious weekly should be found in every
Baptist family in this country. The organs of our missionary societies should be
as widely circulated. An epitomized history of the origin and first years of
this great missionary movement of ours should come into all our homes in some
way. A cheap reprint of the Memoirs of the first Mrs. Judson, put up in strong
paper or flexible cloth covers, and sent generously among the Baptist families
of our land, would be as remunerative an investment as our Mission Boards could
mate. If pastors would inform themselves, and take missions upon their hearts,
and give out their facts and fire to the people, and keep it up, our churches
would soon become educated in these most vital things. We owe it to our
providential relation to missions, to our honored prominence in establishing
them, to God who has so blest us in them, to the memories of the dead, and to
the worth of the living men and women who have given themselves to this work,
and owe it to the large demands of the present, consequent upon their stupendous
growth, to inform ourselves as to the origin, development and glorious
achievements of our missions. To know them, is to love, reinforce and support
them.

Recruits, to take the places of missionaries disabled or dead, are in constant
and largo demand. Others to occupy positions incident to enlargement and God’s
abounding blessing, are needed even more. These opening fields, far-spreading
and waiting for the sickle, must have reapers. The barriers are now all down,
and the world is an open field. The great cry is for men. The business of the
churches now is to furnish the supply for which the world is clamoring, and
which God’s grand movements in missions imperiously demand. As never before, all
signs indicate that drafts from our churches must be frequent and large. Cords
are rapidly lengthening, and the boundaries of Christ’s visible kingdom are
impatient to encircle the whole earth. God’s people must grasp the situation,
and provide for the wants which are so pressing. Choice sons and daughters of
our churches must not hold back, nor be held back from mission altars. What
Lewis Shuck, in a great missionary meeting in Richmond many years ago, said upon
a subscription card when the collection was being taken—” I give myself”—must be
said by many to-day, or the ripened harvests of the heathen world will perish
for lack of reapers. But money, as well as men, has rightful and needed place as
a factor in this divine problem of missions. To fail here, is as if an army had
no commissariat. To be weak in exchequer is to leave the struggling host with no
base of supplies. It would seem that the greater ought to carry the less—if men
and women give themselves, it is a bold, impious, acted heresy, for others
having it, holding the same relations of debt to God and the world, not to give
their money. To-day, with all the rich tokens of God’s favor upon the missions
of both the Foreign Boards of American Baptists, their treasuries are empty, and
the men in financial place by denominational call, are asked to make brick
without straw. Every year they are confronted with the grim spectacle of
probable debt at its fiscal close. These things ought not so to be. Where is the
fault? Largely with pastors. In too many instances are missions regarded outside
a pastor’s care and effort. Pastors must educate churches in benevolence, or
this withering curse of deficiency and debt will never be removed. But though we
thus speak, we have faith that He to whom belong the silver and gold, and the
cattle upon a thousand hills, will so rule the hearts of Christian men entrusted
with these treasures as stewards, that there shall be proper proportion between
offerings and demands, as to our missions. May time soon bring us to such a
blessed agreement. It shall come, and money enough shall be given. An increased
intelligence, a more correct view of what a church is for, and entering into
sympathy with Jesus by prayer and love in his great work of saving the world,
will enlarge our souls and open our pockets. But still greater things than the
wonders of the present are in reserve for Christ’s church as a Missionary
Institution. Great possibilities are yet to be realized. The grand enterprises
of the world in the interests of commerce, prophesy this more wondrous spread of
the Gospel. They mark a new epoch in its reach and in its facilities for
propagation. Commerce is ever throwing up highways for the Gospel. The quickened
passages to China, Japan and India, by going West over rail, or East by the Suez
Canal; the longed-for and surely to be completed ship-cut through the Southern
Isthmus; the proposed and probably not impracticable scheme of flooding the
Great Eastern Desert so that ships may sail into the very heart of Africa—all
these improved carrying facilities are rich in promise and means for an
immeasurably wider heraldry of the Gospel. The fact that for the last
twenty-five years all the huge undertakings for opening new carrying routes are
in the direction of the great heathen populations of the earth, is profoundly
significant to every student of Christian missions. Is it not time for us to go
up higher and take a broader outlook upon the world? Shall we not try to ascend
those mountain heights of vision upon which Isaiah stood, when he told such
wondrous things concerning the growth and triumphs of Christ’s Kingdom? To help
to actualize what was in the rapt vision of the prophet is our work. What Carey
and Judson and their long lines of honored successors on mission fields
attempted to do, must be carried forward by the great Baptist family of England
and America, and by the enlisted forces of other Christian communions, so as at
length “the forces of the Gentiles” and the “abundance of the sea” shall
traverse that highway which no vulture’s eye hath seen, and no lion’s whelp hath
trod.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 15: 14 THE PERMANENCE OF THE DIVINE PLAN; OR, SPECIAL PROVIDENCE
========================================================================

The Permanence of the Divine Plan; Or, Special Providence By Rev. Wayland Hoyt,
D. D., Pastor of Strong Place Baptist Church, Brooklyn, N. Y.

“Then they sought to take him: but no man laid hands on him, because his hour
was not yet come.”—John 7:30.

Because his hour was not yet come—that must hold our thought just now.

Let us not think of our Lord Christ when he was upon earth, as always in the
guise in which the painters chiefly picture him; with a gentle and suffering
mildness ever on his face and in his mcin; with never the flash of a righteous
indignation striking out from him—a much enduring, even somewhat effeminate
Christ, with more of the yielding and dependence of the woman than the vigor of
the man. When John, in the Spirit on the Lord’s day, caught sight of him
afterwards, at Patmos, he saw him wearing no such unresisting aspect. “His eyes
were as a flame of fire; his feet were like unto fine brass, as if they burned
in a furnace; his voice was as the sound of many waters; out of his mouth went a
sharp two-edged sword, and his countenance was as the sun shineth in his
strength.” And I am sure that often during his tarrying upon our earth, even as
the lightning breaks out of the darkening cloud, the stroke of rebuke of
unbelief and evil thinking and evil-living burst, scathing, from the lips even
of the meek Christ. For we must remember always that sinlessness is not a merely
passive freedom from any tarnish on its whiteness, but is also an active going
forth against anything which would seek to tarnish. It is battle against
impurity, because it is purity. It is flaming fight against wrong, because
itself is righteousness. To be Christian is not to stand upon the defensive
only. It is to grasp the sword, to enter into combat, to push on into the
offensive against evil, too. So, I am sure that the glance of eye like flame,
and the steady tread of feet like brass, and the distinct and cleaving words
like quick cut of a two-edged sword, were to be heard and seen, even during the
earthly humiliation of our Lord. Every Christian ought to illustrate the ability
of being angry and sinning not. We may be certain our Lord illustrated it.

You will find it thus just now, if you will carefully read the context. This
seventh chapter of John is a battle chapter. You can hear the clashing strokes
of the sword of Truth against the shields of Error. Christ is standing in the
fire front of opposition. It is the feast time. Jerusalem is crowded. The
religious leaders are seeking to block his influence. They turn his sermons in
the Temple courts into contentions. They interrupt him. They try to trap him.
They lay plots for his life. Upon one thing they are determined — they will not
believe him nor let the people. There is the stir of a great turmoil through
this chapter. Because he has wrought a miracle of healing upon the Sabbath, the
people, under the suggestion of their leaders, say that Christ has broken the
Sabbath law. Then they listen to the great words he speaks, and get moved to the
depths. Messiah himself could not speak more grandly or convincingly. Also, his
tender and gentle deeds of healing and of mercy touch them. They are caught in
cross-currents of feeling. They know not what to think or what to say. They cry,
“Do the rulers know indeed that this is verily Messiah?” Then the influence of
the religious rulers again oversweeps and triumphs. Then the people bethink
themselves of an old Rabbinical tradition and test of the Messiah — that he was
indeed to be born in Bethlehem, but that straightway he was to be snatched out
of sight by spirits and by tempests; that he was to be hidden for a while; that
unexpectedly and supernaturally he was to reappear and enter on his mission.
With the changing humor of a crowd, whose feeling sets one way, though there may
be refluent ripples on the surface, the people apply this test, and say,” This
Jesus who pretends to be Messiah fails before it. When Messiah cometh, no man
knoweth whence he is; howbeit as for this fellow, we know whence he is. No; he
cannot be Messiah.” Then, against their obdurate unbelief and evil speech, the
righteous indignation of the Master flashes out. He asserts himself. He pushes
on into the offensive. It is the time for severity, for the quick strokes of the
two-edged sword of Truth. There in the Temple, as he teaches, Jesus cries out,”
Ye do indeed know me, and ye know whence I am; and I am not come of myself, but
it is the True One who hath sent me; Him Ye Do Not Know. I know him, for I have
come from him, and he it is who hath sent me forth.” As another has explained
it,” In his miracles and his instructions they had seen and heard enough to
assure them that he was from God. Their contemptuous declaration, ‘We know this
fellow,’ he transformed into an indictment against them. ‘Ye do know me,’ he
says, ‘and ye know whence I am, for the authentication of my divine mission is
ample. Yo do know that I am not come of myself, for my whole life is a
conclusive demonstration that I am not a self-seeker.’ .But the the True God,
him they did not and could not know. He knew him, for he had been his companion
from eternity. This tone of fearless assumption, in which he at once claimed to
be from the only true God, and declared that they did not even know him whose
peculiar people it was their peculiar boast to be, angered the crowd, angered
especially the leaders.”[31] [31] Abbott’s Commentary,in loco. Their answer is
that of attempted arrest and the gagging of prison and of death.

But, somehow, they cannot take him. Notwithstanding the command of the leaders
and the fierce feeling and the fierce tumult, no man will lay hands on Jesus.
Something, somehow, holds them back.

Still the stir continues; now another refluent wave sets in. The people ask each
other, “When Messiah cometh, will he do more miracles than these which this one
hath done? There begins to be a flowing forth of faith toward Jesus. Many of the
people believe on him. So the leaders assume authority more regular and
distinctively official. By decree of the Sanhedrim, they send officers to take
him.

Meanwhile, the critical tumult having overpassed a little, Christ goes on with
his wonderful heart touching, heart-searching speech. Probably on that day he is
not further troubled. But the last day of the Feast of Tabernacles comes round.
It is the Hosunna Rabba. It is the great day. There is the grand procession
passing seven times round the city with palms, with instruments of music, with
sounding choirs, to commemorate the ancient capture of Jericho. There is, by
other multitudes led by priests and Levites carrying golden vessels, the
streaming to the brook of Siloah; that amid jubilant clamorings on every
side—Ho, every one that thirsteth. With joy shall ye draw water from the wells
of salvation!—the sacred water may be drawn, and from thence borne to the temple
for libation at the morning sacrifice. It is much more than likely that, as this
very ceremonial was going on—the vast crowds pouring themselves back from Siloah
through the temple gates, the priests bearing the water toward the altar—Jesus
stood and cried,” If any man thirst, let him come unto ME and drink.” It was the
burning weather of the autumn. It was the parched time before the falling of the
latter rain. Always in Palestine, to tell of water was to use a spell. The
rivers of living water which were to flow forth from him who should believe in
Jesus seemed to tell of a refreshment deeper and truer than that the most
splendid ceremonial could supply.[32] The people’s hearts were strangely
touched. “Of a truth this is the Prophet,” some cried out. “This is the Christ,”
still others said. But others questioned, “Shall Messiah come out of Galilee?”
So the ferment grew again.

[32] Geike’s Life of Christ, Vol. 2, p. 293. And here were the officers, with
their orders to make this troubler prisoner. They try, and yet they cannot. At
length they go back to their chiefs, empty-handed still, and with this excuse
upon their lips, “Never man spake like this man.”

Now, the Scripture which makes the text gives us the reason for this strange
helplessness — of the leaders, of the people smitten by various passions as the
tempests smite the sea, of the officers. Afterwards they do take him. They
scourge him. They crucify him. But not now. They cannot do it now. And why?
God’s time for it had not struck. On the dial of his purpose the hands of his
appointment had not reached the hour. Until that moment, the mob might rage, but
they could not capture. Then they sought to take him; but no man laid hands on
him, because his hour was not yet come,—that was the reason. So the truth which
flashes out upon us from this Scripture is the Permanence of the Divine Plan. It
binds the leaders, the people, the officials. It holds them back. Wait, O raging
waves! — then — but not till then. The hour has not yet come — the Permanence of
the Divine Plan. And to affirm this is only to declare in another way the
Doctrine of a Special Providence.

First.—Let us be frank, and confess the mystery of this matter. In the year
1608, there lived a Hollander whose name was Lippershey. He discovered that, by
looking through two glass lenses in a certain way, objects distant were made
larger, and could be seen distinctly. That was the seed of the telescope. The
year afterwards Galileo heard of the fact, and, without knowing the principles
of their construction, nevertheless invented for himself a form of the
instrument. Working at it, and gradually improving it, he succeeded in making a
telescope which could magnify thirty times. He turned it on the moon. He found
that its surface was diversified like that of our own earth; that there were
mountains, and valleys between them, and that the mountains cast deep shadows
into the valleys. On the night of the 7th of January, 1610, he was looking
through the telescope at the planet Jupiter. He saw near Jupiter three small
stars in a straight line. A few evenings later he saw a fourth. Gazing at them
evening after evening, he discovered that they were revolving in orbits round
the planet in regular times and at regular distances. He was the first to see
the moons of Jupiter. Here was positive proof of the astronomical theory of
Copernicus. As the moons went round Jupiter, so Jupiter went round its centre,
so the earth traveled round its centre, too, and its moon round it. The old
thought that the earth was centre, and that everything went round it, was
clearly wrong. The new thought that the sun was center, and that all the planets
circled it, was clearly right. That new and better thought made a real science
of astronomy possible. Yes, the moons of Jupiter were facts. The telescope
discovered them. And the vast inferences from these revolving moons were facts
as well. It was a wonderful night for truth when Galileo first caught vision
through his little tube and his imperfect lenses of these revolving moons.[33]
[33] Draper’s Conflict Between Religion and Science, p. 169 But now, facts of
which the telescope tells, and the microscope tells, and the chemical test tube
tells,are not all the facts which exist in the universe. Some people seem to
think they are, but they are not.

Here is a man. He turns his thought inward upon himself. He thinks about
himself. He studies himself. He is a mightier fact than these moons which
Galileo saw. If a section of the sun falling earthward should smite that man to
death, he would yet be greater than the sun, for he would know that he was
slain, while the sun would not know that it was slaying, as Pascal has told us.

Well, this man is turning his thought inward on himself, and immediately he
comes upon this great fact of consciousness, that he is morally free, and,
therefore, that he is morally responsible. That is as certain a fact to every
man as are the moons of Jupiter when he sees them through a telescope. It is a
fact of another kind. It is a fact internal, and not external. It is a fact of
consciousness, and not a fact of physics. But, notwithstanding, it is yet a
certainty — every man is free in his moral choices, and so every man is
responsible. Mr. Tyndall, not long ago, in Birmingham, made a speech in which he
denied this fundamental fact of a moral and human freedom. Mr. Tyndall is
telling the robber, ravisher, murderer, that he cannot help his robbing,
ravishing, murdering. The man is plunged into a good deal of perplexity. He
always thought, before, he could help it. So he turns round and asks the
renowned lecturer, “What do you hold me responsible, then, for? what do you
punish me, then, for?” And Mr. Tyndall answers: “You offend because you cannot
help offending, to the public detriment. We punish because we cannot help
punishing, for the public good.” Now, there is just one short and easy, and, at
the same time, severely scientific answer to such a “cannot help” philosophy.
This robber, ravisher, murderer, or any other man doing wrongly, knows Mr.
Tyndall is speaking falsely to him, when he tells him he cannot help it. He
knows he can help it, if he will help it. He knows he ought to help it since he
can help it. He knows, everybody knows,—it is a fact of moral consciousness, as
real as the physical fact of the moons of Jupiter,—that everyone is free in his
moral choices, and that, therefore, he is morally responsible. But now the
Scripture which makes the text, and much other Scripture also, lifts into view
another great divine fact—that of the Permanence of the Divine Plan, and
therefore necessarily a Special Divine Providence constantly working toward the
realization of that Plan. God has a purpose in this world. That purpose stands
and stays. That purpose organizes about itself all forces and instruments for
its accomplishment. The accomplishing of that Plan is a special and controlling
Providence. Notwithstanding the free moral action of human wills, that
Providence is at work, bringing that plan to bloom. To the last jot and to the
last title, and precisely in the Divine time as well, that Divine Purpose is
going to get itself finished. It is not going to hurry. It is not going to
delay. Nothing can thwart God, nothing can hinder God. “Then they sought to take
him, but no man laid his hands on him, because his hour was not yet come.” In
the Permanent Divine Plan, a special Providence took hold of these leaders,
people and officers, and controlled them. They were perfectly free on the one
hand, they were perfectly controlled on the other. Through a Providence special
to each one of them they must render ministry to the Divine and Permanent Plan.

Certainly there is mystery here. What shall we do with it? Say there is no human
freedom^ or declare there is no permanence of divine plan, and so no special
providence out-working itI No, we are to hold fast to a human freedom and to a
special providence bringing the divine plan to fruitage, and confess the
mystery. Here is a mighty pyramid. Its base sweeps off in an unmeasured
distance. Upon one of its majestic sides I find words like these let down into
the stone’s heart: “Whom he did foreknow he also did predestinate. He shall
cause the wrath of man to praise him, and the remainder shall he restrain,” and
when I read the words I say: As fixed as fate is each man’s destiny. God holds
everything in his bands. But after weary miles of travel I pass around to this
pyramid’s other side, and lo! there I read these words just as deeply
sculptured: “Choose ye whom you will serve.” “Whosoever will let him come.” And
with the memory of those other words and of what they taught me still strong
within me, in the presence of these I must say notwithstanding, all is as man
shall choose; his destiny is in his own hands. Yet both are written on the same
pyramid, and I notice that both sides slope upward toward the apex. But when in
my perplexity I look aloft to see if these apparently opposing sides can ever
meet, above that summit I discern only the thickest mists, and that is all.

What, then, am I to do? Both teachings are written on the same pyramid. I will
accept the apparently opposing truths, notwithstanding the mystery. I will be
glad the world cannot shackle to loose ends because there is a permanent Divine
Plan and therefore a Special Providence urging that Plan’s completion; I will be
sure that men are free, and so responsible. As to the mystery, I will wait till
heaven’s light lifts its mists from the majestic pyramid of the Divine
Revelation.

Secondly.—While we confess the mystery of a permanent divine plan, through a
special providence laying its grasp upon all natural laws and forces and all
freely-acting human wills, let us nevertheless affirm that though the doctrine
may be above reason, it is not against reason.

It is not an unreasonable doctrine. That is to say, it is not against the
analogy of things; it is in accordance with that analogy. One thing is certain:
God cannot deny himself; therefore, this other thing is certain, that, in the
grasp of this permanent Divine Plan through a special providence, upon all
natural facts and forces and also upon the free choices of human wills, there
can be no break or fracture of the laws ruling them since these laws God has
himself appointed. Such breakage and fracture would be God’s denial of himself.
The question comes, is there any analogy which may at least suggest to me how
this special providence may push on the blooming of God’s purpose without injury
to these presiding laws? In the light of such analogy, while this doctrine of a
special providence may be above my reason, and while I may freely confess it to
be so, I may be still sure that it is not against my reason.

I think the analogy from our human use of natural law will help us here. The
advance of science, how wonderful it is! I get aboard a steamship, and in a few
days, against the tides and winds and sweeping ocean currents, I am borne across
the Atlantic. This my fathers could not do. What I can do in days they could
scarcely accomplish in as many mouths. They were the sport of tides and hostile
winds. I enter a telegraph office and send my question to a friend in London
through the great wide sea, and get his answer almost in a moment. This my
fathers could not do. They must wait months for an answer, until the
slow-sailing ship brought in the tardy mails. I turn the crank of a phonograph
and find, to my amazement, that it has caught and kept even the most evanescent
varieties of my tone and accent, the rapidity or the slowness of my speech, the
words that I have spoken into the yielding air. Surely this marvel was never for
my fathers. By what means have these things been accomplished, and a thousand
others like them? Through the breaking of any natural law? Nay, verily I Through
a better knowledge of, and so through a better obedience to the laws of steam
and electricity and sound, and the skillful manipulation of them to special
uses. These vast achievements result from a truer knowledge of, and a profounder
obedience to, natural law. They do not come, they never could have come, from
the breaking of natural law.

God knows all laws; those which preside over physics, those which preside over
the free and subtle human soul. With God’s knowledge is conjoined also infinite
power and infinite skill. I am unable to conceive how he may do it; but I am not
unable to conceive that infinite knowledge and infinite power and infinite skill
may, without injury to a gossamer thread of law, through a special providence,
cause and complete the actualization of his own majestic plan. If man can do so
much through law, surely God can do infinitely more. And so, to me at least,
this analogy from the human sceptre over natural law assures me that while the
doctrine of a special providence may be above my reason, it is not against it—it
is not unreasonable’?”

Thirdly.—Let us get the comfort of this serene truth of a permanent Divine Plan
working itself out through a special Divine Providence. “Preventively,”
“permissively,” “directively,” “determinatively,” it may work, but this
providence works on toward the highest and holiest, since it is but the
expression and actualization of the Divine Plan,

There is comfort in it. Once my little child taught me a deep lesson. I was
changing my residence; we were in the turmoil of moving. The pictures were taken
from the walls; the carpets were rolled from the floors. Her nursery had been
invaded; her toys must be captured and packed as well. Apparently to her it was
the destruction of her home. But I noticed that as she went about through the
desolate rooms she was as joyful and as fearless, and was ringing out a laugh as
merry as when her toys were at her hand and the house was ordered from the
basement to the attic. I waited and watched her, and asked myself why her
childish comfort could be so little blighted. This was the answer to my question
about my child: She had utter faith in my thought for her, and in the means by
which I was carrying out my thought. We are to have such faith in the greater
Father’s thought and in his means. Who shall say that there is not for any
Christian the profoundest comfort here!

There is comfort for the Christian worker. The cause of God must triumph
shiningly and the meshes of this special providence are so fine that no word of
prayer or deed of duty done to help it on can slip through into loss or
uselessness.

There is comfort for the Christian who is meeting trial. The Kohinoor, the
mountain of light from India, was a gem most wonderful. But it was poorly cut,
and so the inward fires of its lustre were somewhat dimmed. For more than a
mouth they set whirling at it the emery wheels armed with diamond dust. They
removed a third of it; but it gleamed now a perfect gem. It was into 20 careless
hands they gave the duty. He was the best diamond worker who could be found. He
knew what he was about, and his instruments were the best possible. We need the
grindings and rubs of trial. But God’s design for us is the best possible, and
it is his special providence which uses the tools. And even death must wear a
shining face when we see it through the lense of his appointment and remember
that a special providence shall bring it in his time. We must be immortal till
our work is done; then dying is coronation.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 16: 15 THE BIBLICAL DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY
========================================================================

The Biblical Doctrine of the Trinity By Rev. Alvah Hovey, D. D., President of
Newton Theological Institution, Mass “Baptizing them in the name of the Father,
and the Son, and the Holy Ghost.” Matthew 28:10. This text has been chosen, not
because it speaks of Christian baptism, but because it speaks of a Triune God,
the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. For my article will attempt to state
the Biblical doctrine of a Trinity—a doctrine which is often denominated a
mystery, though not always in the scriptural sense of this term. For the word
“mystery” is used by the sacred writers to denote a fact or truth which could
not have been discovered by the unassisted mind of man, but which has been
revealed by the Saviour or by the Holy Spirit. In this sense it was employed by
Christ when he told his disciples why he was teaching them plainly, and the
people in parables. “Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom
of Heaven, but to them it is not given.” (Matthew 13:11.) And in the same sense
it was used by Paul when he informed the Colossians that he had been made a
minister “to fulfil the word of God, even the mystery which hath been hid from
ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints.” (Colossians
1:20.) A mystery, then, in its proper, biblical sense, is simply a fact or truth
made known by revelation. It may, therefore, be plain or obscure, comprehensible
or incomprehensible. But many of the facts revealed by Christ, or by holy men
who were enlightened by the Spirit of God, are “hard to be understood.” They do
not fall within the range of our earthly experience. They belong to the world
that is unseen and spiritual. They refer to modes of existence and of
intercourse that puzzle the understanding. And so we have gradually come to
apply the word to any fact or truth which is incomprehensible. In this sense the
word is commonly used when we speak of the Divine Trinity. We call the doctrine
of the Triune God a mystery, not so much because it is a revealed truth as
because it is an obscure truth. Doubtless it is both; for all our knowledge of
it is derived from the Bible, and all that the Bible says fails to explain the
amazing fact. It “half reveals and half conceals” a mode of the divine existence
which differs greatly from anything in our own. Obviously, then, we ought to
listen with deep reverence to the testimony of Christ and of his Apostles while
they utter “wondrous things” concerning “him whom no man hath seen or can see.”
The word “Trinity” is not applied by any sacred writer to the Supreme Being, but
it has been used a long time by Christians to express what they suppose to be a
doctrine of the New Testament in respect to God. Trinity, abbreviated from
tri-unity, is formed of two words, which signify, respectively, “three” and
“one,” and is affirmed of God because he is believed to be three in one—that is,
in a certain respect three, and in another respect one. Thus Trinity and Unity
are affirmed of the Godhead, but they are not both affirmed of the same thing in
the Godhead. In harmony with the great body of Christian teachers in the past,
we believe that the Unity of God is essential, and the distinctions in God
personal. But by the latter expression we do not mean that the Father is as
separate and secluded in consciousness from the Son as a human father is from
his son; we only mean to say that whatever distinction there is between the
Father and the Son is of a personal nature. For it seems to us very evident that
the Scriptures teach three things, namely, that there is but one true God; that
the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are, each of them, truly Divine or God;
and that these three are in a personal respect distinguishable from one another.
Let us look at some of the evidence for each of these propositions.

I. The Scriptures teach that there is but one living and true God. This
statement is rarely called in question by any person familiar with the sacred
record; for it represents the prevailing tone and spirit of that record. It is
the deep underlying assumption which supports every message of every prophet;
and it is often expressed. With all the emphasis possible Moses cried: “Hear, O
Israel, Jehovah our God is one Jehovah.” (Deuteronomy 6:4.) With no less
assurance Malachi asks: “Have we not all one Father? Hath not one God created
us?” (Malachi 2:10.) And the Most High declares by the pen of Isaiah: “I am
Jehovah, that is my name, and my glory will I not give to another.” (Isaiah
42:8). “Before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. I,
even I, am Jehovah, and besides me there is no Saviour.” (Isaiah 42:10-11.) “I
am the first and the last, and besides me there is no God.” (Isaiah 44:6.) If
further evidence is needed, a large part of the fortieth chapter of Isaiah may
be read; for it is a passage of wonderful majesty, asserting that Jehovah, in
contrast with idols, is the only God, the Creator, the Preserver, and the Ruler
of all things. And this doctrine of one God, so clearly announced by the
prophets, became at last the settled creed of the Jews, and was made by them an
excuse for rejecting Jesus Christ as a blasphemer, instead of receiving him as
the Son of God. Yet the Saviour himself taught that there is but one true God,
(e. g.Mark 10:18); and while he claimed to be strictly divine, he so identified
himself with the Father that the unity of God was maintained. As to the nature
of the divine unity, we hold that it is essential, or in other words, that the
proper essence or substance of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit is
forever one and the same—a simple, indivisible, self-existent, everlasting
principle of life, intelligence, wisdom, love and power. This language describes
what is implied in the words of the sacred writers; it offers a key that will
fit into all the statements of Scripture and lay open to us their treasures of
wisdom. Do the sacred writers lay great stress on the Unity of God, as if it
were a fundamental characteristic of His being? This view accounts for their so
doing, for by a law of our reason we attach even greater importance to being
than to manifestation, even though that manifestation be personal. Do they
represent the distinctions of the Godhead as personal? This view is consistent
with the representation, for it has never been proved that unity of essence
carries with it unity of person. Do they ascribe equal knowledge, goodness,
wisdom, and right to the divine Father, Son and Spirit? This view explains their
doctrine, for the same attributes ought naturally to inhere in personal beings
whoso underlying and essential nature is one and the same. Does the Saviour say,
“I and my Father are one,” (John 10:30); that is, one in guarding the flock, one
in power, one thing, using a neuter form of the word one? This view accounts for
the saying better than any other with which we are acquainted; for power, in the
last analysis, belongs to essence, and if the essence of the Father and the Son
is one and the same, their power may well be one. In the light of these facts it
seems to us that the Unity of God is essential.

II. The Scriptures plainly teach that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit
are, each of them, truly divine, or God. We are not now concerned about the
agreement of this teaching with the doctrine that God is one, but are seeking to
show that this teaching is to be found in the New Testament. If found there, we
may be sure that it agrees with the Unity of God, even though we should be
unable to comprehend the mystery of the divine nature, and demonstrate this
agreement. Taking one step at a time, let us search for the testimony of the
inspired Word as to the Deity of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy
Spirit.

Christians of every name freely admit that the Father is often called God, and
is always represented by the sacred writers as truly divine. That Christians are
right in doing this may be proved by a single text; for in his Epistle to the
Ephesians Paul declares there is “one God and Father of all, who is over all and
through all and in you all.” (Ephesians 4:4) If we add to this the fact that,
while there are several passages of the New Testament in which the term God may
signify the Supreme Being, without any .special .reference to the Father, and a
few in which it is applied to the Son or to the Holy Spirit, there are very many
in which this term is applied to the Father—no further proof will be necessary.
The proper Deity of the Father will be accepted as a certain truth of Scripture.
In regard to the Deity of the Son, we appeal, first, the language of Thomas when
Jesus appeared to him in the evening of the eighth day after his resurrection.
For seeing Jesus before him, he said unto him: “My Lord and my God.” (John
20:28.) If this was not a definite acknowledgment of the Deity of Christ, I am
at a loss to conceive how such an acknowledgment could have been made. And the
Saviour did not protest against it. He who had recently come from Paradise with
the awe of the unseen and holy Father upon him, did not rebuke the words of his
disciples, though, if he was less than God, they were false and blasphemous.

We appeal secondly to the words of Paul, exhorting the Philippians: “Let this
mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, who being in the form of God,
thought it not robbery to be equal with God, but made himself of no reputation,”
etc. (Php 2:5-6.) These words teach that equality with God was freely
relinquished by Jesus Christ when He left His heavenly state or condition to
become man. But no being can relinquish or forego that which is beyond his
reach; no one can relinquish his equality with God whose nature does not qualify
him to be on a level with God, to share his condition and glory. With this
passage may be compared another in the Epistle to the Colossians, written about
the same time, in which, speaking or Christ, he says that “all things have been
created by him and for him,” and that “in him all things consist,” (Colossians
1:16-17); while a little further on he declares that “in him dwelleth all the
fullness of the (Godhead bodily.” (Colossians 2:8.) Or we may turn to one of his
earlier epistles, namely, that sent to the Romans, and hear him say of the
Israelites: “Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ
came, who is God over all, blessed forever.” (Romans 11:5.) We appeal thirdly to
the language of John in his prologue to the Fourth Gospel, who says that “the
Word was God,” that “all things were made by Him,” that “in Him was life,” and
that “the life was the light of men.” (1: 1-4.) With these words of the disciple
whom Jesus loved we may compare the sayings of Christ himself: “The Son can do
nothing of himself” or from himself; that is, so close is the union between the
Father and Son that any action of the Son, separate from that of the Father, is
impossible. Hence the full expression is this: “The Son can do nothing from
himself but what he seeth the Father do; for what things soever he (the Father)
doeth, these in like manner doeth the Son also. For as the Father raiseth up the
dead and quickeneth them, even so the Son quickeneth whom he will.” (John
5:19-21.) “I am the light of the world.” (John 7:12.) “Before Abraham was, I
am.” (John 8:6-8.) “He that hath seen me hath seen the Father.” (John 14:9.) “I
and my Father are one.” (John 10:30; John 17:22.) This last expression was twice
used by the Lord—once to affirm the inseparable unity of his own action and his
Father’s, and once to affirm his moral unity with the Father.

We have here given But a small part of the biblical evidence that Christ is
truly God, But enough to establish this proposition as a doctrine of the
Christian religion. Our Saviour is divine as well as human, and we are
constrained to take account of His divinity in forming our conception of the
Godhead. But if the Son is truly God, so likewise is the Spirit. This might be
inferred with some degree of probability from the designation itself; for as the
spirit of man is that part of his being which is highest, freest, most
intelligent, it is surely improbable that inspired men would apply such a name
as Spirit of God, or Holy Spirit, to anything less high and holy than God
himself. The same might be inferred with still greater confidence from the fact
that divers acts, such as inspiration, regeneration, sanctification and the like
are ascribed sometimes to God, sometimes to Christ, sometimes to the Spirit of
God, sometimes to the Spirit of Christ, and sometimes to the Holy Spirit; while
a careful examination and comparison of all these representations lead to the
belief that it is the Holy Spirit who accomplishes, by direct agency, the divine
will in human souls. Moreover, the proper deity of the Holy Spirit appears to be
assumed by Peter in his address to Ananias: “Why hath Satan filled thy heart to
lie to the Holy Spirit, and to keep back part of the price of the land?” * * *
“Why hast thou conceived this thing in thy heart? Thou hast not lied unto men,
but unto God.” (Acts 5:3-4.) The same assumption is also made by Paul in these
words: “Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God
dwelleth in you?” (1 Corinthians 3:16.) That is, God dwells in his temple, and
ye are God’s temple, because the Spirit of God dwells in you, for the Spirit is
God. But we need not multiply citations, for there seems to be in fact no
biblical ground for doubt as to the divinity of the Holy Spirit. It may be
necessary to collect with some care the evidence that he is personal, but it is
needless to prove that he is Divine III. The Father, the Son, and the Holy
Spirit are distinguishable in a personal respect from one another. Personality
is selfhood, and by a personal being we mean a being that is intelligent,
self-conscious, voluntary—a being that knows, feels, wills. Let us observe what
the Scriptures teach in respect to a personal distinction between the Father and
the Son, (1.) They make use of these terms as divine names, and these terms,
Father and Son, point to distinctions of a personal nature. They are applicable
to beings that know, love, plan and choose. Any other use of them is intensely
figurative. Yet they are used very often by the Saviour, when his language is
otherwise plain, sober, didactic. And they are often accompanied by other
expressions which rest on the idea of a personal distinction between the Father
and the Son. (2.) The pronouns I, thou, he and we, are often employed by Jesus
in speaking of himself, of the Father, or of both, and they imply the
personality of himself and of His Father, as well as some distinction between
the two. Thus: “I thank thee, O Father, Lord of Heaven and earth.” (Matthew
11:25.) “Glorify thou me with the glory which I had with thee before the world
was.” (John 17:5.) “Even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in Thee, that they
also may be in us.” (John 17:21.) If this use of the pronouns does not prove
that there is some distinction of a personal nature between the Father and the
Son, it is not easy to imagine any kind of evidence which would be accepted as
proof of such a distinction. (3.) Christ distinguishes between His own knowledge
and the Father’s. Thus: “No one knoweth the Son but the Father; neither knoweth
any one the Father but the Son, and he to whom the Son will reveal Him.”
(Matthew 11:27.) “The Father loveth the Son, and showeth Him all things that
himself doeth.” (John 5:20.) Both these testimonies—one preserved in the Gospel
of Matthew, and the other in the Gospel of John—imply that the intellect of the
Son is, properly speaking, distinguishable from that of the Father. And the same
may be said of nearly every passage in the New Testament which refers to the
knowledge of either. (4.) Christ distinguishes between his own affection and his
Father’s; not indeed as to the moral character of that affection, but as to the
heart that exercises it. “The Father loveth the Son,” (John 5:20), is a
declaration of Jesus himself, and it accords with the voice from Heaven: “This
is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” (Matthew 3:17.) As to the Son’s
love of the Father, we find it expressed in such terms as these: “My meat is to
do the will of him that sent me.” (John 4:34.) “I honor my Father.” (John 8:49.)
“I know him and keep his word.” (John 8:55.) “I do always those things which
please him.” (John 8:29.) It is then certain that the Father loves the Son, and
the Son the Father; and it is no less certain that mutual affection implies
distinctions of a personal nature. (5.) Christ distinguishes between his own
will and his Father’s will. “If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing; it is my
Father that glorifieth me.” (John 8:54.) “I seek not mine own glory; there is
one that seeketh and judgeth.” (John 8:50.) “Not my will, but thine, be done.”
(Luke 22:42.) There is, of course, a sense in which the Father’s will is the
same as the Son’s; for they agree in willing the same holy ends; but if the
passages quoted by us are to have any natural interpretation, the faculty of
will in the Father is in some way and measure distinct from the faculty of will
in the Son, and this distinction is clearly personal. Finally, it must be
observed that every particle of evidence to be found in the New Testament for
any kind of Trinity in the Godhead, goes to prove that the distinctions marked
by the words Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are of a personal nature. All the
Scriptural evidence, we say, looks towards this kind of a distinction, and not
as some would have us believe, to something else which is utterly, and it may be
forever, hidden from us in the depths of the Divine nature.

But, if we admit the personality of the Son to be distinguishable from that of
the Father, is it necessary to take a similar view of the Holy Spirit? May we
not think of the latter as being only a certain divine influence or operation by
which the Father and the Son move upon the hearts of men? In answer to these
questions, it may be said: 1. That our appeal must still be made to biblical
evidence. Where that leads, it is necessary for us to follow; for on this
subject there is no other valid evidence) within our reach. 2. That all the
logical difficulties involved in the doctrine of a tripersonal God arc
encountered in the doctrine of a bipersonal God, the Father and the Son, and as
we must accept the latter, there is no reason why we should not accept the
former, if it is supported by preponderating evidence. 3. That the biblical
evidence for the personality of the Holy Spirit is amply sufficient to justify
belief in the same. Recall the words of my text, “Baptizing them in the name of
the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” Is it easy to suppose that
the Lord Jesus here associates an influence or operation with himself and the
Father? binding them together by the word “name”? Can we believe that he
intended to say, “Baptizing them into the name of the Father, and of the Son,
and of the holy influence which is exercised by the Father and the Son?” Bead
the Apostle’s benediction “The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God,
and the communion of the Holy Spirit, be with you all” (2 Corinthians 13:14),
and ask yourselves whether there is not in this case also strong reason to infer
the personality of the Spirit from the personality of the Lord Jesus Christ and
of the Father? Recall, at the same time, the Apostle’s account of the
extraordinary gifts which were bestowed on certain members of the early church,
concluding with the words, “But all these worketh the one and self-same Spirit,
distributing to everyone severally as he willeth” (1 Corinthians 12:11), and his
word of exhortation, “Grieve not the Holy Spirit of God, by whom ye were called
unto the day of redemption.” (Ephesians 4:30). In these expressions, feeling,
willing and doing are ascribed to the Spirit as unequivocally as they are ever
ascribed to the Father or to the Son. Recall, too, the language of Christ when
he promised the Comforter to his disciples: “He will guide you into all the
truth; for he will not speak of (or from) himself, but whatsoever he shall hear
that will he speak; and he will show you things to come. He will glorify me, for
he will receive of mine and will show it unto you.” (John 16:13-14). Do not the
words, “he will not speak from himself,” imply that he could speak from himself?
Is it necessary to say that an influence or operation will not speak from
itself? Or does an influence or mode of action “hear” and “receive”? It is
enough to read the last discourse of Jesus before .he was betrayed, in order to
be convinced that the Holy Spirit is as truly personal as the Father or the Son.

Thus the elements of the doctrine of the Trinity are found in the New Testament;
the unity of God, the deity of the Father, of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
and the personal distinction between these three. And these elements readily
unite in the received doctrine of the Trinity, which is, that the Father, the
Son and the Holy Spirit are one and the same in essence, but distinguishable in
a personal respect. This doctrine, I repeat, is not to be fully comprehended by
us in the present life. It may be a mystery forever. For who can find out the
deep things of God! (Job 11:17.) No one can tell just how far unity of spiritual
essence modifies and reduces the distinction involved in separate personalities
as we know them. All we affirm is this: that, according to Scripture, the divine
unity is essential, and the difference between the eternal Father, Son, and
Spirit personal, or of a personal nature. There is a vast mystery here. But it
is not the only mystery that confronts us. There is no power or object in nature
that does not rest in mystery, in the very bosom and sea of impenetrable
obscurity. Who of us ever expects to learn on the shores of time the secret of
the union of body and soul, of matter and spirit, acting and reacting upon each
other, and so related by vital forces as to be a single being, a complex unity,
as proved by the witness of self-consciousness? Most truly did the Apostle say:
“For now we know in part, and we prophesy in part.” But if we cannot comprehend
the Trinity, why is anything said of it in the Bible? Would not the Scriptures
have been more useful, because less obscure and perplexing, if they had
contained no references to this mysterious truth? We think not. Be the subject
what it may, our knowledge of it is only partial; yet this partial knowledge is
found to produce wonder, curiosity, desire, effort and progress; yea, partial
knowledge has often proved sufficient to smother vanity, beget reverence, warn
of danger, and point out the way of life. Men knew how to use the compass, and,
by its direction, how to cross the pathless deep in safety, long before they had
any conception (if they have this now) of the power which held it with unseen
hand, and made its trembling point a steady guide in cloud and storm. Men have
known by the Word of God of a future life and a heavenly state, and have been
animated to holy action by that knowledge, though quite unable to imagine the
peculiarities of that life, and always baffled in their attempts to comprehend
its glory. In like manner our knowledge of the Trinity, though partial, is
sufficient to awaken awe, reverence, gratitude and praise in our hearts. It is
all we need for religious direction and improvement. It is all we need to
prevent us from relapsing into the coldness of deism or the distraction of
polytheism. If the unity of the Godhead were not plainly taught, we should be
liable, in the interest of clear thought, to regard the Father and the Son and
the Spirit as three separate beings, like ourselves. If the deity of the Son and
the Spirit were not plainly taught, we should be liable, under the influence of
gratitude, to pay religious homage to our Saviour and our Sanctifier, even
though they were not known to be truly divine. And if the personal distinction
between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit were not plainly taught, we
should be in danger of rejecting the whole doctrine of grace through atonement,
and of going back to Judaism or over to Islamism, where legal righteousness and
despair are the sole alternatives. In two particulars, especially, may a
reverent belief of the Trinity prove helpful to our religious life. In the first
place, it may help us to see how God can be forever both self-sufficient and
benevolent. By saying that God is self-sufficient, we mean to say that his being
and blessedness are complete in themselves, and therefore independent of any
other being; and by saying that he is benevolent, we mean to say that he is
love, that good will to others is natural to him. For when we read,” Every one
that loveth is born of God, for God is love” (1 John 4:8), we feel that an
affection really akin to Christian love, though infinite and eternal, must
pervade and animate the life of the Godhead. And this is actually conceivable,
if we can say with the Apostle John, “In the beginning was the Word, and the
Word was with God, and the Word was God.” (John 1:1.) For the term with denotes
fellowship, intimate communion; in this case, the fellowship of the divine Word
with the divine Father. And it is easy to see that if there are different selves
in the infinite Being,— however interpenetrant, transparent and perfectly known
to one another they may be,—there must be mutual and perfect love; for in every
one of them must be constantly revealed, in personal form and beauty, the
infinite virtues of their common nature. But, with any other view, we must
believe, either that love is not an affection eternally active in God, or that
he has had from eternity created objects on which to bestow his affection. By
the former supposition, the innermost and highest activity of the Godhead is
temporal instead of eternal, and mutable instead of permanent; and by the
latter, the highest affection and blessedness of Jehovah depend upon the
existence of created objects. But such a dependence of God upon creation is
inconsistent with any proper idea of his self-sufficiency or perfection. I am,
therefore, convinced that the doctrine of the Trinity is very helpful to us in
forming a conception of God as both self-sufficing and loving. In the second
place, this doctrine is a help to us in thinking of the Atonement. As a matter
of history, we know that a rejection of the doctrine of the Trinity has almost
always led to a rejection of the Atonement, while a cordial belief in the
Trinity has been almost always accompanied with a belief in the Atonement. From
this fact alone it would be safe to conclude that the two doctrines belong to
the same system of truth. But this is not all that should be said. The
Scriptures link them together in many places, and the method of interpretation
which finds or fails to find one of them will find or fail to find the other. He
to whom the Scriptures represent Jesus Christ as the Son of God—strictly divine
and strictly human—will see in him a fit Mediator between God and men, and will
receive the testimony of the Apostles to his atoning death. The mystery of a
triune God accepted, a hundred passages of the New Testament, otherwise obscure,
are made plain. “God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that
whosoever believeth in him might not perish, but have everlasting life.” (John
3:16.) “Behold the Lamb of God, that taketh away the sin of the world.” (John
1:23.) “If any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ, the
righteous; and he is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but
also for the whole world.” (1 John 2:1-2.) “For he made him to be sin for us who
knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.” (2
Corinthians 5:21.) “If we walk in the light as he is in the light, we have
fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us
from all sin.” (1 John 1:7.) “Wherefore he is able to save to the uttermost
those that come unto God by him, seeing that he ever liveth to make intercession
for them.” (Hebrews 7:25.) “Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power,
and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honor, and glory, and blessing.”
(Revelation 5:12.)

Though my principal object in this essay has been to set forth, as clearly as
possible, what seems to me to be the plain teaching of the Scriptures concerning
a triune God, I am fully aware of the objections which are sometimes made to it,
and might attempt, if it was necessary, to point out their inconclusiveness. But
I will only remark: 1. That the biblical doctrine of the Trinity, as believed by
evangelical Christians, is not self-contradictory. This will be evident, if you
recall the fact that it does not affirm God to be in all respects one, and in
all respects three, but in a certain respect one and in another respect three.
To illustrate my thought: there is no contradiction in saying that every man is
three in essence, and one in person or consciousness. His being may comprise
three distinct elements—a material body, a principle of life which pervades and
animates that body, and a spirit which is united with both, but higher than
either, rational, immortal, and fitted to “glorify God and enjoy him forever. I
do not say that man has this triple nature; I only say that there is no
contradiction in supposing that he has it. So, on the other hand, there is no
contradiction in supposing that the personality of God is triple, and his
essence single. In either case, our only duty is to ask for the evidence and
follow where it leads. In the one case, as well as in the other, we are brought
face to face with a mystery which no man ever yet comprehended or explained. Let
us not stumble at mysteries. The universe is full of them, and from youth to age
we are encompassed by them as by an atmosphere. Let us not imagine that we can
comprehend the Almighty, “He is higher than heaven, what canst thou know?” My
brethren, this is not a theme for philosophy, but for revelation. On this
subject, above most others, we need to be as little children, accepting the
facts as they are declared to us by “holy men who spake as they were moved by
the Holy Ghost.”

2. That the biblical doctrine of the Trinity, as understood by evangelical
Christians, is not inconsistent with some kind of subordination on the part of
the Son to the Father. We may be unable to point out the kind or degree of that
subordination, but two remarks will show the direction in which it is possible
to look for light. First. The second person of the Godhead is generally set
before us by the sacred writers in his state of incarnation or humiliation. Both
prophecy and history are chiefly occupied with him as the Mediator, and in this
office he took upon himself the form, place and work of a servant of God, though
he was Head over all things to the church. A certain subordination to the Father
i« therefore involved in his mediatorial work. But the relation of sonship and
official subordination among men is consistent with that of equality in every
natural and moral excellence; may we not believe that it is equally so in the
Godhead, whose personal distinctions are rooted in a common nature? Second. To
say that the distinction between the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit is of a
personal nature, is to prepare the way for us to believe that some personal
quality of the eternal Word rendered it divinely suitable that he should be the
revealer of God and the Redeemer of mankind, and that some personal quality of
the Holy Spirit rendered it divinely suitable that he should be the Sanctifier
of men. Beyond this we need not attempt to go. We may be certain that there is
an eternal fitness or decorum in all the acts of the triune God, but it is too
much for us to expect to see and comprehend it in the present life.

3. That in prayer we should think of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit as
truly divine. We need not hesitate to address either of them in praise or
petition. We need not, and we should not, fear to sing, “Come Holy Spirit,
heavenly Dove.” Though this is prayer and praise to the Spirit, the author of
the new life is certainly God, since “every one that loveth is born of God” (1
John 4:17), and those who “believe in the name” of Christ “have been born, not
of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God”
(John 1:13); that is to say, of God the Spirit; for “that which is born of the
Spirit is spirit,” and “the wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the
sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh and whether it goeth, so is
(it with) every one that is born of the Spirit.” (John 3:8.) We need not
hesitate to offer praise or petition to Christ; for that is what the first
Christians did, when they called on the name of the Lord; that is what Stephen
did, when he said, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit” (Acts 7:59), and that is what
the hosts of heaven were seen and heard doing by the Apostle John when banished
to the isle of Patmos. And, finally, we need not puzzle ourselves with any
attempt to hold in our minds the unity and tripersonality of God at the same
time. It is enough for us to come to God as sinners saved by grace, recognizing
the work of Christ in our behalf, and ready to ascribe the glory of our
salvation to the infinite God It is enough if we honor God in the unseen Father,
behold him in the face of Jesus Christ, and gratefully welcome his presence in
the working of the Holy Spirit.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 17: 16 THE DIVINITY OF CHRIST
========================================================================

The Divinity of Christ By Rev. W.T. Brantley, D. D., Baltimore, MD 1 Timothy
3:16. God was manifest in the flesh. As to some facts respecting Jesus Christ,
people of all parties and shades of opinion concur:—that he lived on earth at
the period mentioned by the evangelists, that he was a man of upright life, that
he delivered sundry discourses, some of which are extant in our day, that he was
the founder of a religion which now numbers its adherents by millions, and that
he was put to death by Pontius Pilate, at the instigation of the Jewish Rulers.
Whether he wrought the miracles ascribed to him, indeed whether he performed any
miracles at all, whether he rose from the dead after his crucifixion, whether he
was a teacher sent from God,—these and other inquiries involving superhuman
intervention have been constantly agitated; and different conclusions have been
reached. This should not be surprising. For even among those who were brought
into personal contact with him, who listened to his discourses, saw his miracles
and observed his daily life, very diverse opinions prevailed respecting him.
“Whom do men say that I am?” he asked his disciples on one occasion. “Some say
John the Baptist; some Elias, others Jeremias or one of the prophets,” was the
reply. They might have added, some call you “a gluttonous man, a wine-bibber, a
friend of publicans and sinners; others say you have a devil and are mad; others
still, that you are in league with Beelzebub and through your connection with
the King of devils you are able to cast out inferior demons.” The addition would
have been true, for the sacred historians tell us that these opinions were
expressed at different times in regard to his character. As clashing views were
held in reference to the person of Christ prior to the completion of his early
work and his ascension to heaven, it might be supposed that after he had left
the world great diversity of opinions would continue to prevail respecting
himself and the work he had performed. Such accordingly we find to be the case.
He had scarcely disappeared from the earth before controversies sprang up
respecting his character and his teachings. In our day it is generally the
divinity of Jesus which is denied. His true humanity is now universally
conceded. But in the first century, we find a considerable number of persons,
known as Docetae, who asserted that Christ was a human being only in appearance.
They taught that the being who sojourned among men, who ate and drank, and slept
and wept, and experienced pleasure and pain, and finally was crucified, was only
the phantom of a man. Absurd as such an opinion appears to us, it would seem
that the Apostle John regarded it as sufficiently serious to demand a
refutation. The existence of this heresy explains the apparent repetition and
tautology with which he emphasizes the humanity of our Lord when he speaks of
“what he has heard, what he has seen with his eyes, what he has looked upon,
what his hands have handled of the Word of life.”

Three hundred years later comes Arius denying the proper divinity of Christ. In
his view, Jesus was superior to man, above angels, more exalted in rank and
dignity than any intelligence in heaven, but nevertheless a creature—there
having been a time when he did not exist. This doctrine for a time enlisted many
adherents. Indeed for several centuries all the leading nations of Europe appear
to have been largely under its influence. Coming down to more recent periods we
reach the days of Faustus Socinus, who in the fifteenth century declared that no
religious doctrine should be received which could not be explained by rational
methods, and as he could not understand how Christ the Son could be equal with
God the Father, he rejected the doctrine of three persons in the Godhead. He
believed that Christ was a good man, that his teaching was invested with divine
authority, and that he suffered death as a martyr to the truth of his teachings.
Socinus died in 1604. But his views are still held by many persons in our own
country and in Europe. Unitarians (though we do not admit their exclusive right
to the appellation) is the name by which they elect to be called. But their
views are essentially the same as those of Lelins and Faustus Socinus, who
uttered them in the latter part of the fifteenth century. But during all the
years in which these discordant opinions have prevailed, respecting the
character of our Lord, there have always been those who have been in full
agreement with Simon Barjona, when he said, “Thou art the Christ, the son of the
living God.” And were the Saviour now to ask, as he did at the coast of Caesarea
Philippi, Whom do men say that I am?—whilst the answer might be, Some say that
thou art a human being and no more, it would also be, Millions believe in thee
as the being “who was in the form of God, and thought it no robbery to be equal
with God.” They believe that thou wast God manifest in the flesh; and they are
looking for salvation through thy name because they believe that thou art “able
to save to the uttermost, all that come to God through thee.” But why do we hold
these views of Jesus Christ? Those who believe him to be God should be ready to
give a reason for the faith that is in them. For whilst it is true that if he be
divine, and we refuse him the homage to which he is entitled, we are guilty of a
robbery which imperils our salvation, it is also true that if he be only a
creature, we are obnoxious to the charge of idolatry if we render him the homage
due to God only. When we claim Deity for Jesus Christ, we must rely on divine
revelation to substantiate the claim. We have no other source of proof. Some
persons have said that natural religion suggests the necessity for a mediator
between God and man. Granted the necessity, reason teaches further: it has been
said that he should possess a dual nature; that is, he must be God and man at
the same time. But we need better evidence than natural religion can supply, in
support of a truth so momentous. As respects reason, it is enough for us to know
that there is nothing contrary to her dictates in the declaration that there may
be God the Father and God the Son also. For though she may not comprehend how
this can be—since “great is the mystery of Godliness “—she must admit that it is
more reasonable to believe what Revelation teaches to be true, than to trust her
own uncertain light. It is not contended that the Scriptures teach with
irresistible clearness, (to every class of inquirers), the divinity of Jesus.
They do not, indeed, present any important doctrine so strongly as to defy
resistance. The Scriptures—any of them—may be wrested. Our conduct in the
pursuit and reception of truth, it has been well said, “is a part of our
probation.” Whilst the meek and honest inquirer may be able to discover the
truth, the self-sufficient seeker, filled with prepossessions for which he is
mainly seeking confirmation from the Scriptures, will be left to wander in
ignorance and error. If we appeal to the sacred oracles, with teachable and
devout minds in quest of the truth on this vital question, I think we shall find
the following propositions to be true:

I. The Scriptures declare that Jesus Christ claimed for himself a divine nature.
It is natural to suppose that if Jesus had been truly God, he would have
asserted this prerogative for himself, whenever it was proper to set forth his
divinity. Had he made no such claim on any occasion, though the evidence for his
Deity from other sources would still be conclusive, objectors would be ready to
say that a superiority should not be awarded to Christ, which, by his silence,
he virtually disclaimed. But the words of our Lord, on such occasions, as well
as the construction placed on his language by those best qualified to judge,
constrain us to believe that he declared his own true divinity.

1. See what occurred after the healing of the impotent man at the pool of
Bethesda. The miracle was performed on the Sabbath day. The enemies of our Lord,
always in quest of some vulnerable point at which they might strike the object
of their hate, assail him as a profaner of the Sabbath. By his violation of the
law he is guilty of death, and they determined to take his life. Aware of their
designs, Jesus excused himself, saying “My Father, worketh hitherto and I work.”
But this language, we are told, only awakened their fiercest displeasure. They
sought the more to kill him, because he had not only dishonored the Sabbath, but
said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God. Should it be
said that the Jews misapprehended the Saviour when they charged him with
claiming equality with God, it may be replied that our Lord would not have
permitted such a construction of his answer to pass in silence, had it been
incorrect. His nonrepudiation, his acceptance of their interpretation, attests
its correctness; and in his case it is equivalent to the assertion of the claim
for himself. The truth is, his language can have no other meaning; and it is
plain, in our view, that he intended it to convey just the meaning which they
accepted. It is as if he had said, “My Father worketh hitherto on the Sabbath
day in his Providence; he heals the sick on this day; he makes his sun to rise
and set; he sends the rain on this day; he makes the grass to grow and the
flowers to bloom on this day; and I, who am his Son, work also in the same
manner, and with the same authority, being Lord of the Sabbath as he is.” Thus
the language involves equality with the Father, and if equal to him, he must be
Divine. Accepting the character ascribed to him by his enemies, our Lord
proceeds to assert his equality in an extended discourse. He tells them that “as
the Father raiseth up the dead and quickeneth them, even so the Son quickeneth
whom he will.” Surely he who can call back to life, from the repositories of the
dead, any person whom he wills thus to summon, may “without robbery think
himself equal with God.” Being thus equal, he declares that the Father hath
commanded that all men should honor the Son, even as they honor the Father. Is
it the will of the Father that all men should believe in him as God? Then it is
his will that they reverence the Son likewise. Is it the will of the Father that
all men should worship him? Then it is his will that they worship the Son also.
Is it the will of the Father that all men should obey him? Then it is his will
that they obey the Son likewise. Such is the union between them that no man can
truly honor the Son, without at the same time honoring the Father. The more we
exalt Jesus, the more do we honor him who says of his Son,” This is my beloved
Son, hear him.” This is the teaching of our Lord respecting himself. It is
apparent that throughout the discourse he is vindicating himself from the charge
of arrogant blasphemies, and asserting his Divine nature. The language fairly
and obviously understood, represents him as claiming true Deity.

2. A similar claim is made in that striking declaration, “I and my Father are
one.” I am aware that Socinians teach that in this Scripture our Lord is setting
forth that between himself and Father there is a unity of sentiment and action.
They deny that it teaches any essential unity of nature. But if the Socinians
are right in their interpretation of the expression, would the Jews, on hearing
it, immediately have taken up stones to stone him? They surely understood him to
affirm that he was one with God. For when he interrogated them as to the reason
of the assault,—inquiring for which of the good works he had shown them their
anger was excited,—they promptly replied, “For a good work we stone thee not,
but for blasphemy, and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.” Now,
if the declaration of our Lord had been misapprehended by his hearers, he would
not have permitted them to be misled on a point so important. Common honesty, to
say nothing of true benevolence, would have quickly corrected the mistake. But
so far from disclaiming the construction placed on his words, he accepted their
interpretation of his meaning, and then, as on a previous occasion, he continued
his discourse, exhibiting at length the intimate relation between the Father and
himself.

3. In the memorable prayer offered on the eve of his crucifixion, our Lord
claims divinity for himself, when, addressing the Father, he says, “And now, O
Father, glorify thou me with thine own self, with the glory which I had with
thee before the world was.” What is the glory to which reference is here made?
It can be nothing less than the homage which is paid to Divine beings. God was
the object of angelic worship long before the foundations of the earth were
laid. This it seems was shared by the Son before he became “God manifest in the
flesh;” and can we suppose that God, who “never gives his glory to another,”
would have been glorified with anyone who did not, like himself, possess a
divine nature, who was not God equal to himself? The prayer manifestly implies
the claim of Divinity on the part of Christ. And so, when Philip asked that he
might see the Father, the reply from Jesus implies a like claim. “Show us the
Father and it sufficeth us.” Have I been so long time with you and yet hast thou
not known me, Philip? After all that you have heard from me, after having
learned from me that I and my Father are one, are you still in doubt as to who I
am? Let me tell you again, Whoever has seen me has seen all that it is possible
for mortal man to see of the Father.

Such was the claim of Jesus. That he was a good man none nave denied who believe
in his existence at all. The Docette who ignored his person, and the Arians who
called him a preexistent creature, and the Socinians who deny his divinity, all
admit that he was a good man. And if this be his character then he will
certainly speak the truth; and we must receive his testimony respecting his own
Deity as absolutely true.

II. Whilst Jesus Christ asserted his own proper Divinity, he sustained his
assertion by performing works which could only be wrought by the power of God.
It might be said that the mere claim of any one to a character proves nothing.
An impostor may claim to be king of the realm. Even a good man, through the
imperfections of his judgment, may claim for himself prerogatives to which he
has no just title. It is admitted that one claiming a divine nature should be
prepared to furnish the world with sufficient treasons for such a claim. If
Jesus, like Mohammed, had produced no miracles in attestation of his high
claims, we should be as unwilling to believe in his Deity as to recognize the
assumptions of the great Arabian impostor to be the prophet of God. But his
Deity was demonstrated by an impressive exhibition of the most unquestionable
miracles. When the disciples exclaimed, on the Sea of Tiberias, “What manner of
man is this?” they felt most profoundly that the Being who could tranquilize the
angry elements with a word, was something more than man. He who could take a few
small loaves and fishes, which a lad had brought with him, probably a lunch for
his own use, and so multiply them as to satisfy the appetites of ten thousand
people, (for if we include the women and the children, there were probably so
many), and then gather up a larger amount of fragments than the original supply,
showed himself equal to a work which is one of the most indisputable proofs of
divine power—we mean creation. The young man who rose from the bier on which the
attendants were bearing him to the tomb and Lazarus, who returned to life after
decomposition had proceeded to such an extent as to be offensive, proclaim a
present Deity as manifestly as did the water at the marriage of Cana in Galilee,
which at its Lord’s bidding, “blushed into wine.”

I know it may be said that this argument for the Divinity of Jesus proves too
much, since it would prove Moses, who wrought stupendous miracles in Egypt; and
Elijah, at whose word the widow’s son came back to life, and whose meal and oil
were multiplied; and Peter and Paul who healed the sick and raised the dead, to
have been divine also. Not so. These men never wrought miracles as Jesus did.
They acted with a delegated authority which they never failed to recognize.
Moses and others of the Old Testament saints worked miracles only as they were
acting under Divine command. When Paul requires the spirit of divination to come
out of the damsel, he asserts his order “in the name of Jesus Christ,” thus
attesting his own weakness, and the power of the Lord Jesus. “Æneas,” says
Peter, “Jesus Christ maketh thee whole.” Here Peter in like manner attests at
once the Divinity of Jesus and his own subordination. But Jesus acted in his own
name and on his own authority. He had but to say, “I will, be thou clean,” and
immediately the cleansing followed. With authority and power he commanded the
unclean spirits and they obeyed him. The seventy came back to him saying, “Lord,
even the devils are subject to us through thy name.” Well then has it been said
that “although miracles may be performed by mere men, that is, through their
instrumentality, and so cannot by themselves be proofs of the Deity of those
who, in this instrumental sense, performed them; yet as the miracles of Christ
were performed in his own name, by his undisputed word, according to his will
and for his glory, they plainly prove him to be Divine.”

III. The Deity of Christ is further manifest in the declarations made of the
fact expressly, or by fair implication, by God the Father. If God should send
his Son into the world, it is quite reasonable to suppose (if his Son were a
divine being) that the attention of men would in some way be drawn to the fact.
This is just what we find to be true. At the commencement or his ministry, we
hear the Father introducing him to the multitude, assembled at his baptism, with
the announcement, “This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased.” It is true
that good men are often called sons of God in the Scriptures; but it is always
with such qualifications, or under such circumstances as to indicate the limited
sense in which he intended the expression to be understood. But when, on the
banks of the Jordan, we hear the voice of the Father miraculously proclaiming
the august character of the candidate who had just received baptism at the hands
of John, and mark the spirit descending in the form of a dove, such facts
indicate unmistakably that the object of such honor could be none other than the
equal Son—even “God manifest in the flesh.” And as at the beginning, so as he
was entering on the last scenes of his ministerial life, the voice of the Father
is heard in the Holy Mount reaffirming the utterance at Jordan, saying, “This is
my beloved Son, hear ye him.” Is it possible, if the Son had not been Divine, he
could have been the recipient of such renewed commendation of the Father, after
he had asserted his equality with God, had repeatedly allowed Divine homage to
be paid him, and had, in fact, declared that he and his Father were one! But we
have something stronger than implication on this important point. The Father
bears witness to the Divinity of the Son, when he commands both angels and men
to worship him. Speaking of Jesus in his letter to the Philippians, the Apostle
tells us “Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him and given him a name which
is above every name;” that at the name of Jesus “every knee should 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.” Now says our Lord, “Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only
shalt thou serve.” Is not then the fact that God commands rational beings on
earth and in heaven—beings everywhere—to worship him, a testimony of God the
Father to the Divinity of the Son? In like manner when the Apostle, in the first
chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews, citing the language of the Psalmist in
the forty-fifth Psalm, “Thy throne O God is forever and ever,” as the very
language addressed by God the Father to God the Son, what room can there be to
question the Father’s recognition of the equality of the Son? Watts’ theology is
at once Scriptural and comforting in the familiar verse—

“So strange, so boundless was the love That pitied dying men, The Father sent
his equal Son To give them life again.”

IV. The Deity of Christ is directly affirmed in repeated instances by the sacred
writers. The testimony of these writers to the Deity of Christ derives all its
value from the fact that they were divinely directed in their testimony. If you
suppose that they were ordinary witnesses, liable to the frailties and errors of
fallible men, their testimony upon the point would be of little value. But
guided as they were by an unerring hand, we may depend on what they have said.
Do they distinctly declare the Deity of the blessed Lord? Let the prophet Isaiah
answer, “For unto us a child is born, unto us a Son is given, and the government
shall be upon his shoulders: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor,
the Mighty God, the Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace.” Hear the beloved
disciple, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word
was God.” Who was this Word? The same that afterwards was “made flesh and dwelt
among us.” “Of whom,” says the Apostle Paul, “as concerning the flesh, Christ
came, who is over all, God blessed forever.” Can language be more explicit than
this in regard to the Divinity of Jesus?” He was in the form of God,” says the
same Apostle, “and thought it no robbery to be equal with God.” And if he, wise
and good as he was, thought it no robbery, there was none, and he was equal with
God. Again says the same Apostle, “In him dwelleth all the fullness of the
Godhead bodily.” And yet again, “The first man is of the earth, earthy; the
second man is the Lord from heaven.” “Hereby,” says the inspired John, “perceive
we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us “—thus fulfilling his
own words—” I lay down my life for the sheep.” But we need not multiply this
testimony. It is more than complete; it is abundant. The sacred writers, it
would seem, seek to establish this vital truth by irresistible proof.

V. The worship paid to Jesus Christ, on earth and in heaven is another evidence
of his Deity. We know that Christ was often addressed as Lord when he was on
earth. We know that he was often worshipped and that prayers were constantly
offered to him. Here comes the leper worshipping him and saying,” Lord if thou
wilt thou canst make me clean.” Peter says to him “Depart from me O Lord, for I
am a sinful man.” Thomas cries out “My Lord and my God.” The dying thief prays
“Lord remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom.” After his resurrection,
the disciples come calling him Lord, saying, “Lord wilt thou at this time
restore again the kingdom to Israel?” After his ascension, these same disciples
“worshipped him and returned to Jerusalem.”

Now, what would you think of any one, not divine, who would allow himself,
through the ignorance of others, to be worshipped as God? You remember on one
occasion, Cornelius fell down at the feet of Peter and worshipped him, but Peter
disclaimed the homage. He would not for a moment suffer Cornelius to remain
under the delusion that he was entitled to any such honor. “Stand up, I myself
also am a man.” So when John fell down to worship one improperly he was
immediately corrected. “See thon do it not, I am thy fellow servant, worship
God.” Can anyone suppose for a moment that the Lord Jesus would have received
worship which was not his due?

Perhaps someone may say just here, the fact that these men worshipped Jesus
proves nothing, since it shows rather their opinion of his person than his true
character. This would be true, but for what we have just seen—that our Lord
allowed himself to be so worshipped. But more than this, he not only received
this worship, but actually commended it. “Ye call me Master and Lord, and ye say
well, for Bo I am.” “I am your Master”; it is as if he had said “I have a right
to lay my commands upon you. More than that, I am your Lord. I give you rest, I
forgive your sins, and when you die I am he that will raise you up at the last
day.” Then, too, the Scriptures teach us that he who permitted himself to be
worshipped on earth is receiving homage in heaven. The dying Stephen called upon
him after he had ascended on high, crying, “Lord Jesus receive my spirit.” “I
beheld,” says John in Revelation, “and heard the voice of many angels round
about the throne, and the living creatures and the elders, and the number of
them was ten thousand times ten thousand and thousands of thousands, saying with
a loud voice, Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power, and riches,
and wisdom, and strength, and honor and glory and blessing. And every creature
which is in heaven and on earth and under the earth and such as are in the sea,
and all that are in them, heard I saying, Blessing and honor and glory and power
be to him that sitteth upon the throne and unto the Lamb forever and ever. And
the four living creatures said Amen.” May we not call him God who accepted
worship from men on earth, and who now receives the homage of saints and angels
in heaven?

Need I multiply proofs from the sacred oracles in support of this cardinal
article of our Christianity? It would be easy to do it. I could show you that
attributes properly predicable of Deity only, are constantly affirmed of our
Saviour, Jesus Christ. I could show you that works which God alone could perform
were wrought by Jesus Christ. It could be shown that the names applied to God
are also applied to Jesus—that the Deity of Christ is recognized in the prayers
which were constantly addressed to him by Paul and the other Apostles—that when
Christ commanded his Apostles to baptize in the name of the Father, Son and Holy
Ghost, his equality with the other persons of the Godhead was asserted— that the
benediction pronounced on Christian congregations is an act of worship rendered
to Christ in connection with the Father and the Holy Spirit. But enough. The
discussion of the subject is closed. We have proved, we think, most
conclusively, from the only authorized source, that the man who was born in
Bethlehem of Judea, was indeed, “God manifest in the flesh”—”very God of very
God.” Who can think even superficially that the God of Glory should thus humble
himself for sinners; should for the guilty and lost consent not only to this act
of humiliation, but to a whole life of suffering, shame and sorrow, and finally
to an ignominious death upon the cross, without having his soul stirred to its
lowest depths? What shall we say to such Jove? What words of gratitude can
express the obligation we owe to such a benefactor? What devotion can adequately
characterize the obedience which is his due? We can only summon our poor souls
to stand still, and praise and wonder and adore. We say with the Apostle,
“Thanks be unto God for his unspeakable gift.” But how cold and unworthy is that
word “thanks,” viewed in connection with the gift * Still let us rejoice that,
poor as it is, we can speak it. Let us love to speak it every day. Let the
earliest consciousness of every morning hour find our hearts swelling with
grateful emotions to the God Saviour. Let the last thoughts of the evening hour
be of Him who, God though he was, gave himself for us. Let our whole lives
attest by appropriate deeds, the sincerity of our thanks. And let us look
forward to the skies as the place in which we may repeat and continue evermore
the praises begun on earth. For, after we have dwelt for ages on the theme, we
cannot express all that ransomed sinners owe to such a Divine Deliverer.

“O for this love, let rocks and hills Their lasting silence break, And all
harmonious human tongues, The Saviour’s praises speak.

Angels! assist our mighty joys, Strike all your harps of gold— But when you
raise your highest notes His love can ne’er be told.”


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 18: 17 THE ATONEMENT
========================================================================

The Atonement By Rev. G. W. Samson, D. D., New York

“And not only so, but we joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we
have received the atonement.”—Romans 5:11. For two reasons, this text is often
conscientiously rejected as a statement presenting the gospel doctrine which the
word “Atonement,” as now used by theologians, implies. In the first place, the
word here translated “atonement” in the original Greek means “reconciliation.”
In every case but this the Greek noun is rendered “reconciliation,” and the
corresponding verb, as in the verse preceding our text, is always translated
“reconciled.” The word “reconciliation” does not present the full idea of what
is now included in the doctrine characterized as the Atonement. For this reason
the text seems to be objectionable as setting forth the doctrine to be
considered. In the second place, the old English meaning of the word used by our
translators has changed since their day. Its old meaning was the same as that
now implied in the word reconciliation. The old Saxon word “atone,” as its
composition implies, means “at-one.” The verb is causative in signification,
meaning “to set at-one.” So, too, the noun “atonement” meant, when our
translation was made, “the setting at-one,” or “that which sets at-one.” Now,
this changed meaning of the word—as those accustomed to encounter opponents to
the gospel doctrine always observe — this changed meaning of the word atonement
is so radically fixed in the mind of those trained to erroneous views of the
Gospel doctrine, that it is impossible, humanly speaking, to make them see “the
truth as it is in Jesus.” For this reason, again, many evangelical Christians
and Bible students have avoided the use of this passage as setting forth the
Gospel doctrine. For two reasons, in the present survey, this text is chosen:
first, because of the New Testament term itself; and second, because of the
doctrine involved both in the word and in its connection. As to the word
Atonement here employed, though but once found in the New Testament, it is often
met in the Old Testament, in the version used for nearly three centuries by
English readers. The people cling to the English translation; they will quote
it, and even when the translation can be shown by scholars to be in terms now
obsolete or incorrect, common readers will be led by the version in their hands.
Here, however, the translation is correct. It gives truly the meaning of the
original. The change in the meaning of the word, moreover, is but partial. In
the many cases in the Old Testament where the words “atone” and “atonement” are
met it means all that is now involved in the term as used by evangelical
theologians. Yet more, the English translators who had employed the word in the
Old Testament in its comprehensive meaning, doubtless had reasons, in this
single passage of the New Testament, to depart from their own ordinary New
Testament translation, and to insert the word “atonement” instead of
“reconciliation.” Such was the comprehensiveness which Paul in this connection
himself threw into the word, that fidelity to the inspired writer’s thought
demanded that here, and here alone, the comprehensive Old Testament word
“atonement” should be introduced. And this fact suggests an added and
controlling guide to the preacher, who should first find and then should
thoroughly unfold the truth, not of the word alone, but of the word in its
connection with other words, by which the Divine Spirit presents connected
truth. As to the doctrine, though not fully found in the word, it is found in
the statement wherein Paul used the word. The word “atonement” here employed
does mean, both in the inspired original and in the old English,
“reconciliation.” But the very idea of reconciliation implies former alienation,
and some effective means by which that alienation is brought to an end.
Reconciliation is but a result of something beforehand accomplished; it is an
effect which mind before language was framed. We most, therefore, first,
carefully note at every point of our consideration the meaning of the words in
the original Hebrew and Greek Scriptures which God himself chose in which the
most clearly to present his truth to man. We must also, second, carefully
consider the meaning of words in our English tongue, into which that original
divine revelation is translated; for if, as readers of the Word, we attach
differing ideas to the meaning of the Word we read, that Word will no longer be
to us a divine revelation.

Most of all, if the word of God is the revelation of his own distinct idea of
each truth belonging to our duty to him and to his redemption for us, no mind
can hope to attain “the truth as it is in Jesus,” except it be under the guiding
and enlightening influence of the Divine Spirit. As Christ taught, “Except a man
be born again he cannot see the kingdom of God,” so Paul taught, “The natural
man receiveth not the things of the Spirit.” “God hath revealed them unto us by
his Spirit.”

Guided, then, by human experience, with prayer that we may be enlightened by the
Divine Spirit’s influence, we are to consider—

I. The nature of the Atonement, as consisting in its three provisions:
Reconciliation, Propitiation, and Expiation; which secure Justification. As the
word of God to man is in man’s language, already framed as the expression of
human ideas, Divine Providence has ordered that the efforts of ambitions popular
leaders to impose and impress their own conceptions upon other minds should the
more clearly illustrate his truth. Thus the “oppositions of philosophy, falsely
so-called,” Paul declares, were made, at the Greek cities of Ephesus and
Corinth, the occasion of a fuller consideration and presentation of the gospel
truth. This has, in our day and land, been witnessed in the case of Dr. Bushnell
of Hartford, Conn. Observing in his youth that” no doctrine of the Atonement”
yet presented had “received the consent of the Christian world,” he sought, in
two discourses delivered in the year 1848—one at the Harvard and the other at
the Yale Divinity School,—to show that the “Atonement” is a “reconciliation” of
man to his Maker, such as an offending man makes to his fellow. After years of
added study it was perceived by Dr. Bushnell that this view implied nothing on
the part of the Divine Being; but that it was simply a change in man. He was now
convinced that reason taught that some new affection must necessarily be
awakened in the divine mind. Recalling, therefore, the closing half of his first
volume, he added, as a second element of the Atonement,” propitiation of the
Divine Being.” This idea he found everywhere in the philosophic religions of the
world; as in India, Greece and Rome. This idea of “propitiation” he explained by
Jonathan Edwards’ statement that “God’s love and pity fixed the idea of man’s
sin and its penalty in his mind as if he had been really they.” Thus the
Atonement to Dr. Bushnell was, first, “reconciliation” in man, and second,
“propitiation” in God. But while he found, as he admits, in the Greek language,
words implying “expiation” and “expiatory sacrifice,” and while he also found
that such sacrifices have, in all ages before Christ’s day, both among nations
the most cultured and the most rude, been always offered, failing to recognize
th.at human reason, always and everywhere, has felt the need of “expiation,” as
well as of propitiation and reconciliation, he denied that the New Testament
teaches that in Christ’s Atonement an “expiatory sacrifice” is provided.
Contrary to Bushnell’s forced conclusion, the Christian experience, as well as
the honest intelligence of most readers of the New Testament, has recognized
that the clearly-stated expiatory sacrifice of Christ is that which manifests to
the intelligent universe God’s love. This expiation is the essential provision
of the Divine Atonement. The gospel doctrine of the Atonement, indeed, makes
these three provisions, and in their inverse order, to enter into the nature of
the Divine Atonement: There is, first, an “expiation,” reconciling the universe
to God’s government; there is, second, a “propitiation,” reconciling in the
divine character “righteousness and love;” and there is, third, a
“reconciliation” in man, removing the condemnation for past sin, and begetting a
new life of love to God and his service. And all these secure man’s
“justification;” .so that, though sinful, he is accounted to be righteous.

Turning to the Hebrew of the Old Testament, we find that the word to “atone “is
one from which our Saxon word “cover,” both in form and meaning, is derived.
This word is used about one hundred and: forty times in the Old Testament; and
thus often used it presents the leading idea in the nature of the Atonement.
That idea, end and result accomplished for believing men is to “cover” the sins
of which the sinner has been guilty. It is the thought of David, when, after his
great guilt was revealed to him in the virtual murder and adultery which brought
the great stain and formed the great crime of his life, he wrote the
thirty-second and fifty-first Psalms; exclaiming, at the opening of the former,
“Blessed is the man whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered.” It
was not enough for David that he was assured of “forgiveness;” he wished his sin
“blotted out from the book of remembrance.” Further than this, as the Apostle
Paul, quoting in Romans 4:8 the added expression in Psalms 32:2, plainly
teaches, it is the demand of human conscience and of divine truth, that in order
to be “covered” and “blotted from remembrance” sin should “not be imputed” to
the sinner; that it should not be charged to his account. This, yet again, leads
to a further demand that man, the sinner, should be actually justified from his
transgression (the vital idea of the nature of the Atonement which runs through
the whole history of religions experience as recorded in the Old and New
Testament, and as witnessed in the history of Christian converts in every age
and land. Job, the earliest patriarch whose experience is recorded, since his
age indicates (Job 42:16) that he must have lived some generations before
Abraham, is a striking example of this demand. Divine revelation had declared as
to Noah, who lived some generations earlier than Job, these three facts; First,
that he “found grace in the eyes of the Lord;* second, that he was “a just man
and perfect in his generation;” and third, that “he walked with God.” The
meaning of the word just here must, as Paul and Peter both teach, refer to his
“justification by faith” from sin against God (Genesis 6:8-9; Hebrews 11:7; 2
Peter 3:7). The full explanation of what is thus briefly stated as to Noah is
found in Job. Job is repeatedly designated by the divine pen and voice as “a
perfect and upright man” (Job 1:1-8; Job 2:3). Yet when his friends declare that
he must have been “unjust,” even towards his fellow-men, Job, in defending
himself from the charge, (Job 9:2), asks: “But how should a man be just with
God?” Irritated into murmuring utterances by the persistent charges of his
friends, young Elihu perceived at the close of the discussion that Job, even as
to his sin against God, “had justified himself rather than God” (Job 32:2). In
his reply the Divine Being declares that Job had exalted first his own “wisdom,”
(Job 38:2), and second his “purity” (Job 40:2; Job 40:8). Both these, when
reproved by the Divine voice, Job humbly confesses (Job 42:4; Job 42:2-5). His
sincere repentance and faith are accepted, and his justification is declared by
God (Job 42:6-8); and in this extended description the fullest as well as the
earliest illustration of “justification by faith” seen in Christian experience
is given for all time. Yet again in the brief record of Abraham Paul saw and
repeatedly presented the same idea as fundamental in the nature of the
Atonement, (Genesis 15:6; Galatians 3:6; Romans 4:3-22); while in all the
redeemed from Abel to David, he declares that the same faith was illustrated
(Hebrews 11:2-3). The fullest and most enrapturing view of “justification” as
the essential feature in the result of the Atonement is presented by the Apostle
Paul in the Epistle to the Romans. He first shows that all men are sinners;
because, first, from nature, without revelation, they have “known” God, the
reality and the penalty of sin, and the duty of repentance and faith in God;
because, second, though knowing all this, the heathen had become vile in
appetite and brutal in passion, the Jews had been insincere and hateful in
spirit, while “all men had sinned,” in that the most virtuous had “come short of
the glory of God.” Indeed, he declares that every human being, from the first of
our race, had sinned so perfectly “in the similitude of Adam’s transgression”
that all were as hopelessly lost as our first parents were. Hence the necessary
provision for man’s redemption was one by which (Ch. 3) “the righteousness of
God in the remission of sins that are past” might be made clear; so that all the
universe might see that God “might be just and yet the justifier of him that
believed in Jesus.” The special presentation of this accomplished result is
found in the eighth chapter of this epistle. Having stated again (Romans 8:1),
“there is now, therefore, no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus,” the
Apostle proceeds to explain how this fact can be true. Declaring that sinful man
is “not willingly “—that is, not of his own choice— “subject to vanity,” or to
the weak, erring, sinful condition inseparable from his earthly and bodily life,
but that he has thus been created “by reason of him who hath subjected him in
hope”—that is, that Christ might show his glory and grace in redeeming him—the
Apostle presents the following questions and responses: “Who shall lay anything
to the charge of God’s elect? It is God that justifieth! Who is he that
condemneth ?n Can any of the angels, he seems to imply, beings that never
sinned, and who might regard it unjust that a sinful being should be treated as
if sinless—can any angel condemn man? Have they, he seems further to imply,
suffered at all by man’s sin? And then, suspending, apparently, his reply till
these thoughts may have been pondered, he responds to his own expressed
question, “Who is he that condemneth?” “It is Christ, that died” for man, if any
one, that has any right to condemn! Assuredly man must himself be
satisfied—indeed all heaven must confess, after such a presentation, that “God
may be just and yet justify the ungodly who believe in Jesus;” and .who, with
Paul, can say, “He gave himself for me.”

Through all the history of Christian experience this view, substantially, has
been conceived when peace and rest in Jesus have first been felt. In every age
and land, from the day of Paul’s conversion, Christian converts have conceived
that Christ is both their substitute and surety; that he assumes as his own the
responsibility of their past sin and of their future righteousness. It was this
that the converted Brahmin had conceived, whose experience Dr. Duff, of the
Scotch Presbyterian Mission at Calcutta, described. Dissatisfied with the
religion of the Vedas, he had studied next the Buddhist, and then the Mohammedan
faith. Still at unrest, he heard of the Christian faith, and came to Dr. Duff to
be instructed in it. A month’s reading of the Scriptures and of Scotch theology
brought no satisfying light. One day, however, in poring over Paul’s Epistle to
the Romans, a new idea—that which we have traced—broke upon his mind. Perfectly
enraptured, he went to his instructor to state his new conception. “And why,”
asked Dr. Duff, “were you not satisfied with the Koran, which on every page
declares that God is merciful and can forgive sin?” “Oh,” exclaimed the
converted Brahmin,” “I was not satisfied to be forgiven through the mercy of
God. I wanted to see how God could be just and yet justify the ungodly.”

While sin is thus expiated, and the believing sinner is justified, human nature
recognizes that the Divine Being must be “propitiated.” It was this that Dr.
Bushnell, by years of thoughtful study—proceeding backward from the first
perceived element of the Atonement, the sinner’s “reconciliation “—traced in
man’s religious history. It was ever and fearfully prominent in the history of
the Greeks, in whose language the Old Testament was studied at Christ’s day, and
in whose tongue, also, the New Testament truth could be most fully presented.
When, in the Iliad of Homer, the Grecian heroes embarking for the conquest of
Troy are driven back by a storm, they are told that one of their chief deities
must be “propitiated” by the sacrifice of the most lovely daughter of their
commanding general. How fearfully expressive, how forcibly instructive, the
history of such sacrifices! Let no one dare to treat with scorn the sacrifice of
Christ Jesus on the cross; for in that act of scorn this agonizing demand of
human reason and conscience will also be treated with contempt! Man needs a
“propitiation” with God; and this, the Old and New Testament fully teach, is
provided by Christ Jesus our Lord.

It was the deep conviction that” propitiation “was needed that caused “the
horror of great darkness” to come over Abraham when, immediately after the
declaration that “his faith was counted to him for righteousness,” like many a
Christian convert in later times, he showed a still distrustful craving for some
visible proof of God’s acceptance of him, and asked, “Lord God, whereby shall I
know that I shall inherit” thy promise? (Compare Genesis 15:6; Genesis 15:8;
Genesis 15:12.) It was the agony of anxiety that God should be propitiated which
made Moses “quake with great fear” when, having irreverently dashed the two
tables written with God’s finger, as he saw the people of Israel besotted in
their drunken and idolatrous dance, and then, going back to meet the offended
and aggrieved God whose servants he and they ought to have been, he thus
addressed the people: “Ye have sinned a great sin. But now I will go up unto the
Lord. Peradventure I shall make an atonement for your sin.” This agony of
yearning for “propitiation” with God breaks forth again immediately on his
reaching the presence of the Almighty, as he utters the prayer, “O, this people
have sinned a great sin! Yet now, if thon wilt forgive their sin—and if not,
blot me, I pray thee, out of thy book which thou hast written.” (Exodus
32:31-32.) The same need prompts the first exclamation of David’s penitential
prayer (Psalms 51:1): “Have mercy upon me, O God, according to thy loving
kindness.” It is this very word “propitious” that is on the heart and tongue of
the publican in his prayer, “God be merciful,” or as the original Greek word
means, “God be propitious to me a sinner;” and it is in answer to this prayer
for “propitiation” that Jesus declares that the pleading penitent” went down to
his house justified.” Everywhere in the New Testament as well as in the Old, in
the words of the Apostles as well as of Jesus, “propitiation” is the second need
of man the sinner, and the second provision of the Gospel. As Paul, in the words
nigh our text (Romans 3:25) says of Jesus, “whom God hath set forth to be a
propitiation,” so John, in the closing record of the inspired New Testament (1
John 2:2), declares “He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only,
but also for the sins of the whole world.” The fact that “reconciliation” with
God is the third element required in the “Atonement” is too plain to need
extended confirmation from the Scriptures. As we have noticed, it is the
essential idea in the old English word “atonement” employed in our text, which
is a literal translation of the Greek term here used by the Apostle Paul. It is
the final result, and hence, so far as human duty is concerned, the essential
element for man’s practical regard in the Atonement. Man’s personal effort of
mind and heart is concerned when Paul, on behalf of all succeeding Christian
heralds, writes (2 Corinthians 5:18-21): “All things are of God, who hath
reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of
reconciliation, to-wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto
himself.” But, to give emphasis to the fact that it is only so far as human duty
is concerned that “reconciliation” is made prominent in the divine statement as
to the Atonement, the great Apostle immediately adds, as the means by which this
reconciliation of the world to himself is secured, “Not imputing their
trespasses unto them.” Setting forth then the agency by which this means is
provided, Paul adds: “For he hath made him to be sin for us who knew no sin,
that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.” It is the “expiation”
securing “propitiation,” and this permitting “justification,” that makes
“reconciliation” possible.

Hence our text is worthy the prominence given it, since while the
“reconciliation” of man to God is the special element here implied in the word
“atonement,” that very “reconciliation “is “received” from God, through the
“propitiation” which reconciles in him his righteousness and love, and by means
of the “expiation” which reconciles the intelligent universe to the divine
character and government.

We are thus led on to consider—

II.—The ground of the Divine Atonement: The sacrifice of our Lord Jesus Christ,
offered for man’s redemption. As the worldly-wise statements of ambitious men,
step by step recognizing the full nature of the Atonement, serve to make clear
its complete idea, so the sincere effort of men of earnest mind to approximate,
though they cannot attain to, “the truth as it is in Jesus,” most forcibly
presents the only ground of Divine Atonement; which the inspired Scriptures
reveal, and which can alone meet all the demands of human reason. Here the
mature and condensed statement of Channing is most instructive. In his special
discourse on “Unitarian Christianity,” speaking for his New England associates,
Channing says: “A difference of opinion exists among us as to * * the precise
influence of Christ’s death on our forgiveness. Many suppose that the event
contributes to our pardon, as it was a principal means of confirming his
religion and of giving it a power over the mind; in other words, that it
procures forgiveness by leading to that repentance and virtue which is the great
and only condition on which forgiveness is bestowed. Many of us are dissatisfied
with this explanation; and I think that the Scriptures ascribe the remission of
sins to Christ’s death with an emphasis so peculiar that we ought to consider
this event as having a special influence in removing punishment, though the
Scriptures may not reveal the way in which it contributed to this event.” This
peculiarly frank statement, indicating a mind seeking light from revelation as
well as from reason indicates the way in which the human mind has in all ages
been led to recognize the revealed ground of Divine Atonement. Channing’s words,
both in the cited quotations and in their connection in his discourse, indicate
a reference to “theories” of the Atonement which have prevailed. As each of
these theories presents a “part,” and a part only, of the truth revealed in
God’s “word” and in his “work,” the human mind which studies that word, the
effort of the Christian inquirer who is seeking “the truth,” may be aided by
recalling those theories. The theories of the Atonement which have been
extensively accepted are substantially five. They are each made to grow out of
the view each theorist has maintained as to the fundamental element in human
“sin,” for which Atonement is made, and as to the essential nature of “Christ,”
who by his death atones for sin. The elements of sin are three— error,
alienation, and insubmission; and the first three different theories of the
Atonement turn on the question, Which of these three elements of sin is the
source of the other two? The natures attributed to Christ are two—the human and
the divine; and the last two theories differ from the first three in making the
divine nature of Jesus, rather than the human, give fundamental efficacy to the
Atonement. And while in all ages, both before and after Christ’s coming, and
among nations with and without revelation, these differences of view have
existed, yet the theories, as fully elaborated, have been ascribed to Christian
writers of comparatively modern times. The first, or lowest in its estimate of
sin and of the Saviour, is the “Example Theory,” attributed to Socinus.
According to this theory, sin is fundamentally error—” amartia” in the Greek
original; lack of understanding, as was seen in Eve, who was “deceived in the
transgression.” The Atonement for sin, accordingly, is the example of Christ,
who, as a man, wins back the sinner from his error. The second is the “Moral
Influence Theory,” now ascribed to Bushnell. According to this theory, sin is
alienation—”echthra” in the Greek—or “enmity against God;” illustrated in Adam,
who “was not deceived,” yet transgressed God’s command. The Atonement for sin,
consequently, is Christ’s suffering morally, and only as a man, the innocent for
the guilty; a suffering like that experienced by earthly parents and friends,
and also by sinless angels, who grieve at the alienation of the sinful from the
God whom they love; a suffering whose moral influence tends to reconcile those
alienated from God, and to subdue their enmity. The third is the “Governmental
Theory,” illustrated by Grotins, the founder of the modern science of
International Law. According to this theory, sin is “lawlessness,” in the Greek,
“anomia,” translated in the New Testament “transgression of law;” an element
seen in the “pride” or “rebellion” which was “the condemnation of the devil.”
The Atonement, therefore, is Christ’s sacrifice, as a human representative sent
by God, of every earthly comfort; suffering every loss, and the most painful of
deaths, as a substitute for man, condemned as a rebel; for, as all mankind,
because of their relation to Adam, as heirs of a feudal lord, are subject to
loss of property, of station, and of character, because of the guilt of an
ancestor who has become a traitor, so Christ, by assuming as his own that
sacrifice, makes the traitor’s guilt to be counterbalanced by his merit. The
fourth theory, that called “Material Substitution,” fully wrought out by Anselm,
of the Roman Church, and partially accepted by Calvin, among the early
Reformers, regards the suffering of Christ, as man and God united, to be an
equivalent in intensity and merit for the suffering which all mankind who are
redeemed would have endured had they not been rescued from eternal misery. The
fifth theory, styled that of “Moral Substitution,” makes the moral weight of
Christ’s suffering, as divine and human, to be an equivalent whose moral
influence reconciles angels and men to the government of God, and begets love
supreme to his perfect character.

Without doubt there is valuable truth in each of these several theories; but
each presents only a part, though the latter a most comprehensive combining of
several parts, of the entire truth demanded by reason and fully presented in
revelation. Sin is error, and Christ is an example for man. Sin is alienation or
“enmity,” and the moral influence of a sinless being must have an effect in
winning back those “alienated from God.” Sin is the spirit of “lawlessness;” as
Paul illustrates in his own case, when his heart rose in rebellion against God
simply because the “law was good,” and he therefore rebelled against it; while,
moreover, Christ is the divine representative, taking man’s place, as if the
guilt of man’s sin were his own. Still more true is it that Christ, as divine
and human, suffered as no one, nor indeed all men combined, can suffer; the
physical agony and the mental anguish he endured being as much greater than
man’s as his nature is greater. Yet more, and almost climactic in its
comprehensive truth, is the revealed fact that in the sacrifice of Christ as God
and man united, there was a moral impression on all intelligent creatures of
God, human and angelic, which will at last reconcile them all to the character
and government of God. And yet the essential fact revealed in the Old and New
Testament as to the Redeemer and this redemption may be overlooked in the study
of all, even of the last of these theories. The opening revelation by Moses
teaches that before Adam was formed, his Creator, “The Lord God,” or “Jehovah
God,” the manifested Divine Being, had himself assumed human nature, so that he
himself was prepared to appear in human form, “walking in the garden,” and
addressing the first formed pair with human voice. It is in accordance with this
stated fact that Paul says (quoting Psalms 40:6 in Hebrews 10:5) that before
man’s creation, Christ exclaimed, “A body hast thou prepared me “; that in that
body, “a little lower than the angels,” he was introduced into the world, and
the angelic were called on to worship him (Dent, 32: 43 and Hebrews 1:6, also
Psalms 8:4, and Hebrews 2:7; Hebrews 2:9); that “all things were made by him and
for him” (Colossians 1:16); and that all mankind, from Abel, who believed in
him, already at man’s first sin revealed as the “seed of the woman,” “the Lamb
of God to take away the sin of the world,” should be redeemed by this one
sacrifice. John, the last of the New Testament writers, is yet more explicit
than Paul in these statements; that it was the “Word made flesh, by whom all
things and beings were created” (John 1:2); that he is “the propitiation for the
sins of the whole world,” Abel himself being specially cited as “saved by faith”
(1 John 2:2; John 3:8-12); and yet more, that in the purpose of God and in the
efficacy of his atonement, Christ was “the Lamb slain from the foundation of the
world.” The history of man’s creation, of his first sin, and of the Redeemer’s
interposition in Eden, illustrated by the statements of Christ and his Apostles,
is a key to the essential truth as to the ground of the Atonement, presented in
the epistle from which our text is taken. All men from Adam, the Apostle
teaches, have sinned under such circumstances that the statement is universally
true, they “have sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression.” All men,
therefore, are redeemed, if saved, as was Adam; by the second Adam, the Divine
Being who had before forming the first man assumed his nature; assumed the
responsibility of his being placed under the circumstances which led to his
fall; assumed the creation of man with the purpose of himself taking man’s
nature, suffering in it all that man in any age or combination of trial could
suffer; and assumed all this in order that he might not only appear to be, but
might actually “be just, and the justifier of him that believes on him.” David
had the conception that sin might really “not be imputed” to the sinful; while
Paul teaches here that the sinner’s penalty is assumed by Christ, while
“righteousness,” the righteousness of Christ, “is imputed to him who believes in
him.” The ground of the Atonement is, that the Creator assumes for his creature
man, whenever any human being accepts his sacrifice as made personally for
him—that believing man’s Creator assumes the responsibility of his sinful
condition, and of his “weak” spiritual nature while in probation upon earth.
This great fact as to the Divine Atonement is on the very face of the New
Testament, and even of the Old, from the time of man’s creation in Eden till
John’s Gospel was penned. The history of human thought and experience makes this
universal Scripture teaching both clear and entrancing. In every age, among
people without revelation, just so far as men have formed a low estimate of the
“exceeding sinfulness of sin,” just so far, also, they have blindly trusted to
personal rites and offerings of a material nature, or to personal efforts at
purity of life for the expiation of sin, for propitiation with God and for
reconciliation. So, too, in every age men who have had the Old and New Testament
revelation, and yet have cherished the spirit of self-justification— such men
have had low estimates of the demerit of sin, and, of course, of the Redeemer
Jesus and of his work for man. This may be traced in the early days of the Roman
Christian emperors, when to profess Christianity secured worldly preferment; as
the discussions from Arins to Pelagins indicate. It is made impressive in the
seventh century; when the corruptions brought in by worldly men led to the fall
of the Roman Empire and the rise of Mohammed, who, while admitting all the
miraculous facts of Christ’s earthly life, insisted that he was not crucified,
but that Simon, the Cyrenian, a guilty criminal who bore his cross, and on whom
God stamped the image of Jesus, was crucified in his stead. The reason which
Mohammed alleged for this denial of Christ’s death, was the special proof both
of its reality and of its efficacy. He denied Christ’s death because it would
have been unjust in God to allow a sinless being like Christ to suffer the
penalty of sin; giving thus the strongest confirmation that if Christ died it
was not for himself, but for sinful men. This same perversion appears again at
the Reformation, when, as Dorner and Ritschl, the great modern historians of the
Reformation, both avow, the great framers of theories of the Atonement did not
return to the Scriptures alone as their guide; but, as their name implied, they
but re-formed old opinions. For, seeking to gather a church, not “of holy
persons,” but made up “of communities bound together by Christian ordinances,”
they sacrificed Christian truth to state policy. Hence arose at the very
juncture of the Reformation the partial theories of the Atonement we have
traced. On the other hand, this fact can be traced most palpably in all human
history. Whenever any human mind has been spiritually enlightened to see his sin
as it is pictured in David’s experience and wrought into his Psalms, and in
Paul’s world-wide observation as wrought into the Epistle to the Romans,—then
the ground of Christ’s Atonement has appeared to be this: it is Christ’s
assumption, at once as our Creator and Redeemer, of the responsibility of the
sin of all those who accept his interposition for them. This can be traced in
all the admired writers of every age and branch of the Christian Church; and it
is in their profound reasonings but the echo of truth common to all the inspired
writers. Moreover, whenever any profoundly thoughtful believer in other
religions than the Christian faith has come to feel the yearning to be
“justified by the righteousness,” rather than to be forgiven in the mercy of
God, then the fact everywhere revealed in the Scriptures, that his Creator
stands pledged as “surety” to secure by his own assumption this perfect
redemption for those who accept it from him — this fact meets all the demands of
human reason for an Atonement Divine in its provision and Divine in its ground,
because it fully harmonizes God’s righteousness and love. But this expression,
an Atonement for “those who accept it,” thus far necessarily employed, demands
itself an explanation, and leads to the consideration of—

III.—The Efficacy of the Divine A tenement, as Expiation for redeemed men,
Propitiation for unredeemed men, and Reconciliation for all beings.

Thus far, it has been necessary, in considering the nature and ground of the
Divine Atonement, to allude to its efficacy for men who accept it. The farther
question arises whether it has an efficacy beyond that realized in those who are
redeemed. The consideration of this requires careful notice of what the
Scriptures state to be its efficacy, first for men who are redeemed, second for
angels that have not sinned, and third for men and angels who, having sinned,
continue in their sinfulness. This specially involves the harmony of the Divine
Sovereignty and of man’s free agency in those redeemed and those unredeemed by
Christ’s Atonement. As to the efficacy of the Atonement for the redeemed, no
statement framed by grateful and enthusiastic Christian hearts can surpass or
even equal the reality. The redeemed by Christ are on earth, as John exultantly
says (1 John 3:2), “already sons of God,” while “it does not yet appear what we
shall be” since “when he,” our Redeemer, “shall appear, we shall be like him;”
while, moreover, they who “receive him “receive also from him “power to become
the sons of God.” Paul, too, exhausts the vocabulary of the most expressive
terms, when he says that the redeemed are “sons of God,” not by nature, but by
the higher and most appreciative relationship, that of “adoption;” that this
sonship by adoption makes us “heirs of God,” in the double sense of being
“glorified” in personal character, and of being blessed with every outward
relationship that can exalt. Most of all, Paul teaches that we were
“predestinated “by God “to be conformed to the image of his Son,” who is exalted
“above the angels,” and that thus we are “joint heirs with Christ to an
inheritance incorruptible, undefiled, and that fadeth not away.” Yet more, in
view partly of this future exaltation, but more in view of the natural interest
which a redeemed spirit awakens, and of the personal joy which a saving change
begets, Christ and his inspired Apostles enumerate as present and earthly
blessings bestowed on the redeemed.” “They already rejoice with joy unspeakable
and full of glory.” They “have a hundred-fold “of every earthly comfort. “There
is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner that repents more
than over ninety and nine just beings that need no repentance.” In the songs,
too, of the upper world there is a strain, “Thou hast redeemed us unto God,”
which only the saints of earth can utter; while the angelic choir listens and
waits to join in the chorus, “Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive
power, and richen, and wisdom, and strength, and honor, and glory, and
blessing.”

They are right, then, who place stress on these declarations; for they are
statements of fact. They certainly err who, from these and such like statements,
infer that Christ’s Atonement has efficacy only for the redeemed. These are
strong statements, indeed: “Christ loved the Church, and gave himself for it”
(Ephesians 5:25); “He loved me, and gave himself for me “(Galatians 2:20); but
they are not statements which exclude an efficacy that reaches another end in
another class. There are other declarations that assert a positive efficacy,
though not a redeeming power, over others than the redeemed. Such are the
declarations of Christ and of Paul and of John to this effect. Christ declares
(Matthew 20:28), “The Son of Man came to give his life a ransom for many,” which
the Apostle Paul makes synonymous with the declaration (1 Timothy 2:6), “He gave
himself a ransom for all.” Again Paul (Hebrews 2:9), “We see Jesus, made a
little lower than the angels, crowned with glory and honor, that he, by the
grace of God, should taste death for every man.” Yet again, John (1 John 2:2),
“He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, But also for the
sins of the whole world;” in which expression the word rendered “world “is, in
the Greek, “kosmos,” or universe. It is impossible to suppose that Paul and John
used, without special design, these expressions of an influence exerted by
Christ’s Atonement which reaches beyond the redeemed. They are right, indeed,
who seek, in the connection of the statements just quoted for proofs that the
redemption secured by the Atonement is limited to those who accept it; and yet
the form of language chosen by the inspired writers is not by this qualification
of the context made of no account in the writer’s design.

Perhaps a harmonizing of important distinctions made in our study of the nature
and ground of the Atonement may here prove an aid to reach the divine thought.
In its nature, the Divine Atonement includes three elements, reconciliation,
propitiation and expiation, their combined result securing justification. Of
course no “expiation” is required for angels who have not sinned; and no
expiation is made for those who have sinned but are not redeemed. There may,
however, be “reconciliation” secured for sinless angels, and “propitiation” for
unredeemed men. Yet, again: the ground of the Atonement has appeared from our
survey to be rather moral than material; not so much the fact that Christ’s
bodily agony and mental anguish was a measured equivalent for that which would
have been endured by the precise numbers who are to be redeemed if they had been
unredeemed. But Christ’s sacrifice is a moral equivalent, in its united human
and divine impression made on the universe of intelligent beings, which
infinitely surpasses the impression which would have been made had all mankind
been left to bear themselves the penalty of their own sin. Not detracting,
therefore, in the least from the strongest possible statement as to the divine
purpose and the divine accomplishment in the efficacy of Christ’s Atonement for
the redeemed, we should be prepared to receive the divine declaration as to
another influence of the Atonement on beings not redeemed. The case of infants,
next after mature believers, demands consideration. That they are born with a
sinful nature, Greeks, like Socrates, and Romans, like Cicero, without
revelation, declare; while Virgil pictures that they need expiation, though
among the nearest to the heavenly entrance. David, in the strongest terms,
declares their depravity (Psalms 51:5); and yet his confidence in their
redemption is as clear (2 Samuel 12:23). Christ, in the last of his life, three
times (Matthew 18:3-10; Matthew 19:13-15; Matthew 21:15-16) teaches that
children, even infants, are to be saved; yet he accords with their parents that
“prayer” for the Divine “blessing” is essential if they “enter the kingdom of
heaven” (Matthew 19:13; Matthew 19:15; Mark 10:16). So John records (1 John
2:12): “I write unto you, little children, because your sins are forgiven yon
for his name’s sake.” It is natural to suppose that, as the Divine Spirit acts
directly on the mature mind in regeneration, so it may act on the undeveloped
infant spirit. It is rational to conclude that, as those who can exercise
personal faith are called to that exercise; while at the same time the faith of
the weakest intellect is as acceptable as that of the profoundest thinker (1
Corinthians 1:27), so “oat of the mouth of babes and sucklings” God may “perfect
praise.” The Atonement of Christ to such may not bring conscious
“reconciliation;” while it does provide for their “expiation” and
“propitiation.” The interest of angels, both in man who is redeemed and the
divine purpose accomplished by it, is the theme of frequent statement by Christ
and his Apostles. Christ says that “there is joy in the presence of the angels
over one sinner that repents;” his words justifying, doubtless, Watts’
interpretation in his hymn, “Who can describe the joy?” etc., that it is the
Divine Being, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, who manifests the greatness of joy,
while, however, “saints and angels join “in its expression. Christ again says of
his “little ones” (Matthew 18:10), “Their angels do always behold the face of my
Father which is in heaven;” while Paul (Hebrews 1:14) asks, as if it were a
truth universally taught, “Are they not all ministering spirits sent forth to
minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation?” in which statement every
word is full of meaning. We should be prepared, then, for Peter’s declaration (1
Peter 1:10-12) as to the interest of angels in the purpose as well as in the
work of human redemption, when, after dwelling on the intense interest of
prophets who could not comprehend that of which they wrote, “the sufferings of
Christ and the glory that should follow,” the Apostle adds, “which things the
angels desire to look into.” We may, yet more, be prepared for Paul’s repeated
statement as to the direct effect of the Atonement on angels. Thus, to the
Ephesians (Ephesians 1:9-12) he declares that it entered into the “purpose” of
God, that “he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are
in heaven and which are in earth, even in him,” and then, lest this statement
might be supposed to refer only to redeemed saints then in heaven, he adds: “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 glory who first trusted in Christ.” To
make it clear that angels are affected by the Atonement, the Apostle adds, a
little farther on in his epistle (Ephesians 3:10-11), that the divine “intent”
in the Atonement had respect to the impression it would make on sinless angels.
His words are, “To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in
heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God,
according to the eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord.” To
make yet more manifest his specific meaning, in an epistle written at the same
time with that first quoted, after repeating the transcendent and special
blessings of the Atonement conferred on the redeemed (Colossians 1:9-14), having
declared that Christ was “the image of the invisible God,” and yet “the
first-born of every creature,” or of the animate and human creation, that “all
things were made by and for him,” and that he is the head of the body, the
church,” Paul adds this peculiar statement: that by Christ’s Atonement the
angels were “reconciled.” His words are (Colossians 1:19-20): “For it pleased
the Father that in him should all fullness dwell; and, having made peace through
the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I
say, whether they be things in earth or things in heaven.” We may readily
conceive, as we bring together all of Paul’s revealed statements, that angels,
who saw some of their own number rebel against God and become hopelessly
irreconcilable, and who then saw mankind sin and only partially recovered — the
loftiest angels, seeing but part of God’s way, could not “reconcile” to their
finite judgment God’s character and acts; while, nevertheless, they had such
faith in him that they remained sinless. But the “sufferings of Christ” and the
gradually manifested “glory that should follow” was to “reconcile” them in their
virtuous longing for complete knowledge of God’s purpose. Thus the Atonement had
an efficacy—not that indeed of “expiation,” or of “justification,” but certainly
that of “reconciliation,” as Paul states, and perhaps of “propitiation,” as
John’s language may intimate. But another class than pure angels look upon
Christ’s Atonement — hopelessly fallen angels and the unredeemed among men. It
is intensely interesting, and it is also practically important, to consider what
the Scriptures say as to the impression made by it on them. The relation of
those who among men reject the Atonement provided in Christ is dwelt upon at
large in the epistle from which our text is taken. Over his countrymen who “have
not submitted themselves to the righteousness of Christ,” Paul pours forth his
anguish of heart in the opening of the ninth and tenth chapters. He justifies,
however, their rejection, while Gentiles were blessed with redemption, by this
profound argument. When, before their birth, Jacob was chosen of God for
superior mental, moral and material exaltation, a divine appointment everywhere
seen among brothers in the same family, the inferior might murmur; but what
rational man would not, even in his worldly mind, condemn that murmuring, and
commend humble submission and faithful devotion in the lot appointed of God,
who, like the potter, has “authority” as to the clay he moulds. But still more:
When with a man like Pharaoh, hardened by his own cast of mind, and hardening
himself even after his “wise men” and his “people” remonstrate, resisting the
appeals of justice to the oppressed Israelites, and of God’s Providence and
Word, enjoining upon him his personal duty — when, with such a “vessel of wrath
fitted to destruction,” God, like his suffering people, “endured with much
long-suffering”—”What if,” asks the Apostle, “What if the Divine Being, after
long endurance, leaves to his fate that persistent reprobate?” For, as the great
Apostle in his high argument proves—an argument which, in his own day and in
every age, has satisfied impartial reason— two ends were accomplished, which in
no other way could have been realized: first, the glory of his grace in the
redeemed, and second, of his justice on those who reject Christ’s Atonement. And
yet, think of it in whatever light we may, unreasonable as well as unreasoning
men will retort, “Why, then, doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his
will?” Yes; now, as in Paul’s day, like vicious men condemned by all others yet
excusing themselves for brutalizing indulgence, men will not “justify God.” But
a time will come — is coming — when others than the redeemed will join in the
admission and adoring confession of David and of Paul,” That thon mightest be
justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged” (Romans
3:4). There is coming (Romans 2:5) “a day of the revelation of therighteous
judgment of God.” That day is “the last day,” since not until all the efficacy
of Christ’s redemption on earth and in the universe has been realized, can the
“revelation” be made clear. Then, whatever be now the judgment of unredeemed men
and of fallen angels, then “every knee shall bow (Romans 14:11) and every tongue
shall confess.” That confession will be that “Jesus Christ” is rightful “Lord;”
that he will justly “confess before the angels” only those who “confess him
before men,” and that, therefore, he is “worthy to receive power and glory”
eternal. So important is this final, transcendent efficacy of the Atonement that
not only does Paul, as we have seen, make it his great argument in the latter
half of this wondrous epistle, .and also a point for allusion often in other
writings, but John, in his final Revelation as to the future world and its
events, twice alludes to it (Revelation 13:8; Revelation 17:8) as specially
illustrating the recognized wisdom and power, righteousness and love which at
last all intelligent beings, though unredeemed, will behold in the Divine
Atonement. John’s revelation of that final confession is thus stated: “All that
dwell upon the earth shall worship him, even they whose names are not written in
the book of life of the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world.”

If such be the nature and the ground, and such, most of all, the efficacy of the
Divine Atonement, who on earth should not strive to comprehend and appreciate
it? If “the angels desire to look into it,” certainly the redeemed of earth
should “search the Scriptures “to see “whether these things be so.” If such be
the present and future exaltation of a true Christian, “What manner of persons
ought we to be in all holy conversation and godliness?” If, at the “last day,”
not only fallen angels, “greater than” men, will bow and confess that Jesus is
“righteous n as well as self-sacrificing in all his sway—if at the “last day”
all that dwell on the earth will “worship” Christ, even those “whose names will
not then be written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of
the world”—who that is now “neglecting” the “great salvation” should not heed
the great Apostle’s appeal in this epistle? (Romans 10:1; Romans 10:13):
“Brethren, my heart’s desire and my prayer to God for my kinsmen according to
the flesh is, that they might be saved.” “Whosoever shall call upon the name of
the Lord shall be saved.”


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 19: 18 THE PERSONALITY OF THE HOLY SPIRIT
========================================================================

The Personality of the Holy Spirit By Rev. A. J. Gordon, D.D., Boston, Mass

“And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he
may abide with you forever.”—John 14:16.

We have in these words a comparison and a contrast. The comparison is between
Christ and the Holy Spirit. For the words “another Comforter “carry the thought,
that Jesus is one comforter, and the Spirit who should come is another. Thus, by
a single word, our Lord puts the Holy Spirit on the same plane with himself.
There is no comparison between a person and an influence. If I say, “I am a man
and you are another,” I mean, of course, that you are another man. Thus it seems
to me, we have our Lord’s estimate of the Spirit established in a single word.
Mechanics have an instrument, you know, which they call a “spirit level,” which
being placed across two objects, indicates when they are upon exactly the same
plane. Such is the word “another “as here employed. By it Christ fixes forever
the divine level between himself and the Holy Ghost. And whatever claim of
divinity and personality he made for himself as the advocate with God— for that
is what the word here translated “Comforter” means—he now makes for the Spirit
who was to come, since he puts that Spirit upon the same level with himself by
calling him “another advocate.” And there is also a contrast between Christ and
the Spirit. “I go away,” the Lord had three times said in the previous part of
his discourse. Of the Spirit he says, “that he may abide with you forever.” It
is the contrast between Christ’s brief visit to earth, and the Spirit’s
perpetual and abiding presence on earth. And this comparison and contrast
suggest two thoughts—the personality and the perpetual presence of the Holy
Spirit.

I. It seems to me that the text teaches quite distinctly the personality and
divinity of the Holy Spirit. For the word comforter or advocate could hardly be
applied to other than a person. An advocate is one who stands for another, as a
lawyer for his client. “If any man sin,” says John,” we have an advocate with
the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.” It is a word which strongly and
especially carries in it the idea of personality. No concentration of spiritual
influences, no combination of divine impressions could ever be intense enough to
constitute an advocate. The sun’s rays condensed to a focus will kindle a fire,
but they cannot make a sun, since they are only an emanation of the sun. And no
spiritual influences, however powerful, can make a spirit or constitute an
advocate, pleading, speaking and standing for us before God. A person can
produce influences, but no amount of influences can ever constitute a person.

Indeed, the more we study the word paraclete or “advocate,” the more fertile do
we find it to be in suggestions in regard to the personality of the Holy Spirit.
It is that which takes the place of Jesus in his separation from his Church. “If
I depart I will send the Comforter unto you.” Here the thought is clearly that
of a substitute for Christ in his absence. And when he says that it is expedient
for him to go away in order that this substitute may come, a most powerful
impression is at once made upon the mind, of the greatness and dignity of a
being that shall be deemed worthy to take the place in the world which is about
to be made vacant by the Son of God. If the Lord himself is a person, surely his
vicegerent must also be a person. But then we hear Christ, in the same
discourse, identify himself with this person: “I will not leave you comfortless,
I will come unto you.” So closely and mysteriously related is the Lord to this
coming advocate, that he thus speaks of him as another self. And if the Lord is
divine, surely this advocate must be divine. And not only this. There is a
constant identification of ministry and offices between Christ and the Spirit in
convincing of sin, in revealing the truth, in intercession with God. As Christ
testifies of the Father, so the Spirit testifies of Christ. Christ comes in the
Father’s name: the Spirit comes in Christ’s name. Christ makes known to men the
things of the Father: the Spirit makes known the things of Christ. Christ
reveals himself as one with the Father: and he reveals the Holy Spirit as one
with himself. Christ is “an advocate with the Father”: the Holy Spirit is
“another advocate.” Thus, in all our Lord’s predictions concerning the Spirit
who should come, he seems to be not only installing a divine successor in his
place, but to be bequeathing to that successor all the offices and dignities and
attributes which he himself had claimed. And this testimony of Jesus to the
Spirit is more decisive than any word of that Spirit himself could be. For did
not Christ teach us that even a divine being is not to base his claims upon his
own testimony? “If I bear witness of myself,” said Jesus, “my witness is not
true.” And so he appealed constantly to the testimony of his Father. So does the
Holy Ghost appeal to the testimony of Christ. From the silent heavens God speaks
concerning Jesus: “This is my beloved Son; hear ye him.” And just before Christ
enters into those silent heavens that must contain him until the times of
restitution of alt things, he spoke concerning the Spirit: “Howbeit, when he the
Spirit of Truth shall come he will guide you into all truth.”

What a being that must be to whom the Lord committed the trust of leading his
disciples into all truth after his own departure! The Spirit, who was to be a
more advanced teacher than Christ, surely could not be a less exalted person;
the one who was to enlarge and intensify the work which Jesus had begun could
not belong to a lower rank of being than Jesus. In God’s school men do not
graduate downward any more than in man’s school. And if the Holy Spirit were
anything less than a divine person, I cannot conceive of Christ’s dismissing his
disciples to his tuition with the saying, “I have taught much, but this
instructor will teach you more. I have led you as far as is yet possible in your
present weakness, but he shall lead you farther. I have guided you into some
truth, but he will guide you into all truth.” And this is what he says in the
words, “I have yet many things to say unto yon, but ye cannot hear them now.
Howbeit, when he the Spirit of Truth is come he will guide you into all truth.”

Many regard the Holy Spirit as simply the moral influence of Jesus which remains
in the world after his departure. But how feeble is the posthumous influence of
even the greatest man compared with his personal presence! The echo can add no
single syllable to the voice that creates it; the influence can, by no
possibility, be greater than the man who exerted it. But we hear Jesus saying to
his disciples, “When I am gone and the Spirit is come, greater works than I have
done shall ye do; and further into the truth than I have brought you shall ye be
led.” Can it be that this augmented power is but the momentum of his influence
increasing after his departure? Can it be that this larger teaching is but the
multiplying echo of his voice after he has ceased to speak on earth?

Napoleon is said to have uttered this prediction before his death: “When I am
gone, my spirit shall come back to France to throb with ceaseless life in new
revolutions.” His spirit did come back in the sense of his personal influence,
and its inspiration was more or less felt in European politics in subsequent
years. But how very small the posthumous influence compared with the living man
who shook all Europe by his giant tread. And how inevitably has that influence
waned from year to year. But Christ said, “When I am gone, the Spirit of Truth
shall come, whom I will send unto you.” That Spirit came. The church became
filled and energized with his presence, and instead of being feebler than
before, now commences her mightiest conquests; now dim apprehensions of truth
give way to clear and vivid knowledge; doubts succumb to doctrine, and fears to
faith. The disciples are utterly transformed. John, who in carnal blindness
would call down fire from heaven on his enemies, now glows like a seraph with
the fire of love, writing, “God is love, and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth
in God and God in him.” And Peter, who before seemed so amazed and bewildered at
every mention of his Master’s death, now makes that strongest of all statements
of the doctrine of atonement: “Who his own self bore our sins in his own body on
the tree.” When I read Christ’s predictions in regard to the Spirit that should
come, and when I read in the Acts of the Apostles what happened after he had
come, the impression is inevitable in my mind that there is an invisible divine
presence filling the church and making it no less than a second incarnation of
God through the Spirit. Looking at Jesus Christ, Paul exclaims: “Great is the
mystery of Godliness, God manifest in the flesh.” And looking at Paul and his
companions casting out devils, healing the sick, and preaching the Word, who has
not exclaimed to himself, “Great is the mystery of Christliness, Jesus
manifested in the person of his disciples.” “In whom ye also are builded
together for a habitation of God through the Spirit.”

I have referred to the words “another advocate” as used in the text. Christ, in
using this phrase, not only puts the Spirit on a level with himself, and in the
place of himself, but makes him a co-partner with himself in the work of
regeneration and salvation. As in a law partnership there is often a counsellor
and an advocate—the one to advise in the office, the other to plead in court; so
in the divine co-partnership between Christ and the Holy Spirit. The Spirit is
the earthly advocate, counselling in the heart of man. Christ is the heavenly
advocate, pleading in the court of heaven. There must be a good case on earth in
order that there may be a successful issue in heaven. And so we are told of the
indwelling Spirit that “he helpeth our infirmities since we know not what we
should pray for as we ought, and maketh intercession for the saints according to
the will of God.” Then the prayer which has been wrought within us according to
the divine will, Christ takes up and pleads before the throne for us, “seeing he
ever liveth to make intercession for us.” Does the heart need comforting and
enlightening, that “other advocate” searches its depths and voices its
unutterable longings, and then the heavenly advocate prolongs and presses its
suit before the Judge in heaven. Oh, blessed and unfailing advocacy! How can our
case with such defendants be lost? “It is Satan’s highest art,” says John
Bunyan, “to get us to take our cases into some lower court, knowing that he can
never non-suit us in the court of heaven with such counsellors.” God grant that
in all the convictions of an accusing conscience we may have the wisdom to
appeal to that court where the Lord Jesus has gone to appear for us.

Now what a testimony to the Divine personality of the Spirit is found in the
very fact of such a partnership as this. Think you that in those sublime
doxologies which are found in almost every epistle “to the Father, and to the
Son, and to the Holy Ghost,” it is a mere impersonal influence which is thus
linked up into co-equal fellowship with God and Christ. And in that passage in
the Ephesians where the whole Trinity is mentioned in a single sweep of thought,
“Through him we all have access by one Spirit unto the Father,” think you that
it is only some mysterious breath or impression that is thus made partner with
God and the Son of God? Oh, Holy Spirit! since our fellowship also is with the
Father and with the Son, so lift us into the lofty plane of thy communion with
God that we may never be so irreverent as to drag thee down to the plane of our
earthly and unite fellowship! So near to Christ is the Holy Ghost, and yet so
near, blessed be God, to us. Nothing in the New Testament so impresses me at
once with the infallible deity of the Spirit, and with his familiar and tender
fellowship with man, as that single phrase in the Acts of the Apostles, “It
seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us.” The first serious controversy and
dissension had arisen in the church. Had Christ been present, how quickly they
would have sought him out for his advice and counsel. But he had gone into
heaven to be their advocate. Yet that other advocate whom he had promised had
come. And so real and personal was his presence to the disciples, Bo plain and
decisive was his counsel to them, that they could say with all the positiveness
of a client returning from a conference with his lawyer, “It seemed good to my
counsellor and myself to do thus.” Oh! that we knew such communion with the
Spirit, and had such sensible manifestations of his mind, that instead of saying
so often, “It seemed good to us,” we might say, “It seemed good to the Holy
Ghost and to us.

II. The text teaches also the abiding presence of the Holy Spirit in the Church.
“That he may abide with you forever,” or for the age, as it is in the original.
Christ went away after a few brief years on earth, and sent the Spirit to fill
up the interregnum between his departure and his coming again in his kingdom.
The earth is now the abode of the Spirit, just as truly as it was the abode of
Christ during his personal ministry. We have not now to pray for the Holy Spirit
to descend, any more than the disciples had need to pray for Christ to descend
while he was already with them. For these eighteen hundred years the Holy Ghost
has been among men, convincing the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of
judgment; witnessing and interceding in the hearts of Christians; often sorely
grieved by their sins, as the Master was; his admonitions often quenched, his
testimony often rejected, his counsel often refused; yet always having somewhere
a body of true believers where he could make his home. This coming and abiding
of the Holy Spirit in the world seems to me the most powerful testimony to God’s
loving and persistent determination to dwell with men, however rejected and
driven away by their sins. Each of the three persons of the Trinity has in turn
dwelt upon the earth. God walked with man in the garden, talked familiarly with
patriarchs and prophets, and dwelt at last in the cloud of glory over the
mercy-seat in the Temple. But he was driven away by man’s sin. There was no
cloud of glory in the latter days of the Temple. Jewish tradition has the
strange story that that sheckina-cloud moved slowly away from the Temple in the
days of Jewish apostasy, and for three years and a half hung over the brow of
Olivet, waiting in vain for the nation to repent, and then disappeared. It is
probably but a legend, but it is a striking prophecy, at least.

Now Christ, the second person of the Godhead, comes. “The Word was made flesh
and tabernacled among us,” says John. For three and a half years of his public
ministry he pleaded with the people, only to be despised and rejected of men,
till at last, turning to the Temple, he said: “Behold! your house is left unto
you desolate;” and through the path of the cross, the resurrection and the
ascension, he also went away. Then came the Holy Spirit—not to inhabit the
temple on Mount Zion, but to dwell in a redeemed and regenerated church of
living men: “Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the spirit of
God dwelleth in you?” Do you wish to know where Christ is now? Without the
slightest question I answer you that he is in the temple of God in heaven, in
the presence of the Father. Do you wish to know where the Holy Spirit is? With
equal assurance I answer that he is in “the temple of God” on earth. “Know ye
not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost that is in you?” Be terribly
afraid, then, of the lasts that tarnish and defile this temple; drive out with
the scourge of self-denial the avarice that would turn tills temple into a house
of merchandise, “for the temple of God is holy, which temple are ye.” This fact
of the present, personal abiding of the Holy Spirit upon the earth cannot be too
strongly emphasized. There is danger that we grieve this present Spirit by the
unbelief that counts him absent. To forget an absent friend is a serious slight;
but to forgot a present friend, and be so little sensible of his nearness that
we put him afar off in our thoughts, is a most grievous affront. The sin of the
Jews was that they “knew not the day of their visitation,” and looked and prayed
for a Messiah yet to come, instead of believing on the Messiah that had come.
With a telescopic faith they gazed on for the star of Balaam, saying: “I shall
see him, but not now; I shall behold him, but not nigh. There shall come forth a
star out of Jacob,” and only an humble few had the simple faith to behold the
Star of Bethlehem, already risen, and to follow where it led. Oh, the sin which
puts God afar off, and cries, “Who shall ascend up into heaven to bring Christ
down?” when the Word is nigh us, even in our mouth! So many pray for the Spirit
now, calling to him beyond the stars to come down to us, as though we knew not
that he had been here for eighteen hundred years. I sometimes think that if
Christ were to speak to us from the heavens, it would be to repeat to us
concerning the Spirit what he once said concerning himself, “There standeth one
among you that ye know not.” The Spirit is here, and it is for us to open our
hearts to give him entrance. Air only needs a vacuum to secure its swift and
rushing presence. And the most prevailing prayer for the Spirit is a heart
vacant of selfish idols. We need not and cannot repeat the day of Pentecost; for
on that day the Spirit came down, never to return till this dispensation shall
end. But the waiting and praying of Pentecost we have need constantly to repeat.
And if we might but open to him a heart utterly empty of sin, the Spirit would
come into us like “a rushing, mighty wind,” and we should know the meaning of
these words, “being filled with the Holy Ghost,”

I have said that the Holy Ghost is given to abide on earth during the present
dispensation, or till the return of Christ to the world. And how striking it is
that all the ordinances and instruments through which the Spirit works are
limited to precisely the same era. The Word of God is the instrument through
which the Spirit regenerates and sanctifies. And how long does the office of the
Word continue? “We have also a more sure word of prophecy whereunto ye do well
that ye take heed as unto a light that shineth in a dark place until the day
dawn and the day-star arise.” The ordinances of baptism and the Lord’s Supper
are the agencies, in connection with the Word, for confession and
sanctification. And how long do they continue their ministry in the church.
“Even unto the end of the age,” are the solemn words with which our baptismal
commission ends. “Until he come, is the refrain with which the commandment to
observe the Supper closes. Thus ordinances that point to the absent Christ
testify of the present Spirit. They tell of Christ’s return by the limit which
is put to their continuance. The Spirit, the Word and the ordinances are the
moon and stars that are to light our midnight journey till Christ, the Star of
Day, shall once more arise upon the earth. God grant that in memory of that Sun
now set, and in hope of that Star to arise again, we never forget the lesser
lights that rule the night.

Oh! Holy Spirit, help us to receive thee in the fullness of thine indwelling; to
pray ever under the power of thy prevailing intercession; to walk according to
thy holy guidance: to live in the power of thine endless life. Oh! Holy Spirit,
open hearts that are yet closed to thy presence; convince of sin those who are
saying to themselves “we have no sin;” convince of righteousness those who are
trusting in their vain self-righteousness; and convince of judgment those who
know not that by Christ’s death the prince of this world is cast out, and “there
is now therefore no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus.”


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 20: 19 REGENERATION ESSENTIAL TO SALVATION
========================================================================

Regeneration Essential to Salvation By Rev. E. O. Taylor, D. D., of Providence,
R. I.

“Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” John 3:3. Is
Regeneration essential to salvation? This question is definitely settled by our
Lord himself, in his conversation with Nicodemus. In no abstract way could the
necessity of the new birth have been so forcibly taught. In this “ruler of the
Jews” we have the highest reach of nature and of law in their efforts to fit a
man for the “kingdom of God.” Here is their brightest blossom and their fairest
fruit; but as God had not respect unto Gain and his altar garlanded with flowers
and enriched with the best products of the earth, so our Lord could not accept
the righteousness of Nicodemus—though none of Israel was more worthy than he—as
fitting him to be a subject of that spiritual kingdom which Christ came to
establish. Canon Farrar suggests [34] that the title in verse 10, “Master of
Israel,” may signify his rank as “the teacher” or “the wise man,” the third
member of the Sanhedrim. It is evident that he was a man of culture, refinement,
and of zeal for the law; a religious man, sincere in his convictions, and honest
in his desire to do right. It would seem as if all meritorious qualifications
met in him; and yet over against them all the unseen hand of truth had written,
“come short,” and “thou art weighed in the balance and found wanting.” Jesus
sweeps away with a breath all hope of fitness for God’s kingdom by natural birth
or natural development, saying, “except a man be born again he cannot see the
kingdom of God.”

[34] Life of Christ, Vol. I., p. 199.

I—Let us define terms. According to Godet, [35] “In the view of Nicodemus and
his colleagues, the kingdom of God was only this life glorified, and its
appearance an external and political matter. Hence to them the new birth must be
of the same nature as the first.” But, though by the “kingdom of God” here is
not meant heaven, yet it is the heavenly rule on earth, as if a section of
heaven had come down to earth with heaven’s atmosphere, and laws, and
requirements for citizenship; it is the spiritual kingdom begun here, which
shall be transferred to and continued in the eternal sphere; and, as our Lord
uses the phrase, it is equivalent to saying that a mail must be born again to
enter heaven.

[35] Commentary on John, Vol. II., p. 48.

Though the phrase “born again” may be rendered, as in the margin, “born from
above,” the stronger rendering of oar accepted translation is better, both by
grammatical construction and by the fact that Nicodemus so understands it,
inquiring, perhaps with an assumed ignorance, “How can a man be born when he is
old? Can he enter the second time into his mother’s womb and be born?” The
expression is one which denotes a change which is radical and fundamental, and
implies that a man needs to be renewed in the very source of his being; that he
must become a new creation, as much as if he were decomposed into his original
parts, and formed anew. For, as says Dean Alford, “it is not learning, but life,
that is wanted for the Messiah’s kingdom, and life begins by birth.” What this
great change is, we shall discuss farther along. In saying “Except a man,” and
in addressing one who was an exalted type of what education, sincerity and
religious influences can do for a man, Jesus teaches us the absolute and
universal necessity of the New Birth. It is something predicated of the whole
human race, and grows out, not of unfortunate circumstances in which some may be
placed, nor of special weaknesses and moral deformities which may be conspicuous
in others; but out of man’s condition as man, as lost, as dead, as ruined, as
tainted through and through, and corrupted by sin, and as having a nature which
is hostile to God and can never be brought into subjection to him. It is not of
yonder dissipated and blasphemous wretch, nor of that despised outcast, of whom
Jesus speaks; but in this phrase “except a man,” he embraces the noble and the
virtuous, as well as the worthless and the vile. This was a hard saying to
Nicodemus, and is now to such as would build up a righteousness of their own
upon the rotten basis of the old self. But Jesus explains by saying, “That which
is born of the flesh is flesh.” It can never become spirit. It can never be
other than flesh, with its sin and decay, and offensiveness to God. A skeleton
in ribbons is still a hideous thing, and all the more unsightly from the futile
attempt to give it an appearance of life. Man at his best is as much included in
this necessity of Regeneration as at his worst. For it is only that which is
born of the Spirit that is Spirit, and that birth of the Spirit is Regeneration.
The tallest of men is not appreciably nearer the sun than the shortest. Both
alike would need to cross the line of the sun’s superior attractive power in
order to journey to that great centre. Though they may differ in age, and
height, and color, and attainments, yet in this “there is no difference;” and
whatever differences there may be in men in the matter of cultivation, or moral
development, they alike are included in our Lord’s declaration, “Except a man be
born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” There is force also in the word
“see,” as here used; for the old nature is blind, and cannot discern spiritual
things. There is a spiritual world, a kingdom of God, which has come down to us,
but men do not see it, nor will they, until the new nature, which has spiritual
vision, is implanted. Having thus denned the terms which our Lord employs in
this broad and sweeping assertion, let us consider the great truth which is
presented in it, that—

II.—Regeneration, or the New Birth, is Essential to Salvation. We may here
define Regeneration as that act of God upon us by which, through the Gospel as a
means, the governing disposition of the soul is made holy. It includes, or
brings about, an entire change of character, and gives a holy meetness for
heaven.

1. The Scriptures are very full and explicit upon this point. To the objections
offered by Nicodemus, Christ replies, explaining the nature of the new birth,
and repealing in the most peremptory form, “Ye must be born again.” Indeed, our
Lord expresses surprise that the “master” or leader “of Israel” should not know
these things; because a careful study of the Old Testament Scriptures would
surely reveal them. Not that Christ’s phrase, “born again,” will be found there,
but the same teaching runs through them from beginning to end. All such
Scriptures as represent man as destitute of spiritual life, as hostile to God,
as dead in sin, as corrupt, as having a heart which is “deceitful above all
things and desperately wicked” (Jeremiah 17:9), imply the necessity of the new
birth, that man may enter the heavenly kingdom. Early in the history of our race
God saw that “every imagination of the thoughts of man’s heart was only evil
continually” (Genesis 6:5.) The words “every,” “only” and “continually” are
significant. “The Lord looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see
if there were any that did understand, and seek God. They are all gone aside,
they are all together become filthy; there is none that doeth good—no, not one.”
(Psalms 14:2-3.) Can assertion of the condition of man’s old nature as
irremediable go further? Can any conclusion be stronger, or more legitimate from
such facts, than that he must have a new nature if he would be in harmony with
God and heaven? But in Ezekiel there is the direct teaching to this effect.
“Make you a new heart and a new spirit; for why will you die, O house of
Israel?” “A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within
you.” (Ezekiel 18:31; Ezekiel 36:26.) As also in David’s prayer: “Create in me a
clean heart, O God, and renew a right spirit within me.” (Psalms 51:10.) Thus
much for the Old Testament, which abounds in expressions of equal force with
those quoted, and which our Lord believed should have taught Nicodemus that
doctrine which fell so strangely upon his ears. The entire scope of the New
Testament is in harmony with the words of Jesus as in the text. The Apostle to
the Gentiles sets at naught all the claims of the Jew as a child of God on
account of his descent from Abraham, saying, “In Christ Jesus neither
circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.”
(Galatians 6:15.) “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.) The
uniform testimony of the inspired writers is that, by nature, our state is one
of irrecoverable ruin. “The carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not
subject to the law of God; neither, indeed, can be.” (Romans 8:7.) And
furthermore, man’s condition is not only one of native ruin, but also of native
helplessness, so far as remedying the fatal defect. “Can the Ethiopian change
his skin, or the leopard his spots? then may ye also do good who are accustomed
to do evil.” (Jeremiah 13:23.) There is no promise of blessedness in the future
world to the unregenerate. Jesus says: “Many will say unto me in that day, Lord,
Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name, and in thy name cast out devils, and
in thy name done many wonderful works? and then will I profess unto them, I
never knew you; depart from me, ye that work iniquity.” (Matthew 7:21-23.) And
the most terrible threatenings are spoken concerning such as remain in their
sins. How fallacious are the hopes of the ungodly! And God is unchangeable, the
day of reckoning will find him as determined to punish those who die in nature
and in sin as when he uttered the proclamation of wrath. Look at the Scripture
as we will, at the picture of man’s ruin; of his helplessness; of the wrath to
come upon the ungodly; at the demands for holiness, without which no one can see
the Lord; at the character of God; at the descriptions of heaven; at the cross
of Christ and the shed blood, without which there is no remission; at
invitations and warnings; at parable and story and didactic teaching; all join
in confirmation of the assertion of Christ, “Except a man be born again, he
cannot see the kingdom of God.”

2. If we look at the nature of Regeneration, we shall see that it is Essential
to Salvation. We have already seen that it is something radical and fundamental.
It is not mere reformation, or a simple renunciation of error and reception of
truth. That may occur, and the heart be unaffected. A newly-awakened love of
family, or desire for respectability, may prove powerful incentives to restrain
a man from evil, or may lead one out of the slough of sensualism. A certain
loftiness of mind may keep one from degrading sins; or strong selfish motives,
such as a miser has in hoarding his gold, may prove a barrier against
dissipation. Yet the evil within is not eliminated or lessened, and like a fire
in the earth, repressed in one place, it bursts forth in another. Sin reveals
itself in forms less offensive to society, but equally hateful in the sight of
God. Men’s reforms are like lopping off branches of the evil tree, while the
poisonous root, from which other branches will spring, is not only unharmed, but
cherished and assiduously cultivated. A man in an easy chair cannot lift the
chair with himself in it by tugging at its arms. He needs a power outside and
above him. And men need a divine power to lift them from the weight of their own
dead selves.

Regeneration is more than is included in a life of morality. Else the young
ruler who came running to Christ with the all-important question, “What shall I
do that I may inherit eternal life?” (Mark 10:17), would not have gone away
sorrowful. Nor would it have been necessary for Christ to chill, with the words
of the text, the advances of so distinguished and important a supporter as
Nicodemus was likely to be. Society is permeated with the Pantheistic sentiment
that holiness, or at least fitness for heaven, can be obtained by merely natural
growth or development. Men tell us that “the salvation of the soul is no more
miraculously obtained than that the grass grows, or the rain falls, or the sun
shines miraculously.” That is, salvation comes according to nature, as much as
the swelling of the buds and the growth of the seeds. The mistake lies not so
much in the analogy of development, as in the fact that holiness has in human
nature nothing to be developed from. “Who can bring a clean thing out of an
unclean? Not one.” (Job 14:4.) There must be the seed created by the divine
hand, and cast into the barren earth, before the fields can smile with abundant
harvests. In vain would be all the husbandman’s exhortations either to empty
soil, or to the pebbles and stones that may be scattered around, to yield him a
crop of cotton or of wheat. He must have like to produce like. And the “carnal
mind,” that is not simply at enmity with God, but enmity itself, has in it
nothing to produce likeness to God. Cultivation carried to the highest extent
can never turn the pebble into the living tree. After all, Regeneration is a
miracle wrought by the Holy Spirit in man; so mysterious, so hidden in its
operation, that it is known only by its effects; so subtle that the learned
“Master of Israel” could not understand it, and even Christ contents himself
with asserting it. It is infinitely more than the highest result which man can,
with all his efforts, produce upon himself. For he has not the inclination, the
power, the soil, nor the seed, from which this marvellous work of Regeneration
comes. Let men talk as they will, there is no true morality aside from the
working out in life whatever God works in, in Regeneration. All else is in his
sight but the garnishing of the sepulchre, which within is full of dead men’s
bones.

“They talk of morals, O thou bleeding Lamb, The grand morality is love to thee.”

It is needless to say that the profession of faith is not synonymous with the
new birth. Else the Pharisees had been the favorite children of the Lord: for
profession, as an ivy vine, spread with a profuse growth over them, concealing
from man, but not from Christ, the rottenness within. It was to such as made
broad their phylacteries, more intent upon carrying the law upon their foreheads
than in their hearts; who uttered long prayers at the street corners, and gave
but to be seen of men, that Jesus turned with withering denunciation, saying:
“How can ye escape the damnation of hell?” This work of Regeneration is not to
be transferred to the intellect as its seat. That the understanding is
enlightened and the mental faculties quickened in the process is true, but these
are but accompaniments, and not the work itself. Perhaps the Scriptural truth as
to this matter has no greater foe than that pride of intellect which arrogates
to itself the right of first place and chief consideration, and would make
itself the subject as well as the judge of even spiritual processes. The Gospel,
to the ancient Greek, was foolishness; and it is now to some scientists, because
it was neither discovered, nor can be fathomed, by the intellect. There is no
flavor of man’s wisdom in the cross; there is no detecting by men’s microscopes
the operation of the Spirit in the new birth, nor the dropping of the seed of a
divine faith into the penitent heart. From the eye of mere culture, the
spiritual world is hidden, and therefore men say that it does not exist. Hence
the restlessness, and more, the antagonism, which this levelling doctrine of the
new birth encounters among many cultivated men, and the intense desire to carry
it into the region of the head, and there settle it, when its sphere is
distinctively that of the heart. For it is the heart, and it is the will, that
are the seat of moral death and ruin, and it is with the heart that man must
believe unto righteousness. A man bitten by a deadly serpent may have in his
hand the sufficient remedy for the poison which is coursing through his veins,
and which is about to bring congestion and death; he may hold it up to the light
and admire it, and talk learnedly about its ingredients, and tell just how the
medicine, when taken, will counteract the disease; and yet he may perish, and
will, if he does nothing more. For it is not the hand that holds the medicine,
nor the mind that discourses eloquently upon it, that is the point to be
reached; but the whole system, of which the stomach is the centre, and from
which life, through the remedy received into it, must radiate to every part. How
many talk learnedly of religion, and even of the doctrines of grace, who recoil
from the humbling teaching of the new birth, and like Nicodemus, know not “these
things.” The new birth is not a creation of new faculties, nor an increase in
the number of original endowments. Here is a man who yesterday was in sin, and
to-day is in Christ. He is a new creature, by the operation of God through the
truth. Yet he has the same physical structure—the same eyes, face, form, mind,
breadth, culture. Yesterday his tongue blasphemed God; such is not the case
to-day — not because it is paralyzed, and cannot utter wicked words, for, on the
contrary, it is active in praising God. His arm that was raised in rebellion is
the same that now puts forth its energy in the Lord’s work. If you ask him
wherein is the difference, he may not be able to explain it. But, putting his
hand upon his heart, he says: “The difference is here — old things are passed
away; all things are become new.” There is a new ruler in the house of the soul,
who has swept and garnished it, and has taken possession as the controlling and
governing force; who has rescued his faculties and powers from the thralldom of
sin, and has purified and turned them about, and taken them into the exalted
service of holiness. For these faculties of body and mind are not the seat of
sin, and were not made for its base uses. They are adapted, by the divine hand,
to higher ends. They may be fitted for such service as angels give, and find in
it their true employment and development. Yonder is a ship upon the high seas,
perfect in all its equipments, and freighted with precious lives and valuable
merchandise. It was constructed for noble uses, and the sky is clear, and the
winds are favorable to speed it on its way to its proper port. But there is an
evil pilot on board, whose intent it is to destroy it. He is steering it towards
that reef of rocks, and, in his efforts to bring it to ruin, he is aided by the
very excellence of its parts. The sturdy masts, and strong sails, and stiff
breeze, but hasten it to its destruction. But. change your pilot; put a true man
in charge, and every spar and bit of cordage feels the difference; and wind, and
sail, and masts, and rudder, all combine to bring the vessel safely to its
haven. No illustration is perfect, and this is far from it; but it may
illustrate this one point, that in Regeneration there is a new governing power,
and that every fibre of body and mind is to feel the thrill of its rulership,
and to own its sway. And this new governing power is no less than a new nature.
It is not the divine method to seek to improve that which is dead and worthless,
or to attempt to turn enmity into love. The old nature is beyond cultivation,
even by the divine hand, and it is fit only to be crucified. There is the
implanting of a new nature, the becoming “partakers of the divine nature” (2
Peter 1:4); and this new nature begotten in us by God “with the word of truth”
(James 1:18) is that which is the new man in Christ Jesus; is that which sings
at the approach of its Lord; is that which alone rejoices in his love, delights
in his presence, and, becoming master of the regenerated one, is in harmony with
God and heaven.

If such be the nature of Regeneration; if it be higher, and deeper, and broader
than man’s best attainments; if it be the crucifixion of the old, and the
imparting of a new nature which hates sin and loves holiness; of a nature which
is in harmony with God’s character and requirements; then man must be
regenerated, or he is in perpetual dissonance with the government and the
holiness of God, at eternal war with his Creator—and that means eternal
wretchedness and misery.

3. Regeneration is essential to bring man where he is influenced by Gospel
motives, and by the Word of God. According to Scripture, we are “born again, not
of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the Word of God, which liveth and
abideth forever.” (1 Peter 1:23.) Gospel truth is the means through which the
new life comes to the soul. It is “he that heareth my word, and believeth on him
that sent me, hath everlasting life.” (John 5:24.) For all is in perfect keeping
here. One needs to be begotten “with the Word of truth,” which is the new birth,
in order to be guided and moulded by the truth. But this truth is from God, and
endures forever. There is no salvation but in conformity to it. “Indignation and
wrath” are the portion of such as “do not obey the truth, but obey
unrighteousness.” (Romans 2:8.) In 2 Thessalonians 1:7-8, we are taught that
“the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, in flaming
fire, taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the Gospel
of our Lord Jesus Christ.” And, in 1 Peter 4:17, we are asked the solemn
question, “What shall the end be of them that obey not the Gospel of God!”
Furthermore, the children of God “purify their souls in obeying the truth” (1
Peter 1:22), and are kept clean from the defilements of life by “the washing of
water by the Word.” (Ephesians 5:26.) In all of which we see that he alone is
saved and conformed to the image of the Son, who hears and receives the Word;
who has the new life come to him through the Word; and to whom the Word is “the
lamp to his feet and the light to his path;” who is controlled, shaped,
cleansed, seized upon and possessed by the Word; who can say with the Psalmist
(Psalms 119:11), “Thy Word have I hid in mine heart that I might not sin against
thee.” But all this is the work, the accompaniment, and the result of
Regeneration. It is the new birth alone, and not any culture of the old nature,
which brings us into the position where the Word of God, which is the law of
heaven, is infinitely sweet, and his will the soul’s supreme delight. This is
far from being the case with the unregenerate. “The ungodly are not so.” Their
delight is not in the law of the Lord, nor do they meditate in the law day and
night. (Psalms 2:2.) They cannot say, “How sweet are thy words unto my taste!
yea, sweeter than honey to my mouth!” (Psalms 119:103.) On the contrary, the
Gospel falls upon dead ears; the book of God is shunned because it condemns
them; its precepts, which mould the character for heaven, are disregarded. How,
then, can the unregenerate man be saved, when the Gospel, the means by which
life comes to him, is unheeded; and the Word, which gives the heavenly pattern
to which the saved conform, is to him as an idle tale?

4. The Regeneration of the soul is demanded by the nature and employments of the
Heavenly World. The superficial thought is prevalent that “the only obstacle to
the eternal felicity of the ungodly is the determination of Jehovah to close
against them the gates of the eternal city.” [36] It is argued that, this being
the case, God is too fonder and complaisant to bold out in this arbitrary
enactment, but will yield at last, in a gush of sentiment, and receive the evil
and the good alike into glory. It seems to be conveniently forgotten that,”
constituted as man is, misery is the natural and necessary result of unholy
character. For God himself does not attempt the impossible task of saving his
people in their sins, but from them.” [37] Neither the torments of the damned
nor the bliss of the saved will result mainly from the place to which they shall
be consigned, though the place be hell with its horrors, or heaven with its
unspeakable splendor. Not denying or underrating the positive punishments
inflicted upon the lost, yet it will be true that “the hell of the sinner will
be in his own bosom;” and if the hand of God should not directly touch him, yet
his portion will be with the never-dying worm of an accusing conscience; with
the unquenchable fire of self-reproach, with the torments of an unholy nature
which shall know no restraints in its developments in sin. It is not an
arbitrary fiat, “He which is filthy, let him be filthy still; and he that is
holy, let him be holy still.” (Revelation 22:11.) It is but the expression of
the unalterable nature of things. Yet men, ignorant of the nature of the
heavenly world, and picturing it as adapted to their unrenewed tastes, and
imagining that a change of circumstances will cure the ills which attend this
life, suppose that if, by any means, they could break down the decree which
keeps them out, or could elude the vigilance of the angel wardens and enter,
they would be supremely blest forever. They forget that character determines
destiny, and that in the case of the angels who kept not their first estate,
even heaven itself was a place of misery until they were cast out. It is a true
sentiment which Milton has put into the mouth of Satan, [36] Payne’s Lectures,
p. 388 [37] Payne’s Lectures.

“Which way I fly is Hell; myself am Hell.” Could it be that the unregenerate man
should enter heaven, it would yield him no delight. Its duties would be irksome,
its pleasures insipid and joyless. The illiterate boor, shut up in the society
of philosophers, soon wearies of their learned discourse, and longs to break
loose and rejoin his boon companions. Now, to the unregenerate holiness is
insufferable here. They do not delight to meditate upon it, nor to seek after
it. It belongs to a world outside of their existence. But holiness is the
supreme characteristic of heaven. Seraphims there, with veiled faces, cry,
“Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord of hosts.” (Is. 6: 3.) “And into that city there
shall in no wise enter anything 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.) Holiness is the bliss of heaven. To be freed from the
corpse of sin which is chained to us here; to be purified from every taint of
evil; to be made holy like God, beyond the reach of the lusts of the flesh or
the temptations of Satan; this is the ardent longing of every child of God, and
because of this attainment, heaven to him is unutterably glorious. But there is
nothing in death, nor in change of location, to give to the unregenerate man
that relish for holiness and spiritual delights, which is foreign to him here,
and which he must have to enter and enjoy the celestial city. The pursuits of
heaven are such as are here irksome to the unregenerate. For they are hearty and
incessant service to God and the Lamb. In the view of the heavenly city, in
Revelation, we see the four living creatures and the elders—as representatives
of the Church of God—and the angelic hosts vieing with each other in their
ascriptions of praise, and of honor, and of glory, and of power, to him that
sitteth on the throne, and to the Lamb forever. They sing with wondrous
enthusiasm the new song of Redemption through the blood. But, however men may
join in external acts of worship here, is it true that the unregenerate delight
in the perfections of God, and in the atoning work of Christ? Is their will lost
in his, and is it their joy to present their “bodies as a living sacrifice,
holy, acceptable unto God, which is their reasonable service?” (Romans 12:1.) To
the redeemed soul, heaven is nothing without the enjoyment of God and the
presence of Christ. Paul, in the fulness of his labors, expresses his desire “to
depart and be with Christ, which is far better.” (Php 1:23.) The Apostle John
exultingly says: “We know that when he shall appear, we shall be like him, for
we shall see him as he is.” (1 John 3:2.) And, in Revelation, Christ is seen in
heaven as the Lamb bearing the marks of sacrifice, and the centre of adoration
and worship. To meet him whom here we have known as the “man of sorrows,” and
see him as the glorified Son of God; to greet him not as a stranger, but as the
friend who died for our sins and rose again for our justification; to be
associated with him forever; this is the blessed prospect which stirs the
Christian heart with a deathless enthusiasm, and causes us to joyfully respond
to our Lord’s declaration, “Surely I come quickly;” with the prayer, “Even so,
Lord Jesus, come.”

But, do the unregenerate delight in Christ here? Is he to them the one
“altogether lovely?” Is the thought of God one which inspires them with
pleasure? or do they not desire to banish him from their minds and hearts? And
if, perchance, the subject of personal union with Christ be introduced as a
theme in their presence, there is constraint; and they are at ease again only
when the topic is exchanged for some worldly one. Jesus is not “All the day long
Their joy and their song.”

They cannot sit under his shadow with great delight. How, then, shall they
endure Heaven, when the presence of God and the Lamb is that which gives to the
upper world its inextinguishable radiance? Introduce that unregenerate heart
into the glorious company of the angels and redeemed. Let him visit circle after
circle, and group upon group of the heavenly inhabitants, and endeavor to share
in their service and delights, and what congeniality is there for such as he? He
listens to them telling of redeeming love; he hears their acclamations of
praise; he sees them striking their harps to the lofty strains of joy. But
wherever he turns, there is but the one theme Redemption through God’s abounding
grace; and of this they never weary. There is the impress of holiness in their
faces, and the mark of God’s proprietorship upon their foreheads. He could not
be happy there, for to share in heaven’s enjoyments, one must be born again.

Thus, not arbitrary is this radical saying of Jesus. The whole tenor of
Scripture; the lost condition of man; the nature of the work of regeneration;
the imperative necessity of a holy character; the nature of the heavenly
world—all combine to give emphasis to this saying of Jesus, “Except a man be
born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.”


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 21: 20 PREDESTINATION
========================================================================

Predestination By Rev. Richard Fuller, D. D. Late of Baltimore, MD. [38]

[38] Taken from Fuller’s Sermons, published by J. F. WeisHampel, Jr., Baltimore,
Mil., in three volumes. $1.00 each

“And now I exhort you to be of good cheer; for there shall be no loss of any
man’s life among you, but of the ship. For there stood by me this night the
angel of God, whose I am and whom I serve, saying, Fear not Paul: thou must be
brought before Caesar; and lo, God hath given thee all them that sail with thee.
And as the shipmen were about to flea out of the ship when they had let down the
boat into the sea, under color as though they would have cast anchors out of the
foreship, Paul said to the centurion and to the soldiers, Except these abide in
the ship ye cannot be saved.” —Acts 27:22-24; Acts 27:30-31.

It was Mr. Pitt, I believe, who, after reading Butler’s Analogy, remarked that
“it suggested more doubts than it answered.” In removing one difficulty, we
ought to be careful lest we create others which are greater. However, in
speaking of the deep things of God, all we can do is to show how far the human
understanding can go, when it ceases to obey reason, and debases itself to mere
scholastic logic.

You are all familiar with the narrative of Paul’s shipwreck. In spite of some
plausible objections, it is certain almost to demonstration that the vessel was
lost upon the island now known as Malta. The whole description is very graphic;
the impending danger; the commanding attitude of the Apostle during that fearful
night; his inspiring address as the dim morning light reveals the terrified,
haggard company—two hundred and seventy-six in all— shivering on the deck of the
sinking ship; the effect of his exhortation; and the rescue of all on board. As
you read the account, you feel that, if the sailors believed Paul’s declaration
as to a revelation from heaven, it would put fresh heart in them to work, as it
really did. Nor does it strike you that there is any contradiction between this
positive assurance of safety to all and the subsequent warning as to the
impossibility of saving the passengers unless the crew remained in the stranded
bark. Our philosophers, however, are astonished at your simplicity, and, of
course, at the simplicity of the Apostle and the inspired historian. For if God
had determined that all should reach the land in safety, how could it be
affirmed that in any case some would be lost? The Roman centurion had, I dare
say, quite as much sagacity as these cavillere, yet he urged no objection, but
at once complied with Paul’s counsels. And just so now. When in earnest, no man
ever pretends that predestination has anything to do with his free agency. No
farmer—though in theology the most fierce hyper-Calvinist—was ever heard of,
foolish enough to neglect the cultivation of his fields, because nothing can be
left to contingencies, and, therefore, it is predetermined whether he shall reap
a harvest or not. In a shipwreck no fatalist ever folded his arms, saying, “If I
am to perish, I will perish; if I am to be saved, I will be saved.” When danger
presses, the peasant and philosopher alike cry to God for deliverance, and put
forth all then efforts. It is only in idle speculations, or when seeking to lull
their consciences in impenitence and disobedience, that the enemies of God
insult him, by pleading his decrees as a pretext for their indolence and
passions.

I am going to offer you some thoughts upon this difficult subject, treating it
first doctrinally, and then practically. It is very seldom that such abstruse
discussions find a place in this pulpit; and now nothing is farther from my
wishes than that any of you should be encouraged to leave the paths of pure,
undefiled, simple piety, for the mysteries of tangled metaphysical polemics.
“The secret things belong unto the Lord our God; but those things which are
revealed belong unto us and to our children forever, that we may do all the
words of this law.”

If we are properly engaged about the plain duties of the Gospel, we will not be
tempted to perplex ourselves with the subtleties of controversial divinity, any
more than will a traveller, pressing homeward, wish to leap into every quicksand
that he may fathom its depths, or to rush into every thicket by the wayside that
he may try how far he can penetrate. It was through pride of reasoning that man
fell. .Revelation constantly assails the arrogance which impiously arraigns the
credibility of the divine word, unless our puny intellects can comprehend things
which it is the glory of God to conceal. The design of the Gospel is to humble
this temper, and to nourish in us the spirit of “a little child,” without which
the mind will go on sounding its dim and perilous way, till it is lost in
endless mazes, bewildered inextricably in dark, interminable labyrinths.

As, however, men affecting to be wits and geniuses are, in books and in
conversation, forever parading their flippancies on the question of
predestination and free-agency, it is worthwhile to show them, once for all, how
little they can take by their infidelity and ribaldry.

I. I am first to treat our subject doctrinally. And yon see at once that it
presents the very question which, century after century, has been the source of
bitter controversy; which has not only supplied the sceptic with his sneers, but
has exasperated pulpit against pulpit, church against church, and council
against council. The problem to which I refer is that of God’s decrees and man’s
moral agency, to solve which two systems have been advocated, two parties have
been formed. Let us examine each of these systems, let us hear each of these
parties, whom—that I may avoid the shibboleths of hostile religious prejudices
and factions—I will designate as the Libertarians and the Necessarians. The
Libertarians reject the doctrine of predestination; they deny that God has
fore-ordained all things. But, now, can this negation be even mentioned without
shocking our reason and our reverence for the oracles of eternal truth!

I might easily show that nothing is gained by this denial, that it only removes
the difficulty a little farther back. This system rejects predestination, and
maintains that God has left all men to act as they choose. But what is meant by
a man’s acting as he chooses? It is, of course, that he obeys the impulses of
his own feelings and passions. Well, did not God endow him with these passions?
Did not God know that if certain temptations assailed the creature to whom he
had given these passions, he would fall? Did he not foresee that these
temptations would assail him? Did he not permit these temptations to assail him?
Could he not have prevented these temptations? Why did he form him with these
passions? Why did he allow him to be exposed to these temptations? Why, in
short—having a perfect fore-knowledge that such a being, so constituted and so
tempted, would sin and perish— why did he create him at all? None will deny the
divine fore-knowledge; and I at once admit that the mere foreseeing an event,
which we cannot hinder and have no agency in accomplishing, does not involve ns
in any responsibility. But when the Creator, of his own sovereign pleasure,
calls an intelligent agent into being, fashions him with certain powers and
appetites, and places him amid scenes where he clearly sees that temptations
will overcome him—in such a case it is self-evident that our feeble faculties
cannot separate fore-knowledge from fore-appointment. The denial of
preordination does not, therefore, at all relieve any objection, it only
conceals the difficulty from the ignorant and unthinking. But even if the theory
of the Libertarians were not a plain evasion, it would be impossible for ns to
accept such a solution; for it dethrones Jehovah; it surrenders the entire
government of the world to mere chance, to wild caprice and disorder. According
to this system, nature, providence, grace are only departments of atheism; God
has no control over the earth and its affairs; or—if that be too monstrous and
revolting,—he exercises authority over matter, but none over the minds and
hearts of men. “The king’s heart is in the hands of the Lord as rivers of water,
he turneth it whithersoever he will”;—such is the declaration of the Holy
Spirit; but this theory rejects this truth. God exercises no control over men’s
hearts, consequently prophecy is an absurdity; providence is a chimera; prayer
is a mockery; since God does not interfere in mortal events, but abandons all to
the wanton humors and passions of myriads of independent agents, none of whose
whims and impulses he restrains, by whom his will is constantly defeated and
trampled underfoot. A creed so odious, so abhorrent to all reason and religion,
need only be carried out to its consequences and no sane mind can adopt it. And
this heresy is condemned on every page of the Bible. It is deeply to be lamented
that theological partisans so often treat texts of Scripture, as hired advocates
in our courts treat those witnesses whose evidence damages their
cause,—cross-examining and brow-beating the clearest passages,—seeking to
perplex their plain meaning—and to extort from them a testimony they will not
and cannot give. But after all ingenuity has been exhausted, how unequivocal is
the language of inspiration. “The counsel of the Lord standeth forever, the
thought of his heart to all generations.” “All the inhabitants of the earth are
reputed as nothing, he doeth according to his will in the army of heaven, and
among the inhabitants of the earth, and none can stay his hand, or say unto him,
What doest thou? “And they prayed and said, Lord show whether of these two thou
hast chosen; that he may take part of this ministry and apostleship.” “Whom God
did foreknow he did predestinate, moreover whom he did predestinate them he also
called.” “Being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all
things after the counsels of his own will.” Passages like these might be easily
multiplied, but I prefer to take another course, and to establish the doctrines
of the Sacred Oracles by a sort of proof which is very striking, and which
silences all cavil and sophistry. The depositions to which I now refer are
gathered from those narratives in which man’s free agency is taken for granted
or expressly affirmed, while at the same time, the entire event is ascribed
directly to God’s over-ruling decrees. Let us turn for a moment to these
records, and let us begin with the transportation of Joseph into Egypt. Bead the
history of his mission to his brethren, of the conspiracy among these brethren
to slay him, of Reuben’s scheme to wave his life and restore him to his father,
of the arrival of the Ishmaelite merchants, of Judah’s proposition to sell him
to them, and of the cruel and unnatural traffic. There never was a transaction
in which human passions — envy, hatred, revenge, cupidity — were more
confessedly the sole ruling cause and motive from first to last. “And the
patriarchs,” said Stephen, “moved with envy, sold Joseph into Egypt.” Yet the
result, from beginning to end, is ascribed to God’s purpose and decree. “And
Joseph said unto his brethren, Be not grieved nor angry with yourselves, that ye
sold me hither, for God did send me before yon to preserve life. So now it was
not you that sent me hither, but God.” And the Psalmist utters the same
declaration. “He sent a man before them, even Joseph, who was sold as a servant,
whose feet they hurt with fetters, he was laid in irons until the time that his
word came, the word of the Lord tried him.”

Take, next, the fatal obduracy of Pharaoh. In the book of Genesis it is
repeatedly said that “Pharaoh hardened his heart and sinned yet the more,” but
in the same chapters it is declared that “The Lord hardened the heart of
Pharaoh.” And in the Epistle to the Romans it is written, “For the Scripture
saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I
might show my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout the
earth.” In the first book of Kings, the people appeal to Rehoboam, to abate a
portion of the burden under which they groaned. That monarch seeks the counsel,
first of the old men, the former companions of his father, and then of the young
men who had grown up with him. Wilfully rejecting the sage advice of the elders,
he adopts the tyrannical measures recommended by the passions of his youthful
associates. The consequence is, the revolt of the ten tribes. Here was an
arbitrary decree of a despot, instigated by an evil heart and evil counsellors;
yet the whole is attributed directly to God’s decree. “The king hearkened not
unto the people; for the cause was from the Lord, that he might perform his
saying, which the Lord spake by Abijah the Shilonite unto Jeroboam the Son of
Nebat.” In the same regal history, Ahab disobeys God; and the prophet is sent to
warn him that, as a punishment, he shall be slain in battle. The monarch
disguises himself so that he is not known; and “a certain man drew a bow at a
venture, and smote the king of Israel between the joints of the harness, and he
died.” The archer aimed his shaft at no one, but discharged it “at a venture”
against the confused masses. Yet it was winged and guided by God’s unerring
decree. In the entire volume of the Book nothing is more fearful than the
epitaph upon the soul of Judas Iscariot, spoken by the Saviour himself, “It had
been good for that man if he had not been born.” You at once perceive that this
sentence consigned him to everlasting misery. The Universalist can never evade
this passage. For if, after myriads of ages, the lost soul shall be released and
translated to heaven, those centuries of wretchedness will be only as a moment,
as nothing, compared with an eternity of happiness; and it would not then be
true that the culprit had better never been born. But now this treason—though
instigated purely by covetousness, the ruling passion of the apostate—was a part
of God’s pre-arranged purpose. “None of them is lost, but the son of perdition;
that the Scriptures might be fulfilled.” “The Son of Man goeth as it is written
of him, but woe unto that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed, it had been
good for that man if he had not been born.” “Men and brethren, this Scripture
must needs have been fulfilled which the Holy Spirit, by the mouth of David
spake before concerning Judas, which was guide to them that took Jesus.” In
fine, the great catastrophe of the Bible, the crucifixion of the Redeemer—if
ever a deed was perpetrated by cruel, relentless malignity, it was the murder of
that innocent benefactor of mankind. The actors in that tragedy were charged
with heinous guilt in having “killed the Prince of Life,” whom “with wicked
hands they crucified and slew.” Nor did these murderers attempt any palliation.
“They were pricked to the heart,” and cried out in anguish, “What shall we do?”
Yet this conspiracy and its triumph only accomplished the predetermination of
eternal wisdom and love. “Those things which God before had showed by the mouth
of all his prophets, that Christ should suffer, he hath so fulfilled.” “Him,
being delivered by the determinate counsel and fore-knowledge of God, ye have
taken and by wicked hands have crucified and slain.” “For of a truth against thy
holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with
the Gentiles and the people of Israel, were gathered together: for to do
whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done.”

If anything be certain, then, it is that the antipredestinarian system is wholly
untenable. It is good for nothing, since it solves no difficulty, it stultifies
our reason, it is practical atheism, and it contradicts the express assertions
of the Bible. This argument is highly pleasing to some of you, I perceive. I
read your approbation in your countenances. I see you are ready to come forward
and extend to me the hand of fellowship and cordial congratulation. “Certainly,”
I hear you exclaim,” all that you have advanced is incontestable; it is just
what we firmly believe. None but an idiot can reject the doctrine of
predestination. Reason and Scripture both condemn the heresy which leaves man a
free, independent agent. We have always maintained this, and your reasoning
ought to silence the presumption of those who proudly arrogate liberty of will
and action.” The men who thus speak belong to the other class I have mentioned;
they are Necessarians; they hold that God not only foreknows but fore-determines
all things; that his decree controls irresistibly all matter, all mind, all
feeling, all action; and, therefore, that man’s free agency is a tenet false,
unscriptural, and absurd. Let us turn to this system, and examine it for a
moment. Now, in the very outset we encounter one objection to this creed, which
amounts to a refutation, and which nothing can remove; it is the consciousness
of free will and free agency which every man carries in his own bosom. Reason,
refine, cavil as we may, one thing is certain, we feel that we are free agents.
Consciousness is an inward faculty which informs us of what passes within us;
and its intuitions are conclusive and final as to the principles of our mental
constitution—just as the authority of the senses convinces us of what takes
place in the outward world. No matter what metaphysicians and schoolmen say, I
am not more sure that I see the sun in the heavens, than that I act in
accordance with my own unrestrained volitions. Suppose a man should construct an
ingenious argument to prove that you do not see and cannot walk. You might not
be able to detect the fallacy of his reasoning, but so long as you do see and do
walk, you know that his logic is all false.

Just so in the case before us; the testimony of the interior sense is equally
conclusive against all specious denials of our freedom. Indeed, if our will and
conduct are not free, they arc, of course, under compulsion; and it is
impossible for conscience either to approve or to condemn our actions or our
motives; the deliberate murderer is no more guilty than the innocent victim of
brute force, who, in spite of his protestations, is compelled to discharge a
pistol into the breast of a stranger.

Whatever theological dogmas men may adopt, there are some original truths
written in the very structure of our nature, and our moral responsibility is one
of these primary truths. But let Ob look a little more closely at this scheme of
necessity, and see if it does not conduct ne to issues quite as monstrous as
those which hare just shocked us in the opposite system. If man is not free,
what then? Why, then, he is not accountable when he sins. If man be forced by
necessity, it is absurd to predicate any moral quality of his actions to call
them either good or evil. If man be compelled, it is impossible to deny that God
is the author of sin—of all the sin which is perpetrated. From conclusions so
profane and repulsive as these, even the hyper-Calvinist and fatalist shrink
back, yet they are committed inevitably to them by their creed. This is not all.
The system of the Necessarians is condemned by the Scriptures as unequivocally
as that of their opponents. The cases which I have just now cited to establish
the doctrine of predestination, are equally as convincing as to man’s free moral
agency. For you remember that the inspired writers expressly charge the crimes
upon their authors, without the slightest intimation that God’s decrees have
anything to do with man’s guilt. In fact, they announce each of the doctrines
now before us in the same sentence without any attempt to reconcile them,
without seeming to be aware of any sort of contradiction between them. Recall
the illustrations I submitted to you a moment since—the cases of Joseph, of
Pharaoh, of Ahab, of Rehoboam, of Judas, of the crucifixion—and you will find
them just as incontestable with reference to Liberty as to Necessity. They take
for granted man’s free agency, as well as God’s sovereign and universal control.
Indeed, it is manifest that every call, every threat, every expostulation, every
exhortation in the Bible supposes that man is a free agent. If he be not free,
if he be the passive victim of inexorable, irresistible destiny, the Sacred
Volume is a compilation of glaring inconsistencies—of sheer, downright falsehood
and mockery. If a fixed fate has fore-doomed men as mere machines, how can God
utter those tender complaints of their conduct with which the Scriptures abound?
If his decrees compel men, how can he so earnestly admonish and beseech them to
repent and turn from their evil ways? If men are forced by God’s pre-ordination,
how can he utter that assurance, “As I live, I desire not the death of the
sinner, but that he turn and live f How could Jesus affirm that, if the mighty
works done in Chorazin “had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have
repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes,” and that if the mighty works done
Capernaum “had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day?” In a
word-, if God’s purposes bind men inflexibly in chains, what is the meaning of
that touching, weeping exclamation, “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. Behold your house is left unto you desolate”?

If you have followed me, I think you will confess now, that neither of the two
classes indicated can be right. The Libertarian is plainly in error when he
rejects the doctrine of predestination; and the Necessarian is as plainly in
error when he rejects the doctrine of free agency. And these are the only two
parties. I am aware that some theologians profess to belong to a third and
moderate school: and they undertake to reconcile the difficulties of our subject
by this solution:—that God, who appoints the end, appoints also the means. This
is the proposition advanced by Dr. Chalmers in an admirable sermon upon the very
text now before us. It is no doubt very true; but it elucidates nothing, it only
removes the difficulty one step farther. The advocates of this thesis do not
belong to a third class, they are Necessarians, and ascribe all events to God’s
decrees as rigorously as if no agent had been employed. In a former part of this
discourse I remarked that those who admit God’s foreknowledge, but deny his
fore-appointment, gain nothing by the discrimination; since, in the Creator, our
minds can draw no distinction between foreseeing and fore-ordaining. I make a
similar observation now as to the interposition of a medium. Nothing is gained
by it. The unthinking may be thus satisfied; but it is an old axiom, that he who
performs an act by another, performs it himself. In human affairs God never acts
immediately, except when working miracles; he uses instruments and agents.
These, of course, are chosen by him; and if they are necessitated by his
decrees—as is supposed in the case before us—the introduction of one or many
agencies produces no modification in the system, which is that of mechanical
force and stern compulsion. In these assemblies where you are compelled to
listen in silence, a preacher may think that he has triumphed, when he thus
disposes of an objection; but he deceives himself. His hearers see clearly that
he has not fairly met the difficulty; he has only shifted it a little out of
sight. In the recital from which our text is taken, Paul announced, by express
revelation from heaven, that not a soul on board the ship should perish. Yet
when the seamen were about to leave in the boats, he as confidently declared
that unless they remained in the vessel the passengers could not be saved.
According to the intermediate system, the Apostle was very inconsistent in this
last admonition; since he must have seen clearly that if God had predetermined
the salvation of all, he had also indefeasibly adjusted the means, and that his
decree could no more be frustrated by the treachery of the mariners than by the
winds and the waves. In reference to predestination and free agency, there are,
then, only two systems—that of the Libertarians, and that of the Necessarians.
These schemes seem to our minds not only irreconcilable, but antagonistical. Yet
the rejection of either involves us in consequences absurd and impious. And what
is still more confounding, the Bible, with a directness and plainness admitting
of no dispute or evasion, inculcates both of these conflicting doctrines,
requiring our unmutilated faith in each, without even noticing the inscrutable
difficulty and seemingly palpable contradiction by which our intellects are
bewildered.

Thus perplexed and staggered, what are we to do? Thus far we have only been
entangling ourselves in a labyrinth; following first a path which leads one way;
then returning and pursuing another path running in the opposite direction; but
every attempt involving us more inextricably, until we feel hopelessly lost.
What are we to do? It is evident that there is only one hope left us. We must
confess our absolute blindness, and procure a guide who comprehends all the dark
intricacies; one in whom we have perfect confidence; who can and will conduct us
safely; and we must surrender ourselves to him. Suppose that two men born blind
were to enter into a dispute as to the color of an object; one affirming that it
is red; the other that it is blue. It is clear that these discussions would be
simple absurdities; since neither of them possesses that sense by which color
can be known. Mr. Locke gives the case of a blind man who insisted that he knew
what the color of scarlet resembled; and when asked what, he answered “The sound
of a trumpet.” Their controversy could be decided only in one way. An umpire
must be found who can see; and who will decide the question truly; and they must
submit to his arbitrament. This analogy illustrates exactly our condition as to
the subject before us, which is confessedly beyond the reach of human faculties.
But, now, can we secure such a guide as we have described? Where is the arbiter
to be found, who perfectly comprehends these deep things of God, and to whom we
may with perfect confidence refer the difficulty? My brethren, the guide, the
arbiter we seek is before us. It is God himself. He understands fully his
decrees; he also comprehends man’s free agency; and he declares as we have seen,
that all our speculations are wrong; that both these doctrines are true; and, of
course, that there is no discrepancy between them. I have shown that it is
impossible for us to reject either of these great truths, and it is equally
impossible for our minds to reconcile them. But here, as everywhere, faith must
come to our aid, teaching us to repose unquestioningly upon God’s veracity;
reminding us that” secret things belong unto the Lord our God;” and rebuking the
arrogance which demands that our intellects shall penetrate and reconcile those
thoughts of the divine mind which are as high above our thoughts as the heavens
are above the earth. With unspeakable condescension, God constantly invites us
to confer and plead with him. “Come now,” he says, “let us reason together.”
Only once, in all the Scriptures, does he silence the arguments of man by a
stern, abrupt assertion of his sovereignty; and this is when an inquisitive
objector has assumed the attitude of a cavillere who, daring to believe less and
presuming to comprehend more than is revealed, finds fault with his decrees
because, as he pretends, they destroy man’s moral freedom. It is this very
presumption the Apostle cuts short by that sudden retort, “Nay, but, O man, who
art thou that repliest against God?” The pillar by which Jehovah led his people
was luminous all night long, but in the day it became an impenetrable column of
murky cloud; and it is thus God now reveals himself to us. His precepts and our
duty are all so plain, that the wayfaring man, though a fool, need not err
therein; but if instead of pursuing our way humbly and earnestly, we seek to
fathom the abysses of his adorable wisdom, we are baffled; clouds and darkness
are round about him, “he makes darkness his secret place, his pavilions round
about him are dark waters and thick clouds of the skies.” And, as in the
wilderness the blackness proclaimed the majestic presence as gloriously as the
splendor, so now, “it is the glory of God to conceal a thing.” His independence,
his infinite superiority to all creatures, that reverential awe which is due to
such a Being, require that much in his providence and everything in his secret
counsels shall be inscrutable to man.

If from Paul the traveller, animating his harassed, tempest-tossed fellow
voyagers, we turn to Paul the theologian, and ask how the immutable purposes of
God can be harmonized with the perfect freeness of men he does not attempt to
gratify our curiosity; he has but one answer, he exclaims, “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.” And this temper—this humble
confession of our incompetency, this profound submission of our reason to
mysteries which are above us—is taught not only by inspiration but by natural
reason. We have taken our text from the travels of an Apostle, let us borrow
from another traveller a case of casuistry which has been well cited by his
illustrious countryman, and which ought to be profitable to many now before me.
This acute and accurate author has recorded much useful information concerning
the Persians; and he tells us that among those Mohammedans the duty of
remembering the limits of the human understanding is inculcated by the following
curious anecdote.

“There were once three brethren who all died at the same time. The two first
were men; the eldest having always lived in a habit of obedience to God; the
second, on the contrary, in a course of disobedience and sin. The third was an
infant, incapable of distinguishing good from evil. These three brothers
appeared before the tribunal of God; the first was received into Paradise, the
second was condemned to hell, the third was sent to a middle place where there
was neither pleasure nor pain, because he had not done either good or evil. When
the youngest heard his sentence, and the reasons on which the supreme Judge
grounded it, grieved to be excluded from Paradise, he exclaimed, Ah, Lord, hadst
thou preserved my life as thon didst that of my good brother, how much better
would it have been for me. I should have lived as he lived, and then I should
have enjoyed as he does the happiness of eternal glory. My child, replied God to
him, I knew thee, and I knew, that hadst thou lived longer, thon wouldst have
lived like thy wicked brother, and like him wouldst have rendered thyself
deserving of the punishment of hell. The condemned brother, hearing this
discourse of God, exclaimed, Ah, Lord, why didst thou not confer the same favor
upon me as upon my younger brother, by depriving me of a life which I have so
wickedly misspent as to bring myself under a sentence of condemnation? I
preserved thy life, said God, to give thee an opportunity of saving thyself. The
younger brother, hearing this reply, exclaimed again, Ah, why then, my God,
didst thou not preserve my life also, that I might have had an opportunity of
saving myself I God, to put an end to complaining and disputing, replied,
Because my decree had determined otherwise.”

Let us, my brethren, study this fable, and be instructed by these ingenious
heathen. Other teachers begin by proposing to their scholars the examples of
those who have distinguished themselves in learning. Jesus commences by setting
before us a little child, and requiring us to cultivate an humble, docile
temper. The fact is, we are familiar with names, and we mistake this for a
knowledge of things; we adopt a system and love that more than truth. The
inspired writers never set themselves to build up well-adjusted scientific
schemes; they simply announce “God’s testimony.” But we must compact the truths
revealed into a regular symmetrical body of divinity; we examine the Sacred
Oracles, not to learn all they disclose, but with a fixed determination to
defend our theory. Hence we study, not the Bible in its amplitude, but the
authors who advocate our dogmas. And hence, too, we seek to wrest those
Scriptures which conflict with the beauty and harmony of our ingeniously
constructed systems. Do you receive the doctrine of predestination? Certainly.
To reject it, I would have to stultify my intellect, to discard prophecy, which
is based upon this truth, to abjure the unequivocal teachings of the Bible, to
believe that God had abandoned the earth to chance and disorder, and to plunge
into I know not what absurdities. Well, then yon do not receive the doctrine of
man’s free agency. Indeed I do; for otherwise I must renounce my own distinct
consciousness, I must disbelieve the Scriptures, I must make God the author and
yet the punisher of sin, I must precipitate myself into I know not what
absurdities. I embrace both doctrines. Nay, more; I see clearly that if I reject
either of these great truths and cling to the other, it will tow me away into
fathomless depths of folly and impiety. But, how do you reconcile these two
doctrines? Reconcile! I do not reconcile them at all. I am not required to
reconcile them. Who made me a judge and reconciler of God’s acts and attributes
and clearly revealed testimonies? No, my brethren; let us rather with Job
exclaim, “Behold I am vile, what shall I answer thee? I will lay my hand upon my
mouth. Once have I spoken, but I will not answer; yea, twice, but I will proceed
no farther. Lo, these are parts of thy ways, but how little a portion is heard
of him. I know that thou canst do everything; therefore have I uttered that I
understood not, things too wonderful for me which I knew not. Canst thou by
searching find out God? Canst thou find out the Almighty unto perfection? It is
high as heaven, what canst thou do? deeper than hell, what canst thou know?” For
my own part, as I contemplate these two grand doctrines I seem to see two
parallel lines stretching away into eternity with thousands of other lines, all
of which my vision can pursue but a little way. How they can ever meet, or
whether they meet at all, I have no means of deciding. They appear to be
ultimate facts, between which we can discover no links, but which are perfectly
harmonious in the Divine Mind. We can discern no connection between them; but it
is preposterous to affirm that there is collision;—pre-posterous in the exact
meaning of the word, since a pre-requisite to such an assertion is a knowledge
which we cannot possess. When I affirm two distinct truths, you never refuse to
believe each, unless I can show some connection between them. “There is such a
country as England.” “The sun is shining brightly.” What would you think of his
intellect who should say, Both these propositions are clear, but I will not
receive them unless you show me the relation between them. Such a man you would
pronounce a lunatic. Very well, now apply this reasoning to the doctrines before
us. “God has pre-ordained all things.” “Man is a free responsible agent.”
Neither of these propositions can be denied; why do you reject either of them,
unless I can show the connection between them! You will reply, Because they
contradict each other. Now, this I deny, and this you cannot possibly prove. The
whole matter is reduced to this single question: Can God foreordain all things,
and yet form an intelligent being who shall be a perfectly free, moral,
accountable agent? And it is clearly preposterous for any finite mind to attempt
to answer that question; for the decision demands omniscience. God only can
solve that problem, and, as we have his solution,—as he declares that he has
peopled the earth with beings as free as if there were no decrees—our duty is
plain. In this, as in other mysteries of Godliness, our speculations must cease,
we must subject our “philosophy and vain deceit” to the decisions of Revelation.
Reason must ascertain what God says, and then both faith and reason must
acquiesce in humility and reverence.

True wisdom is always humble. The wisdom which descendeth from above is so
profoundly humble that it at once confesses its ignorance and says, “If any man
think that he knoweth anything, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know.” It
feels that all our present knowledges are only puerilities which will be put
aside when we become men—a sort of nescience which “shall vanish away” when our
minds are emancipated from darkness. There is a region of truth inaccessible to
argument and logic; there is a “sea of light” before whose excess of brightness
our feeble intellects are dazzled into utter blindness. These domains we may one
day fully penetrate. Now we can reach them, not by reasoning, but only by
childlike love. And for true spiritual wisdom only one course remains. As to
predestination and other kindred subjects we must “have faith in God;” we must
not expect to comprehend all the parts and bearings of all things revealed in
the Bible; we must never carry our systems farther than the teachings of the
Word will justify; especially we must never impinge upon the clear doctrines of
revelation. A profound philosopher has well remarked that “the wall of adamant
which bounds human inquiry has scarcely ever been discovered by any adventurer
until he has been roused by the shock which drove him back.” All which is
necessary to the perfect repose of a devout mind, is the knowledge, either that
the truth has been ascertained, or that it is inaccessibly concealed in the
abysses of light in which God dwells. As to the abstruse topics upon which we
have been meditating, we may, therefore, rest from all speculations with perfect
confidence. If we attempt to explain and reconcile the doctrines of
predestination and free agency, we find impassable barriers hemming us in, and
sharp adamant striking us back. But the proofs of these doctrines are
irrefragable. Their harmony we must leave with God; it is an ultimate fact
transcending our thoughts; but clear to that Intellect which is the supreme
fountain of all light and love.

II. So much for our text treated doctrinally. The few moments which remain I
devote to the practical lessons of our subject, for these are very important;
darkness serving us for light; darkness teaching us more than light—even as
night reveals more of the starry glories of the firmament than the day.

And, first, it will not be in vain that I have conducted you through the
intricacies of this discussion, if, once for all, we learn the folly of human
wisdom, when in the presence of the deep things of God; if we are convinced that
the philosopher must discard his “oppositions of science falsely so called,” and
must, with the peasant, meekly receive the communications which God has
vouchsafed to man. Those who cavil at the mysteries of revelation, and those who
pretend to solve them, always affect superior wisdom and penetration; but in
fact they only betray a want of thought. “I do not understand everything
connected with this proposition, therefore I cannot believe it.” The man who
reasons thus will have a very short creed, for what truth is there, even in
nature, which does not involve mysteries? Such language is simply foolish. For,
whatever be the obscurities and difficulties of the Gospel, there is nothing in
them unworthy of a religion which is divine, they are “mysteries of Godliness”
inspiring sacred veneration, teaching us to be holy. And whatever system we may
seek to substitute for the Gospel—the religion of nature, infidelity, atheism—we
cannot escape mysteries; we can explain nothing; we can only lose ourselves in
fresh obscurities and difficulties in heaven God promises that all shall be
explained, as far as finite intellects can comprehend his conduct and
perfections; but at present, every reflecting mind confesses that we are
surrounded on every side by inexplicable enigmas. If anything be certain, if
anything be true, elevating, worthy of all our confidence, it is the revelation
contained in the Bible. Abandon that and we must surrender ourselves to
universal scepticism.

There is, even among those who profess to be Christians, a want of that full
confidence which the Bible challenges as a revelation from God. We must correct
this lurking infidelity. When we consider God’s relation to us, and the
incompetency of nature and reason to instruct us as to our future destiny, a
communication directly from heaven seems to be an indispensable part of the
divine intercourse with this earth. And supposing that God’s goodness and
justice would cause him to make a revelation to man, there are only two ways by
which it can be authenticated. These are, first, credentials conclusive to the
mind; and secondly, internal evidence which convinces the heart—for the heart
has its reasonings, and in religion they are prompter and surer than the
deductions of the intellect.

Now, examined by each of these tests, the Sacred Oracles establish at once and
forever their divine origin; and reason tells us that her highest office is to
receive in all their integrity the things which “eye hath not seen, nor ear
heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, but which God hath revealed
by his Spirit.” To require God to reveal nothing which we cannot comprehend, is
to demand of him more than he has done for unfallen angels, more than he can
possibly do for any finite being. These pretexts are the stale cavils of
philosophy flown with vanity and conceit. They are not only insane, but impious;
for have these men any claims upon God? In a word, they are manifestly but the
shifts and mere subterfuges of an evil heart; since if these objectors knew all
they demand to know, their duty could not be made any plainer than it now is.

Theological prejudices are proverbially inveterate, and I do not expect that the
arguments urged in this discourse will detach a single partisan from the creed
to which he has long been bigoted; but surely the incomprehensibility of the
divine mind ought to rebuke the fierce controversies which too often embitter
the hearts of Christians; in waging which they entirely forget the admonition,
that—though we understand all mysteries and all knowledge—we are nothing without
charity. Marcellus said that, with all his imperial power, Tiberius Caesar could
not give currency to a new word. Sectarian gladiators have unhappily invented
and consecrated a good many new words, which have become the shibboleths of
strife, bitterness and persecution. The two parties whom I have called
Libertarians and Necessarians are well known in the churches by other names. And
they have often been arrayed in hostile attitudes against each other, urging a
war of uncompromising intolerance; for this is a melancholy fact that it has
generally been about polemical abstractions, scarcely ever about moral duties,
that theologians have fulminated their anathemas. Each of these factions has
much truth; but each overlooks the fact that, as a mist is more dangerous than
darkness, so partial truth is one of the most dangerous forms of error; that the
most effectual method of perverting the Bible is to garble its teachings; and
each has pushed its system so far as to trench upon other truths. How much
uncharitableness, strife, hatred, malice would be avoided,—what peace, love,
harmony would adorn the churches—if these partisans loved their dogmas less, and
the unmutilated Scriptures more; if they would conquer their prejudices; if,
instead of presumptuously seeking to reconcile God’s ways, they would remember
that what seem discords to us, are only hidden, pre-established harmonies, which
shall one day fill us with admiration and adoration; if, in short,—instead of a
mistaken, harsh, hard orthodoxy—they possessed more of that reverence which is
the sublimest faculty of man’s nature, before which self is humbled into
nothing, und God’s ways are a vast infinitude edged with intolerable
radiance—eternity spreading all around it and stretching far away as its
back-ground. The subject we have been discussing applies to our duties. Let us
pray for grace that we may acquiesce in all the mysteries of God’s sovereignty,
and yet hold inviolate all the strenuous activities of the life of faith. In a
revelation from heaven there must be some mysteries; there will be much that no
thought of man can fully reach—since it is wrapped in the very light in which
God dwells unapproachably. But we would expect his will concerning us to be
distinctly announced. And so we find it. Whatever is obscure, we clearly see our
duty. In the narrative before us, there was no sort of doubt as to what was to
be done. The assurance from heaven not only did not relax the earnestness of the
Apostle and the seamen, but it inspired fresh strength and ardor. And thus, if
we are sincere, will it be with us in our religious duties. Take prayer for
example. God promises to answer prayer, and we know he does answer prayer. Let
us not perplex ourselves by curious speculations as to the manner in which our
petitions can be granted, and how the prevalence of our supplications can
consort with God’s unchangeableness. Prayer is the cry of human weakness, guilt
and misery. If we are thoroughly in earnest, we will be encouraged by God’s
promises; nor can any objection be drawn from the divine immutability, which
would not equally prevent our planting, or toiling, or employing any means
whatever to attain an object.

Again, we are under the most solemn obligations to seek the salvation of men;
and we are only folding about us a fatal illusion, if we hope to escape this
responsibility by pleading any decrees of God. When Paul was vehemently opposed
in Corinth, the Lord said to him, “Be not afraid, but speak, and hold not thy
peace, for I have much people in this city.” Does the Apostle argue that if God
had much people in the city, it was unnecessary for him to labor and expose
himself to suffering! Just the reverse. He devotes himself with renewed zeal to
his work, and in this he furnishes a pattern to us, and a reproof to that
antinomianism which has too long been a pretext for indolence, covetousness,
perfidiousness in the churches.

Lastly, and above all, let us learn to work out our “own salvation with fear and
trembling.” As a motive to this duty, the Scriptures assure us that “it is God
who worketh in us.” Let us admit all the force and comprehensiveness of this
motive. God worketh in me; then I can work. God worketh in me; then I will work.
God worketh in me; then I must work.

Amidst all our ignorance and weakness, what we most clearly perceive is, the
transcendent importance of religion, the love of God, the atonement of the Cross
and salvation through that atonement. Jesus Christ has come into the world to
save sinners. His blood cleanses from all sin. The Holy Spirit can deliver us
from all our corruptions. The gospel is adapted to all our wants, and offers us
its treasures without money and without price. All this we know. And we know,
too, that God’s hidden decrees do not at all affect our conduct and character.
You are shocked at the guilt of Judas and of the murderers of Christ. No
ingenuity can persuade you that they were innocent because their passions were
overruled and accomplished what God had fore-ordained. Your conscience, then,
seconds the declarations of the Bible on this subject. And your reason seconds
your conscience; for, after all your syllogisms to prove that the divine
purposes hold and control man, nobody could induce you to leap into the sea, or
to throw yourself from the summit of a precipice.

Apply this reasoning to the concerns of your soul. Lost and ruined as we are, a
great salvation has been provided for us, and it is yours by faith in Jesus. God
repels no imputation with such intense abhorrence as that which charges him with
desiring the death of any sinner. “Oh, Israel,” he exclaims, “thou hast
destroyed thyself, but in me is thy help.” “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. Turn ye, turn ye, for why will ye die?” Having—at such
expense—wrought out a wonderful atonement, Jesus now calls you to turn to him
and accept a full deliverance; he assures you he is not willing that “any should
perish, but that all should come to repentance.” “Come unto me,” he cries, “and
him that cometh I will in no wise cast out.”

But, still—as Paul said to the centurion and to the soldiers, “Except these
abide in the ship ye cannot be saved”—so I tell you this day, that unless you
are found in Christ, you cannot be saved. It has ‘been well remarked, that any
fool can ask questions which no wise man can answer; and the simplest man in
that laboring vessel might have proposed just such impertinent inquiries as we
now every day hear. If God has decreed that all of us shall be saved, how can
the escape of the sailors reverse that decree? If Infinite Wisdom and Power have
predetermined that “not a hair shall fall from the head of any of us,” why need
we take some meat? why “lighten the ship and cast out the wheat into the sea”?
“why loose the rudder bands and hoist up the mainsail to the wind”? why need
some “swim” and the rest seize upon “boards and broken pieces of the ship”?
These and similar questions any idiot might have asked; but no man was idiot
enough to waste time in such casuistry. On a sinking vessel people find very
little edification in metaphysical dialectics; they are altogether too much in
earnest to bewilder their minds with these unprofitable subtilties. In the hour
of danger, he would be regarded as a lunatic, who should stop to reason as our
pretended philosophers reason. Had any one of the passengers refused to bestir
himself and resolved to stand by his orthodoxy, he would certainly have been
drowned, in spite of all his unanswerable logic. And so, my friends, if you
neglect the great salvation, you cannot escape; you will perish, and all your
pleas and pretences will only expose you to shame and everlasting contempt. Be
warned, be wise, before it is forever too late. O, think, how short and
uncertain your life is. Consider how perilous it is thus to defer that surrender
to Jesus, which the word and providence and Spirit of God have so long been
urging, and which you have so often secretly resolved upon. What is the great
concern1 “What?” you reply, “Why! the salvation of my soul, certainly. To
abandon sin, to overcome the fatal spirit of procrastination, to receive the
Gospel on the terms of the Gospel, to take up the cross and follow Jesus — this
is the’ first great concern.” Such, my dear hearer, has been your confession a
hundred times; such is your confession now. But what then? Alas, you have lived,
and you will leave this house to go on living, as if salvation were the only
affair unworthy of your serious attention. Lay these things solemnly to heart.
Go not all the way to the judgment, to discover that your destruction is
unnecessary and willful and wanton.

Or, if you are bent on self-destruction—if no entreaties from God, no restraints
of his providence, no solicitations of the Spirit, no expostulations, no tears
of your Saviour can stop you — at least do not insult Heaven by pretending that
you are waiting for more effectual influences. This plea admits that you feel
some strivings of the Holy Ghost; why do you not comply with these? Why resist
these, and desire more powerful movements? What is this, but openly to proclaim
that you will try conclusions with the Almighty! that you are resolved to strive
against your Maker, to yield nothing to him willingly, to defy him as long as
you can, and only to submit to a sad necessity when he shall compel you? Is
there anything in Revelation—do you seriously think there is anything in the
secret counsels of eternity—to justify the hope that God will thus be appeased!
What, my beloved friend, what can you expect from such deliberate, unrelenting
opposition to the Sovereign of the Universe? What must be the issue of such an
unequal, disastrous, desperate conflict?

Let me adjure you—by the mercies of God and by the unspeakable danger of your
soul, with only a brief and uncertain remnant of life left you—to adopt a
different course. “Hear ye and give ear; be not proud, for the Lord hath spoken.
Give glory to the Lord your God, before he cause darkness, and before your feet
stumble upon the dark mountains.” He is the incomprehensible Jehovah; but the
mysteriousness of his counsels casts no obscuration over his wisdom and love. It
is a subliming, rejoicing exercise of faith, to feel that in God’s ways there
are heights and depths far out of our sight; to submit wholly to him; to ascribe
all honor and salvation to him—of whom and through whom, and to whom are all
things; to whom be glory forever. Amen.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 22: 21 PERSEVERANCE OF THE SAINTS
========================================================================

Perseverance of the Saints By Rev. T. T. Eaton, D. D., Petersburg, VA.

“They shall never perish.”—John 10:28. Will all who are truly regenerate
persevere in a state of grace to a state of glory? or will some of them finally
perish? Many a priori arguments have been used on both sides of this great
question, which has for so many centuries divided the professed followers of
Christ; but since “the Bible, and the Bible only, is the religion of
Protestants,” it is alone worth our while to consider what the Scriptures teach
upon this subject.

If the doctrine of election be true, then the final perseverance of the saints
follows as a necessary corollary, so that every passage that can be cited to
prove the former doctrine also goes to establish the latter. Peter (1 Peter
1:2-5) calls Christians who are scattered over the world,” Elect according to
the foreknowledge of God the Father through sanctification of the Spirit unto
obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ;” and he adds that they
“are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed
in the last time.” It is plain this language would not have been true of any
Christians in “Pont us, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,” who afterwards
were lost. It therefore follows that none of them were lost; and if none of
them, then no true Christians in any age will perish. Paul wrote to the
Thessalonians (2 Thessalonians 2:13), “God hath from the beginning chosen you to
salvation through the sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth.”
Now, it is evident that no man can perish whom God hath chosen to salvation, for
if chosen to salvation, he must be saved. A salvation that does not save is a
contradiction. No man is saved so long as danger still threatens him, for the
saved man is safe, and no one is safe who is in danger of perishing. Paul told
the Philippian jailer (Acts 16:31),” Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou
shalt be saved, and thy house.” If there had been any danger of the jailer’s
being lost after believing, the Apostle could not have spoken to him thus. The
language is not “believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and then you will have a
probability of salvation,” but “believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shall
be saved.” Again, in Acts 2:47, we read, “And the Lord added to the church daily
such as should be saved,”— or, according to the Greek, “the saved,”—and there
could have been no doubtful ones among those added. Other similar passages might
be cited, but let these suffice. None who are chosen of God to salvation will
perish. All Christians are thus chosen. Therefore no Christian will perish. Our
Saviour declared the doctrine of the Perseverance of the Saints in language as
plain as it is possible to use: “He that heareth my word, and believeth on him
that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but
is passed from death unto life.” (John 5:24.) Every regenerate man is described
by the words, “he that heareth my word and believeth on him that sent me,” and,
therefore, every regenerate man “hath everlasting life, and shall not come into
condemnation.” Could language declare more plainly that no Christian will
finally perish? Universalists tinker at the word everlasting, and attempt to
show that it does not mean endless; but even Universalists would scarcely claim
that a life which endured only a few years could be rightly called everlasting.
It is to be observed Jesus does not say “shall have,” but “hath everlasting
life”—the verb (ἔχω) is in the present tense. To make it doubly sure, our Lord
adds that such an one “shall not come into condemnation,” which he would
certainly do if he should be lost. The change from death to life has passed upon
him that believeth, and that change is irreversible forever. Of similar import
are other passages, e. g.,John 3:36 : “He that believeth on the Son hath
everlasting life.” We see that the very terms used in speaking of regeneration
forbid the idea of men’s perishing who are regenerate.

There is no such thing as a second spiritual birth. Nicodemus was right, that a
second natural birth was impossible. No man is born, and grows a short time,
dies and is born again to live a few more years, and so on. The same is true of
the spiritual birth from above; it stands at the beginning of the Christian
life. No man is born a babe in Christ, to grow in grace for a while, to die and
become a babe again. This analogy is of our Saviour’s own choosing (John 3:3-7,
and shows that as we have but one natural life, so we have but one spiritual
life. This does not of itself prove that the spiritual life may not be lost, but
since those who believe the doctrine of apostasy believe that men may be
regenerated, lose their faith, and be regenerated again, and repeat the process
several times, it is proper to show, in this connection, that a man can be
regenerated but once.

Christians are often spoken of as children of God in Script tire, and this is no
evanescent relation. Once a son, always a son, though a prodigal. Jesus calls
believers sheep, and says, “My sheep hear my voice and I know them, and they
follow me; and I give unto them eternal life, and they shall never perish;
neither shall any pluck them out of my hand.” (John 10:27-28.) Here it is
plainly declared that no Christian will ever perish — “they shall never perish.”
Such language would be false if a single one of the sheep was lost. And at the
last day — under the figure of a shepherd’s dividing the sheep from the goats —
Christ tells us he will separate the righteous from the wicked (Matthew 25:32
and sq.), placing the sheep upon the right hand and the goats upon the left.
“Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, ‘Come, ye blessed of my
Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.’”
All who are his sheep will hear this glad welcome — none of them shall perish.
In the Sermon on the Mount, our Lord declared, “Many will say to me in that day,
Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out
devils? and in thy name have done many wonderful works? And then will I profess
unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.” (Matthew
7:22-23.) Note the expression, “I never knew you.” It is not, “I do not now know
you, though I knew you once,” but “I never knew you.” None of that throng were
ever truly regenerate, although they had made great professions and had been
very active in “many wonderful works,” else Christ would have known them. Paul
declares his faith in the doctrine of final perseverance when he writes to the
Philippians (Php 1:6): “Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath
begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ.” The
word rendered “perform” is ἐπιτελέσαι, and has the sense of “finish.” God begins
the work of grace in every regenerate person, and for that person to perish,
would be for God to leave his work in that one unfinished. And since God will
finish the work of grace he has begun in each heart “until the day of Jesus
Christ,” if any Christian falls from grace it must be after the resurrection,
and that no one claims.

Moreover, perseverance in holiness is declared in Scripture to be a test of
regeneration; that is to say, those who do not persevere were never truly
regenerate. Jesus said to some of the Jews at Jerusalem who believed on him, “If
ye continue in my word then are ye my disciples indeed.” (John 8:31.) “If ye
continue,” “then are;” mark the words; the future continuance is a test of their
present faith. If they continued not, then they were not at any time Christ’s
disciples indeed. To the same effect is the utterance of John (1 John 2:19),
“They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us they
would have continued with us.” In King James’ version, the words “no doubt” are
inserted, but in italics, to show they do not belong in the passage. Here, then,
it is emphatically stated that if those who went out had been “of us”—that is to
say, if they had been regenerate —” they would have continued with us.” The seed
planted in Christian hearts is declared to be “incorruptible” (1 Peter 1:23), so
that whenever what appears to be the result of regeneration becomes corrupt,
that proves the regeneration to have been unreal. It is self-evident that what
is incorruptible cannot become corrupt. “Whosoever is born of God doth not
commit sin, for his seed remaineth in him.” (1 John 3:9.) If, then, the seed
remaineth in whosoever is born of God, no such one can perish. The seed which
brought forth no fruit, in the parable, was sown in stony places and by the
wayside; that which fell in good ground yielded from thirty to an hundred fold.
The house which fell was the one built upon the sand; the one founded upon the
rock stood unharmed through the storm.

There are other passages which might be cited, but these are sufficient for our
present limits. Let us now consider the texts relied on to prove the opposite
doctrine. In Matthew 10:22 we read, “But he that endureth to the end shall be
saved;” and this is claimed as implying that some will begin the life of faith,
and, failing to endure to the end, will perish. The inference is unwarranted;
the passage simply declares that the saved man is he that endureth to the end.
This is made clear by referring to the Greek, ὁ δὲὑπομείνας εἰς τέλος οὗτος
σωθήσεται. Again, the passage (Hebrews 10:38), “If any man draw back, my soul
shall have no pleasure in him,” is relied on to prove the doctrine of apostasy.
The next verse makes the meaning plain (verse 39), “But we are not of them that
draw back unto perdition, but of them that believe to the saving of the soul.”
Here two classes are described: those who “draw back” and those who “believe,”
and the passage is equivalent to a declaration that none who believe will draw
back. Again (Hebrews 3:6; Hebrews 3:14): “But Christ as a eon over his own
house; whose house are we, if we hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of
the hope firm unto the end?” and “For we are made partakers of Christ, if we
hold the beginning of our confidence steadfast unto the end.” These passages, so
far from intimating that true believers may perish, declare just the opposite,
for they make perseverance the test of the genuineness of faith. “Whose house
are we if,” etc.; “We are made partakers of Christ if,” etc.; that is to say, if
we do not hold fart we are not of Christ’s house, nor are we made partakers of
him; thus perseverance is made the test of discipleship, as we saw above.
Salvation is promised to those who persevere; it is also promised to those who
repent, and to those who believe, to those who love God, and to those who call
upon him. Now, there is as much reason for saying that some repent who do not
believe, or some believe who do not love God, or some love God who do not pray,
as there is for saying that some believe who do not persevere.

It is also claimed that apostasy is taught by our Lord in his last discourse to
his disciples before his death. “Every branch in me that beareth not fruit, he
taketh it away; and every branch that beareth fruit, he purgeth it that it may
bring forth more fruit.” (John 15:2.) It is not stated that the fruitless
branches ever bore any fruit, which they must have done according to the
doctrine of apostasy. Our Lord calls attention to two sorts of branches— the
fruitless and the fruitful—and only the latter are said to abide in him. In John
15:6 he declares: “If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch,” etc.
Here, then, is a branch which did not abide in the vine, which had it done, it
would (John 15:6) have borne fruit. There are two sorts of branches on
grapevines—the real branch, which comes from the heart of the vine, and the
proud shoot, which comes only from the sap. These latter are fruitless, and
typify those who make the Christian profession, but have no vital union with
Christ, and do not “abide” in him. When our Lord uttered these words he was
walking with his disciples through the vineyards which bordered Kedron, and
amidst the fires in which the fruitless branches were being burnt by the
keepers. No fruitful branch nor one which has a heart connection with the vine
will ever be cast away.

Peter’s denial and Christ’s words to him, “When thou art converted, strengthen
thy brethren,” we find cited to establish the doctrine of apostasy. But it must
be borne in mind that conversion is not the same as regeneration. Conversion is
a turning round, so that a man may be said to be converted as often as he goes
wrong, while regeneration gives him a new nature, and this can take place but
once. That Peter did not fall from grace is evident from Jesus; saying to him,
“But I have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not.” At the grave of Lazarus
our Lord prayed, “Father, I thank thee that thou hast heard me. And I know that
thou hearest me always; but because of the people which stand by I said it that
they may believe that thou hast sent me.” Since the Father hears Christ always,
he heard him when he prayed for Peter, and so his faith did not fail; and as a
proof that it did not, after the denial, he “went out and wept bitterly.” And
that same Saviour who prayed for Peter, prays to-day for all true Christians
that their faith fail not, and therefore in no case will it fail. “It is Christ
that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of
God, who also maketh intercession for us.” (Romans 8:34. See also Hebrews 7:25,
and 1 John 2:1.)

Paul is supposed to teach the possibility of apostasy in 1 Corinthians 9:27,
where he says, “But 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.” If
he had said, “lest I myself should be an apostate,” then the passage might have
borne the interpretation sought to be put upon it. The Apostle is comparing the
Christian life to the contests of the Greek athletes—a familiar picture to the
Corinthians—and after stating how these athletes were “temperate in all things,”
“to obtain a corruptible crown,” he goes on to say: “I therefore so run, not as
uncertainly; so fight I, not as one that beateth the air. But I keep my body
under,” etc. The word rendered “castaway” is ἀδόκιμος and means “spurious.”
Plato and other Greek writers use the word to describe counterfeit coin. Now a
counterfeit coin never was genuine, and the use of the word in this connection,
so far from favoring, is in direct conflict with the doctrine of apostasy. That
Paul said to the Galatians, “Ye are fallen from grace,” is sometimes cited to
prove apostasy. But the connection plainly shows that the Apostle referred to
the doctrinal error of those who claimed that justification was by the law
instead of by faith, and the argument is, that such persons, in their belief,
had fallen from the doctrines of grace to those of works. A simple reading of
the fourth, fifth and sixth verses (Galatians 5:4-6,) will make the meaning
clear. “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 righteousness by faith. For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision
availeth anything, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.” But the
passages chiefly relied upon to establish the doctrine of apostasy are Hebrews
6:4-6—” 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
of 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;”—and 10: 26,27—” For if we sin
wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth
no more sacrifice for sins, bat a fearful looking for of judgment and fiery
indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.” If these passages prove
apostasy, they prove too much for the advocates of that doctrine, who teach that
a man may be recovered after apostatizing, and that, too, more than once. The
words apostasy, apostatizing, etc., are used in this discussion as meaning the
loss of regeneration and the passing back from a state of grace to a state of
nature. But in neither of these passages is it said that a regenerate man may
fall away. To say “if a thing should happen,” is not to declare that it ever
will happen. But none of the expressions in the above passages are necessarily
descriptive of a true Christian. The expression “made partakers of the Holy
Ghost and the powers of the world to come “is nearest such a description; but
Judas had this qualification, for he wrought miracles by the power of the Holy
Ghost; and Judas was never regenerate. It has been claimed that he was
regenerate, and John 17:12 has been cited in proof. “Those whom thou gavest me
have I kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition.” That Judas is
here not declared to be one of those given to Christ will appear by citing some
precisely similar expressions. For example, in Luke 4:25-27, we read: “But I
tell you of a truth, many widows and orphans were in Israel in the days of
Elias, when the heaven was shut up three years and six months, when great famine
was throughout all the laud; but unto none of them was Elias sent save unto
Sarepta, a city of Sidon, unto a woman that was a widow. And many lepers were in
Israel in the time of Eliseus the prophet, and none of them was cleansed saving
Naaman the Syrian.” Now the widow of Sarepta and Naaman the Syrian are just as
much included among the widows of Israel and the lepers of Israel, respectively,
as is Judas included among those given to Christ. And neither the widow nor
Naaman were Israelites. The passage concerning Judas, fully expressed, would be:
“Those whom thou gavest me have I kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of
perdition is lost.”

There can be little doubt, however, that these two passages from Hebrews refer
to the unpardonable sin. The descriptions suit that view exactly, and since this
sin in Hebrews is declared unpardonable, if it is different from the sin against
the Holy Ghost, which Jesus declared could never be forgiven, then there are two
unpardonable sins, which no one claims. And besides John declares “there is a
sin unto death” (1 John 5:16); language he would not have used had there been
two such sins.

It was riot the purpose of this discussion to go outside of Scripture, but there
is one objection, drawn from expediency, urged against the doctrine of Final
Perseverance, and urged with such earnestness that we take space to mention it.
It is asked, if the doctrine of Perseverance be true, what is the use of
Christians’ striving to keep the law? If a man is saved when regenerated, and
nothing can cause the loss of his soul, why should he not sin to his heart’s
content? 2fow this objection rests upon the idea that Christians desire to sin,
and are only restrained by their fear of losing heaven, and thus their love to
God is reduced to “a lively sense of favors expected”—a feeling contemptible in
the eyes of all noble men. Salvation is not simply the removal of sin’s penalty,
but also deliverance from its power and pollution, and that man who would
continue in sin if there was no penalty, is not a Christian. Jesus declared:
“For whosoever will save his life shall lose it.” (Matthew 16:25.) According to
Scripture the regenerate man loves holiness, strives and agonizes to be freed
from the pollution of sin, and struggles against the law of sin remaining in his
members and leading him into transgression. So that if a man loves sin, and only
shrinks from it because of its consequences, he is a stranger to the saving
grace of God. The true Christian would avoid sin none the less if he was certain
of reaching heaven at last, because he hates sin and loves God. An unregenerate
man in the church, if convinced that he was sure to reach heaven, would plunge
headlong into sin because in his heart he loves sin; and only to such is the
doctrine of Saints’ Perseverance a savor of death unto death. Perseverance, as
we have seen, is a test of regeneration.

While there is no danger of apostasy to God’s children, there is great danger of
self-deception, and great need for us to “work out our own salvation with fear
and trembling.” Those who at the last will say, “Lord, Lord, have we not
prophesied in thy name,” etc., cannot be regarded as hypocrites, but as
deceived; for they evidently went to their graves believing they would reach
heaven. How shall we know that we are not deceived? John says: “He that loveth
is born of God;” and again, “This is the love of God, that ye keep his
commandments.” (1 John 5:3.) The verse before is a conclusive answer to the
question just asked—”By this we know that we love the children of God, when we
love God and keep his commandments.” If we do this with earnest and honest
purpose, asking the Holy Spirit to guide us, we can echo from blessed hearts
those joyful words wherein the great Apostle declares his belief in the Final
Perseverance of the Saints, in that chapter (Romans , 8)which is one long
affirmation of this glorious doctrine. “For I am persuaded that neither death,
nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor
things to come, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to
separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.”


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 23: 22 FUTURE PUNISHMENT – CHARACTER DETERMINES DOOM
========================================================================

Future Punishment – Character Determines Doom By Rev. J. L. Burrows, D. D.,
Louisville, KY

“He that is unjust, let him be unjust still; he that is filthy, let him be
filthy still; and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still; and he that
is holy, let him be holy still.”— Revelation 22:11.

Whatever applications or limitations may be given to this passage, to make it
fit in with the varied theories of interpreting the Apocalypse, this much at
least is certain: That it teaches that the tendency of both evil and good
affections is to fixedness and mastery in the soul that fosters them. And this
is not simply a truth of revelation, it is a fact of all human history and
experience. Even if God’s Word had never referred to it, it is indisputable
truth. Men do become worse and worse by indulging and practicing evil, and they
become better and better by cherishing good. The boy of fifteen may timidly and
tremblingly enter upon a career of vice, which shall harden into inveterate and
unchecked villainy in the man of forty. Right principles, persistently
operative, mould habits of spirit and life, and become incorporate and incarnate
as righteous character. Loose principles, carelessly acted upon, develop into
evil habits of soul and life and form bad character. And this is only saying
what every thinking mind knows to be true; that men good at heart become better
and better, and men bad at heart become worse and worse.

There has been a good deal of preaching and writing and talking during the past
few years about the existence, nature and duration of hell. Much of it has been
misapprehended. As to the essential fact that the Scriptures do reveal that the
impenitent ungodly will be wretched in the future world, there is almost entire
agreement among evangelical Christians holding to the inspiration of the
Scriptures. As to the precise nature of the wretchedness, and as to the right
interpretation of some of those terrible texts which speak of future woe, there
may be differences. Some, too, may imagine that, through some yet unrevealed
methods of redemption, there may be deliverance from misery and restoration to
the favor of God. This is about the sum of the differences among evangelical
ministers on this subject. Now let me say to you, my friend, you will be very
unwise to permit any discussions of this sort to encourage you to live in
disobedience to God’s commandments, and jump to the conclusion, “There is no
hell, and therefore I may live as I please; no matter how vilely I sin, I shall
escape all punishment in the future world and be translated to a happy heaven.”
You had better not risk your soul upon a doubt, and live as though you were sure
there would be no future retribution. Even a doubt on such a subject should
impel us to choose the safer side.

All agree that heaven may be secured by a holy soul, and that this holiness may
be attained through faith in Christ and the renewing of the Holy Spirit. This at
least is a sure way to heaven, and he is a fool who risks his soul upon a doubt
as to whether there may not be some other way to heaven. Who would grope his way
in storm and darkness to a mansion when he might have a clear and sure light
along his path?

I submit for your serious consideration the following propositions, which, I
think, are in harmony with all known mental laws and with the whole scope and
tenor of God’s Word. May God help you to weigh them with an honest heart as
plainly set forth in the Word of God!

I.—Heaven is a home for the holy. A few out of many similar proofs from the
Bible are these: Romans 2:7 : “To them who by patient continuance in well doing
seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life.” Romans 6:22 : “Being
made free from sin and become servants of God, ye have your fruit unto holiness
and the end everlasting life.” Hebrews 12:23 : “The general assembly and church
of the first born which are written in heaven,” is composed of “the spirits of
just men made perfect.” It is “an inheritance incorruptible, undefiled * * * and
reserved in heaven for you.” Revelation 21:27 : “There shall in no wise enter
into it anything that defileth nor worketh abomination, nor maketh a lie, but
they which are written in the Lamb’s book of life.” With such proof-texts I
think it can scarcely be doubted that the Scriptures plainly teach that those
who are gathered into heaven will be holy. But then:

II.—In this life men are not holy.

“There is none righteous, no not one.” (Romans 3:10.) “The carnal mind is enmity
against God, for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.”
(Romans 8:7.) This is a fact so universal and palpable as to be undeniable. No
theory of morals, heathen or philosophical, asserts that men anywhere are what
they ought to be or might be. There is no standard of right raised which man
reaches. In every one’s own consciousness and conscience is a conviction of
failure and wrong. I care not how short may be your measuring-rod of perfection,
it will always be longer than your own conduct and character will stretch over.
You know in your own soul that you are not holy, and we have only to listen to
your criticisms of the failings and faults of others to assure us that you do
not believe that anybody else is immaculate. There seems scarcely need to argue
such question at all. The proof is in the statement. All history, observation
and experience confirm it. Men are not pure and holy beings.

If heaven is a home for the holy, and if men are not holy, then, III.—Men’s
affections must be changed before they can be fitted for heaven. This is a
proposition which, as it seems to me, must be self-evident to every thinking
mind. One cannot be happy amid surroundings which he dislikes, in employments
which he hates. Take a vicious and hardened man out of a filthy hovel or a
thieves’ den, where he finds enjoyment in carousing and drinking and gambling,
in obscene songs, and blasphemous slang, and ribald jests, and drunken laughter,
plotting burglaries and thefts, and introduce him into a pious family, where the
conversation is decorous and delicate, where culture, and intelligence, and
virtue characterize the whole intercourse of the household, and tell him to be
happy there. Have you made him happy by the transfer without any change of him
tastes and habits? You may tell him that his old haunt was a hell, and that this
is a heaven, but he will scowl and curse you, and clamor, “Let me out of this! I
had rather go back to my hell than live in such a heaven as this.” And he would
dive, too, into his hell in an hour, if he could find his way there, and jest
and laugh with his comrades about the mawkish and insipid and flat enjoyments to
which he had been introduced. You must change the man’s whole nature before he
can be satisfied with what is pure and refined and elevating. Can yon not see
that the teachings of the Bible on this subject are founded upon profoundest
knowledge of human nature. “Ye must be born again or you cannot see the kingdom
of God.” You must be “created anew,” become “a new creature,” “dead to sin and
alive unto holiness,” before heaven could reveal any joys that would suit your
tastes or give you any pleasure. Why, sinner, when you think of heaven as a pure
and holy place, can you imagine any enjoyment which you could find amid such
environments or in such society? But perhaps you answer me: I hope to be so
changed in tastes and feelings that I shall enjoy the pleasures which heaven
furnishes. When and how? And let this question lead to our next proposition:

IV.—Death works no change of character. This our text plainly intimates: “He
that is unjust, let him be unjust still; and he that is filthy, let him De
filthy still; and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still; and he that
is holy, let him be holy still.”

Men sometimes talk loosely about death, as though it created some change of
moral character, tastes and propensities. But death has to do only with man’s
physical being. It only stops the beating of the heart and the heaving of the
lungs —stops the action of the vital forces and leaves the body to dissolution
and decay. But in all this there is nothing that touches mind or spirit, nothing
that can annihilate or alter faculties or dispositions of the soul. A change of
state or of place does not work a change of character or of conscience. A bad
man in America does not become a good man by travelling to France or Palestine,
nor is there anything in the transfer from time into eternity to transform a
filthy into a holy heart. What a man is in essential character this side of
death he will be beyond it. You cannot die a sinner and be raised a saint. The
bullet driven through a man’s heart cannot reform his spiritual tastes and
propensities or loves. If in death he lies down depraved, he will wake up
depraved. What he loved here he will love there; what he hated here he will hate
there. If he ended this life a rebel against God, he will begin the new life a
rebel against God. If he repudiated God and his authority and commandments in
this life, he will, with equal dislike, repudiate them in the life to come. This
position is in the line of all the deductions of mental science, as well as of
the teachings of God’s Word. In no sense can death be a renewer, purifier or
saviour of the soul. Then it follows:

V.—If man a is unholy at death, he will be unholy after death

You will carry with you across the line the nature you possess here. If you are
“holy, you will be holy still; if filthy, you will be filthy still.” Death is
nothing but the stoppage of the life forces; it is simply the absence of life,
as darkness is the absence of light, or cold absence of heat. Death does not
improve the body; it initiates deterioration, decay and corruption. It cannot
improve mind or soul. It can have no influence in purifying or in any way
changing moral character, in modifying mental habits or affections. In the very
nature of things, then, it must be that if the soul continues to exist after the
dissolution of the body, it must exist with the same affections, dispositions
and habits as before that dissolution. If a man hates God before he dies, he
will hate God after his death. If he repudiates his right and authority this
side the grave, he will repudiate them the other side. If he loves sin in this
life, up to the point of his departure, he will love it beyond that point. If he
is rebellious and selfish, and impatient and malignant until he dies, he will be
all this afterward. If he is pure and loving and good, he will wake up so in
eternity. If he has faith in Jesus to save and keep him, when he goes out of
this life, he will find this faith sustaining and cheering him when he enters
the next. Death changes nothing but matter. It has no power over mind and
spirit. What a man is within himself in time, he will be in eternity.

VI.—Affections and passions arc confirmed and intensified by indulgence and
exercise. Of this we have clearest proof in this life. Evil passions by every
indulgence become stronger. Pure affections by every exercise become more
pleasant and controlling. The man who gives way to anger, hate, avarice, lust,
becomes worse and ever worse, strengthening habits and enlarging capabilities
for evil. He who cultivates patience, forbearance, kindness, benevolence,
charity, grows in these graces and becomes better and ever better in heart.
Every thoughtful eye perceives this: that the bent and culture of one’s
affections enter into the formation of his permanent character. Is there any
reason for believing that this natural law is suspended beyond death? What will
there be to check or correct these proclivities and propensities of his nature?
What will there be to hinder rebellion from becoming more rebellious; hate
becoming more hating; envy, more envious; blasphemy, more blasphemous; every
vile passion more violent? And, on the other hand, why should not there, as
here, every virtue and grace, by its own cultivation and exercise, become purer,
sweeter and pleasanter! If the same mental laws operate there as here, there
will be progressive developments and experiences— in the one direction wicked
and wretched; in the other, pure and joyful.

VII.—There will be law and government in the next world as really as in this.

Many have an indefinite sort of notion that in the future life everything will
be fixed and unchangeable; that heaven will furnish rewards only for what has
been done well in this world, and that hell will execute penalties only for what
has been done of evil here. But God’s word furnishes no warrant for such idea.
“From everlasting to everlasting Jehovah is God.” “He shall reign forever and
ever.” As the laws which govern physical nature operate through all time, so
must the laws that govern mind. If law is violated in eternity, it will be
followed by penalty as surely as in time. You cannot get away from God’s
government. His laws will be as binding in heaven and hell as upon earth. “If I
ascend to heaven, thou art there; if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art
there,” etc. The sum of all his laws is this: “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God
with all thy heart, and thy neighbor as thyself.” Wherever this law is not
obeyed there is sin. It follows, then, VIII.—So long as the soul sins it will
suffer.

Sin, by its own inherent nature, works woe. The question then is, will you
continue to be a sinner in the future world? And what is to prevent this, if
your nature is not changed and purified? You will be as responsible for
obedience to divine law there as you are here. Will you be likely to love God
and your neighbor there? Carrying with you that nature and disposition you now
possess, will you not hate God, and blaspheme his name, and wish you could
conquer and dethrone him? You would not be reconciled to him in this life, where
you had offers and opportunities; will you become reconciled to him there, when
these opportunities are passed over! By your persistence in impenitence in this
life, by your refusal to become fitted for the purity and blessedness of a holy
heaven, you will have brought upon yourself a fatal necessity of perpetual
sinfulness—an impure state of heart—and that will bring its own wretchedness
there, just as it does here. God does not arbitrarily send any man to hell. The
man sends himself thither, because he is not fitted and would not become fitted
for heaven. His own corrupt nature, his love of evil, his wicked dispositions,
his antagonism of spirit to a holy God—these compose his hell. And according to
his own evil propensities and affinities he finds his own place and companions.
We find fearful illustrations of this in this world. There are hovels and dens
in this, in every city, where parents and children live in bestial filth,
riotous, blasphemous, vicious, criminal — where the parents are brutal and
quarrelsome and violent, and where the children are trained to beggary, theft
and burglary, and glory in their skill, and not a member of the household would
change their hell of a home for an abode of purity and refinement and
intelligence. And there is an awful sense in which wicked men will prefer hell
to heaven. They will find in hell associations and affinities that will better
suit their own tastes and habits than heaven could furnish, unless their natures
are changed and purified.

IX. — Wretchedness works no change of character. A notion prevails that
punishment is reformatory; that suffering can purify the heart; that the fires
of purgatory or of hell can burn out the impurities of the soul and fuse the
spirit into holiness. And we had the novel spectacle a few years since of
thousands of priests praying at thousands of altars that the Pope, the
infallible head of the church, might speedily be purified by the fires of
purgatory and be permitted to enter heaven. They seemed to have had doubts as to
whether he whom they called and almost worshipped as the Vicegerent of God and
the Vicar of Christ had been welcomed to heavenly blessedness. If he believed
and trusted in the sacrifice and intercession of Jesus, and if his soul was
cleansed in the blood of Christ, like any other poor, ransomed sinner, he is in
heaven to-day. And if not to-day, he never will be. “He that is holy will be
holy still, and he that is filthy will be filthy still.”

If suffering could purify, this world would be a paradise to-day. In all the
ages pain and agony have tortured humanity, and still the race is corrupt and
vile. The horrors of delirium tremens do not change the drunkard’s tastes nor
reform his habits. The cariosity of the libertine’s bones cannot extirpate his
lusts. Prison chains cannot subdue the robber’s greed. A recent earnest writer
says: “Turn to the world’s prison-houses and see how baseless is the notion that
men can be morally renovated by punishment. The Egyptian, Assyrian, Greek and
Roman dungeons were synonyms of horror. Pains and penalties were meted out
without mercy. But not a single prisoner among all the thousands that suffered
amid danger and chills, in chains and stocks, was ever transformed in moral
character by this fearful punishment. In fact, criminals in the prisons of
Christian nations have been morally transformed only by the Gospel. Not
punishment, but the revelation of divine love and truth in Christ has lifted
many of them out of sin and brought them into fellowship with God.”[39] [39]
Rev. Dr. G. Anderson.&.

X.—No revelation warrants hope of future remedy.

It is imagined by some that at some indefinite period in eternity the Lord will
interpose some remedial method by which the lost may be redeemed and purified
and fitted for the peace and holiness of heaven. They urge that his wisdom and
goodness can provide such measures and make them effective. I do not deny that
such consummation is possible. I dare not limit the wisdom or mercy of God. But
this we may say: there is no revelation of such purpose in the Holy Scriptures,
nor in the normal operation of the laws that govern mind; and these are given us
for our instruction and guidance. We cannot find anywhere else grounds for faith
or direction. And these Scriptures speak of the decisions and sentences of the
judgment as final, and of the state of both the accepted and the rejected as
fixed. It will be safest for us, my friends, to believe and act as if God’s word
were true. There is a way of relieving all doubts and of winning our souls’
peace and safety. No one doubts that if there is a heaven it may be gained; that
if there is a hell it may be escaped, by repentance for sin and by such faith in
Christ’s atonement as shall purify our souls and lead to a holy life. That, by
every theory, is a sure way to heaven. And by a thousand motives, outside any
dread of hell, we are urged to submission, faith and obedience to God. We exhort
you to seek this state of heart, because it is right and pure and blessed. The
surest preparation for a holy heaven is regeneration and sanctification of the
spirit. Whatever may be the doom of others, “the pure in heart shall see God.”


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 24: 23 THE RESURRECTION
========================================================================

The Resurrection By Prof. Norman Fox, New York

“For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep
in Jesus will God bring with him.”— 1 Thessalonians 4:14. When God created the
spirit of man, he created it in union with a material body. This being so, the
question may arise whether that union will not be perpetual; whether though the
body go down into the grave, it shall not be raised again to exist with the
spirit forever. That the body shall live again has been the belief of the Church
through all the ages. Hardly the smallest sect has taken exception to the
formula, “I believe in the resurrection of the body.” It has ever and
universally been felt that if the Bible plainly teaches anything at all, it
teaches that the body which is laid in the grave shall yet be raised therefrom.

I. It is true that the Bible nowhere contains the exact phrase “the resurrection
of the body.” And there has appeared here and there the doctrine that the rising
from the dead of which the Scriptures speak is not the rising again of the very
body which was laid in the tomb; that though the spirit in the future will have
a body, it will not be the body which now we wear. The idea is that in addition
to—perhaps enclosed in—this covering of flesh and matter there is a more
ethereal frame in which the spirit is clothed at death, leaving this present
body behind in the grave, like the skin of the worm which the ascending
butterfly has cast off—useless, worthless, never to be inhabited again. This
doctrine is simply the doctrine of immortality in a bodily form; it denies any
resurrection but such as takes place at the moment of death. But this teaching
can never find general acceptance as the Bible doctrine of the rising from the
dead. For—

1. Regarding certain ones it is expressly revealed that the body in which they
enter the future state is the body of the present time. When Jesus ascended from
the Mount of Olives, when Elijah was caught up in the chariot of fire, when
Enoch was taken as he walked with God—in each of these cases there ascended not
merely some ethereal frame, the material body being left behind, but in each
case there ascended that same body of flesh and bone in which the years of life
had been spent. We are told (1 Thessalonians 4:17) that when the Lord shall
descend from heaven and the dead in Christ shall rise, those who are alive and
remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in
the air — caught up, of course, in the bodies in which they there stand — and so
shall they ever be with the Lord. Now if—as of course must be the case—all
bodies of the future saints shall be alike, then must all wear the bodies of the
present time—”changed,” of course, as Paul explains to the Corinthians (1
Corinthians 15:52) — but still the same bodies which they wore on the present
earth.

2. According to the teaching we are now considering, the saints who have passed
from earth have already fully attained the rising from the dead. But in the
Bible teaching this rising is yet to take place. It is not until “the last
trump” that “the dead shall be raised” (1 Corinthians 15:52); not until “the
Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout” that “the dead in Christ
shall rise.” (1 Thessalonians 4:16.) In many passages the time of the rising is
given as still in the future. This raising, therefore, can be nothing less than
the rising of the body from the grave.

3. If the saints attain the rising from the dead when this present body dies,
then Jesus rose from the dead the very moment he died on the cross. And how,
then, does Scripture always say that he rose on the third day? But if Jesus did
not rise from the dead until his body rose from the grave, then those that sleep
in Jesus will not have risen till their bodies rise from the tomb.

4. The idea that the resurrection is simply existence after the death of the
body leaves no force whatever to Paul’s argument based on the rising of Christ’s
body. “If Christ,” he says, “be preached that he rose from the dead, how say
some among you that there is no resurrection from the dead?” (1 Corinthians
15:12.) Now the existence of Christ in a body which had risen would be no proof
at all of the continued existence of those whose bodies had not risen. To prove
that these were still in being, he should have cited the appearance of some
departed one whose body was still in the tomb. The case of Jesus is just the
case which would prove nothing regarding the continued existence of those whose
bodies were still lying in the grave. “If there be no resurrection from the
dead,” says Paul, “then is Christ not risen.” Now it would not be admitted that
if there was no existence after death for those whose bodies were still in the
tomb, one could not be still in existence whose body had been restored to life.
The Apostle’s argument is: if there be no rising of the body from the grave,
then is Jesus’ body not risen from the grave; but if Jesus’ body be risen from
the grave, how say some among you that there is no such thing as the rising of
the body from the grave? The whole line of argument which the Apostle employs
shows that the rising from the dead of which he was endeavoring to convince the
Corinthians was not simply the existence of the spirit after the death of the
body, but the rising to life again of the body itself.

5. And that the body of the present is to be the body of the future is declared
in Scripture in so many words. It is that which is sown in weakness which is to
be raised in power, the corruptible which shall put on incorruption, the mortal
which shall put on immortality. (1 Corinthians 15) We read (Php 3:21) that
Christ “shall change our vile (our lowly) body that it (the same) may be
fashioned like unto his glorious body.” And in other places do the Scriptures
plainly declare that as the Saviour shall exist forever in the body which he
wore when on earth, so the bodies of his saints shall be raised from the tomb to
exist with their spirits forever.

II.—But the idea of the restoration of this present body suggests difficulties
which are indeed great. It decays, and its substance passing off in gases is
diffused throughout the whole atmosphere; consumed with fire, it ascends in
smoke and is dispelled to the four corners of the heavens, or its
indistinguishable ashes are trampled into the sod; cast into the sea, it is
dissolved by the waters and wafted throughout the entire globe. Now it is not
strange that to the humblest faith the question should arise, How can a body
thus destroyed be ever restored?

He were a wise man indeed who should say how it could be done. But he must be a
wiser yet to say that it could not be done. What man has so measured the power
and skill of the one who created both spirit and body as to say just where his
might and wisdom cease? And that God should restore this present body is no more
incredible than many other things which we believe he has done or will do.

1. We read that Elijah was caught up into heaven; that the body of Jesus
ascended on high; that the bodies of the saints who are alive at Christ’s coming
shall be caught up to meet the Lord in the air. If we believe the Bible at all,
we must believe fully in these things. But explain to me just how, under the
workings of gravitation and other natural forces, all these things can take
place. Surely it is just as difficult to believe that at Christ’s coming the
bodies of the living saints shall be caught up in the clouds as to believe that
the bodies of the dead in Christ shall be raised to be caught up with them. If
we allow that the one is not impossible, how shall we say that the other may not
take place?

2. We read that God formed man’s body out of the dust of the ground. Do you
believe that statement? Tell me, then, how he did it; how from inert clay could
be formed the quivering muscle, the vivid nerve, the eye, the ear, the hand. But
God did this thing; nay, he repeats that mighty miracle every day. In the dust
of the ground is planted a corn of wheat. It sprouts, it grows; you have the
full corn in the ear. What is that head of wheat? It is that dust of the ground
which God has transformed into grain. You make that wheat into bread and eat
that bread, and it becomes a part of your muscle and of your bone. What is that
muscle? what is that bone I It is merely that dust of the ground which God has
made into your body. Death and resurrection are among the very commonest events
of every-day life. You wipe from your brow a drop of perspiration. What is that
drop of perspiration? It is death; it is so much of the substance of your body
which has been destroyed and Las passed away. You eat a morsel of food, and that
loss is repaired. What is that eating of food and the incorporation of it into
your physical frame? It is resurrection. That part of the body which was
destroyed is restored. And Bo death and resurrection are going on within us all
the time. Did you ever think of it ?—that every time you eat a morsel of bread
there takes place within your body as wonderful an event as when the body was
first formed from the dust—as wonderful an event as shall occur when the dead of
all the ages shall arise to life again. Now if God formed this body in the
beginning out of the dust of the ground, if in part, at least, he repeats that
great miracle every day of our lives, can he not in the end of time once more
raise up that body from the dust?

3. Again. We read that Jesus was raised from the dead. We read also that there
was a restoration to life of two children — one by Elijah and the other by
Elisha; also of the man that was laid in Elisha’s grave; also of Jairus’
daughter, the young man at Nain and Lazarus, by the Saviour; also of Dorcas, by
Peter, and Eutychus, by Paul. Now if all these were raised up from death, why
may there not be a general resurrection?

1 know that some declare that in the case of Jesus and Lazarus and the others
who have been raised from the dead, the usual corruption of the body did not
take place. But I know not on what grounds this assertion can be based. As to
the text —” Nor suffer thine holy one to see corruption”—it can have no broader
meaning than the correlative passage, “Thou wilt not leave my soul in hell.” But
as the Saviour was left for the time being within the gates of death, Bo we must
suppose a corresponding temporary abandonment to the power of death, which
includes corruption. In the case of Jesus, of Lazarus, and of the others that
were raised from the dead, I see no reason to suppose otherwise than that
corruption commenced as hi the usual case. Now when death has struck down one of
our dear ones, it may be two or three days before we are compelled to bury our
dead out of our sight; but we must suppose that in each case the destruction of
the tissues of the system commences the moment the breath leaves the lips.
Therefore in the case of Jairus’ daughter, who was raised immediately — say
within half an hour of her death—as well as in that of Lazarus, who had lain so
long in the grave that the prudent Martha feared to have the tomb unclosed, we
must suppose that the body was restored to life after a portion of its fabric
had been destroyed and had passed away into the atmosphere. Now such a partial
restoration is just as difficult to understand as one where the component parts
are all dispersed and separated. If the cue has taken place, then may the other
take place also. But suppose we allow that in the case of these resurrections
there had been no dissolution of any part of the body, the matter remains still
the same. If God could for three days keep in place all the particles of matter
composing the body of Jesus, so that the body could be raised again, why could
he not (if such a thing were necessary), keep at hand each of the particles of
matter composing each of the bodies of all the thousands of the dead to restore
those bodies to life in the end of time? Adopt what scientific theory you please
regarding the cases of resurrection which have already occurred, and the
question still remains, Why, if certain bodies have been restored to life, may
not the bodies of the countless dead all live again? The case of which Matthew
speaks in his account of the crucifixion is one of especial interest in this
connection. He tells us that when Jesus yielded up the ghost “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.” When Jesus died graves were opened, showing that in his death the power
of death was broken. After his resurrection— not before, for he was the first
born from the dead — the bodies of these saints came forth out of their tombs
and entered into the holy city, the city of Jerusalem, and as Jesus showed
himself to his disciples, so these appeared unto the living. Who were these
sleeping saints? I have sometimes thought they were men of old who had looked
with especial longing for the coming of the Messiah; men who had climbed the
mountain-tops of faith, and while the world around them was still slumbering in
darkness their eyes had caught from afar the beams of the rising sun. How long
had these saints been sleeping? It were at least more natural to suppose that
they were the ancient dead whose forms had gone back centuries before to their
native dust. And what became of these risen bodies? Did they, like the body of
Lazarus, go back to the grave again, or may we suppose that this was their final
resurrection, and that when Jesus ascended up on high these risen saints
ascended with him as first fruits and trophies of his conquest, to grace his
triumphal return to his Father’s throne? But casting aside all surmises, this
much of historic fact remains: that when Christ arose “many bodies of the saints
which slept arose and came forth out of their graves” with him; and if we
believe this, must we not believe in the possibility of a general resurrection,
as well as in the fact that the rising from the dead is the rising again of the
very body that was laid in the tomb? This whole topic is covered by the argument
of Paul to the Corinthians: “If Christ be preached that he rose from the dead,
how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?” If you
believe that Christ’s body rose from the tomb, how say you that there is no such
thing as a body’s rising from the tomb?” For,” he says,” if the dead rise not,
then is Christ not raised.” If it be absolutely certain that the grave will not
give up its dead, then our Saviour,” who died and was buried, is still sleeping
within its iron portals. If human science can make it certain that the dead form
cannot rise again, then it can do what Pilate’s guard could not do — it can keep
the Saviour’s body within the tomb. On the other hand, if our faith can say with
Paul, “But now is Christ risen from the dead,” then can we believe that the dead
in Christ shall rise with him. When Jesus himself burst through the bars of the
tomb, he left behind him a path broad enough for all the armies of his saints to
come forth after him.

III.—But many of the difficulties connected with the doctrine of the
Resurrection disappear of themselves on a little reflection.

1. This question, for instance, is sometimes brought forward: The body dies—it
decays, and its substance passes into some plant, which is eaten by and becomes
part of the body of some other person, who in turn dies, and this same matter
enters the system of still a third. Now, how can you say that in each case the
same body shall arise when the same particles of matter went to make up more
than one body? This question proceeds on the assumption that, in order to have
the same body, you must have the same particles of matter composing the body.
But is this assumption correct? You have the same body to-day that you had
yesterday, have you not? But the particles of matter composing your body are not
the same now as they were then. By action—by thought, even — there is a
continual waste of the tissues of the system, which waste food is required to
repair. For every ounce of food incorporated into the system of a full-grown man
to-day there must have been just so much waste of the system since yesterday.
Thus the particles of matter composing our bodies are changing — changing all
the while — never for two successive moments precisely the same — and
physiologists tell us that in the course of seven years or so there is a
complete change — that the man of fifty-has had the particles of matter
composing his system entirely changed something like seven different times. And
yet you say that all the while it is the same body. It is the same body, because
the animating principle is ever the same. Now, if the animating principle of
your body has let go some of the particles of matter which it held to itself
yesterday, and has taken to itself in their place others from the food which you
have eaten to-day, and, notwithstanding this partial change of component
particles, you say it is still the same body—what matters it though the complete
change be instantaneous instead of gradual? If, lying in the grave, the
animating principle of your body suffers every particle of matter now composing
it to escape, and then, by and by, aroused by Jehovah’s voice, it arises and
takes to itself, not as now from food and drink, but, as in the beginning, from
the dust of the earth — not as now, in seven years’ time, but in a moment, in
the twinkling of an eye, it takes to itself enough, though entirely different
particles of matter, to rebuild the frame — the body with which it lay down and
the body with which it arises are the same body in precisely the same sense as
the body you have now is the body you had yesterday, or last week, or ten years
ago.

2. To some, the rising of the same body suggests the perpetuation of the
weaknesses and the imperfections of the body. One dies in infancy— will he rise
to eternal weakness and helplessness? Another goes down to the grave decrepit
with age — will he rise weak, tottering, decrepit? Here is one who has gone
through life a twisted cripple — some of his limbs were wanting at his birth,
perhaps —or he is blind, or he has never had his hearing — will he rise
crippled, blind, defective? This by no means follows. When one lies before us
helpless in the cradle, and after a few years stands forth a stalwart man — has
he not still the same body? If the one bent with age should wash in the fabled
fountain of youth and come forth young again, would he not still have the same
body? When the eyes of the man born blind were opened — when the man received
strength who had been lame from his mother’s womb — when the man’s withered arm
was healed, had he not still the same body? For the weakness, the disease, the
imperfection is no part of the body itself; these are not of the substance, but
are only accidents of the body, and the body is the same though these all be
done away, and the frame stand before us in strength and in perfection. As the
soul of man is the same soul, though it be freed from all sin and made perfect
in holiness, so the body may be the same body with all its imperfections done
away. And with the doctrine of the resurrection should be joined the doctrine of
the redemption of the body. For, though it is a glorious thought that the soul
freed from sin should be made perfect in Christ Jesus, yet not in that alone
will have come to pass that which is written, “Death is (completely) swallowed
up in victory.” For the body —the primeval companion of the spirit — is still
lying in the prison house of death. But as the body of our Lord was raised up
from the grave, so shall the body of his disciple come forth from the tomb. And
as all sin is cleansed from the mind, so every trace of the effects of sin shall
be gone from the body. It shall arise, not as it went down into the grave, weak,
emaciated, Marred and scarred by the power of the great enemy, but glorified,
and thus made worthy to be the companion of the glorified spirit. The brow that
was furrowed with care shall be fair with immortal beauty. The eyes that were
dim with watching and with weeping shall kindle with undying radiance. The form
that was bowed with trouble and with burdens shall be erect with immortal vigor,
and the whole frame shall be transformed into the glory of God’s own image. When
John in his wondrous vision beheld the risen Lord, it was not as the Lord once
was, with visage marred more than any man, and his form more than the sons of
men; it was not as the Lord appeared when he thirsted by the well of Samaria, or
tottered beneath the burden of the cross. But “his head and his hairs were white
like wool, as white as snow, and his eyes were as a flame of fire, and his feet
like unto fine brass as if they burned in a furnace, and his voice as the Bound
of many waters.” So, when the disciple shall rise to meet his risen Lord, he
shall be changed into that same glory. As he went down into the grave in the
likeness of the first Adam, he shall rise therefrom in the likeness of the
second Adam. In weakness, in suffering, in pain and in death, he has borne the
image of the earthy — in brightness, in beauty, in glory and in power, he shall
bear the image of the heavenly. As the human form in its first creation must
have been the perfection of beauty and strength, much more, created anew in
Christ, shall it be the model of every physical glory and excellence.

IY.—But someone may inquire regarding the nature of the bodies of the risen
saints. On this point no one can speak with any definiteness. The Apostle tells
us that the bodies of those who are alive at Christ’s coming shall be “changed.”
The body of Elijah must have undergone some change at his translation. The body
of Jesus now in glory is, of course, different from what it was on earth. So the
bodies of the rising saints shall undergo a transformation. Weakness shall gird
itself with power— the corrupt shall become incorruptible — dishonor shall be
arrayed in glory—and the natural body, the body which we possess in common with
the brutes, shall become a spiritual body—one which we shall possess in common
with the angels. But just in what this transformation will consist, it were vain
to speculate. If, on the morning of creation, there had been presented a handful
of the dust of the ground, not the loftiest angelic intellect could have
described from it the form and properties of the man that was to be created
therefrom. If there were brought before us from some distant land a seed which
we had never seen before — a black and shriveled seed — not by placing it under
the most powerful microscope; not though the keenest scalpel unwound the folds
of its tissues; not though the most skillful chemistry analyzed its substance,
could one describe the stately plant, the beautiful flower, the luscious fruit
which should spring from that shapeless seed. No more by the widest range of
surmise can we, from the body of the present, describe that body which shall be.

We sometimes read detailed descriptions of the scenes of the resurrection. We
are told just how bone shall come to bone, and how the new body shall take form.
But it is safer not to go beyond the statements of the Scriptures — the sum of
which statements is merely this: Jesus had a body like ours; that body, dying,
was laid in the grave; that same body rose from the grave, and, ascending up on
high, is now glorified at God’s right hand. So, though the bodies of his saints
go down into the grave, they shall rise therefrom, and, glorified, shall ascend
to meet the Lord in the air, to be forever with him. As to the details of the
resurrection, it is not probable that we could understand them if they were all
laid before us. But though many questions we might ask are left unanswered, the
great truth itself stands clearly forth, that as Jesus now sits at the right
hand of God in that form which was born of a woman, so, though our bodies
slumber for a time in the grave, they shall arise, and in them shall we exist
forever.

V.—The doctrine of the Resurrection conveys certain important lessons.

1. It teaches us the dignity of the human frame. Some schools of philosophy have
regarded matter as inherently vile — as the seat of all sin and evil. On this
idea many religionists have despised the body — subjecting it to neglects and
tortures — thinking that the more the body was oppressed and trampled on the
more completely was the spirit freed. So often in our own time do we hear of the
cumbering clay, the burden of the flesh, as if the body were but a clog from
which the spirit might well desire to part forever. But the doctrine of the
resurrection teaches us that this body of ours is not in itself sinful; that it
is only the abused servant of the wicked soul; that if the plague-spot of sin be
upon it, it is merely the livery of its tyrant master, the reprobate mind. This
human body God has thought fit to be the eternal dwelling place of the glorified
spirit—nay, even the King of Kings and Lord of Lords has thought it not unworthy
to be worn by him as the robe of his majesty on the great white throne of
eternity. If, therefore, the eternal duration of the mind makes it worthy of
culture—if its exalted destination renders it worthy of respect— then should the
body also be honored and esteemed, tor it shall exist as long as the mind shall
exist, twin sister of the spirit in the heirship of eternity.

2. The doctrine of the Resurrection lights up the darkness of the grave. As we
recall the truth that the dead shall rise again, the thoughts of many a one go
back to some sacred spot where precious dust is sleeping. But as the Saviour was
destined to remain but three days in the tomb, so the bodies of the saints shall
be left there only for a season. As we lay the pious dead to rest; as we look
down into the awful chasm of the grave, we can even then begin to sing our song
of triumph. “Exult not, O, grave, over thy victory, for soon it shall be rent
from thy grasp. Only for a little while — but for a little while shalt thou
retain the dear form we now surrender to thee.” For, as the stone was rolled
away from the door of the Saviour’s sepulchre, so shall be rent the gates of the
tombs where his loved ones are sleeping. The angels that watched by the
sepulchre of Joseph of Arimathea, they hover above the spot where each of
Christ’s saints is sleeping, and not one shall be left in the power of the tomb.
From the drifting currents of ocean; from the confused trenches of the battle
field; from the unmarked grave in the distant lands of earth, they shall all
come up in glad answer at the call of their Lord. He knoweth his sheep by name,
and the grave must give them back every one. “Wherefore, comfort one another
with these words.”

3. The doctrine of the Resurrection sets forth the need and glory of redemption.
I have been speaking merely of the resurrection of the dead in Christ, for it is
their case alone to which the Apostle alludes in writing to their Thessalonian
brethren. But there is a resurrection of the unjust as well as of the just— a
resurrection to damnation as well as a resurrection to life. As for those who
refuse all part in the redemption purchased by Christ, they must rise still in
“the image of the earthy”—rise to a continuance of the pains which they have
inherited as members of a sinful race — which they have increased by their own
transgressions, and which must continue to increase as long as they continue to
sin. On the other hand, redemption by Christ implies that these weak and
suffering bodies of ours shall be delivered from the power of sin and pain,
while evil passions and sinful habits— diseases of the soul—these, too, shall
all be done away. Let us rejoice that this deliverance is offered us — let us
hasten to accept it. And may the God of peace, that brought again from the dead
our Lord Jesus, that great Shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the
everlasting covenant, make us perfect in every good word and work to do his
will, working in us that which, is well pleasing in his sight, through Jesus
Christ, to whom be glory forever and ever. Amen.


========================================================================
Source: https://sermonindex.net/books/jenkins-ca-baptist-doctrines/
========================================================================