Volume 6. Number 7. February 2, 1829, pp. 515-524.

• To the Editor of the Christian Baptist by A Constant Reader (Jacob Creath, Jr.), pp. 515-517.
• Preface of the King's Translators (Continued), by King James' Translators, pp. 517-518.
• Doctor Noel vs. Creeds by [Alexander Campbell], pp. 518-519.
• Doctor Noel for "the Entire Code" by [Alexander Campbell], p. 519.
• [Introductory Note to Constitution of a Church] by Alexander Campbell, p. 519.
• [Constitution of a Church], p. 519.
• Queries--Answered by Alexander Campbell, pp. 519-521.
  • Query I. (On Regeneration) by Shelemiah, pp. 519-520.
  • Query II. (On Assurance of Regeneration) by Shelemiah, p. 520.
  • Query III. (On Assurance of Salvation) by Shelemiah, p. 520.
  • Query IV. (On Conviction of Foregiveness) by Shelemiah, p. 520.
  • Query V. (On State of Salvation) by Shelemiah, pp. 520-521.
  • Query VI. (On Dominion over Sin and Constant Peace) by Shelemiah, p. 521.
  • Query VII. (On Remission of Sins) by [Querist from Lexington, Ky.], p. 521.
  • Query VIII. (On Mode of Baptism) by [Querist from Mt. Vernon, Ky.], p. 521.
• Essays on Man in His Primitive State, and under the Patriarchal, Jewish, and Christian Dispensations.--No. VII.: The Patriarchal Age.--No. III. by Alexander Campbell, pp. 521-522.
• Difference between Immersing in the Name, and Immersing into the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit; Being Part of a Note in the Appendix to the Second Edition of the New Translation by [Alexander Campbell], pp. 522-523.
• President Edwards, on Fulfilling Engagements and Paying Debts by Jonathan Edwards, pp. 523-524.

      MY DEAR BROTHER,--I beg leave to present to your readers some reflections concerning the present state of things as exhibited in the religious community, vulgarly styled "the Baptist church of Jesus Christ;" and if you think them worthy of a place in your periodical, please publish them.

A CONSTANT READER.      

      Time once was, when all that was necessary to ensure the kindest sympathies of their hearts, and to elicit all that could relieve the distressed, or comfort the afflicted, was to ascertain that the victim of the wrath of man, was suffering for conscience sake--for religion. It was immaterial what was his creed--to what sect he had chosen to attach himself was never inquired--if he owned the great head of the Church, and exhibited a desire to obey him, all was known that was desired, to call forth a brotherly greeting, and an offer of protection and friendship.

      It never was said, with truth, of "the old Baptists," that they were persecutors. They felt it not to be their prerogative, to condemn any man for pursuing the honest dictates of his conscience. If they could not walk with those who walked in a disorderly manner, they would walk by themselves, but they would not persecute those they left. They had, themselves, been so often persecuted for their obedience to the truth, that they could not be so inconsistent, and so forgetful of their own protestations against all usurpation of the rights of conscience, as to punish, in any degree, those whom they had in their power, because they walked not with there.

      If, at any time, they were charged with heresy or false teaching, they would reply firmly, but in the spirit of the truth; and by appeals to the word of truth, and their own peaceable and unblameable conduct put to silence the ignorance of foolish men. They knew that they were accountable to the great head of the Church for the course they pursued, and therefore, so far as they knew the way, they steadily kept it. If a sense of duty to their Master, at any time [515] rendered it necessary for them to notice any one, who they thought was corrupting the simplicity of the Gospel--no low or cunning arts--no guile or subtilty were considered at all allowable.

      They withstood them to the face if they were to be blamed; and he that was of a contrary part was ashamed on beholding their virtuous and blameless behavior. Arguing, too, from the general character of these holy men, they never were unwilling to take reproof when it was proper; nor did one of them ever think of crying out "slander"--when he was himself a delinquent.

      The "old Baptists" were a plain and simple people. They aimed not after honors of this world. The honor which came from God was their delight. To be numbered among the great ones of the earth, to be in high esteem among men--to be popular as teachers of their religion, never entered their heads.

      Their master was a plain, unostentatious man, and so poor that "he had not where to lay his head," and his disciples never thought that their whole business was to "Lay up to themselves treasures upon earth." In all their dealings, openness and sincerity were conspicuous; and any thing like policy in their religious concerns would have been looked upon "as the sin of witchcraft."

      But how is the scene changed! How different the condition of the modern baptists! Let it only be understood that any one is alive to a due sense of the rights of conscience--that he is disposed freely and fearlessly to examine the truth for himself, and to question the prescriptions of the last fifty years; and every tongue is raised against him. Every obnoxious name that can be employed is heaped upon him; his piety is questioned--and it is directly said that "God has given him over to strong delusions that he may believe a lie, and be damned."

      When arguments fail to convince him of his error, misrepresentation is resorted to. He is perhaps charged with having political designs--a design, probably, to subvert the government--he is a foreigner, an upstart, and is not to be compared as to age, sense, piety, or experience, to some other foreign monarchists, whose opinions are thought to be of vast consequence in settling the speculations of the day. Indeed, air, these things are sometimes said of you.

      Thus the "modern baptists" (for, Mr. Editor, the oldest baptists of the present day cannot in truth be called "the old baptists") have assumed a character altogether the reverse of that sustained by their predecessors. Instead of being the persecuted, they have become persecutors; and all who doubt their infallibility or that of their sentiments, are heretics.

      I wonder that the folly of persecution on account of religious sentiments has not appeared to the most unreflecting. A catholic, for example, (and the spirit is the same in all) arraigns a heretic. He is obstinate, and will not, because he cannot, recant. As a heretic, he must be damned. But for the good of his soul, his body is killed. And thus under pretence of saving his soul the worst of it is, he dies a heretic; and, as a heretic, must be damned. It is, too, quite remarkable that any persons who have read the New Testament should have forgotten the advice Gamaliel gave the Jewish sanhedrim.

      But, sir, there is one very astonishing feature in the character of some of the modern baptists, which ought not to be overlooked. It is, that those who say you slandered them, are, in the ease alluded to, far from sinless. You recollect that in the remarks on your last tour, you said that very little attention was paid to the instruction of children--Indeed that they were almost uniformly neglected. I have seen but one remark, in writing, in contradiction of this; and that was from a certain doctor of divinity styling himself "Aleph."

      In one of his essays in the Recorder, he declares you "slander" the baptists in so saying. Now, sir, if he had only recollected the remark of our Lord to the pharisees:--"Let him that is without sin cast the first stone," I can with difficulty persuade myself that he would have been so lost to all sense of propriety, and so destitute of any restraint from the authority of Christ, as to have said even a syllable on that subject.

      I examine these matters with deep regret. But such are the "signs of the times" that the religious public ought to be awakened from its lethargy. Its leaders are crying "peace and safety," while they are in danger of "sudden destruction." The leaders of the people are persuading them, that they could not, without sin of the most heinous description, abandon a "plan or system" (for which there is not one word of authority in the book,) in favor of what they call "an undefined and undefinable something," while these very men have declared, as can be proved, that they would go many miles every Lord's day to enjoy this "undefined and undefinable something." The letter from the church at Frankfort intimates, that the baptists are "in the full tide of success, and have been abundantly blessed by God." This latter position is quite problematical. It is doubtful whether the blessing of God has had any thing to do with the excitement. It is quite probable that it is almost entirely the work of the preachers. They themselves allow that the word of God has had but little to do with the matter, and it is, therefore, on their own principles, certain that the Spirit of God has been quite as unconcerned in it; since they contend that "the Spirit accompanies the word."

      Where therefore, the word is not used, the Spirit cannot be. In a letter to the editors of the Recorder, it is remarked that very little teaching from the word had been employed in the "Revival" at the Crossings. They who believe that the Spirit "accompanies" the word, ought certainly not to aim to convert people without the use of the word, especially if they wish them to be more than mere dupes.

      All the boasting and puffing, too, that appear connected with the operations of the modern baptists is foreign from the character of "Baptists of the old Stamp." A clergyman, nowadays, can scarcely leave his home without announcing it in the newspapers; and if he should be successful in his assaults upon the passions of the people by his singing, shaking hands, and inflammatory harrangues, he sits down and gives an account of the "mighty work of the Lord," to some editor who will extol him to the skies as an able "defender of the faith." In return for this he does all he can to circulate his paper, and this gives rise to another puff. Thus the clergyman is certain of notoriety--of some sort. Their return to their homes is also duly announced by them to their editors.

      I cannot forbear, either to mention another circumstance indicative of the spirit of the modern baptists. Many of the "ministry" (as they call themselves,) are in the habit of abusing you and the Christian Baptist every time they "preach." And yet every one who reads the Christian Baptist may clearly see that they have [516] obtained a great part of what they preach from it. It is, indeed, said of the Elkton clergyman, that two thirds of his sermons are sometimes made up of extracts from the Christian Baptist and that the other third is employed in abusing it. The editor of the Recorder, I perceive, notices the remarks of your correspondent "Barnabas," but he does not deny the truth of his allegations--He does not deny that his "sermon" on the kingdom was derived principally from the debate on baptism. Now, sir, it must be deemed ungenerous, to say the least of it, for a man to derive benefits from another, and then abuse him for it.

      "It is lawful to learn even from an enemy." And surely candor requires that we should acknowledge our obligations--or if we cannot do this, at least be silent about it, and not deride the bridge which carries us across the stream.

      If the religious communities could only understand, that it is just as possible for them to worship without clergymen, as for the political community to govern itself without kings; if it were only understood, that "the Church" is the light of the World; and that the plan on which their leaders now teach them, has necessarily a tendency to render them ignorant of the religion they profess;--if, too, they knew the benefits and privileges of the liberty wherewith Christ makes his sons free--I do think they would rise in all the majesty of their strength, and consign the clergy to that silence to which their ignorance justly entitles them.

      To all the abuses of the christian religion already enumerated, I may add that the zeal now exhibited by the modern Baptists, is not such as was formerly in vogue.

      If a preacher can get the people converted--and boast of the number he has baptized, he seems satisfied. He goes to a place, for instance, and makes a "revival"--(for I cannot but believe that there are some men who can make a "revival" just when they please.) The people crowd into the church, and for a time appear extremely zealous. After a while the preacher leaves them, and goes, "in the character of an Evangelist," into other parts; and wherever he goes he makes a stir. But just notice the desolations which follow him.

      Apostacy, with awful strides, follows in his train, and, in many instances, the last state "of the people he has visited is worse than the first." It is more important, if possible, to set the disciples in order, than it is to make them. For without they obey their King, they had better not profess to be his disciples. All the religion of a social kind, however, of the modern Baptists, consists in hearing preaching; and that often but once in a month.

      To keep the commandments of their King, is seldom thought of in their assemblies. They have, indeed, a "sacrament" once in a while; but the reading and studying of the Word, and mutual exhortation are altogether inadmissible. None but "the called and sent" must attempt to address their fellow sinners in public, even though the "laymen" of the church, be far more intelligent in the truth than their teachers. The people are not now "kings and priests" to God. The clergy occupy this character, and the people must sit and look on, while their leaders worship. In this, the modern Baptists have aped their more respectable neighbors, the Catholics and Presbyterians; so true is it, that "evil communications corrupt good manners."

      I beg, Mr. Editor, to say, in conclusion, that if our religion is what it professes to be, it is the most important thing in the world. We should not, therefore, even for a moment, allow the thought, that so small a portion of our time alone, should be devoted to it. To provide things honest in the sight of all men, is a christian duty--but to labor for the gratification of our wishes, rather than of our wants, is to rob God of the time which ought to be devoted to him--his people of their demands upon us--and our fellow sinners of the light which God has commanded us to exhibit for their benefit.

      In all these principles, they were evidently governed by the plainest dictates of the word of God, which they had for their only confession of faith.

      The "signs of the times" indicate some wonderful revolution in the state of the world. This every candid and careful observer must see. To close our eyes, therefore, against it, is to act as the Ephesians did, when the uproar was raised by the teachings of Paul. May God grant that all who sincerely love the truth, may obey it with one heart; and may the happy period arrive, when the disciples shall walk together in the fear of God, and comfort of the Holy Spirit, and be multiplied.

      BUT it is high time to leave them and to shew in brief what we proposed to ourselves, and what course we held in this our perusall and survey of the bible. Truly (good Christian Reader) we never thought from the beginning, that we should need to make a new translation, nor yet to make a bad one a good one, (for then the imputation of Sixtus had been true in some sort, that our people had been fed with gall of dragons instead of wine, with wheat instead of milk) but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones, one principall good one, not justly to be excepted against; that hath been our endeavour, that our mark. To that purpose there were many chosen, that were greater to other mens eyes than in their own, and that sought the truth rather then their own praise. Again, they came or were thought to come to the work, not exercendi causa, (as one saith) but exercitati, that is, learned, not to learn; For the chief overseer and ergodiokthV under his Majestie, to whom not onely we, but also our whole Church was much bound, knew by his wisdome, which thing also Nazianzen taught so long ago, that it is a preposterous order to teach first, and to learn after, yea, that to en pidw keramimen manqanein to learn and practise together, is neither commendable for the workman, nor safe for the work. Therefore such were thought upon, as could say modestly with S. Hierome, Et Hebraeum sermonem ex parts didicimus, & in Latino pene ab ipsis incunabulis, &c. detriti sumus; both we have learned the Hebrew tongue in part, and in the Latine we have been exercised almost from our very cradle. Saint Hierome maketh no mention of the Greek tongue, wherein yet he did excell; because he translated not the Old Testament out of the Greek, but out of the Hebrew. And in what sort did these assemble? In the trust of their own knowledge, or of their sharpnesse of wit, or deepnesse of judgement, as it were in an arm of flesh? At no hand. They trusted in him that hath the key of David, opening and no man shutting, they prayed to the Lord the Father of our Lord, to the effect that S. Augustine did; O let thy scriptures be my pure delight, let me not be deceived in them, neither let me deceive by them. In this [517] confidence, and with this devotion did they assemble together, not too many, lest one should trouble another; and yet many, lest many things haply might escape them. If you ask what they had before them, truly it was the Hebrew text of the Old Testament, the Greek of the New.--These are the two golden pipes, or rather conduits, where-through the olive-branches empty themselves into the gold. Saint Augustine calleth them precedent, or original tongues; S. Hierome, fountains. The same S. Hierome affirmeth, and Gratian hath not spared to put it into his decree, that as the credit of the old books (he meaneth of the Old Testament) is to be tried by the Hebrew volumes; so of the New by the Greek tongue, he meaneth by the originall Greek. If truth be to be tried by these tongues, then whence should a translation be made, but out of them? These tongues therefore, the Scriptures we say to those tongues, we set before us to translate, being the tongues wherein God was pleased to speak to his Church by his Prophets and Apostles. Neither did we run over the work with that posting hast that the Septuagint did, if that be true which is reported of them, that they finished it in seventie two days; neither were we barred or hindred from going over it again, having once done it, like S. Hierome, if that be true which himself reporteth, that he could no sooner write any thing, but presently it was caught from him, and published, and he could not have leave to mend it; neither, to be short, were we the first that fell in hand with translating the Scripture into English, and consequently destitute of former helps, as it is written of Origen, that he was the first in a manner, that put his hand to write commentaries upon the Scriptures, and therefore no marvell, if he overshot himself many times. None of these things: the work hath not been hudled up in seventie two dayes, but hath cost the workmen, as light as it seemeth, the pains of twice seven times seventie two dayes, and more. Matters of such weight and consequence are to be speeded with maturity; for in a businesse of moment a man feareth not the blame of convenient slacknesse. Neither did we think much to consult the translations or commentatours, Chaldee, Hebrew, Syrian, Greek, or Latine, no nor the Spanish, French, Italian or Dutch, neither did we disdain to revise that which we had done, and to bring back to the anvil that which we had hammered; but having and using as great helps as were needfull, and fearing no reproach for slownesse, nor coveting praise for expedition, we have at the length, through the good hand of the Lord upon us, brought the work to that passe that you see.

      Some peradventure would have no variety of senses to be set in the margine, lest the authority of the Scriptures for deciding of controversies by that show of uncertainty, should somewhat be shaken. But we hold their judgment not to be so sound in this point. For though, whatsoever things are necessary, are manifest, as S. Chrysostome saith: and as S. Augustine, In those things that are plainly set down in the Scriptures, all such matters are found that concern faith, hope, and charity: Yet for all that it cannot be dissembled, that partly to exercise and whet our wits, partly to wean the curious from lothing of them for their everywhere plainnesse, partly also to stirre up our devotion to crave the assistance of God's Spirit by prayer; and lastly, that we might be forward to seek aid of our brethren by conference, and never scorn those that be not in all respects so complete as they should be, being to seek in many things ourselves, it hath pleased God in his divine providence, here and there to scatter words and sentences of that difficultie and doubtfulnesse, not in doctrinall points that concern salvation (for in such it hath been vouched that the Scriptures are plain) but in matters of lesse moment, that fearfulnesse would better beseem us than confidence, and if we will resolve, to resolve upon modesty with S. Augustine, (though not in this same case altogether, yet upon the same ground) Melius est dubitare de occultis, quam litigare de incertis: It is better to make doubt of those things which are secret, then to strive about those things that are uncertain. There be many words in the Scriptures which he never found there but once, (having neither brother nor neighbor, as the Hebrews speak) so that we cannot be holpen by conference of places. Again, there be many rare names of certain birds, beasts, and precious stones, &c. concerning which the Hebrews themselves are so divided among themselves for judgement, that they may seem to have defined this or that, rather because they would say something, then because they were sure of that which they said, as S. Hierome somewhere saith of the Septuagint. Now in such a case, doth not a margins do well to admonish the Reader to seek further, and not to conclude or dogmatize upon this or that peremptorily? For as it is a fault of incredulity, to doubt of those things that are evident; so to determine of such things as the Spirit of God hath left (even in the judgement of the judicious) questionable, can be no lesse then presumption. Therefore as Saint Augustine saith, that variety of translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures: so diversitie of signification and sense in the margins, where the text is not so clear, must needs do good, yea, is necessary as we are perswaded. We know that Sixtus Quintus expressly forbiddeth, that any variety of readings of their vulgar edition, should be put in the margins (which though it be not altogether the same thing to that we have in hand, yet it looketh that way) but we think he hath not all of his own side his favourers, for this conceit. They that are wise had rather have their judgements at libertie in differences of readings, then to be captivated to one, when it may be the other. If they were sure that their high priest had all laws shut up in his breast, as Paul the second bragged, and that he were as free from errour by speciall priviledge, as the Dictatours of Rome were made by law inviolable, it were another matter; then his word were an oracle, his opinion a decision. But the eyes of the world are now open, God be thanked, and have been a great while, they finde that he is subject to the same affections and infirmities that others be; that his body is subject to wounds, and therefore so much as he proveth; not as much as he claimeth, they grant and embrace.

      IT gives me pleasure to find that Dr. Noel has given as public and forcible a testimony against creeds, as he ever gave in their favor. He has laid his axe to the root of the tree, and asserted that the "Head of the Church has long since put an end to the business of legislation for the Church--But the following extract from a "circular" published in the Baptist Recorder, Dec. 13, 1828--fully asserts the Doctors resentment against both creeds and creed makers. "Now, be it known to all advocates of free or open communion, that we do most solemnly [518] protest against all ecclesiastical attempts to prescribe terms of communion. The Head of the Church has vested no power in any community on earth, to make or modify laws or ordinances. To attempt it, is an impious invasion of his supreme royal prerogative. He has long since put an end to the business of legislation for the church. In the sovereign exercise of his power as King of kings, he has prescribed the terms and conditions on which his people shall have a place in his house and a seat at his table. It may be justly expected of his friends that they will receive his code entire, with gratitude and submission; that they will not arraign his wisdom, wound his majesty, and sully his glory, by ascribing imperfection to his plan. Before they approach the symbols of his broken body and shed blood, it becomes them to wear the simple attire of saints, not the gorgeous livery of the beast. If neither Moses nor the Elders of Israel could change a pin¹ of the Tabernacle, can those living under the new economy open up a new way to the Lord's table and be guiltless? The Spirit of inspiration points with unerring hand to one way, leading through the sacramental grave of Jesus. If others venture to bridge his grave, in order to reach the eucharistic banquet, let them see to it. We would have you to keep the ordinances as they were once delivered, carefully observing the order as well as the manner. To observe them in any other order or manner, impairs their sanctity and divests them of their sacred character."

      I am as much pleased to find the Doctor advocating "the entire code" or ancient order of things, as to see him so nobly and boldly opposed to Creedism. I do not know, indeed, how he understands the entire code. But he says that Christians should submit with gratitude to be governed by the entire code--I wish some of the populars would shew us in what page, or chapter of the entire code, we shall find a law for monthly or quarterly breaking of bread, for Saturday meetings for business--for one bishop to four churches; for text preaching, &c. &c. &c. now in fashion among some Baptists of the modern old stamp!!

      "We would have you," says he, "keep the ordinances as they were once delivered, carefully observing the order as well as the manner." This is all I contend for--Now, you bishops of the modern old stamp, tell us when was your order once delivered: and where!--? Your order of worship is to meet once a week, sing two or three hymns, hear one sermon on a text, such as some you will find in this number, and hear a prayer or two--In warm times you shake hands too, but in cold times you dispense with that also. Let us have the entire code!

      THE following Constitution of a Church, lately fell into my hands.--Can any one find fault with it?--ED.

See next No. page 527, Queries 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and answers to them by the editor.

PUBLISHER.     

      "The Church at --------, believing that the Church of God in the Gospel, in its covenant, constitution, denomination, doctrine, laws, ordinances, offices, duties and privileges, is the only divinely established order of religious society that now exists in the world; and that all others in reference to it, which differ or are distinguished from it, in any of these particulars are schismatic, and forbidden; disowns any other church covenant than the new covenant in the blood of Christ, or any other constitution or actual state of the church as of divine appointment than that which is built upon the foundation of the doctrine of the Apostles and Prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief cornerstone.

      She acknowledges no other bond of church union or principle of christian fellowship than faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, love, and obedience to him according to the Gospel, and love to his people.

      She rejects all human inventions, and sectarian peculiarities, commandments of men in religion, and acknowledges no doctrine or ordinances but those that are revealed in the word of God, and which are manifested in the words and sentences, facts, statements and connexions in which they are made known in the fixed style of the Holy Spirit, regarding the word of God revealed to the Apostles and Evangelists in the New Testament, as the proper expounder and interpreter of what is written of Jesus Christ by Moses and the Prophets, and in the Psalms in the Old Testament.

      She holds Christian fellowship in breaking of bread with all the saints of God who have made a profession of faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, and are orderly members of some church, and who hold fellowship with the Apostles and Evangelists in what they heard, saw, looked upon, and handled of the word of eternal life, and which they have declared and written 1 John i. 1,,4. and who consider themselves as directly under the authority of Jesus Christ as the one Lawgiver, and the author and finisher of their faith, and acknowledge the obligation and duty conscientiously to practice the ordinances and duties of the Gospel, as they are, or shall be, made known to them in the word of God: being confidently assured that schism is a sin, and that the Lord Jesus Christ has given no power or authority to any individual, or association of men, to compromise away, or to alter or modify any truth in doctrine, ordinance, or duty, to promote fellowship or union, and that christian union, through the word of the Apostles, by faith in Jesus Christ and the government of the perfect law of liberty, is the only one practicable for the glory of God, the happiness of the saints, and the conversion of the world as is evinced in the intercessory prayer of Jesus Christ, John xvii. 20, 21.

      This church admits none to membership until after they have been immersed on a profession of their faith into the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

      AS QUERIES are getting much in fashion, I have resolved to enter them numerically for easy reference; and shall, whenever a Query is received that is worthy of solution, distinguish it no other way than by adding it to the catalogue.

      What is it to be "born again?" John iii. 3.

      Answer. The person who first used this figurative expression was the Saviour of the world. And he explained it in the same discourse, (John iii.) He represented it as being born of water, and of Spirit. Every one that is born of water and Spirit is born again. But if any one say, that being born of water, is a figure, we must say, that being born of Spirit, is also a figure.--We shall, then, hear Paul, Peter, John, and [519] James; and they are the only writers who use any words or phrases similar to these. Paul in his letter to Titus, (3d chap.) says: "He has saved us, not only by works, but through the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Spirit." This is being born of water and Spirit. The washing, or bath of regeneration, (or immersion) is contradistinguished from the renewing of the Holy Spirit. These are joined together, and let no man separate them. Peter says, "We are born again, or regenerated, not of corruptible, but of incorruptible seed, viz. through the word of the living God which remains for ever;" and this word, he adds, "is the gospel." And John says, "He that believes that Jesus is the Messiah, is begotten by God."--James, in speaking of begetting, says, "Of his own will he has impregnated us by the word of truth." This is the whole testimony upon this subject. I answer, then, every one who is immersed in the name of the Lord Jesus, and who is renewed in his heart by the Holy Spirit, is born again.

      How can we be assured that this work is accomplished in us?

      Answer. Our immersion into the name of the Father, &c. is an act of which we are conscious at the time, and which we can remember; and our spirit is, when renewed by the Spirit of God, also conscious that we love the brethren and love God; and we are assured, as John teaches, that we have passed from death to life when we love the brethren.

      What foundation from scripture have we to believe that we may be assured of our salvation or that our sins are forgiven?

      Answer. This is a question of great moment, and bears upon the preceding. I answer it thus: 1. No person can forgive sins but God. 2. Nothing can assure us that our sins are forgiven but the testimony of God. Now, unless we can have the testimony of God that our sins are forgiven, we can have no assurance that they are forgiven. 3. I assert that there is but one action ordained or commanded in the New Testament, to which God has promised or testified that he will forgive our sins. This action is Christian immersion.² To him that believes and is immersed, God has testified or promised salvation, or the forgiveness of sins. He has promised pardon through immersion; and therefore he who believes and is immersed, has the testimony of God that his sins are forgiven. Paul was assured that his sins were forgiven when he came up out of the water--so were the three thousand on Pentecost--so were all who believed and were baptized in primitive times. Hence they rejoiced, were glad, and boasted in God. Hence says John, "I have written to you, little children, because your sins are forgiven you." This is the testimony of God. Hence said Paul, "forgive one another, as God, for Christ's sake, has forgiven you

      May we believe that a conviction of forgiveness of sins in this life, is often, or ever, an instantaneous operation of the spirit; so strong, and so clear, as not to be mistaken by the person so operated upon? Or is it more frequently a gradual work, by which the whole soul is drawn to God?

      Answer. This question is in the language of scholastic theology. It is anticipated in the preceding question and answer; but we shall give it a distinct answer. Our convictions are very frequently the result of preconceived opinions. But our consciousness of forgiveness is not made to proceed from any inward impulses, voices, or operations, either instantaneous or gradual, but from a surer and more certain foundation--the testimony of God addressed to our ears. If operations, impulses, or feelings, were to be the basis of our conviction, it would be founding the most important of all knowledge upon the most uncertain of all foundations. "The heart of man is deceitful above all things;" and "He that trusts in his own heart, is a fool." But in the gospel our knowledge of forgiveness is made to depend upon the immutable and tangible promise of God. For example, I believe the testimony concerning Jesus of Nazareth in the apostolic import of it. I then feel myself commanded to be immersed for the forgiveness of my sins. I arise and obey. I then receive it, and am assured of it, because God cannot deceive. Thus I walk by faith--not by feeling. The belief of my forgiveness now rests upon the testimony of God; and my assurance of its truth and infallible certainty, produces in me the sense of forgiveness, peace, and joy in a holy spirit. Thus I have peace with God, which rules in my heart; constantly too, for he is faithful who has promised.

      All the darkness, gloom, uncertainty, and conjecture, in the religious community upon this subject, are the genuine fruits of the popular teaching. And so long as the present theories and systems are in fashion, it will not, it cannot, be any better. But so soon as men are led to rely upon the testimony of God instead of their own conceits; so soon as they understand and believe the ancient gospel, they will begin to experience the joys and felicities which were the portion of those taught by the apostles. It is the ancient gospel which will break down all the superstition, schism, and sectarianism in this age. It is, as is daily proved to us, the most puissant weapon ever wielded; and, like a sharp two-edged sword, will cut to pieces all the sectarianism of christendom, and make infidelity stop its mouth and hang its head.

      Can we not be in a state of salvation without the conviction that our sins are forgiven?

      Answer. "The state of salvation," is a curious phrase. "The state of matrimony" is equivalent to "the married state." The state of salvation is equivalent to the saved state. Now, "can we not be in a state of matrimony without the conviction that we are married?" I say, No--unless we have very bad memories, and no conjugal affection.

      Schoolmen have bewildered christendom with their reveries upon "a state of salvation," and "a salvable state." "Like priest, like people," is a general truth, with but few exceptions; and, therefore, under the present darkness, it is possible for persons to be believers in Jesus Christ, and yet doubtful whether their sins are forgiven. But this is not the only difficulty. There are many who conceit that their sins are forgiven, without any just foundation. They reason themselves into this opinion. "I feel so and thus; but all who feel thus and so, have their sins forgiven; therefore I have forgiveness." In many instances the delusion is in opposite conclusions from the same premises. One fancies himself forgiven, and another doubts his forgiveness from the very same premises. But the ancient [520] christians had not to gather the conviction of the pardon of their sins from internal sensations or feelings; but all their happy sensations arose from the conviction that they were forgiven. This was derived from the divine testimony, the only certain foundation on which any man can believe or know that his sins are forgiven.

      Has true faith in Christ these two fruits inseparably attending it--dominion over sin, and constant peace from a sense of forgiveness?

      Answer. As a sincere or unfeigned belief in Jesus Christ is always an operative principle, and impels to obedience, they who possess it are not under the dominion of sin, nor under a guilty conscience. Any belief that leaves its possessor under the guilt and dominion of sin, is a counterfeit--a dead faith, and worth nothing.

      [The above six queries are from Essex, Va.--and are signed "SHELEMIAH."]

      Is it, or is it not, through faith in the blood of Jesus Christ, that we receive the remission of our sins in the act of immersion?

      Answer. I had thought that in my Essays on Immersion this point was fully settled. Every single blessing, and all blessings collectively, appertaining to salvation, flow to us from the sacrifice of Jesus the Son of God. The value and efficacy of his sacrifice is the very document itself which constitutes the burthen of the testimony. Belief of this testimony is what impels us into the water. Knowing that the efficacy of this blood is to be communicated to our consciences in the way which God has pleased to appoint, we "stagger not at the promise of God," but flee to the sacred ordinance which brings the blood of Jesus in contact with our consciences. Without knowing and believing this, immersion is as empty as a blasted nut. The shell is there, but the kernel is wanting. The simplicity of this gracious provision has staggered many. Can forgiveness, they say, be obtained so easily? Did they but reflect that the more easily and more sensibly it is obtained, the more agreeable it is to the nature of the divine favor, which always makes the most needed blessings the most accessible. Again, as to an equivalent on our part, either as to the procurement of the blessing or as to a return for it, it is all one what that should be. We have nothing, and could give nothing. Let the wisest man on earth presume to show any thought, word, or action, by which, through which, or on account of which, a person's sins are, or might be remitted, and I will undertake to show that there is more wisdom, i. e. fitness and propriety in making christian immersion that action, than any other.--But this always connected with faith in the blood of Jesus Christ, which blood is the only consideration in the universe worthy of the bestowment of such blessings upon the children of men.

      [This query came from Lexington, Ky.]

      Of four questions from Mount Vernon, Ky. we select one, the others being already answered in the previous volumes of this work:

      Is not baptism by sprinkling or pouring, a valid baptism, provided the candidate honestly believes either is the correct mode from having read the Testament?

      Answer. Put the terms into English, and the question destroys itself. Is not immersion by sprinkling a real immersion!!! Or put it into Greek, and it commits suicide. Is not baptism by rantism real baptism? And no honesty in thinking, will convert one action into another, or make one creature another. If I were honestly to think that the burning of a heretic was acceptable to God, my honesty in thought would not make the action acceptable.

      Other Queries on hand will be disposed of in their turn.

EDITOR.      

      AS we are left to inference to learn the institution of sacrifice; we are made debtors to the same source of information for all our knowledge of the origin of the priesthood of the patriarchal age. It appears that as God raised up, by a special call and designation, the ancient prophets: in a similar way he originated and appointed the first priest of a public character. Under the necessity of circumstances, in the commencement of the human family, natural brothers and sisters entered into the marriage relation. From a similar necessity, each person who offered up a sacrifice, officiated at the altar. But in process of time arrangements, called laws, were made for the better accomplishment of all the high ends of society, both natural and religious. As the first intimation of sacrifice is made with a reference to the martyrdom of Abel, so the first intimation of a public priest, is made with a reference to Abraham's return from the slaughter of the kings. Then it was that Melchisedeck, king of Salem, and priest of the Most High God, carried out his bread and wine to the patriarch Abraham, blessed him, and received from him a tythe of the spoils of war. That this illustrious priest was immediately called, initiated, and ordained by God, is not only to be presumed from the circumstances of his appearance in the narrative of Moses, but it is to be learned from the comments of Paul in his letter to the Hebrews. There he assures us that Melchisedeck had neither predecessor, nor successor, in his office. He derived it not by a hereditary right from any ancestor; and his office was not, like that of Aaron, to be transmitted by descent to another. Hence it was of a dignity superior to that of Aaron, which was transferable, and, excepting in the case of Aaron, was as hereditary as a family name. Melchisedeck was, therefore, invested with the office by a special call; and was publicly recognized by, not only his cotemporaries in general, but by the Patriarch Abraham, as the Priest of the Most High God.

      The Greek of Paul in the Hebrews is rather paraphrased, than translated by Thompson. But yet he gives the sense pretty well. He says, "Melchisedeck was, in the first place, by the interpretation of his name, king of righteousness; and, in the next place, he was actually king of Salem; that is, king of peace; of whose father and mother there is no mention, no account of descent, nor of the beginning of his days, nor the end of his life. But likened to the Son of God, he abides a priest continually." Paul's design, as the argument shews, was to exhibit the superiority in point of dignity, of the office of Melchisedeck to that of Aaron. Both priests, by a divine call and investiture, yet different in order or dignity. The glory of that of Melchisedeck was, that it was underived and incommunicable. Aaron's call and appointment, were equally divine, but his priesthood was to run through many persons; each of which was to derive it from, and to communicate it to, another like himself. Moreover, the office of Melchisedeck was more public than that of Aaron. [521] One nation only claimed an interest in the office of Aaron. But the whole human race had an equal interest in that of Melchisedeck. The fact of the patriarch Abraham receiving the benediction from Melchisedeck, and of Levi and Aaron himself paying tithes to Melchisedeck in the person of Abraham, exhibited its superior excellency and glory. No period of time, no length of years, impaired the dignity or utility of the office of Melchisedeck. And the more illustrious fact that the glorious high priest of the christian profession was constituted according to the order of Melchisedeck, and not according to the order of Aaron, speaks still more distinctly of the superior eminence of the office of the king of Salem; who wears upon his head, not the diadem alone, but the mitre also. He wears the crown and stands before the altar.

      That there was a law regulating the rights, honors, services, and immunities of Melchisedeck is also to be inferred, from the aphorism of Paul, who makes a change of the priesthood necessarily productive of a change also of the law. "For," says he, "the priesthood being changed, there is of necessity a change also in the law." This was true in the case of Melchisedeck and Aaron, or it was to no purpose to argue the necessity of it in the case of Aaron and Christ.

      That priests were common in the patriarchal age, may be learned from the fact that all the nations of antiquity from the era of Melchisedeck, to that of Aaron, had priests. Joseph married the daughter of the priest of On. Moses married the daughter of the priest of Midian. The priests of Egypt were a numerous class in the days of the Pharaohs. Their land was not purchased by Pharaoh, and they had a portion assigned them by the king. Young men were chosen in Israel to officiate as priests before the order of Levi was set apart. All of which facts go to show that priests were appointed in all the ancient nations before the Aaronic order was instituted. Indeed we find not only Abel, but Noah, Abraham, Abimelech, Laban, Isaac, and Jacob officiating at the altar, and performing the office of priests in the patriarchal age. So that all the nations must have derived this office and custom from those favored with divine communications. Notwithstanding that the patriarchs all officiated at the altar, yet in the call and investiture of Melchisedeck, there was a peculiarity which elevated him above all others in that age. He appears to have been as far elevated in dignity above all who officiated at the altar, above all the patriarchs who offered victims, as Aaron was above all the priests of the house of Levi.

      But we are not to view the office of the priesthood of the patriarchal age as exclusively restricted to the duties of the altar. Intercession and benediction were essential parts of the services which they rendered their cotemporaries. Thus Abraham intercedes for Sodom with a familiarity and a perseverance which could not have arisen from any other reason or cause than a consciousness that in consequence of a divine appointment he had more power with God than ordinary men. For the same reason Melchisedeck presumed to bless Abraham; and as Paul argues, beyond all contradiction the inferior is blessed by the superior. For this reason also the other patriarchs who were, like Isaac, the first born; or who, like Jacob, had bought the rights of primogeniture, acted as the priests of the family and blessed their offspring and households. It was the disparagement of this honour and privilege which made Esau appear so wicked in selling his birthright for a single mess of pottage.

      A word or two more and we dismiss the priesthood of the patriarchal age. The origin of this divine institution is to be found in the fact that no sinful man can have access to God but through a Mediator. This lesson was taught in every age of the world; and no religious institution, divinely established, has appeared, in which the office of a Mediator was not the most prominent part. We see the first religious actions performed on earth were at the altar. But there never would have been priest, victim, nor intercessor, had it been compatible fur a friendly correspondence to have subsisted on any other terms between the Holy One who inhabits eternity, and sinful mortals. No man ever could, ever did, or ever will, find access to God, and acceptance with him, but through a Mediator. No prayers, no intercessions, no religious services, can avail to any purpose, unless this necessity be known and regarded. It was pure benevolence on the part of Heaven which first disclosed the secret, originated the practice, and through it communicated blessings to men. It was from the plainness of this necessity that all the worshippers of God, in the first age of the world, so universally and so readily embraced this gracious provision; and from the pious fathers of all the nations is became as universal as the whole human race. Hence amongst all people, however rude and barbarous, however civilized and polished, we find mediators, altars, and sacrifices. This universal usage, as ancient as the remotest annals of the world, presents to the philosophic mind a stupendous monument in favor of supernatural revelation; which, like a rock in the midst of the ocean, proves that there is a bottom to the mighty deep, and that so firm as not to be shaken by winds or waves, how turbulent and boisterous soever. How vain, then, the expectation of the Deist, who, while he admits the truth of one God, expects to come into his presence without the intervention of sacrifice, altar, or priest But of this more fully hereafter, when we come in contact with the Sceptics.

EDITOR.      

      "NOW I am not desirous of diminishing the difference of meaning between immersing a person in the name of the Father, and into the name of the Father. They are quite different ideas. But it will be asked, Is this a correct translation? To which I answer most undoubtedly it is. For the preposition eiV is that used in this place, and not en. By what inadvertency the King's translators gave it in instead of into in this passage, and elsewhere gave it into when speaking of the same ordinance, I presume not to say. But they have been followed by most of the modern translators, and with them they translate it into in other places where it occurs, in relation to this institution: For example--1 Cor. xii. 13. For by one spirit we are all immersed into one body; Rom. vi. 3. Don't you know that so many of you as were immersed into Christ, were immersed into his death? Gal. iii. 27. As many of you as have been immersed into Christ, have put on Christ. Now for the same reason they ought to have rendered the following passages the same way. Acts viii. 16. Only they were immersed into the name of the Lord Jesus, xix. 3. Into what were you then immersed? When they [522] heard this they were immersed into the name of the Lord Jesus. 1 Cor. 1, 13. Were you immersed into the name of Paul! Lest any should say, I had immersed into my own name. 1 Cor. x. 1. Our Fathers were all immersed into Moses in the cloud and in the sea. Now in all these places it is eiV The contrast between eiV and en is clearly marked in the last quotation. They were immersed into Moses--not into the cloud, and into the sea, but in the cloud, and in the sea. To be immersed into Moses is one thing, and in the sea is another. To be immersed into the name of the Father, and in the name of the Father are just as distinct. "In the name" is equivalent to "by the authority of." In the name of the king, or commonwealth, is by the authority of the king or commonwealth. Now the question is, Did the Saviour mean that disciples were to be immersed by the authority of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? If by the authority of the Father, for what purpose were they immersed? The authority by which any action is done is one thing, and the object for which it is done is another. None who can discriminate, can think that it is one and the same thing to be immersed in the name of the Lord, and to be immersed into the name of the Lord Jesus. The former denotes the authority by which the action is performed--the latter the object for which it is performed. Persons are said to enter into matrimony, to enter into an alliance, to go into debt, to run into danger. Now to be immersed into the name of the Lord Jesus was a form of speech in ancient usage as familiar and significant as any of the preceding. And when we analyze these expressions, we find they all import that the persons are either under the obligations or influence of those things into which they are said to enter, or into which they are introduced. Hence those immersed into one body, were under the influences and obligations of that body. Those immersed into Moses, assumed Moses as their lawgiver, guide, and protecter, and risked every thing upon his authority, wisdom, power, and goodness. Those who were immersed into Christ, put him on, or acknowledged his authority and laws, and were governed by his will: and those who were immersed into the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, regarded the Father as the fountain of all authority--the Son as the only Saviour--and the Holy Spirit as the only advocate of the truth, and teacher of christianity. Hence such persons as were immersed into the name of the Father, acknowledged him as the only living And true God--Jesus Christ, as his only begotten Son, the Saviour of the world--and the Holy Spirit as the only successful advocate of the truth of christianity upon earth. Pagans, therefore, when immersed into the name of the Father, &c. renounced all the names that were worshipped by the Pagan world--all the saviours in which the Gentiles trusted; and all the inspiration and philosophy of which the heathen boasted. A woman, when she enters into matrimony, assumes the name of her husband, acknowledges him as her Lord and master, submits to his will, and looks to him for protection and support. Just so they who are immersed into the name of Christ, assume his name, acknowledge him as Lord and Master, and look to him for support and protection. This view of the matter made Paul thank God when the christians of Corinth were assuming different names, (one the name of Paul, and another the name of Apollos, &c.) that he had immersed few or none of them, lest the report should get abroad that he had immersed them into his own name.

      "But as this criticism is already too long, we shall only add that it would be quite anomalous to suppose that the command in the commission to make disciples, immersing them into the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, means by the authority of. There is not one solitary example of the sort in all the oracles. Nothing is commanded to be done by the authority of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. In the antecedent economy the supreme authority was in the name of the Father. In the present economy the supreme authority is in the name of the Lord Jesus. But in no economy (for it is contrary to the genius of every economy) is the name of the Holy Spirit used as authoritative. Nothing was ever commanded to be done in the name, or by the authority of the Holy Spirit. When we speak of authority here, it is not the authority of a teacher, but the authority of a governor or lawgiver--a king or ruler. There is one sort of authority of which the Holy Spirit is possessed; and that is, to take the things of Christ and reveal them to us. His authority as a teacher we cheerfully submit to, but we speak here of the gubernatorial authority, the authority which a governor possesses. Invested with this authority, the Lord Jesus, in conjunction with his Father, sent the Holy Spirit to advocate his cause. The Father never gave the power of judging to the Holy Spirit. This he has given into the hands of the Lord Jesus. The Lord Messiah shall judge the world, and therefore by his authority all things are to be done in his kingdom. When Peter ordered the Gentiles to be immersed, he did it by the authority of the Lord Jesus. He says, "In the name of the Lord immerse them." Here it is, en onamati and not eiV to onoma. And it is by the authority of the Lord Jesus, or in the name of the Lord, that persons are to be immersed into the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The great importance of the matters involved in this criticism will be a sufficient apology for the length of it. Indeed I scarcely know any criticism upon a single syllable, of so much importance, in all the range of my conceptions, as this one."

      ----"THEY violate this command, in withholding what belongs to their neighbour, when they are not faithful in any business which they have undertaken to do for their neighbour. If their neighbour has hired them to labor for him for a certain time, and they be not careful well to husband the time; if they be hired to day's labor, and be not careful to improve the day, as they have reason to think he who hired them justly expected of them; or if they be hired to accomplish such a piece of work, and be not careful to do it well, but do it slightly, do it not as if it were for themselves, or as they would have others do for them, when they in like manner intrust them with any business of theirs; or if they be intrusted with any particular affair, which they undertake, but use not that care, contrivance, and diligence, to manage it so as will be to the advantage of him who intrusts them, and as they would manage it, or would insist that it should be managed, if the affair were their own; in all these cases they unjustly withhold what belongs to their neighbor.

      "Another way in which men unjustly withhold what is their neighbours, is in neglecting to pay their debts. Sometimes this happens [523] because they run so far into debt that they cannot block or an institution of manifest foolishness reasonably hope to be able to pay their debts; and this they do, either through pride and affectation of living above their circumstances, or through a grasping, covetous disposition, or some other corrupt principle. Sometimes they neglect to pay their debts from carelessness of spirit about it, little concerning themselves whether they are paid or not, taking no care to go to their creditors, or to send to him; and if they see him from time to time, they say nothing about their debts. Sometimes they neglect to pay their debts because it would put them to some inconvenience. The reason why they do it not, is not because they cannot do it, but because they cannot do it so conveniently as they desire; and so they rather choose to put their creditor to inconvenience by being without what properly belongs to him, than to put themselves to inconvenience by being without what does not belong to them, and what they have no right to detain. In any of these cases, they unjustly usurp the property of their neighbor.

      "Sometimes persons have that by them with which they could pay their debts if the would; but they want to lay out their money for something else, to buy gay clothing for their children, or to advance their estates, or for some such end. They have other designs in hand, which must fail if they pay their debts. When men thus withhold what is due, they unjustly usurp what is not their own. Sometimes they neglect to pay then debts, and their excuse for it is, that their creditor does not need it; that he has a plentiful estate, and can well bear to lie out of his money. But if the creditor be ever so rich, that gives no right to the debtor to withhold from him that which belongs to him. If it be due, it ought to be paid; for that is the very notion of its being due. It is no more lawful to withhold from a man what is his due, without his consent, because he is rich and able to do without it, than it is lawful to steal from a man because he is rich and able to bear the loss." [Wholesome doctrine.]

[TCB 515-524]