FROM

THE

MILLENNIAL HARBINGER:

FOURTH SERIES.

VOL. II.]	BETHANY, VA. DECEMBER, 1852.	[NO. XII.

      MY DEAR E.--The originators of the present religious movement were, all of them, from Pedobaptist parties. They were united together as a distinct society, for the purpose of effecting Christian union, upon the principles which I have laid before you, and had been thus engaged for a considerable time before their attention was especially called to the subject of baptism. The question was at length brought up by a member, who expressed a doubt as to the lawfulness of infant baptism, inasmuch as he could find neither precept nor precedent for it in the Scriptures. To this it was replied, that if the practice had not a Divine warrant, they would be obliged to relinquish it, as, according to their principles, they could regard nothing as a matter of faith or duty, for which there could not be produced clear scriptural evidence. Soon after, it was again objected, that there could be found no Divine authority for the rites of sprinkling or pouring, as modes of baptism, since the word baptism itself, as well as the language in connection with it, and all the circumstances attending the recorded baptisms of the New [696] Testament, evidently indicated that an immersion in water was the action originally known as baptism. Upon this, the society immediately entered upon an examination of the whole subject; and, after a careful investigation, continued for a number of months, it was finally decided that there was not to be found in the Bible the slightest authority for the baptism of any one who was not a believer, and that an immersion in water was evidently the action originally indicated by the term, and practised by primitive Christians. Such conclusions, under the circumstances of the case, opposed, as they were, to the previous views and practices of those concerned, and to the popularity of the cause in which they were engaged, will weigh not a little with the candid and reflecting, as additional evidence of the force of truth, and the futility of those customs which, from tradition, convenience and carnality, have been substituted for the ordinance of Christian baptism. The views thus adopted, were immediately put into practice, and have continued unchanged to this day, frequent discussion and the severest scrutiny having only tended to confirm and extend them.

      It would be quite unnecessary for me to present to you here the scriptural evidences to show either that a believer is a proper subject for baptism, or that immersion is baptism. No Pedobaptist authority ever denied either of these propositions. On the contrary, they are both universally admitted to be true, and the whole controversy has been upon the questions, whether infants, who are incapable of believing, are fit subjects; and whether sprinkling, pouring, anointing, or any other action than an immersion in water, may be justly considered as a literal and true baptism? It belongs to those who take the affirmative of these questions, to prove them. This they have often attempted to do, but with what success, I must leave you to judge. Suffice it to say, that the Church of Rome claims to have herself first originated the practice of infant baptism, and candid Pedobaptist Protestants admit that the practice rests wholly on church authority, and confess themselves unable to bring any direct scriptural evidence in support of it.¹ Of course, as we deny that mere tradition, or any assumed church authority, is a proper [697] foundation on which to build religious institutions, we can have nothing whatever to do with the practices in question.

      I wish, however, to call your attention for a moment to the aspects of this matter, as it stands related to Christian union. Apart from the intrinsic merits of the questions which respect baptism itself, it will be seen that in adopting the action of immersion, which all grant to be valid baptism, and in admitting the believer, who is allowed by all to be a proper subject, we offer no impediment whatever to Christian union. We introduce no litigated or doubtful questions; we adopt that in which all are already agreed; we require no one to act contrary to the dictates of an enlightened conscience; we demand nothing more than what the word of God clearly and unequivocally enjoins. In this point of view, then, the position which the Reformation has assumed upon this subject is eminently anti-sectarian and conciliatory.

      Nor, if we may regard the plain declarations of Scripture as worthy of universal acceptation, or the popular creeds as fair exponents of the views of the different religious parties, are we less catholic in the sentiments which we hold in regard to the design of baptism, viz: that it is for the remission of sins. It cannot be denied that [698] Peter, on the day of Pentecost, commanded the believing penitents to be baptized for the remission of sins, nor that Ananias said to Paul, "Arise and be baptized, and wash away thy sins;" nor that the same connexion between baptism and remission is asserted in many parts of Scripture. Neither can it be denied that the Episcopal Church, in its larger creed, puts into the mouth of the believer these words: "I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins;" nor that in its 27th article on baptism, it says:

      "Baptism is not only a sign of profession and mark of difference, whereby Christian men are discerned from others that are not christened; but it is also a sign of regeneration or new birth, whereby, as by an instrument, they that receive baptism rightly, are grafted into the church, and the promises of the forgiveness of sins and of our adoption to be the sons of God by the Holy Spirit, are visibly signed and sealed."

      Neither can it be denied, that in the practical application of these views the minister is instructed to say to those presenting themselves for baptism:

      "Beloved, ye hear, in this gospel, the express words of our Saviour Christ, that, except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. Whereby ye may perceive the great [699] necessity of this sacrament, where it may be had. Likewise, immediately before his ascension into heaven, (as we read in the last chapter of Saint Mark,) he gave command to his disciples, saying, 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; which also showeth unto us the great benefit we reap thereby. For which cause, St. Peter, the Apostle, when upon his first preaching of the gospel, many were pricked at the heart, and said to him and the rest of the Apostles, men and brethren what shall we do? replied and said unto them, Repent and be baptized every one of you for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost; for the promise is to you and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call. And with many other words exhorted he them, saying, save yourselves from this untoward generation. For, as the same Apostle testifieth in another place, even baptism doth 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. Doubt ye not, therefore, but earnestly believe that he will favorably receive these present persons, truly repenting, and coming unto him by faith, that he will grant them remission of their sins, and bestow upon them the Holy Ghost; that he will give them the blessing of eternal life, and make them partakers of his everlasting kingdom."

      Nor is it to be denied, that the Westminster Confession of Faith expresses itself to the same effect, as follows:

      "Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible church; but also to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, of his engrafting into Christ, of regeneration, of remission of sins, and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life; which sacrament is, by Christ's own appointment, to be continued in his church until the end of the world."

      Nor, finally, can it be controverted, that while the Methodist Discipline adopts, in substance, the Episcopal form, the Baptist creed says:

      "Baptism is an ordinance of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, to be unto the party baptized a sign of his fellowship with him in his death and resurrection; of his being engrafted into him; of remission of sins, and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to live and walk in newness of life."

      But I need not multiply quotations from the Scriptures, to show that baptism is for the remission of sins, or that it is in this ordinance that an individual is born of water, according to the declaration of Christ in John iii. 5. Neither is it necessary for me to make further extracts from the creeds to show that they do most unequivocally acknowledge the same truths. Let us rather inquire, for a moment, in what sense this institution is "for the remission of sins." In reply, we say, as an assurance of actual forgiveness, or as clearly expressed in the Westminster Confession, "a sign and seal of remission of sins." It is, then, to the believer, the sign, evidence, or assurance of pardon, and not the procuring cause of pardon. This is a distinction which it is important to make, since the very [700] same language is used in reference to the design of Christ's sacrifice. He says himself, "this is my blood, shed for the remission of sins." Nay, we find that salvation or pardon is, in the Scriptures, attributed to various other causes, as faith, grace, obedience, repentance, &c. But who does not see, that while salvation may be thus attributed to any one or all of these, it cannot be supposed to be connected with them all in the same sense? In fact, is it not obvious, that while, as all admit, the blood or sacrifice of Christ is the procuring cause of our salvation, it is through faith, repentance and baptism, that the sinner finds access to that sacrifice, and that he may hence be said to believe unto salvation, or to be baptized for the remission of sins, as the means of attaining to the actual and personal enjoyment of the salvation purchased by the death of Christ? All these means of enjoyment are necessary, but each in its proper place and order, and, among them, baptism is especially distinguished as the remitting ordinance, or formal pledge of pardon--a position which, from its symbolic and emblematic character, it is so eminently fitted to occupy. Thus it is called the "washing of regeneration," through which we are introduced into the kingdom of God, and we are said to be "buried with Christ by baptism into death," to be "baptized into Christ's death," &c.

      It must be acknowledged, however, that while we thus most cordially assent to what both the Scriptures and the creeds say--that baptism is for the remission of sins--the popular parties, with the exception, perhaps, of the Episcopal church, do by no means assent to it, and, upon this subject, believe neither the Scriptures nor their own creeds. In fact, the connection of baptism with the remission of sins, is totally denied by them; nor is there an individual in any one of these parties who is taught to regard baptism as a pledge or assurance of pardon. In fact, it is regarded as a mere ceremony--an empty form; as an unmeaning act of obedience; as a door into the church; as any thing or nothing, rather than what it is, really, according to the word of God.

      It may be asked here, Do the sects then possess no institution for the assurance of pardon? Is it possible that they suppose Christianity destitute of any special institution for this most important purpose, when, under all the dim and shadowy religions which preceded it, the worshiper enjoyed the blessed privilege of knowing that his sins were forgiven! Under the Patriarchal age, the pious had testimony to assure them "that they pleased God." Under the law, the sinner brought his offering--a ram, or a bullock, or, to place this blessing within the reach of the poorest, a turtle dove, [701] or pigeon--and, offering it in compliance with the Divine command, received the Divine assurance that his sin was forgiven. If they imagine Christianity destitute of any ordinance for remission, they make it inferior to the religions which preceded it, and it must be supposed either that the sacrifice of Christ is inferior in efficacy to one of the typical offerings of preceding ages, or that it is not possible to have so near an access to it. But we know that the reverse of both these propositions is true. And we further learn from the Scriptures, that the primitive Christians did enjoy an assurance of pardon, and could refer to the particular time at which they received it. Peter, for instance, says of the individual who does not go on to perfection, "he has forgotten that he was purged from his old sins." 2 Peter i. 9. He could not have forgotten what he had never known. Again, we have the same fact asserted in direct connection with baptism, Coloss. ii. 11, 12, 13. And in Hebrews x. it is shown to be one of the promises of the new covenant, that those under it should receive a plenary forgiveness, and this cleansing of the conscience is again asserted in direct connection with baptism. "Let us draw near with a true heart, in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water." But I need not multiply quotations, since the different parties do not deny that an assurance of pardon is to be attained under the Christian institution, though some of them make it a very rare and difficult attainment.

      You may ask, then, on what do they rely for this assurance? I answer, upon what they consider a gift of the Holy Spirit. The plain state of the case is, that a certain doctrine of special spiritual operations has gradually taken possession of the mind of the religious public, and has so enlarged and extended itself that it has become, emphatically, the great religious doctrine of the present age of Protestantism, and has overshadowed every prominent feature of Christianity, and rendered not only the great original doctrines of Protestantism, as embodied in the creeds, subordinate and obscure, but has made the Word of God itself, and the institutions of the gospel, of no effect. It is greatly to be deplored, that a mere theory of conversion should have so engrossed the attention of the religious world, and that it should have exercised so deleterious an influence upon the minds of the unconverted, as to lead them to neglect and disparage positive Divine institutions, and the appointed means through which the assurance of pardon is actually bestowed, in order to secure an evidence of an emotional and doubtful character, which is often the result of the workings of a heated fancy, or of [702] mere animal excitement. Nevertheless, we would not, by any means, desire to underrate the importance of the work of the Holy Spirit, or of a change of heart. No one can be born again, unless he is born of Spirit as well as of water, and no one can enjoy the remission of sins who is not thus regenerated; but we cannot consent that the peculiar object or purpose assigned to baptism in the Scriptures should be transferred to any internal operations or feelings, without Divine authority. Such, however, has been the solicitude of the advocates of the popular theory, thus to enhance emotional or mental impressions, and to leave baptism without a purpose, that they even boldly seek to explain away or wholly to disconnect from it the expression, "for the remission of sins." With them the command, "Be baptized for the remission of sins," signifies, Be baptized on account of the remission of sins, or "about" the remission of sins, or any thing else equally awkward, evasive and indefinite, rather than what it says. And it is worthy of remark, that they employ here the same specious glosses and modes of interpretation which the Unitarians use in seeking to weaken or destroy the force and meaning of the very same expression, when connected with the blood of Christ. All such labored attempts to change the obvious sense of Scripture, and make it quadrate with human theories of religion, we regard as palpable corruptions and perversions of the truth. In the present instance, the Scriptures do, in various forms of speech, assert the connection between baptism and remission, but they nowhere teach that any mental impressions, visions, or extraordinary visitations, are to be regarded as evidences of pardon; nor is it anywhere said, that men are to receive the Holy Spirit for the remission of sins. This brings me to the consideration of Spiritual influence, which is next in order.

      The chief cause of misapprehension in regard to the subject of Spiritual influence, is, as it appears to me, to be found in the fact, that most persons confound the agency of the Spirit in conversion, with the influence he exerts as indwelling in the heart of the believer. Hence the confused and unscriptural notion, that the Spirit may be received before faith, and that faith itself is something wrought in the heart by a special and supernatural operation of the Spirit. This, indeed, seems to be, with many, the beginning and the end of all Spiritual influence, and they depend, accordingly, upon certain mental or emotional impressions, of which they have once been the [703] subjects, for their evidence of conversion, their assurance of pardon, their means of sanctification, and their hope of heaven.

      We regard, however, the conversion of the sinner and the sanctification of the believer, as distinct matters, accomplished, indeed, by the same Spirit, but in a different manner, and from a widely different position. We conceive the Holy Spirit to stand to the sinner in a relation very distinct from that in which he stands to him who is a member of the family of God. With the former, he is an outward witness for the truth; but the latter "has the witness in himself." To the first he is an unknown visitant or stranger; to the last, he is an in-dwelling and cherished guest. To the sinner, he is as the rain which falls upon the surface of the earth; to the believer, he is as a fountain from within, springing up unto everlasting life. In short, to bring the matter at once to issue, we deny that there is any Scriptural authority for the notion that the unbeliever, or man of the world, can receive the Spirit of God. We hold this dogma to be in direct opposition to the Divine testimony, since Christ himself declares to his disciples that he would pray the Father, and He would give to them another Comforter, "even the Spirit of Truth," continues he, "WHOM THE WORLD CANNOT RECEIVE." John xiv. 17.

      That which is pure, must be received into a pure vessel; and it is not until the heart is "purified by faith," that the Holy Spirit may enter to dwell therein. This is the view every where given in the Scriptures. Peter said to the believing penitents on the day of Pentecost, "Reform and be baptized for the remission of sins, and you shall [then] receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." Paul wrote to the Ephesians, 'in Christ ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, in whom, also, after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that Holy Spirit of promise, which is the earnest of our inheritance.' And also to the Galatians: "Because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying Abba, Father." It is, on the other hand, no where stated that the Holy Spirit was given to any one to make him a believer, or a child of God.

      But you may ask, is not every convert born of the Spirit? Must not every one be regenerated before entering the kingdom of heaven? True, but being "born of the Spirit," or regenerated, and receiving the Spirit, are matters quite different. No one can be born by receiving the Spirit. No one can be born of any thing that he receives, for the simple reason that he must be first born before he can receive any thing. Hence the Scriptures say that the Spirit is [704] given to those who "are sons." How, then, you will inquire, is an individual "born of the Spirit"? In order to comprehend this, we must be careful to maintain consistency in our interpretation of the figure, and must remember that, in the Scriptures, comparisons are employed with the utmost suitableness and accuracy, in illustration of the particular points to which they are applied.

      The figure of a spiritual birth is drawn from a natural or literal birth; a re-generation from a generation. Hence, in all leading points, a just resemblance must be preserved between the fact and the figure. This we find, accordingly, in the language which the Scripture uses wherever this striking figure is introduced. James says, "God, according to his own will, hath begotten us by the word of truth." Peter says, we are "regenerated, not of corruptible seed, but incorruptible, even of the word of God, which lives and abides for ever." Paul says to the Corinthians: "Though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers, for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel." And John says: "Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ, is begotten [born] of God." It is the gospel, then, which constitutes the incorruptible seed of which the children of God are born; as in the parallel figure of the sower, (Matt. xiii.,) it is the gospel of the kingdom which is sown by the Son of man, and which, falling into good and honest hearts, brings forth abundant fruit to God. To believe that great proposition, that Jesus is the Christ, is, in John's expressive language, to be "begotten of God." It is thus with this sublime proposition and its proofs, as we formerly stated, that God first meets the sinner. In a word, it is the gospel that is received by the sinner, and not the Holy Spirit. Yet if he receive that gospel, spoken by the Apostles in words inspired by the Holy Spirit; preached by them "with the Holy Spirit sent down from heaven," and "confirmed by demonstrations of the Spirit and of power," he is justly said to be "begotten of God," or of the Spirit, "through the word of truth;" and when at his baptism he comes forth from the water as from the womb, the figure of regeneration is complete; he is born of water and Spirit;² Being thus born from above, he is prepared to receive that Spirit of [705] adoption, that Holy Spirit or Comforter, which God bestows upon all his children, and which becomes to them an internal in-dwelling witness, and an earnest of their eternal inheritance, and produces in them, through its sanctifying influences and those of the truth it has revealed, the precious fruits of love, joy, peace, and righteousness.

      This, I presume, is a sufficient explanation of our views upon the subject legitimately before us. That there are various obstacles and hindrances which often prevent the gospel from reaching the heart of the sinner; and that there are, on the other hand, various agencies, ministerial and providential, human and divine, general and special, which tend to remove these obstacles, and thus enable the gospel to exert its power, we freely admit. And hence it is necessary to seek these agencies, and proper to expect that God will, in answer to prayer, cause his word to be glorified in the conversion of those in whose behalf it is our duty and our privilege to ask his gracious interposition.

      As we read in the Scriptures, that "on the first-day of the week the disciples came together to break bread;" and as the records show that it was the invariable custom of the early Christians to commemorate the death of Christ on every first day of the week, we conceive that this order should be carefully maintained and attended to by all the churches now. We regard it as the great and special object of the Lord's day meeting thus to commemorate the love of Christ, but it is usual to add prayer, exhortation, teaching, &c., for mutual edification. Since pious and learned men of all parties have often deplored the departure of the modern churches from this ancient order of things, and have labored to restore the weekly observance of the Lord's supper, we may justly regard the practice as sanctioned by the best authority, and its propriety placed beyond the reach of controversy.

      The Lord Jesus Christ, the great Shepherd of the flock, has committed the care of his church to pastors, or under-shepherds, who are commanded to "feed the flock of God," taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind. In the Scriptures, pastors are sometimes called bishops, or overseers, from the nature of their duty, and sometimes elders, from the fact that they are usually possessed of age and experience. Their qualifications and duties are clearly stated in [706] the letters to Timothy and Titus; in Paul's address to the elders of the church at Ephesus, &c. They have charge of the spiritual interests of the church, and are to be supported in their labors according to the circumstances of the case, and their devotion, ability, usefulness, &c. There should be a plurality of them in every church, as was evidently the case in primitive times. Paul addresses the church at Philippi, "with the bishops and deacons;" Paul sent for the elders of the church at Ephesus, who seem, from his address to them, to have been a numerous body; Paul left Titus in Crete, to ordain elders in every city. There is no such thing recognised in Scripture as a bishop over a diocese, containing a plurality of churches; and as to the arrogant pretensions of popes and prelates, who claim to come in place of the Apostles, and to sit in the Temple of God as representatives of Divinity, we find them only in the prophetic account which the Apostles have given of the rise and development of the Man of Sin. In the very nature of things, the Apostles could have no successors. They were appointed by Christ in person, as his witnesses, and it was absolutely essential to their office that they should have seen the Lord, and have had a personal knowledge of his resurrection from the dead. It was requisite, also, that they should have the power of working miracles, and other supernatural gifts, as proofs of their mission as Christ's ambassadors to the world. The gospel being fully delivered, and the testimony complete, this office could no longer continue. We recognise, accordingly, as rulers in the church, only the elders or overseers of each congregation, whose authority is restricted to the particular church by which they are chosen.

      We have another class of officers, called deacons, whose duty it is to take charge of the temporal affairs of the church and minister to the sick, the poor, and the destitute. Evangelists are also sustained by the churches, in the work of preaching the gospel to the world.

      I present to you, then, my dear E., the preceding brief account of the chief matters urged upon the religious community in the present reformation movement. May I hope that you will examine carefully the principles here developed, in the light of Divine Truth, and lend your aid in restoring to the world that which we so earnestly desire to witness--A CHRISTIAN UNION, UPON THE BASIS OF A SIMPLE EVANGELICAL CHRISTIANITY?

R. R.      

[The Millennial Harbinger, Fourth Series, 2 (December 1852): 696-707.]

      Robert Richardson's "Principles and Purposes of the Reformation" (Part IV) was first published in The Millennial Harbinger, Fourth Series, Vol. 2, No. 12, December 1852. The electronic version of this essay has been produced from the College Press reprint (1976) of The Millennial Harbinger, ed. Alexander Campbell (Bethany, VA: A. Campbell, 1852), pp. 696-707.

      Pagination in the electronic version has been represented by placing the page number in brackets following the last complete word on the printed page. In the printed text, footnotes are indicated by printer's devices (asterisks, daggers, etc.); in the electronic text, they are treated as sequentially numbered endnotes. Inconsistencies in spelling, capitalization, punctuation, and typography have been retained; however, corrections have been offered for misspellings and other accidental corruptions. Emendations are as follows:

 Page       Printed Text [ Electronic Text
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------
 p. 702:    Coloss. xi. 11, 12, 13. [ Coloss. ii. 11, 12, 13.
 

      Addenda and corrigenda are earnestly solicited.

Ernie Stefanik
373 Wilson Street
Derry, PA 15627-9770
e_stefanik@msn.com

Created 25 July 2000.