Regeneration

Book VIII: Doctrines of Redemption — Introduction

BOOK VIII.

D O C T R I N E S O F R E D E M P T I O N.

In 1833 Mr. Campbell issued an extra number of the Harbinger devoted to the subject of Regeneration, as follows:

REGENERATION.

["I create new heavens and a new earth."--Isa. lxv. 18. "Behold, I make all things new."--Rev. xxi.5.]

We intend an essay full of "the seeds of things." The topic is a common one, a familiar one, and yet it is an interesting one. Much has been said, much has been written upon it; and yet it is no better understood than it ought to be. Few give themselves the trouble of thinking much on the things which they think they understand; and many would rather follow the thoughts of others, than think for themselves. Suspense is painful, much study is a weariness of the flesh; and therefore, the majority are content with the views and opinions handed to them from those who have gone before.

We wish to treat this subject as if it were a new one; and to examine it now, as if we had never examined it before. It is worthy of it. Generation is full of wonders, for it is full of God's physical grandeur; yet regeneration is still more admirable, for in it the moral attributes of Jehovah are displayed. But we aim not at a development of its wonders, but at a plain, common-sense, Scriptural exposition of its import.

We have not learned our theology from Athanasius, nor our morality from Seneca; and therefore we shall not call upon them for illustration, argument, or proof. To the Sacred Records, in which alone Christianity yet remains in all its freshness, we look for light; and thither would we direct the eyes of our readers. It is not the regeneration of the schools, in which Christianity has been lowered, misapprehended, obscured, and adulterated, of which we are to write; but that regeneration of which Jesus spoke, and the Apostles wrote.

A few things must be premised--a few general views expressed, before we, or our readers, are prepared for the more minute details; and to approach the subject with all unceremonious despatch, we observe, that--

Man unregenerate is ruined in body, soul, and spirit; a frail and mortal creature. From Adam his father he inherits a shattered constitution. He is the child of a fallen progenitor; a scion from a degenerate stock. [439]

Superior to Adam, the exile from Eden, in physical, intellectual, and moral nature, none of his descendants can rise. It is not in nature to improve itself; for above its fountain the stream can not rise. Cain, the firstborn of Eve, was in nature the image and likeness of him that begat him. Education failed to improve him, while Abel, his younger brother, obtained the excellency which faith in God's promise alone bestows. The first born, it will be conceded, was at least equal to his younger brother: and who can plead that in nature he excels Eve's eldest son!

Man in his ruins is, however, a proper subject of a remedial system. He is susceptible of renovation. Therefore God has placed him under a regenerating economy. This economy contemplates the regeneration of the whole human constitution, and proposes as its consummation the transformation of spirit, soul, and body. The destiny of the regenerate is described by Paul in one sentence: "As we now bear the image of the earthy Adam, we shall then bear the image of the heavenly Adam."

God's own Son is proposed as the model. Conformity to him in glory, honor and immortality, as the perfection of the regenerate, is the predestination of him who speaks of things that be not, as though they were.

Regeneration is, therefore, moral and physical: or, in other words, there is now a renovation of the mind--of the understanding, will, and affections;--and there will hereafter be a renovation of the body: "For this corruptible body shall put on incorruption, and this mortal body shall put on immortality."

The renovation of the mind and character is, therefore, that moral regeneration which is to be effected in this life; for which the remedial system, or kingdom of heaven, was set up on earth: and this, therefore, first of all, demands our attention.

Before we attempt an answer in detail to the question, How is this moral regeneration effected? we shall attend to the principle on which the whole remedial system proceeds. The grand principle, or means which God has adopted for the accomplishment of this moral regeneration, is the full demonstration and proof of a single proposition addressed to the reason of man. This sublime proposition is, THAT GOD IS LOVE.

The reason and wisdom of this procedure will suggest itself to every one who can understand the views and feelings of all unregenerated man. Man, in a state of alienation and rebellion, naturally suspects, that if he be a sinner, and if God hate sin, he must hate him. As love begets love, so hatred begets hatred; and if a sinner suspects that God hates him, he can not love God. He must know that God loves him, before he can begin to love God. "We [says an [440] Apostle] love God because he first loved us."

While alienated in heart, through the native darkness of his understanding, the sinner misinterprets every restraint which God has placed in his way to prevent his total ruin, as indications of the wrath of heaven. His transgression of these restraints, and his consciousness of having defied the veracity and power of God, only increase his enmity, and urge him onward in his apostacy and wanderings from his creator. The goodness of God, being misunderstood, furnishes to him no incentive to repentance and reformation. Guilt and fear, and shame, the fruits of his apostacy, becloud his understanding, and veil from his eye all the demonstrations of benevolence and goodness with which the creation abounds. Adam under a tree, hiding from God, trembling with fear, suspicious of the movements of every leaf, and covered with shame as with a garment, is both an illustration and proof of these views of the state of mind which obtains in the unregenerate.

Neither the volume of creation, nor that of God's providence, is sufficient to remove from the natural man these misconceptions, and the consequent alienation of heart. The best proof that these two volumes can not do this, is, that they never have, in any one instance, yet done it. From the nature of things it is indeed evident that they can not do it. The elements are too often at war with the happiness of man. The ever-changing attitude of the natural world in reference to health, and life, and comfort, render it at best doubtful, whether the laws of nature, which ultimately bring man down to the grave, are the effect of benevolence, or of malevolence towards mankind. A third volume, explanatory of both, and replete also with supernatural developments, is wanting, to furnish the most diligent student of nature and providence, with the means of learning the true and full character of him against whom we have rebelled.

That volume is the Bible. Holy Prophets and Apostles spake as they were moved by the Spirit of Knowledge and Revelation. Its records, its history, its prophecy, its precepts, its laws, its ordinances, and its examples, all develop and reveal God to man, and man to himself.

But it is in the person and mission of the INCARNATE WORD that we learn that God is love. That God gave his Son for us, and yet gives his Spirit to us--and thus gives us himself--are the mysteries and transcendent proofs of the most august proposition in the universe. The gospel, Heaven's wisdom and power combined, God's own expedient for the renovation of human nature, is no more nor less than the illustration and proof of this regenerating proposition.

Thus we hasten to our subject. Having glanced at the great landmarks of the plantations of nature and grace, now that we may, in the light of truth, ascertain the true and heaven-taught doctrine of [441] regeneration, we shall cautiously survey the whole process as developed by the commissioned teachers of the deep counsels of the only true God.

That certain things, parts of this great process, may be well understood, certain terms which we are wont to use to represent them, must be well defined, and accurately apprehended. These terms are Fact, Testimony, Faith, Repentance, Reformation, Bath of Regeneration, New Birth, Renewing of the Holy Spirit, Newness of Life.

"All things are of God" in the regeneration of man, is our motto; because our Apostle affirmed this as a cardinal truth. He is the author of the facts, and of the testimony which declares them; and being the author of these, he is the author of all the effects produced by these facts. The Christian is a new creation, of which God is the Creator. The change of heart and of character, which constitute moral regeneration, is the legitimate impression of the facts, or things which God has wrought. The facts constitute the moral seal which stamps the image of God upon man. In the natural order we must place them first, and therefore we must first define the term.

[A. C.]

Fact

Fact means something done. The term deed, so common in the reign of James the First, is equivalent to our term fact. Truth and fact, though often confounded, are not the same. All facts are truths, but all truths are not facts. That God exists, is a truth, but not a fact; that he created the heavens and the earth, is a fact and a truth. That Paul was the Apostle of the Gentiles, is a truth, but not a fact; and that he preached Christ to the Gentiles, is both a fact and a truth. The simple agreement of the terms of any proposition with the subject of that proposition, or the representation of any thing as it exists, is a truth. But something must be done, acted, or effected, before we have a fact. There are many things in religion, morals, politics, and general science, which are not facts; but these are all but the correspondence of words and ideas with the things of which they treat.

Facts have a power which simple truth has not; and, therefore, we say, that facts are stubborn things. They are things, not words. The power of any fact, is the meaning; and therefore the measure of its power is the magnitude of its import. All moral facts have a moral meaning; and those are properly called moral facts, which either exhibit, develope, or form moral character. All those facts, or works of God, which are purely physical, exhibit what have been commonly called his natural or physical perfections; and all those facts, or works of God, which are purely moral, exhibit his moral character. It so happens, however, that all his works, when properly [442] understood, exhibit both his physical and moral character, when viewed in all their proper relations. Thus the deluge exhibited his power, his justice, and his truth; and, therefore, displayed both his physical and moral grandeur. The turning of water into wine, apart from its design, is purely a demonstration of physical power; but when its design is apprehended, it has a moral force equal to its physical majesty.

The work of Redemption is a system of works, or deeds, on the part of heaven, which constitute the most splendid series of moral facts which man or angel ever saw. And they are the proof, the argument, or the demonstration, of that regenerating proposition which presents God and love as two names for one idea.

When these facts are understood, or brought into immediate contact with the mind of man, as a moral seal or archetype, they delineate the image of God upon the human soul. All the means of grace are, therefore, only the means of impressing this seal upon the heart; of bringing these moral facts to make their full impression on the soul of man. Testimony and faith are but the channel through which these facts, or the hand of God, draws his image on the heart and character of man. If then the fact and the testimony are both the gift of God, we may well say that faith and eternal life are also the gift of God, through Jesus Christ our Lord.

To enumerate the gospel facts, would be to narrate all that is recorded of the sayings and doings of Jesus Christ, from his birth to his coronation in the heavens. They are, however, concentrated in a few prominent ones, which group together all the love of God in the gift of his Son. He died for our sins, He was buried in our grave, He rose from the dead for our justification, and is ascended to the skies to prepare mansions for his disciples, comprehend the whole, or are the heads to the chapters which narrate the love of God, and display his moral majesty and glory to our view.

These moral facts unfold all the moral grandeur of Jehovah, and make Jesus the effulgence of his glory, the express image of his substance. These are the moral seal which testimony conveys to the understanding, and faith brings to the heart of sinners, by which God creates them anew, and forms them for his glory. It is the Spirit which bears witness--the Spirit of God and of Christ which gives the testimony, and confirms it in the disciples. But let us next proceed to testimony.

[A. C.]

Testimony

The Romans, from whom we have borrowed much of our language, called the witness the testis. The declaration of this testis is still called testimony. In reference to the material system around us, to all objects and matters of sense, the eye, the ear, the smell, the taste, [443] the feeling, are the five witnesses. What we call the evidence of sense, is, therefore, the testimony of these witnesses, which constitute the five avenues to the human mind from the kingdom of nature. They are figuratively called witnesses, and their evidence, testimony. But the report or declaration of intelligent beings, such as God, angels, and men, constitute what is properly and literally called testimony.

As light reflected from any material object upon the eye brings that object into contact with the eye, or enables the object to make its image on the eye, so testimony concerning any fact, brings that fact into contact with the mind, and enables it to impress itself, or to form its image upon the intellect, or mind of man. Now, be it observed, that as by our five external senses we acquire all information of the objects of sense around us, so by testimony, human or divine, we receive all our information upon all facts which are not the objects of the immediate exercise of our five senses upon the things around us.

To appreciate the full value of testimony in the divine work of regeneration, we have only to reflect, that all the moral facts which can form moral character, after the divine standard, or which can effect a moral or religious change in man, are found in the testimony of God; and that no fact can operate at all where it is not present, or where it is not known. The love of God in the death of the Messiah never drew a tear of gratitude or joy from any eye, or excited a grateful emotion in any heart among the nations of our race to whom the testimony never came. No fact in the history of six thousand years, no work of God in creation, providence, or redemption, has ever influenced the heart of man or woman to whom it has not been testified. Testimony is, then, in regeneration, as necessary as the fact of which it speaks.

The real value of anything, is the labor which it cost, and its utility when acquired. If reason and justice arbitrated all questions upon the value of property, the decision would be, that every article is worth the amount of human labor which is necessary to obtain it; and when obtained, it is again to be tried in the scales of utility. Now as all the facts, and all the truth, which can renovate human nature, are in the testimony of God; and as that testimony cost the labor and the lives of the wisest and best that ever lived, that testimony to us, is just as valuable as the facts which it records, and the labors and the lives which it cost, and just as indispensable in the process of regeneration, as were the labors and the lives of Prophets, Apostles, and the Son of God.

History, or narrative, whether oral or written, is only another name for testimony. When, then, we reflect how large a proportion of both [444] Testaments is occupied in history, we may judge of how much importance it is in the judgment of God. Prophecy also, being the history of future facts, or a record of things to be done, belongs to the same chapter of facts and record. Now if all past facts, and all future facts, or all the history or testimony concerning them, was erased from the volumes of God's inspiration, how small would the remainder be! These considerations, added together, only in part exhibit the value and utility of testimony in the regeneration of mankind. But its value will be still more evident when the proper import of the term faith is fully set before us.

[A. C.]

Faith

No testimony, no faith: for faith is only the belief of testimony, or confidence in testimony as true. To believe without testimony, is just as impossible as to see without light. The measure, quality, and power of faith are always found in the testimony believed.

Where testimony begins, faith begins; and where testimony ends, faith ends. We believe Moses just as far as Moses speaks or writes: and when Moses has recorded his last fact, or testified his last truth, our faith in Moses terminates. His five books are, therefore, the length and breadth, the height and depth, or in other words, the measure of our faith in Moses. The quality or value of faith is found in the quality or value of the testimony. The certainty of faith is the certainty of testimony. If the testimony be valid and authoritative, our faith is strong and operative. "If," says John, "we receive the testimony of men, the testimony of God is greater," stronger and more worthy of credit. The value of a bank bill, is the amount of the precious metals which it represents, and the indisputable evidence of its genuineness; so the value of faith is the importance of the facts which the testimony presents, and the assurance afforded that the testimony is true. True, or unfeigned faith, may be contrasted with feigned faith, but true faith is the belief of truth; for he that believes a lie, believes in vain.

The power of faith is also the power, or moral meaning of the testimony, or of the facts which the testimony represents. If by faith I am transported with joy, or overwhelmed in sorrow, that joy or sorrow is in the facts contained in the testimony, or in the nature and relation of those facts to me. If faith purifies the heart, works by love, and overcomes the world, this power is in the facts believed. If a father has more joy in believing that a lost son has been found, than in believing that a lost sheep has been brought home to his fold, the reason of this greater joy is not in the nature of his faith, but in the nature of the facts believed. [445]

Here I am led to expatiate on a very popular and pernicious error of modern times. That error is, that the nature, or power and saving efficacy of faith, is not in the truth believed, but in the nature of our faith, or in the manner of believing the truth. Hence all that unmeaning jargon about the nature of faith, and all those disdainful sneers at what is called "historic faith"--as if there could be any faith without history, written or spoken. Who ever believed in Jesus Christ, without hearing the history of him? "How shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard?" Faith never can be more than the receiving of testimony as true, or the belief of testimony; and if the testimony be written, it is called history--though it is as much history when flowing from the tongue, as when flowing from the pen.

Let it be again repeated, and remembered, that there is no other manner of believing a fact, than receiving it as true. If it is not received as true, it is not believed; and when it is believed, it is no more than regarded as true. This being conceded, then it follows that the efficacy of faith is always in the fact believed, or the object received, and not in the nature or manner of believing.

"Faith was bewildered much by men who meant To make it clear, so simple in itself, A thought so rudimental and so plain, That none by comment could it plainer make. All faith was one. In object, not in kind, The difference lay. The faith that saved a soul, And that which in the common truth believed, In essence, were the same. Hear, then, what faith, True, Christian faith, which brought salvation, was: Belief in all that God revealed to men; Observe, in all that God revealed to men, In all he promised, threatened, commanded, said, Without exception, and without a doubt."

--Pollok's Course of Time, Book viii., p. 189.

This holds universally in all the sensitive, intellectual, and moral powers of man. All our pleasures and pains, all our joys and sorrows, are the effects of the objects of sensation, reflection, faith, etc., apprehended or received, and not in the nature of the exercise of any power or capacity with which we are endowed. We shall illustrate and confirm this assertion by an appeal to the experience of all.

Let us glance at all our sensitive powers. If on surveying with the eye a beautiful landscape, I am pleased, and on surveying a battlefield strewed with the spoils of death, I am pained, is it in accordance with truth to say, that the pleasure or the pain received was occasioned by the nature of vision, or the mode of seeing? Was it not the sight, the thing seen, the object of vision, which produced the pleasure and the pain? The action of looking, or the mode of seeing, was in both cases the same; but the things seen, or the [446] objects of vision, were different;--consequently, the effects produced were different.

If on hearing the melody of the grove I am delighted, and on hearing the peals of thunder breaking to pieces the cloud, dark with horror, hanging over my head, I am terrified, is the delight or the terror to be ascribed to the manner or nature of hearing, or to the thing heard? Is it not the thing heard, which produces the delight and the terror?

If I am refreshed by the balmy fragrance of the opening bloom of spring, or sickened by the fetid effluvia of putrid carcases, are these effects to be ascribed to the peculiar nature or mode of smelling, or to the thing smelt? Or when the honey or the gall come in contact with my taste, is the sweet or the bitter to be regarded as the effect of my manner of tasting, or to the object tasted? And when I touch the ice, or the blazing torch, is the effect or feeling produced to be imputed to the manner of feeling them, or to the thing felt? May we not, then, affirm that all the pleasures and pains of sense; all the effects of sensation, are the results, not of the manner in which our five senses are exercised, but of the objects on which they are exercised? It maybe said, without in the least invalidating this conclusion, that the more intimate the exercise of our senses is with the things on which they are exercised, the stronger and more forcible will be the impressions made; but still it is the object seen, heard, smelt, tasted, or felt, which affects us.

Passing from the outward to the inward man, and on examining the powers of intellection one by one, we shall find no exception to the law which pervades all our sensitive powers. It is neither the faculty of perception, nor the exercise of perception, nor the manner of perception, but the thing perceived, that excites us to action: it is not the exercise of reflection, but the thing reflected upon: it is not memory, nor the exercise of recollection, but the thing remembered: it is not imagination, but the thing imagined; it is not reason itself, nor the exercise of reason, but the thing reasoned upon, which affords pleasure or pain--which excites to action--which cheers, allure, consoles--which grieves, disquiets, or discommodes us.

Ascending to our volitions and our affections, we shall find the same universality. In a word, it is not choosing, nor refusing; it is not loving, hating, fearing, desiring, nor hoping; it is not the nature of any power, faculty, or capacity of our nature, nor the simple exercise of them, but the objects or things upon which they are exercised, which give us pleasure or pain; which induces us to action, or influences our behaviour. Faith, then, or the power of believing, must be an anomalous thing; a power sui generis; an exception to the laws under which every power, faculty, or capacity of man is placed, [447] unless its measure, quality, power, and efficacy, be in the things believed, in the facts which are testified, in the objects on which it terminates.

There is no connection of cause and effect more intimate; there is no system of dependencies more closely linked; there is no arrangement of things more natural or necessary, than the ideas represented by the terms fact, testimony, faith, and feeling. The first is for the last, and the two intermediates are made necessary by the force of circumstances, as the means for the end. The fact, or the thing said or done, produces the change in the frame of mind. The testimony, or report of the thing said or done, is essential to belief; and belief of it, is necessary to bring the thing said or done to the heart. The change of heart is the end proposed in this part of the process of regeneration; and we may see that the process on the part of heaven is, thus far, natural and rational: or, in other words, consistent with the constitution of our nature.

[A. C.]

Repentance

Repentance is usually defined "sorrow for any thing past," and in the religious vocabulary it is simply "sorrow for sin." This is one, but it is only one of the natural effects of the belief of the testimony of God. The gospel facts, testimony and faith, contemplate more than this. But yet it is necessary that this point of faith should be distinctly apprehended, especially in this age, when it occupies so large a space in the systems of theology.

Repentance, in our current acceptation, is sorrow for sin; and certainly there is no man who believes the revealed facts found in the testimony of God, who will not be sorry for his sins. But simple sorrow for the past, is but a feeling of the heart which, unless it excite to reformation, or the abandonment of sin, is of no more use than the regrets of Judas after he had sold his Master for fifteen dollars. Repentance must, however, precede reformation: for unless we are sorry for the past, and grieved with ourselves, we will not think of a change of conduct. Repentance is to reformation, what motive is to action, or resolution to any undertaking. It was well for David to resolve to build the temple; and so it is well to form any good design, but much better to execute it. To feel sorry for the poor and the afflicted, and to resolve to assist and comfort them, is well, but to go and do it is better: and, indeed, unless our sorrow for the past terminates in reformation for the future, it is useless in the estimation of heaven and earth; as useless as to say to the hungry, Be filled; or to the naked, Be clothed.

Genuine repentance does not always issue in reformation. Judas was sorrowful even to death, but could not reform. Many have been [448] so genuinely sorry for their sins, as to become suicides. Speak we of "a godly sorrow"? No; this is not to be expected from unconverted and ungodly persons. Christians, Paul teaches, when they err may repent with a godly sorrow; but this is not to be expected from the unregenerate, or from those who have not reformed. It is, not, then, the genuineness of repentance that is to be appreciated, unless by genuine repentance is meant more than simple sorrow for the past--unless by genuine repentance is meant reformation. Yet without sincere or unfeigned repentance, there can not be real or genuine reformation.

This leads us to observe, that the only unequivocal evidence of sincere repentance, is the actual redress of the injury done; not only a cessation from the sin, but a restitution for the sin, as far as restitution can possibly be made. No restitution, no repentance--provided restitution, can be made. And may I be permitted to add, that without repentance, and restitution when possible, there can be no remission.

The preachers of repentance--of the necessity of repentance in order to remission, ought to set this matter fairly and fully before sinners. Do they represent repentance as sorrow for the past, and a determination to reform? How then will the sinner know that he is sorry for his sins against men, or how will the community know that he has repented of such sins, unless full restitution be made? It is impossible that either the sinner himself, or the community who know his sins against men, can have any certain evidence that he is penitent, unless by making all possible restitution.

Peccator wounded the reputation of his neighbor Hermas, and on another occasion defrauded him of ten pounds. Some of the neighborhood were apprized that he had done both. Peccator was converted under the preaching of Paulinus, and on giving in a relation of his sorrow for his sins, spoke of the depth of his convictions, and of his abhorrence of his transgressions. He was received into the congregation, and sat down with the faithful to commemorate the great sin offering. Hermas and his neighbors were witnesses of all this. They saw that Peccator was penitent, and much reformed in his behaviour; but they could not believe him sincere, because that he had made no restitution. They regarded him as either a hypocrite, or self-deceived; because, having it in his power, he repaid not the ten pounds, nor once contradicted the slanders he had propagated. Peccator, however, felt little enjoyment in his profession, and soon fell back into his former habits. He became again penitent, and on examining the grounds of his falling off, discovered that he had never cordially turned away from his sins. Overwhelmed in sorrow for the past, he resolved on giving himself up to the Lord; and, reflecting on his past [449] life, set about the work of reformation in earnest. He called on Hermas, paid him his ten pounds and the interest for every day he had kept it back, went to all the persons to whom he had slandered him, told them what injustice he had done him, and begged them, if they had told it to any other persons, to contradict it. Several other persons whom he had wronged in his dealings with them, he also visited; and fully redressed all these wrongs against his neighbors. He also confessed them to the Lord, and asked him to forgive him. Peccator was then restored to the church, and better still, he enjoyed a peace of mind and a confidence in God, which was a continual feast. His example, moreover, did more to enlarge the congregation at the Cross-roads, than did the preaching of Paulinus in a whole year. This was unequivocally sincere repentance.

This is the repentance which Moses preached, and which Jesus approbated. Under the law, confession to the priest, and the presenting of a trespass offering, availed nothing to forgiveness without restitution. As the theory of repentance is much lost sight of in this our degenerate age, and as the practice is still more rare, we think it not amiss to be still more explicit on this topic. We shall therefore hear the law and the gospel both on this subject.

In Leviticus, chap. vi. 1-7, we have the word of the Lord upon this subject:--"And the Lord spake to Moses, saying, If a soul sin, and commit a trespass against the Lord, and lie to his neighbor in that which was delivered him to keep, or in fellowship, (i. e., dealing,) or in a thing taken away by violence, or has deceived his neighbor; or have found that which was lost and lies concerning it, and swears falsely; in any of these that a man does, sinning therein: then it shall be because he has sinned, and is guilty, that he shall restore that which he took violently away, or the thing which he has deceitfully gotten, or that which was delivered him to keep, or the lost thing which he has found, or all that about which he has sworn falsely: he shall even restore it in the principal, and shall add the fifth part more thereto, and give it to him to whom it appertaineth, in the day of his trespass offering. And he shall bring his trespass offering to the Lord, a ram without blemish out of the flock, with thy estimation, for a trespass offering to the priest. And the priest shall make an atonement for him before the Lord; and it shall be forgiven him, for any thing of all that he has done, in trespassing therein."

Thus spoke the Lord to Moses. From which we learn that, under the former economy, a trespass offering to the Lord without restitution to man, or restitution to man without a trespass offering to the Lord, availed not to forgiveness. Thus was repentance preached by Moses. But the law went into details still more minute than these; for provision is made for the case in which the sinner could not find the [450] person against whom he had sinned. In such a case, the penitent sinner was to seek out the kindred of the injured party, and if he could find any kinsman, he was to recompense this kinsman, but if he could not find a kinsman, he must recompense it to the Lord, besides offering his trespass offering. It was to go into the Lord's treasury. (See Num. v. 7, 8.) The principle uniformly, in all cases of sin against man, was, that the sinner "shall make amends for the harm he hath done, . . . and shall add the fifth part thereto" (Lev. v. 16).

If any one suppose that repentance is to be less sincere or unequivocal under the gospel, let him remember that Zaccheus proposed more than adding a fifth, he would restore fourfold, and that Jesus approbated him for so doing. Indeed, John the Immerser demanded fruits worthy of repentance or of reformation, and Paul proclaimed that those who turn to God should do works meet or worthy of repentance. (Acts xxvi. 20.)

"Works worthy of repentance" is a phrase which can be understood in no other sense than those works which make amends for the harm done to men, and the dishonor done to God, as far as both are possible. Can any man think that he is sorry for that sin or wrong which he has done, when he makes no effort to make amends to him who was injured in person, character, or property, by it? Works worthy of his professed repentance are wanting, so long as any being whom he has injured in person, property, or reputation, is unredressed to the utmost extent of his ability.

One of our most popular commentators says--and with much truth--"No man should expect mercy at the hand of God, who having wronged his neighbor, refuses, when he has it in his power to make restitution. Were he to weep tears of blood, both the justice and mercy of God would shut out his prayer, if he make not his neighbor amends for the injury he has done him. He is a dishonest man, who illegally holds the property of another in his hands."--Adam Clarke on Gen. xl. 2.

Every preacher of repentance should insist upon these evidences of sincerity, both for the satisfaction of the penitent himself, and for the good of the community. Acts xix. 18-20 is quite to the point: "Many that believed came and confessed, and showed their deeds--many of them also who used curious arts, bringing their books together, burnt them before all: and they computed the value of them, and found it fifty thousand pieces of silver." This was making restitution, in their case, as far as possible; and the principle here evinced is applicable in every other case.

But in pursuing this subject so far, we have passed over the boundaries of repentance, and sometimes confounded it with reformation. [451]

This is owing to the licentious use of language to which modern theology has so richly contributed. We shall, however, redress this wrong as far as practicable, by a few remarks on [REFORMATION.]

[A. C.]

Reformation

The word metanoia, used by the sacred writers and heaven-taught preachers of the New Economy as indicative of the first effect of faith, as has been often showed, is different from that which our word repentance fitly represents. It literally imports a change of mind; but, as Parkhurst, Campbell, and many others say, such a change of mind "as influences one's subsequent behaviour for the better." Dr. Campbell (Diss. vi., p. 3) says: "It has been observed by some, and I think with reason, that the former [metanoeo] denotes, properly, a change to the better; the latter [metamelomai] barely a change, whether to the better or to the worse; that the former marks a change of mind that is durable, and produces consequences; the latter expresses only a present uneasy feeling of regret, without regard to duration or effects: in fine, that the first may be translated into English, I reform, the second, I repent, in the familiar acceptation of the words." Now as every one who reforms repents, but as every one who repents does not reform, this distinction is necessary and proper; and there is nothing hazarded, nothing lost by translating the former I reform, and the latter I repent. There is something gained, especially in all places where we have the word in the imperative mood, because then it is of importance to know precisely what is intended. If we are commanded only to change our mind, or to be sorry for the past, we have obeyed when we feel regret; but if more than mere change of mind or regret is intended, we have not obeyed the commandment until we change for the better. Now it is, we think, very evident from various passages of the sacred writings of the Apostles, and from their speeches, that they commanded more than a simple change of mind as respected past conduct, or mere sorrow for the past. Peter commanded the thousands assembled on the day of Pentecost, who had changed their minds, and who were sorry for the past, to do something which they had not yet done; and that something is in the common version rendered repent, and in the new version reform, and in the old English Bible "amend your lives." The word here used is the imperative of metanoeo. Judas repented, and many like him, who never reformed; and, therefore, it is of importance that this distinction should be kept in view. But for a more full illustration and proof of this we must refer our readers to Note 39, page 74, Family Testament.

Repentance is not reformation, but is necessary to it; for whoever reforms, must first repent. Reformation is, indeed, the carrying out of the purpose into our conduct. But as reformation belongs rather to [452] another part of our essay than the present, we shall, on the premises already before us, pause and offer a few reflections.

In the preceding definitions of words and ideas, it would appear that we have a literal and unfigurative representation of the whole process of what is figuratively called regeneration. For, as we shall soon see, the term regeneration is a figure of speech which very appropriately, though analogically, represents the reformation or renovation of life of which we have now spoken.

That the preceding arrangement is not arbitrary, but natural and necessary, the reader will perceive when he reflects, that the thing done, or the fact, must precede the report or testimony concerning it; that the testimony concerning it must precede the belief of it; that belief of the testimony must precede any feeling in correspondence with the fact testified; and that feeling must precede action in conformity to it. Fact, testimony, faith, feeling, action, are therefore bound together by a natural and gracious necessity, which no ingenuity can separate. And will not every Christian say, that when a person feels and acts according to the faith, or the testimony of God, he is a new creature--regenerate--truly converted to God? He that believes the facts testified in the record of God, understands them, feels according to their nature and meaning, and acts in correspondence with them--has undergone a change of heart and of life which makes him a new man.

This is that moral change of heart and life which is figuratively called regeneration. We are not to suppose that regeneration is something which must be added to the faith, the feeling, and the action or behavior, which are the effects of the testimony of God understood and embraced; or which are the impress of the divine facts attested by Prophets and Apostles. It is only another name for the same process in all its parts.

It may also be observed that numerous figures and analogies are used by the inspired writers to set forth this change, as well as other leading truths and lessons in the Bible. In their collective capacity Christians are called a kingdom, a nation, a generation, a family, a house, a flock, a city, a temple, a priesthood, etc. In their individual capacity they are called kings, priests, soldiers, citizens, children, sheep, branches, stones, etc. They are said to be begotten, born, regenerated, builded, engrafted, converted, created, planted. Now, under whatever figure they are considered or introduced, reason argues that every thing said of them should be expressed in conformity with the figure under which they are presented. Are they called sheep? Then he that presides over them is called a Shepherd; their enemies are wolves and dogs; their sustenance is the green pasture; their place of safety and repose, the sheepfold; their errors are wanderings and [453] strayings; their conversion, a return; and their good behavior a hearing of the voice, or a following of the Shepherd. Are they called children? Then collectively they are a family; they are begotten and born again; God is their Father; their separation is an adoption; Jesus is their elder brother; they are heirs of God; they live and walk with God. Are they priests? Jesus is their High Priest; the church is their temple; the Saviour is their altar; their songs, their praises are incense ascending to heaven; and their oblations to the poor, their works of love, are sacrifices most acceptable to God. Are they called citizens? The church is then the kingdom of heaven; Jerusalem is the mother of them all; formerly they were aliens, and their naturalization is regeneration. Are they called branches? Then Jesus is the true vine; his Father, the vine-dresser; their union with Christ, an engrafting; the disciple of the gospel, a pruning; and their good works are fruits of righteousness.

Thus there is no confusion of metaphors in the Scriptures of truth, in the dialect of heaven. It is the language of Ashdod, it belongs to the confusion of Babel, to mingle and confound all figures and analogies. Hence we so often hear of being born again, without any allusion to a family or a kingdom! and of regeneration as antecedent to faith or repentance! Had a modern assembly of Divines been employed to accommodate the Scripture style to their orthodox sentiments, we should not have had to read all the Old Testament and all the historic books of the New, to find the subject of regeneration but once proposed to an alien, as the fact is; but then we should have found it in the history of Abel, of Enoch, of Noah, and of Abraham, if not in every section of the law of Moses, in the Prophets, and in the Psalms. John the Baptist, Jesus, and the Holy Twelve would have had it in every sermon; and true faith would have been always defined as the fruit of regeneration.

But Jesus had a kingdom in his eye and in his discourse before he ever mentioned being "born again" to Nicodemus: for unless there was a family, a state, or a kingdom to be born into, it is impossible for any one to be born into it. And if the kingdom of heaven only began to be after Jesus entered into heaven; or, if it was only approaching from the ministry of John to the day of Pentecost, then it would have been preposterous indeed--an incongruity of which no inspired man was ever guilty--to call any change of heart or life a regeneration or a new birth. It is true that good men in all ages were made such by facts, testimony, faith, and feeling, by a change of heart, by the Spirit of God; but the analogy or figure of being born, or of being regenerated, only began to be used when the kingdom of heaven began to be preached, and when men began to press into it. [454]

We are now, perhaps, better prepared to consider the proper import and meaning of "regeneration" in general, and of "the bath of regeneration" in particular.

[A. C.]

This word is found but twice in all the oracles of God--once in Matt. xix. 28, and once in Tit. iii. 5. In the former it is almost universally understood to mean a new state of things, not of persons--a peculiar era, in which all things are to be made new:--such as the formation of a new church on the day of Pentecost, or the commencement of the Millennium, or the general resurrection. The Biblical critics of eminence have assigned it to one or other of these great changes in the state of things. So we use the word revolution, and the phrase the Revolution, to express a change in the political state of things. The most approved punctuation and version of this passage renders it altogether evident that a new era is alluded to: "Jesus answered, Indeed, I say to you, that at the renovation [regeneration] when the Son of Man shall be seated on his glorious throne, you, my followers, sitting also upon twelve thrones, shall judge the twelve tribes of Israel." This being so evident, and so often alluded to in our former writings, we shall proceed to the remaining occurrence, Tit. iii. 5.

All the new light which we propose to throw on this passage will be gathered from an examination of the acceptation of the word generation in the sacred writings. One reason for this is, that we object to a peremptory decision of the meaning of a word which occurs only in the passage under discussion, from our reasonings upon the isolated passage in which it is found. In such a case, if we can not find the whole word in any parallel passages, the proper substitute is the root or branches of that word, so far as they are employed by the same writers. Moreover, we think it will be granted, that whatever may be the Scriptural acceptation of the word generation, regeneration is only the repetition of that act or process.

After a close examination of all the passages in which generation occurs in the writings of the Hebrew Prophets and Apostles, we find it used only in two acceptations--as descriptive of creation and of the thing created. A race or class of men, is called a generation; but this is its figurative rather than its literal meaning. Its literal meaning is the formation or creation of any thing. Thus it is first used in the Holy Scriptures. Moses (Gen. ii. 4) calls the creation, or whole process of formation the heavens and the earth, "the generations of the heavens and the earth." The account of the formation of Adam and Eve, and also the account of the creations of Adam and Eve are, by the same [455] writer, called "the book or record of the generations of Adam" (Gen. v. 1). This is the literal import of the word; consequently, regeneration literally indicates the whole process of renovating or new-creating man.

This process may consist of numerous distinct acts; but it is in accordance with general usage to give to the beginning, or consummating act, the name of the whole process. For the most part, however, the name of the whole process is given to the consummating act, because the process is always supposed incomplete until that act is performed. For example: in the process of tanning, fulling, forging, etc., the subject of these operations is not supposed to be tanned, fulled, forged, until the last act is performed. So in all the processes of nature--in the animal, vegetable, and mineral kingdoms--the last act consummates the process. To all acquainted with the process of animalization, germination, crystalization, etc., no further argument is needed. But, in the style of our American husbandmen, no crop or animal is made, until it come to maturity. We often hear them say of a good shower, or of a few clear days, "This is the making of the wheat, or corn." In the same sense it is that most Christians call regeneration, the NEW BIRTH; though being born is only the last act in natural generation, and the last act in regeneration.

In this way the new birth and regeneration are used indiscriminately by commentators and writers on theology; and, by a figure of speech, it is justified on well-established principles of rhetoric. This leads us to speak particularly of [THE BATH OF REGENERATION].

[A. C.]

The Bath of Regeneration

By "the bath of regeneration" is not meant the first, second, or third act; but the last act of regeneration which completes the whole, and is, therefore, used to denote the new birth. This is the reason why our Lord and his Apostles unite this act with water. Being born of water, in the Saviour's style, and the bath of regeneration, in the Apostles' style, in the judgment of all writers and critics of eminence, refer to one and the same act--viz.: Christian baptism. Hence it came to pass that all the ancients (as fully proved in our first Extra on Remission) used the word regeneration as synonymous in signification with immersion. In addition to the numerous quotations made in our Essay on Remission, from the creeds and liturgies of Protestant churches, we shall add another from the Common Prayer of the Church of England, showing unequivocally that the learned Doctors of that church used the words regeneration and baptism as synonymous. In the address and prayer of the minister after the baptism of the child, he is commanded to say: [456]

"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 prayer unto him, that this child may lead the rest of his life according to this beginning."

Then shall be said, all kneeling:

"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. And humbly we beseech thee to grant that he, being dead unto sin, and living unto righteousness, and being buried with Christ in his death, may crucify the old man, and utterly abolish the whole body of sin; and that as he is made partaker of the death of thy Son, he may also be partaker of his resurrection; so that finally, with the residue of thy holy church, he may be an inheritor of thine everlasting kingdom, through Christ our Lord. Amen."

Eusebius, in his Life of Constantine, p. 628, shows that St. Cyprian, St. Athanasius, and, indeed, all the Greek Fathers, did regard baptism as the consummating act; and therefore they called it teliosis, the consummation. These authorities weigh nothing with us; but as they weigh with our opponents, we think it expedient to remind them on which side the Fathers depose in the case before us. By these quotations we would prove no more than that the ancients understood the washing of regeneration; and, indeed, used the term regeneration as synonymous with baptism.

But were we asked for the precise import of the phrase, "washing or bath of regeneration," either on philological principles, or as explained by the Apostles, we would give it as our judgment that the phrase is a circumlocution or periphrasis for water. It is loutron, a word which more properly signifies the vessel that contains the water, than the water itself; and is, therefore, by the most learned critics and translators, rendered bath, as indicative either of the vessel containing the fluid, or of the use made of the fluid in the vessel. It is therefore by a metonymy the water of baptism, or the water in which we are regenerated. Paul was a Hebrew, and spoke in the Hebrew style. We must learn that style before we fully understand the Apostle's style. In other words; we must studiously read the Old Testaments before we can accurately understand the New. What more natural for a Jew accustomed to speak of "the water of purification," of "the water of separation,"1 to speak of "the bath of regeneration"? If the phrase "water of purification" meant water used for the purpose of purifying a person--if "the water of separation" meant water used for separating a person, what more natural than "the bath of regeneration" should mean water used for regenerating a person? [457]

But the New Testament itself confirms this exposition of the phrase. We find the word loutron once more used by the same Apostle, in the same connection of thought. In his letter to the Ephesians, chap. v. 26, he affirms that Jesus has sanctified (separated, purified with the water of purification) the church by a loutron of water--"a bath of water, with the word"--"having cleansed it by a bath of water, with the word." This is still more decisive. The common version, so fully aware that the sense of this passage agrees with Tit. iii. 5, has in both places used the word washing, and Macknight the term bath, as the import of loutron. What is called the washing, or bath of regeneration, in the one passage, is, in the other, called "the washing," or "bath of water." What is called "saved" in one, is called "cleansed" in the other; and what is called "the renewal of the Holy Spirit" in the one, is called "the word" in the other; because the Holy Spirit consecrates or cleanses through the word. For thus prayed the Messiah, "Consecrate them through the truth: thy word is the truth." And again, "You are clean through the word that I have spoken to you."

To the same effect, Paul, to the Hebrew Christians, says, "Having your hearts sprinkled from a guilty conscience, and your bodies washed with pure water"--the water of purification, the water of regeneration. For the phrase "pure water" must be understood, not of the quality of the water, but metonymically, of the effect, the cleansing, the washing, or the purifying of the person--"having your bodies or persons washed with pure water," or water that purifies or cleanses.

None, acquainted with Peter's style, will think it strange that Paul represents persons as saved, cleansed, or sanctified by water; seeing Peter unequivocally asserts that "we are saved" through water, or through baptism, as was Noah and his family through water and faith in God's promise. "The antitype" (like figure) "immersion, does also now save us."

Finally, our great Prophet, the Messiah, gives to water the same place and power in this work of regeneration. For when speaking of being born again--when explaining to Nicodemus the new birth, he says, "Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he can not enter the kingdom of God." May we not, then, supported by such high authorities, call that water of which a person is born again, the water or bath of regeneration?

[A. C.]

See Num. viii. 7; xix. 9, 13, 20, 21; xxxi. 23. [457]

New Birth

We have already seen that the consummation of the process of generation or creation is in the birth of the creature formed. So it is in the moral generation, or in the great process of regeneration. There is a state of existence from which he that is born passes; and there [458] is a state of existence into which he enters after birth. This is true of the whole animal creation, whether oviparous or viviparous. Now the manner of existence, or the mode of life, is wholly changed; and he is, in reference to the former state, dead, and to the new state alive. So in moral regeneration. The subject of this great change before his new birth existed in one state; but after it he exists in another. He stands in a new relation to God, angels, and men. He is now born of God, and has the privilege of being a son of God, and is consequently pardoned, justified, sanctified, adopted, saved. The state which he left was a state of condemnation, what some call "the state of nature." The state into which he enters is a state of favor, in which he enjoys all the heavenly blessings through Christ: therefore it is called "the kingdom of heaven." All this is signified in his death, burial, and resurrection with Christ; or in his being born of water. Hence the necessity of being buried with Christ in water, that he may be born of water, that he may enjoy the renewal of the Holy Spirit, and be placed under the reign of favor.

All the means of salvation are means of enjoyment, not of procurement. Birth itself is not for procuring, but for enjoying the life possessed before birth. So in the analogy--no one is to be baptized, or to be buried with Christ; no one is to be put under the water of regeneration for the purpose of procuring life, but for the purpose of enjoying the life of which he is possessed. If the child is never born, all its sensitive powers and faculties can not be enjoyed; for it is after birth that these are fully developed and feasted upon all the aliments and objects of sense in nature. Hence all that is now promised in the gospel can only be enjoyed by those who are born again and placed in the kingdom of heaven under all its influences. Hence the philosophy of that necessity which Jesus preached,--"Unless a man be born again he can not discern--unless a man be born of water and Spirit he can not enter into the kingdom of heaven."

But let no man think that in the act of being born, either naturally or metaphorically, the child purchases, procures, or merits either life or its enjoyments. He is only by his birth placed in circumstances favorable to the enjoyment of life and all that makes life a blessing. "To as many as received him, believing in his name, he granted the privilege of being children of God, who derive their birth not from blood, nor from the desire of the flesh, nor from the will of man, but from God."

[A. C.]

Renewing of the Holy Spirit

"He has saved us," says the Apostle Paul, "by the bath of regeneration and the renewing of the Holy Spirit, which he poured on us richly through Jesus Christ our Saviour; that, being justified by his favor, [in the bath of regeneration,] we might be made heirs according [459] to the hope of eternal life." Thus, and not by works of righteousness, he has saved us. Consequently, being born of water and the renewing of the Holy Spirit are not works of merit or of righteousness, but only means of enjoyment. But this pouring out of the influences, this renewing of the Holy Spirit is as necessary as the bath of regeneration to the salvation of the soul, and to the enjoyment of the hope of heaven, of which the Apostle speaks. In the kingdom into which we are born of water, the Holy Spirit is as the atmosphere in the kingdom of nature--we mean that the influences of the Holy Spirit are as necessary to the new life as the atmosphere is to our animal life in the kingdom of nature. But on this topic we have said so much in our "Extra Defended," that to it we must refer our readers who are still inquisitive on the subject. All that is done in us before regeneration, God our Father effects by the word, or the gospel as dictated and confirmed by his Holy Spirit. But after we are thus begotten and born by the Spirit of God--after our new birth, the Holy Spirit is shed on us richly through Jesus Christ our Saviour; of which the peace of mind, the love, the joy, and the hope of the regenerate is full proof; for these are amongst the fruits of that Holy Spirit of promise of which we speak. Thus commences [THE NEW LIFE.]

[A. C.]

The New Life

"Newness of life" is a Hebraism for a new life. The new birth brings us into a new state. "Old things have passed away; all things have become new," says an Apostle: "for if any one be in Christ he is a new creature." A new spirit, a new heart, and an outward character corresponding to this change, are the effects of the regenerating process: "for the end of the charge," the grand result of the remedial system, is "love out of a pure heart, a good conscience, and faith unfeigned." "Love is the fulfilling of the whole law," and the fruit of the whole gospel. It is the cardinal principle of all Christian behaviour, the soul of the new man, the breath of the new life. Faith works by no other rule. It is a working principle, and love is the rule by which it operates. The Spirit of God is the spirit of love and the health of a sound mind. Every pulsation of the new heart is the impulse of the spirit of love. Hence the brotherhood is beloved, and all mankind embraced in unbounded good will. When the tongue speaks, the hands and feet move and operate under the unrestrained guidance of this principle, we have the Christian character drawn to the life. For meekness, humility, mercy, sympathy, and active benevolence, are only the names of the various workings of this all renovating, invigorating, sanctifying, and happifying principle. "He that dwells in love dwells in God and God in him." [460]

The Christian, or the new man, is then a philanthropist to the utmost extent of the meaning of that word. Truth and love have made him free from all the tyrannies of passion, from guilt, and fear, and shame; have filled him with courage, active and passive. Therefore, his enterprise, his capital enterprise, to which all others minister, is to take part with the Saviour in the salvation of the world. "If by any means I may save some," are not the words of Paul only, but of every new man. Are they merchants, mechanics, husbandmen; are they magistrates, lawyers, judges, or unofficial citizens; are they masters, servants, fathers, sons, brothers, neighbors; whatever, or wherever they may be, they live for God and his city, for the King and his Empire. They associate not with the children of wrath--the miser, the selfish, the prodigal, the gay, the proud, the slanderer, the tattler, the rake, the libertine, the drunkard, the thief, the murderer. Every new man has left these precincts; has broken his league with Satan and his slaves, and has joined himself to the family of God. These he complacently loves, those he pities, and does good to all.

The character of the new man is an elevated character. Feeling himself a son and heir of God, he cultivates the temper, spirit, and behaviour, which correspond with so exalted a relation. He despises everything mean, grovelling, earthly, sensual, devilish. As the only begotten and well beloved Son of God is to be the model of his future personal glory, so the character which Jesus sustained amongst men, is the model of his daily imitation. His every day aspiration is--

"Thy fair example I would trace, To teach me what I ought to be; Make me by thy transforming grace, Lord Jesus, daily more like thee."

The law of God is hid in his heart. The living oracles dwell in his mind; and he grows in favor with God as he grows in the knowledge of God and of Jesus Christ his Lord. As a newborn babe he desires the unadulterated milk of the word of God, that he may grow by it; for as the thirsty hart pants after the brooks of water, so pants his soul after God. Thus he lives to God, and walks with him. This is the character of the regenerate, of him that is born of God, of the new man in Christ Jesus. This is that change of heart, of life, and of character, which is the tendency and the fruit of the process of regeneration as taught and exemplified by the Apostles, and those commended by God, in their writings.

We now proceed to offer a few remarks on physical regeneration, the second part of our subject.

[A. C.]

Physical Regeneration

Our mortal bodies are yet to feel the regenerating power of the Son of God. This is emphatically called "the glory of his power." "The redemption of the body" from the bondage of corruption, is the consummation of the new-creating energy of him who has immortality. Life and incorruptibility were displayed in and by his resurrection from the dead. It was great to create man in the image of God, greater to redeem his soul from general corruption, but greatest of all to give to his mortal frame incorruptible and immortal vigor. The power displayed in the giving to the dead body of the Son of God incorruptible glory and endless life, is set forth by the Apostle Paul as incomparably surpassing every other divine work within the reach of human knowledge. He prays that the mind of Christians may be enlarged to apprehend this mighty power--that the Father of glory would open their minds, "that they might know the exceeding greatness of his power in relation to us who believe--according to the working of his mighty power, which he wrought in Christ when he raised him from the dead and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places." Faith in this wonderful operation of God--hope for the riches of the glory of the inheritance of the saints in light, are the most powerful principles of action which God has ever planted in the human breast. This is the transcendent hope of the Christian calling, which imparted such heroic courage to all the saints of eternal renown. This better resurrection in prospect, has produced heroes which make cowards of all the boasted chiefs of worldly glory. As the magnetic needle ever points to the pole, so the mind influenced by this hope ever rises to the skies, and terminates on the fulness of joy and the pleasures forevermore, in the presence and at the right hand of God.

To raise a dead body to life again, is not set forth as more glorious than by a touch to give new vigor to the palsied arm, to impart sight to the blind, or hearing to the deaf; but to give that raised body the deathless vigor of incorruptibility, to renovate and transform it in all its parts, and to make every spirit feel that it reanimates its own body that is as insusceptible of decay, as immortal as the Father of eternity, is a thought overwhelming to every mind, a development which will glorify the power of God, as the sacrifice of his Son now displays his righteousness, faithfulness, and love to the heavens and to the earth.

This new birth from the dark prison of the grave, is fitly styled "the redemption of the body" from bondage, "the glorious liberty of the sons of God." As in our watery grave the old man is figuratively buried to rise no more, so in the literal grave, the prison of the body, we leave all that is corrupt; for he that makes all things new will raise us up in his own likeness, and present us before his Father's [462] face in all the glory of immortality. Then will regeneration be complete. Then will be the full revelation of the sons of God. Immortality, in the sacred writings, is never applied to the spirit of man. It is not the doctrine of Plato which the resurrection of Jesus proposes. It is the immortality of the body of which his resurrection is a proof and pledge. This was never developed till he became the first born from the dead, and in a human body entered the heavens. Jesus was not a spirit when he returned to God. He is not made the Head of the New Creation as a Spirit, but as the Son of Man. Our nature in his person is glorified; and when he appears to our salvation, we shall be made like him: we shall then see him as he is. This is the Christian hope.

"A hope so great and so divine May trials well endure, And purify the soul from sense and sin, As Christ himself is pure."

Thus matters stand in the economy of redemption. Thus the divine scheme of regeneration is consummated: the moral part, by the operation of moral means; the physical part, by the mighty power of God operating through physical means. By the word of his power he created the heavens and the earth; by the word of his grace he reanimates the soul of man; and by the word of his power he will again form our bodies anew, and reunite the spirit and the body in the bonds of an incorruptible and everlasting union. Then shall death "be swallowed up forever."

"Where now thy victory, boasting grave?"

But for this we must patiently wait. "We know not what we shall be." We only know, that when he appears we shall be like him; that we shall see him as he is.

[A. C.]

The Use of the Theory of Regeneration

One would imagine, from the voluminous arguments, debates and sermons upon the theory of regeneration, that a sound theory was essential to salvation: that it must be preached in every sermon, in order to regenerate the hearers. Nothing can be more preposterous. Who can think that any theory of the resurrection or regeneration of the body, can affect the body in the grave! As little can any theory affect the unregenerate, or those dead in trespasses and in sins. A sermon upon generation, or upon natural birth, would be as efficacious upon those unborn in bringing them into this life, as a sermon upon moral or physical regeneration. This explains the fact, that in all the accounts of apostolical preaching to Jew and Gentile--in all the extracts of their sermons and speeches found in the New Testament, the subject of regeneration is not once mentioned. It is, in all the historic books of the New Testament, but once propounded, but once [463] named; and that only in a private conference with a Jewish senator on the affairs of Christ's kingdom. No theory understood or believed by the unregenerate; no theory proposed to them for their acceptance, can avail any thing to their regeneration. We might as reasonably deliver a theory on digestion to a dyspeptic, to cure his stomach--or a theory upon vegetation to a scion, to hasten its growth, as to preach any view of regeneration to a sinner, to make him a Christian.

Of what use, then, are the previous remarks on this subject? I will first candidly inform the reader, that they were not written for his regeneration, either of mind or body; but for the benefit of those who are employed in the work of regenerating others, and for the convictions of such Christians as may have been induced to regard us as aiming at nothing but the mere immersion of persons, as alone necessary to the whole process of conversion or regeneration, in their acceptation of these words.¹ The use of this theory, if it have any, is, as a guide to those who are laboring publicly or privately for the regeneration of sinners. If we have assigned a proper place to facts, testimony, faith, feeling, action, the bath of regeneration, the renewing [464] of the Holy Spirit, and a new life, the course is fairly marked out. They are to present the great facts, to declare the whole testimony of God to sinners, in order to their conversion or regeneration. Like Paul, in his account of his labors in Corinth, they must go out, not in the strength of human philosophy, "but declaring the testimony of God," and laying before their hearers "the wonderful works of God." This is the use, and the only proper use of sound theory on any subject. It is to guide the operator, not the thing operated upon. I would hope, under the Divine blessing, to be the means of regenerating more persons in one year, never once naming regeneration, nor speculating upon the subject, by stating and enforcing the testimony of God, than by preaching daily the most approved theory of regeneration ever sanctioned by any sanhedrim on earth.² With these views we have, then, offered the preceding remarks; and shall now briefly turn our attention to [THE REGENERATION OF THE CHURCH.]

[A. C.]

¹ It may again be necessary in this fastidious age to remark, that in this essay, in order to disabuse the public mind on our use and acceptation of the term regeneration, we have taken the widest range which a supreme regard for the apostolic style could, in our judgment, allow. While we argue that the phrase bath of regeneration (Tit. iii. 5) is equivalent to immersion, as already explained, and as contradistinguished from the renewing of the Holy Spirit, of which the immersed believer is a proper subject; we have spoken of the whole process of renovation, not in the strict application of the phrase, (Tit. iii. 5,) but rather in the whole latitude of the figure employed by the Apostle. It is not the first act of begetting, nor the last act of being born, but the whole process of conversion alluded to in the figure of generation, to which we have directed the attention of our readers. For, as often before stated, our opponents deceive themselves and their hearers by representing us as ascribing to the word immersion and the act of immersion all that they call regeneration. While, therefore, we contend that being "born again," and being immersed, are, in the Apostle's style, two names for the same action, we are far from supposing or teaching that in forming the new man there is nothing necessary but to be born.

If any ask why this matter was not fully developed in our first essays on this subject, our answer is, Because we could not anticipate that our opponents would have so represented or misrepresented our views. Were a General asked why he did not arrange all his troops in the beginning of the action as he had them arranged when he triumphed over his enemy, he would reply that the manoeuvres and assaults of the enemy directed the disposition of his forces.

Our opponents contend for a regeneration begun and perfected before faith or baptism--a spiritual change of mind by the Holy Spirit antecedent to either knowledge, faith, or repentance, of which infants are as susceptible as adults; and therefore, as we contend, make the gospel of no effect. By way of reprisals they would have their converts to think that we go for nothing but water, and sarcastically call us the advocates of " water regeneration." They think there is something more sublime and divine in "spirit regeneration;" and therefore claim the title of orthodox. This calumny has been one occasion of the present essay, and it has occasioned that part of it which gives the fullest latitude to the term regeneration, which analogy gives to the figure used by the Apostle. But when we speak in the exact style of the living oracles on this subject, we must represent being born again, (John iii. 5,) and regeneration, (Tit. iii. 5,) as relating to the act of immersion alone. See Extra Defended, pp. 24-36. [464] ↩

² August 1st.--I have just now opened the Cincinnati Baptist Journal of 26th July, from which I read an approved definition of regeneration. It is orthodox, spiritual, physical, mystical, and metaphysical Regeneration. It is quoted from the Standard. Regeneration, in the Evangelical Standard, is thus defined:--

"Is the sinner active in regeneration? Certainly he is. His mind is a thinking, rational principle, which never ceases to act; and therefore, when the word passive is applied to it, by Old Divines, or by Calvinists, they do not mean that it is literally dead, like inert matter, which requires a physical impulse to put it in motion. They only mean to convey the Scriptural idea that the Holy Spirit is the sole agent in regeneration, and that the sinner has no more efficient agency in accomplishing it, than Lazarus had in becoming alive from the dead. Still they grant that his mind is most active, but unhappily its activity is all against the Divine influence; as the Scriptures assure us, unregenerated persons 'do always resist' the strivings of the Spirit. 'Every imagination of the thoughts of man's heart, is only evil continually.' 'There is none that doeth good, no, not one.' The sinner, therefore, instead of voluntarily co-operating with the Holy Spirit, does all he can to resist his divine influence, and prevent his own regeneration until he is made willing by almighty power."

What a comfortable thing is this theory of regeneration! The sinner is to be regenerated when actively striving against the Divine influence. At the moment of regeneration "he has," in one sense," no more efficient agency in accomplishing it, than Lazarus had in becoming alive from the dead; " and in another sense, he is not passive, but "does all he can to resist the Divine influence, and prevent his own regeneration, until he is made willing by almighty power." This is standard divinity; and he that preaches this divinity, is a pious, regenerated, Regular Orthodox Baptist Christian Minister! How much value, on this theory, is all the preaching in Christendom? The Holy Spirit may be busily at work upon some drunken sot, or some vile debauchee, who is as dead as Lazarus on one side, and on the other resisting the Spirit, with all his moral and physical energy, up to the moment that the almighty arm pierces him to the heart, without a sword, and makes him alive by killing him!!!

The absurdity and licentiousness of such a view of the great work of renovation, we had thought so glaring, that no editor in the West would have had boldness to have published it. This is a proof of the necessity of our present essay, and will explain to the intelligent reader why we have given to the whole process of renovation the name of regeneration, which properly belongs to the last act. [465] ↩

The Regeneration of the Church

The word regeneration we have found once used in the sense of a new state of things, or of the introduction of a new state of things. [465] (Matt. xix. 28.) In this application of the word, we would turn the attention of our readers to the necessity of the regeneration of the church.

I speak not of the regeneration of any sectarian establishment. They are built upon another foundation--upon the foundation of decrees of councils, creeds, formularies, or acts of Parliament. But we speak of those societies that professedly build upon the foundation of Apostles and Prophets, without any human bond of union, or rule of life--our brethren of the reformation or regeneration now in process.

Should any one imagine that the state of things to which we have attained is the sole, or ultimate object of our aspirations, or our efforts, he would do us the greatest injury. Societies indeed may be found amongst us far in advance of others in their progress towards the ancient order of things; but we know of none that has fully attained to that model. It is, however, most acceptable to see so many societies formed and forming under the banners of reformation, with the determination to move onwards in conformity to the sacred oracles, till they stand perfect and complete in all the will of God.

Our opponents can not, or will not, understand how any society can be in progress to a better order of things than that under which they may have commenced their pilgrimage. Their sectarian policies were soon formed, and the limits of their reformation were soon fixed, beyond which it soon became heretical to move. The founders of all new schisms not only saw through a glass darkly, but their horizon was so circumscribed with human traditions, that they only aimed at moving a few paces from the hive in which they were generated. A new creed was soon adopted, and then their stature was complete. They bounded from infancy to manhood in a few days, and decided if any presumed farther to advance, they should be treated as those who had refused to move from the old hive. Hence it became as censurable to grow beyond a certain standard, as not to grow at all. This never was our proposition, and never can be our object. We have no new creed to form, no rules of discipline to adopt. We have taken the Living Oracles as our creed, our rules and measures of faith and practice; and in this department, have no additions, alterations, nor amendments to propose. But in coming up to this standard of knowledge, faith, and behaviour, we have something yet before us, to which we have not attained.

That we may be distinctly understood on this subject, we shall speak particularly on the things wanting in our individual characters, and of the things wanting in our church order, to give to our meetings that interest and influence which they ought to exert on the brotherhood and on society at large. [466]

It will be understood, that our remarks on the things which are wanting in the disciples, are applicable not to every individual, but to the general mass. And first of all, there is wanting a more general and particular knowledge of the Holy Scriptures, than is possessed by the great majority of the reformers. There is, perhaps, wanting a taste or disposition for that private devotional reading of the oracles of God, which is so essential to a growth in that knowledge of God and of Jesus Christ, which constitutes the most striking attribute in Christian character. We thus reason from the proficiency which is discoverable in the bounds of our acquaintance, which is large enough to afford data for very general conclusions.

To read the Scriptures for the sake of carrying out into practice all that we learn, and to read them for the sake of knowing what is written, are very different objects, and will produce very different results. Their influence on the temper and behaviour, in the former case, will very soon become manifest to all with whom we associate; while in the latter case, there is no visible improvement. David said that he "hid the word of God in his heart," or laid it up in his mind, "that he might not sin against God;" and that he had "more under standing than all his teachers, because God's testimonies were his meditation." It will be admitted that the sacred writings of the Apostles and Evangelists of Jesus Christ ought to be as precious and as delightful to the Christian as were the ancient oracles to the most pious Jew. Now as an example of what we mean by a private devotional reading and study of the oracles of Christ, we shall permit a Jew to tell his experience--

"The law of my mouth is better to me than thousands of gold and silver. With my whole heart have I sought thee; my soul breaketh for the longing that it has to thy judgments at all times. Thy testimonies are my delight and my counsellors. Teach me, O Lord, the way of thy statutes, and I will keep it to the end. Give me understanding, and I will keep thy law; yes, I will observe it with my whole heart. Make me to go in the path of thy commandments, for in it do I delight. Thy statutes have been my songs in the hour of my pilgrimage. At midnight I will rise to give thanks to thee, because of thy righteous judgments. O how I love thy law; it is my meditation all the day! How sweet are thy words to my taste; sweeter than honey, to my mouth! Thy testimonies have I taken as an heritage forever, for they are the rejoicing of my heart. Great peace have they that love thy law, and nothing shall cause them to stumble."

These are only a few extracts from one piece, written by a king three thousand years ago. On another occasion he pronounced the following encomium on the testimony of God:-- [467]

"The law [doctrine] of the Lord is perfect, converting [restoring] the soul: the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple: the statutes of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes. The fear of the Lord is clean, enduring forever; the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether. More to be desired are they than gold, yea, than much fine gold; sweeter also than honey, and the honey-comb. By them is thy servant warned, and in keeping of them there is a great reward."

This fully reveals all that we mean by a devotional private study of the Holy Scriptures. Every Christian who can read, may every day thus refresh, strengthen, and comfort his heart, by reading or committing to memory, and afterwards reflecting upon some portion of the book. He may carry in his pocket the blessed volume, and many a time through the day take a peep into it. This will preserve him from temptation, impart courage to his heart, give fluency to his tongue, and the graces of Christianity to his life.

In this age, when ignorance of the Christian Scriptures is so characteristic, and the rage for human opinions and traditions so rampant, it is a duty doubly imperative on our brethren, to give themselves much more to the study of the book, and then one of them will put a host of the aliens to flight; and, what is still more desirable, he will have communion with God all the day, and ever rejoice in his salvation.

In the second place, there is wanting amongst disciples who are heads of families, more attention, much more effort, to bring up their children "in the correction and instruction of the Lord." The children of all disciples should be taught the oracles of God from the first dawning of reason. The good seed should be sown in their hearts before the strong seeds of vice can take root. From a child Timothy knew the Holy Scriptures, and they were able to make him wise to salvation, through the Christian faith. How many more Timothys might we have, if we had a few more of the daughters of Lois, and a few more mothers like Eunice! Most saints, in this generation, appear more zealous that their children should shine on earth, than in heaven--and that they may be rich here, at the hazard of eternal bankruptcy. They labor to make them rich and genteel, rather than pure and holy; and spend more time in fashioning them to the foolish and wicked taste of polished society, than in teaching them by precept and example the word that is better than gold, and more precious than rubies. Well, they sow darnel, and can not reap wheat. They may have a mournful harvest, and years of bitterness and sorrow may reward them for their negligence and error. If only a tithe of the time, and the labor, and expense that it costs to fit a [468] son or a daughter to shine in the middle or front ranks of genteel society, were spent in teaching them to fear God and keep his commandments, how many more virtuous, solid and useful citizens--how many more valuable members of the family of God--how many more faithful and able witnesses for the truth of God, would be found in all corners of the land!

Every Christian family ought to be a nursery for God. Their offspring should be trained for the skies. For such are the promises of God, such are the facts on record, and such is the experience of Christians, that every parent who does his duty to his children, may expect to see them inherit the blessing. Their didactic labors, aided by their example and their constant prayers, will seldom or never fail of success in influencing their descendants to walk in their ways. The very command to bring up their children in the Lord, implies its practicability. And both Testaments furnish us with all assurance that such labors will not be in vain. That men of high renown in sacred history, were generally the sons of such a parentage. The sons of God were found among the sons of Seth, while the daughters of men were of the progeny of Cain. Abraham was the descendant of Shem; Moses and Aaron were the sons of believing parents; Samuel was the son of Hannah, and David was the son of Jesse. John the Harbinger was the son of Zechariah and Elizabeth; and it pleased the heavenly Father, that his Son should be the child of a pious virgin.

But it is under Christ that the faithful are furnished with all the necessary means of bringing up their offspring for the Lord. The numerous failures which we witness, are to be traced either to great neglect, or to some fatal notion which paralyzes all effort; for some think that the salvation or damnation of their offspring was a matter settled from all eternity, irrespective of any agency on their part: that some are born "vessels of wrath," and others "vessels of mercy;" and hence the instructions, examples and prayers of parents, are of no avail. Among the descendants of such, it will no doubt often happen that some become vessels of wrath fitted for destruction, while others become vessels of mercy, predestined to glory.

When God gave a revelation to Jacob, and commanded a law to Israel, he gave it in charge that they "should teach it to their children, that they might put their trust in God, and might not be, like their fathers, a rebellious race." The Apostles of Christ have also taught the Christians the same lesson. This is our guide, and not our own reasonings. Now let the disciples make this their business, morning, noon, and evening, and then we shall see the effects. [469]

We are sorry to see this great duty, to which nature, reason, revelation alike direct, so much neglected by many of our brethren; to find amongst their children those who are no better acquainted with the Scriptures than the children of their neighbors who believe in miraculous conversions, or think it is a sin to attempt what they imagine to be the work of God alone--never suspecting that God works by human means, and employs human agency in his works of providence and redemption.

I never knew but a very few families that made it their daily business to train up their children in the knowledge of the Holy Scriptures, to cause them every day to commit to memory a portion of the living oracles; but these few instances authorize me to think, and to say, that such a course persisted in, and sustained by the good example of parents, will very generally, if not universally, issue in the salvation of their children. And before any one says, I have found an exception to the proverb of Solomon which says "train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not depart from it"--let him show that this child was trained up "in the way he should go."

In the third place, there is wanting among many disciples a stricter regard to relative duties--we mean, not only the dues which justice, truth, and moderation claim, but all relative duties. So long as Christians live after the manner of men in the flesh, according to the fashion of this world, they must, like other men, contract debts which they can not promptly pay, make covenants and bargains, give promises which they can not fulfil, and stake pledges which they are unable to redeem. All this is wholly incompatible with our profession. Such were not the primitive disciples. Sceptics of every name, men of the world, who have ever read the New Testament, know that such behaviour is utterly incompatible with the letter and spirit of Christianity. A Christian's word or promise ought to be, and is, if Christ be honored, as solemn and as obligatory as any bond. And as for breach of bargain or covenant, even where it is greatly or wholly to the disadvantage of the Christian, it is not even to be thought of--"he changes not, though to his hurt he covenants." How much has the gospel lost of its influence, because of the faithlessness of its professors! O when shall it be again said of Christians in general, that "they bind themselves as with a solemn oath, not to commit any kind of wickedness--to be guilty neither of theft, robbery, nor adultery--never to break a promise, or to keep back a deposit when called upon." Pliny writes to the Emperor Trajan that such was the character of Christians A. D. 106-7, as far as he could learn it from those who were not Christians. Were all the common (nowadays rather uncommon) virtues [470] of justice, truth, fidelity, honesty, practised by all Christians, how many mouths would be stopped, and how many new arguments in favor of Jesus Christ could all parties find! But even were these common virtues as general as the Christian profession, there are the other finer virtues of benevolence, goodness, mercy, sympathy, which belong to the profession, expressed in taking care of the sick, the orphan, the widow--in alleviating all the afflictions of our fellow-creatures. Add these virtues, or graces, as we sometimes call them, to the others, and then how irresistible the argument for the divine authenticity of the gospel! Let industry, frugality, temperance, honesty, justice, truth, fidelity, humility, mercy, sympathy, appear conspicuous in the lives of the disciples, and the contrast between them and other professors will plead their cause more successfully than a hundred preachers.

In the last place, there is wanting a more elevated piety to bring up the Christian character to the standard of primitive times. We want not fine speeches nor eloquent orations on the excellencies of Christian piety and devotion. These are generally acknowledged. But we need to be roused from our supineness, from our worldly-mindedness, from our sinful conformities to an apostate generation, to the exhibition of that holiness in speech, in behaviour, without which no one shall see the Lord. What mean the numerous exhortations of the Apostles to watchfulness and prayer, if these are not essential to our devotion to God and consecration to his service?

If our affections are not placed on things above, we are unfit for the kingdom of glory. To see the folly of a profession of Christianity without the power of godliness, we have only to put the question, How is that person fit for the enjoyment of God and Christ, whose heart is filled with the cares, anxieties, and concerns of this life--whose whole life is a life of labor and care for the body--a life of devotion to the objects of time and sense? No man can serve God and Mammon. Where the treasure is the heart must also be. Thither the affections turn their course. There is no room for the residence of the Spirit of God in a mind devoted to the affairs of this life. The spirit of the policies of this world and the Spirit of God can not dwell in the same heart. If Jesus or his Apostles taught any one doctrine clearly, fully, and unequivocally, it is this doctrine, that "the cares of this world, the lusts of other things, and the deceitfulness of riches, stifle the word and render it unfruitful."

If any one would enjoy the power of godliness, he must give up his whole soul to it. The business of this life will be performed religiously as a duty subordinate to the will of God. While his hands are engaged in that business which his own wants, or those of his household make necessary, his affections are above. He delights in [471] God, and communes with him all the day. A Christian is not one who is pious by fits and starts, who is religious or devout on one day of the week, or for one hour of the day. It is the whole bent of his soul--it is the beginning, middle, and end of every day. To make his calling and election sure is the business of his life. His mind rests only in God. He places the Lord always before him. This is his joy and his delight. He would not for the world have it otherwise. He would not enjoy eternal life, if he had it at his option, in any other way than that which God himself has proposed. He accedes to God's arrangements, not of necessity, but of choice. His religious services are perfect freedom. He is free indeed. The Lord's commandments are not grievous, but joyful. The yoke of Christ is to him easy and his burthen light. He will sing with David--

The love that to thy laws I bear, No language can display; They with fresh wonders entertain My ravish'd thoughts all day.

The law that from thy mouth proceeds Of more esteem I hold Than untouch'd mines, than thousand mines Of silver and of gold.

Whilst in the way of thy commands, More solid joy I found, Than had I been with vast increase Of envy'd riches crown'd.

Thy testimonies I have kept, And constantly obey'd; Because the love I bore to them Thy service easy made.

In the same ratio as Christians devoutly study the oracles of God, teach them to their children, practice all relative duties to society at large, and rise to a more elevated piety, they will increase their influence in the great and heavenly work of regenerating the world.

A few remarks on the things wanting in the order of Christian assemblies, to give to their public meetings that influence on themselves and on society at large, will finish this section of our essay.

Our heavenly Father wills our happiness in all his institutions. His ordinances are, therefore, the surest, the simplest, and the most direct means of promoting our happiness. The Lord Jesus gave himself for the church that he might purify and bless it; and, therefore, in the church are all the institutions which can promote the individual and social good of the Christian community. In attending upon these institutions on the Lord's day, much depends upon the preparation of heart of all who unite in commemorating the death and resurrection of the Son of God. [472]

In adverting to the most Scriptural and rational manner of celebrating or observing the day to the Lord, and for our own comfort and the regeneration of the world, we would first of all remark, that much depends upon the frame of mind, or preparation of heart, in which we visit the assemblies of the saints.

Suppose two persons, A and B, if you please, members of the same church, taking their seats together at the Lord's table. A, from the time he opened his eyes in the morning, was filled with the recollections of the Saviour's life, death, and resurrection. In his closet, in his family, and along the way he was meditating or conversing on the wonders of redemption, and renewing his recollections of the sayings and doings of the Messiah. B, on the other hand, arose as on other days, and finding himself free from all obligations arising from the holiness of time, talks about the common affairs of every day, and allows his thoughts to roam over the business of the last week, or, perhaps, to project the business of the next. If he meet with a neighbor, friend, or brother, the news of the day is inquired after, expatiated upon, discussed; the crops, the markets, the public health, or the weather--the affairs of Europe, or the doings of Congress, or the prospects of some candidate for political honor, become the theme of conversation. As he rides or walks to the church, he chats upon all or any of these topics, till he enter the door of the meeting-house. Now as A and B enter the house in very different states of mind, may it not be supposed that they will differ as much in their enjoyments as in their morning thoughts? Or can B, by a single effort, unburthen his mind, call in the wanderings of his thoughts, and in a moment transport himself from the contemplation of things on earth to things in heaven? If this can be imagined, then meditation and preparation of heart are wholly unnecessary to the acceptable worship of God, and to the comfortable enjoyment of his institutions.

But is it compatible with experience, or is it accordant to reason that B can delight in God, and rejoice in commemorating the wonders of his redemption, while his thoughts are dissipated upon the mountains of a thousand vanities?--while, like a fool's eyes, his thoughts are roaming to the ends of the earth! Can he say, with a pious Jew, "How amiable are thy tabernacles, O Lord of hosts! My soul longs--yes, even faints, for the courts of the Lord! My heart and my flesh cry out for the living God. Happy they who dwell in thy house; they will be still praising thee! A day in thy courts is better than a thousand. I had rather be a door-keeper in the house of my God than to dwell in the tents of wickedness." "One thing have I desired of the Lord, and that I will seek after, that I may dwell in the house of the Lord all the days of my life, to behold the beauty of the Lord, and to inquire in his temple. O send out thy light and thy truth! Let [473] them lead me, let them bring me to thy holy hill and to thy tabernacles. Then will I go to the altar of God, to God my exceeding joy; yes, I will praise thee, O God, my God!"

Or had the Jew a sublimer worship, more exalted views of God's salvation, and more piety than a Christian? Or were the ordinances of the Jewish sanctuary more entertaining and refreshing than the ordinances of the Christian church? This will not be alleged; consequently, B, and all of that school, are utterly at fault when they approach the house of God in such a state of mind as they approach the market place, the forum, or the common resorts of this present world.

Christians need not say in excuse for themselves, that all days are alike, that all places and times are alike holy, and that they ought to be in the best frame of mind all the time. For even concede them all their own positions, they will not contend that a man ought to speak to God, or to come into the presence of God, as they approach men. They will not say that they ought to have the same thoughts and feelings in approaching the Lord's table, as in approaching a common table; or on entering a court of political justice, as in coming into the house of God. There is, in the words of Solomon the Wise, a season and time for every object and for every work:--There is the Lord's day, the Lord's table, the Lord's house, and the Lord's people; and there are thoughts, and frames of mind, and behaviour compatible and incompatible with all these.

In the public assembly the whole order of worship ought to do justice to what is passing in the minds of all the worshippers. That joy in the Lord, that peace and serenity of mind, that affection for the brethren, that reverence for the institutions of God's house, which all feel, should be manifest in all the business of the day. Nothing that would do injustice to all or any of these, ought ever to appear in the congregation of Jesus Christ our Lord. No levity, irreverence, no gloom, no sadness, no pride, no unkindness, no severity of behaviour towards any, no coldness, nothing but love, and peace, and joy, and humility, and reverence should appear in the face, in the word, or action of any disciple.

These are not little matters. They all exert a salutary influence on the brethren and the strangers. These are visible and sensible displays of the temper and spirit of Christians; and if Paul thought it expedient to write of veils and long hair when admonishing a church "to do all things decently and in order," we, in this day of degeneracy, may be allowed to notice matters and things as minute as those before us.

We intend not now to go into the details of church order or Christian discipline, nor to expatiate on the necessity of devoting a part of [474] the time to singing, praying, reading, teaching, exhorting, commemorating, communicating; nor on how much of this or that is expedient. Times and circumstances must decide how much time shall be taken up in these exercises, and when it shall be most fitting to meet, to adjourn, etc. Nor is it necessary now to say, that there must be simply order, and presidency, and proper discipline, and due subordination to one another in the fear of God. We now speak rather of the manner in which all things are to be done, than of the things themselves, their necessity or value.

After noticing what in some instances appears to be wanting in the manner of coming together on the Lord's day, we proceed to notice in order the things wanting in many congregations for the purposes already specified.

And first of all, be it observed, that in some churches there appears to be wanting a proper method of handling the Scriptures to the edification of the brethren. It is admitted by all the holy brethren that the Scriptures of truth, called the living oracles, are the great instrument of God for all his purposes in the saints on earth. Through them they are converted to God, comforted, consecrated, made meet for an inheritance among the sanctified, and qualified for every good word and work. Every thing, then, depends upon the proper understanding of these volumes of inspiration. They can only operate as far as they are understood.

The system of sermonizing on a text is now almost universally abandoned by all who intend that their hearers should understand the testimony of God. Orators and exhorters may select a word, a phrase, or a verse; but all who feed the flock of God with knowledge and understanding, know that this method is wholly absurd. Philological lectures upon a chapter are only a little better. The discussion of any particular topic, such as faith, repentance, election, the Christian calling, may sometimes be expedient; but in a congregation of Christians the reading and examining the different books in regular succession, every disciple having the volume in his hand, following, up the connection of things, examining parallel passages, interrogating and being interrogated, fixing the meaning of particular words and phrases by comparison with the style of that writer or speaker, or with that of others; intermingling these exercises with prayer and praises, and keeping the narrative, the epistle, or the speech, so long before the minds of all, as is necessary for the youngest disciple in the congregation to understand it, and to become deeply interested in it, will do more in one year than is done in many on the plan of the popular meetings of the day.

Great attention should be paid to all the allusions, in any composition, to the peculiarities of time, place, and circumstance, to the [475] geographical, historical, and chronological particulars of all questions of fact connected with all persons of note in the narrative: for these are often the best interpreters of style and expositors of the meaning of what is written.

This searching, examining, comparing, and ruminating upon the Holy Scriptures in private, in the family, in the congregation, can not fail to make us learned in the knowledge of God, and in the knowledge of men. The Bible contains more real learning than all the volumes of men. It instructs us in all our natural, moral, political, and religious relations. Though it teaches us not astronomy, medicine, chemistry, mathematics, architecture, it gives us all that knowledge which adorns and dignifies our moral nature, and fits us for happiness. Happy the person who meditates upon it day and night! He grows and flourishes in moral health and vigor, as the trees upon the water courses. His leaf never fades--his fruit never fails.

The congregations of the saints want system in furthering their knowledge of this book. The simple reading of large portions in a desultory manner, is not without some good effect; for there is light, and majesty, and life in all the oracles of God; no man can listen to them without edification. But the profit accruing from such readings is not a tithe of that which might be obtained in the proper systematic reading and examination of them. The congregation is the school of Christ, and every pupil there should feel that he has learned something every day he waits upon his Master. He must take the Master's book with him, and, like every other good and orderly pupil, he must open it and study it with all the helps which the brotherhood, his school-fellows, can furnish for his more comprehensive knowledge of all its salutary communications.

A Christian scribe, well instructed in its contents, or a plurality of such, who can bring out of their intellectual treasury things new and old, will greatly advance the students in this heavenly science; but in the absence of such the students must be self-taught; and self-taught scholars are generally the best taught: for they can not progress unless they study with diligence and carefully learn the rudiments of every science.

To give some idea of the diligence and attention to the minutest matters, which are necessary to proficiency in the knowledge of all that is written in the New Testament, we shall suppose that the disciples have for their lesson on some particular day the Nativity of the Messiah. The second chapter of Matthew is read. After reading this chapter, or the whole of the first section of Matthew's Testimony, the elder or president for the day asks some brother, a good reader, to read what the other evangelists have testified on this subject. Mark and John being silent on the nativity, he reads Luke, 2d section, [476] 2d chapter, from the 1st to the 41st verse. After the reading of this chapter, the following points are the subjects of inquiry, and most of them are proposed to the brethren for solution:--

1. Who was Cesar Augustus, and over what people did he reign?

2. At what period of his reign was the edict for enrolment issued, or when did the first register take effect?

3. What did Syria include, and what were its boundaries?

4. Who presided over Syria at the time of the first register?

5. Who was king in Judea at this time?

6. How far did Judea extend, or in what part of the Holy Land was it situate?

7. In what country was Jerusalem, where situated, and by what other names was it known?

8. What was the native city of Joseph?

9. Where was Nazareth situated, and in what district?

10. What was the boundary of Galilee, and what were its principal towns?

11. In what canton or district was Bethlehem, and how far from Jerusalem?

12. Who were the magians?

13. Why was "Herod alarmed, and all Jerusalem with him," when the magians reported the Star in the East?

14. What were the scribes and chief priests assembled by Herod, and why were they called together?

15. By what means did they decide the questions referred to them?

16. On what Prophet do they rely, and where shall the quotation be found?

17. Of what family and lineage were Joseph and Mary?

18. What does "betrothed" mean?

19. By what means did the magians find the house in which the Messiah was born?

20. Why did the magians not return to Herod?

21. Whether did the shepherds of Bethlehem or the eastern magians first pay their respects to the Messiah?

22. In what quarter of the globe does Egypt lie?

23. How far from Bethlehem?

24. How long was the Messiah kept in Egypt?

25. Who predicted his return from Egypt, and where shall it be found?

26. Who foretold the slaughter of the male infants in Bethlehem, and what instigated Herod to this cruel massacre?

27. Who succeeded Herod in the throne of Judea?

28. Why did Joseph retire to Nazareth? [477]

29. What Prophet foretold this circumstance, and where shall it be found?

These matters being all ascertained, to which the maps, geographical and chronological indexes, and the appendix to the Family Testament will greatly contribute, some moral reflections will naturally occur; for in all these incidents are manifest the wisdom, care, and economy of our heavenly Father, his faithfulness, condescension, and love; the great variety of his instruments and agents; the ease with which he frustrates the evil counsels and machinations of his enemies; the infallible certainty of his foreknowledge; the perfect free agency of men, good and evil; the deep humiliation of his only begotten Son in all the circumstances of his nativity. Irresistible arguments in favor of his pretensions may be drawn from these ancient prophecies, from their minuteness of time, place, and circumstance; many eloquent and powerful lessons on human pride, vanity, and arrogance may be deduced from the birth-place, cradle, and family connections of the Heir of the Universe; and many other touching appeals to the heart, which the birth, circumcision, and dedication of the Messiah, with all the incidents in Bethlehem, in Jerusalem, and the Temple, connected with his first appearance on earth furnish, will present themselves with unfading freshness and beauty to the brotherhood of Christ.

A hint to the wise is sufficient. Were this method pursued only two hours every Lord's day, every disciple giving his heart to the work; and were the results then compared with the products of the scrap Doctors, or sermonizers to sleeping and dreaming hearers, no man, having any regard for his reputation for good sense, could give his vote for the popular system.

A reformation in the manner of handling the living oracles is much wanting; and the sooner and more generally it is attempted, the greater will be the regenerating influence of the brotherhood on the world. Intelligent in the Holy Scriptures, clothed with the armor of light, every disciple going forth will be a David against the Philistines--a host against the armies of the aliens. And better still, the words of heavenly favor dwelling in his heart, he will carry with him into every society a fragrance like the rose of Sharon--a sweetness of perfume like a garden which the Lord has blessed.

There appears to be wanting in some congregations a proper attention to discipline, and a due regard to decorum, in the management of such cases as do occur. In every family, and in every congregation, there is occasional need of discipline. Offenses, delinquencies, and apostasies did occur in the congregations over which the apostles either were, or had been, presidents; and they will happen again in this state of discipline and trial in which we are all placed. They must be expected; and every congregation ought to be prepared to act [478] upon the emergency with intelligence and decorum. Much injury has been done to the progress of churches, by a remissness in attention to such cases, and in the manner they have been disposed of when taken up.

Nothing can be more preposterous and revolting to every sentiment of good order and decorum, than that every offender and offense should at the very offset be dragged into the public assembly. Persons who have the care of a congregation, the seniors whose age and experience have taught them prudence, ought to be first informed of such cases; and they ought not to lay a case before the congregation till they have prepared it for the action of the congregation. Every novice is not to feel himself at liberty to disturb the congregation by presenting, on his own responsibility and at his own discretion, a complaint against a brother, whether it be of a public or private nature.

But we are now speaking of the manner of procedure in such cases. The most tender regard for the feelings of all, the utmost sympathy for the offender, the most unyielding firmness in applying the correctives which the Head of the church has commanded, and the necessity of acting promptly in accordance with the law in the case, are matters of much importance.

No passion, no partiality, no bad feeling--nothing but love and piety, but faithfulness and truth; nothing but courtesy and gentleness, should ever appear in the house of God. And when any one is found guilty and excluded from the society, it should be done with all solemnity, and with prayer that the institution of Christ may be a blessing to the transgressor.

But evil-doers, or those who act not honorably according to the law of Christ, ought not to be tolerated in the professed family of God. Such persons are a dead weight on the whole society--spots in every feast of love, and blemishes upon the whole profession. One sinner destroys much good: yet separation or abscission, like amputation, is only to be used in the last stage, when all other remedies, of remonstrance and admonition, expostulation and entreaty, have failed. To prevent gangrene, or an injury to the whole body, amputation is a necessary, an indispensable remedy. More strictness, more firmness, and more tenderness in such cases, would add greatly to the moral influence of every society. A few persons walking together in the bonds of Christian affection, and under the discipline of Christ, is better than the largest assembly in which there are visibly and manifestly many who fear not God, and keep not his commandments.

In the house of God all should be purity, reverence, meekness, brotherly kindness and love. Confidence in the honesty and sincerity of our brethren, is the life of communion. To feel ourselves united with them who are determined for eternal life, and resolved to seek [479] first of all, chief of all, above all, the kingdom of heaven and the righteousness required in it, is most animating, comforting, exhilarating. But to be doubtful whether we are uniting with a mass of ignorance, corruption, and apathy, is as rottenness in the bones; love waxes cold, and then we have the form, without the power of godliness.

That the church may have a regenerating influence upon society at large, there is wanting a fuller display of Christian philanthropy in all her public meetings; care for the poor manifested in the liberality of her contributions; the expression of the most unfeigned sympathy for the distresses of mankind, not only among the brotherhood, but among all men; and an ardent zeal for the conversion of sinners proportioned to her professed appreciation of the value of her own salvation, and to her resources and means of enlightening the world on the things unseen and eternal. The full display of these attributes are the most efficient means of causing the gospel to sound abroad, and to achieve new conquests amongst our fellow citizens. The Christian health and vigor of every church is to be estimated more by her exertions and success in bringing sinners home to God, than by all her other attainments. Too long has it been considered the duty, the almost exclusive duty of the preacher, to convert the world. He must spend his time and wear out his constitution in journeyings and preachings, while the individual members of the church are to mind their own business, seek their own wealth and domestic comfort. He must endure the heat and the cold, forsake his wife and family, and commit the management of his affairs to others, while they have only to look on and pray for his success. Strange infatuation! Has he received a commission from the skies--has he been drafted out of the ranks to go to war, and they all left at home to take care of their wives and children! Some may believe this--some may imagine that it is his duty alone, to spend his time and his talents in this work, and theirs daily to labor for their own interest and behoof; but surely such are not the views and feelings of our brethren!

The work of the Lord will never progress--or, in other words, the regenerating influence of the church will amount to little or nothing, so long as it is thought to be not equally the duty of every member, but the special duty of one or two, denominated preachers, to labor for the Lord.

There is either a special call, a general call, or no call at all, to labor for the conversion of the world. If there be a few specially called, the rest have nothing to do but to mind their own concerns; "to seek their own things, and not the things of Jesus Christ." If none be called, then it is the duty of none, and the Lord has nothing for his people to do--no world to convert; or, at least, nothing for them to [480] do in that work. None of us are prepared for the consequences of either of these assumptions. It follows, then, that it is the duty of all to labor according to their respective abilities in this work. All are called to labor for the Lord. I hold that every citizen in Christ's kingdom is bound to take up arms for the King, as much as I am; and if he can not go to fight the battles of the Lord, he must take care of the wives and children of those who can, and who will fight for their King and country. But the expense of the war must be borne by the subjects of the crown; and as the Lord will not have any tax-gatherers in his kingdom, but accepts only voluntary contributions, he makes a mark over against the names of those who do nothing, and he will settle with them at his return. He calls even the contributions for the gospel made by those at home, "a fragrant odor, a sacrifice acceptable, well pleasing to God."

But we are afraid of doing any thing of this sort, lest we should be like some other people, who we think have acted imprudently. Strange, indeed, that when any thing has been once abused, it is never again to be used! But I have inadvertently strayed off from my purpose. The manner in which the brethren labor for the salvation of the world, is all that comes within our prescribed limits. On this, enough has been said. Let the brethren solemnly consider the things that are wanting to give to their meetings that influence which they ought to exert upon themselves and upon society at large.

We are as susceptible of receiving moral and religious advantages from our own good order and decorum in the congregation, as those who attend our meetings as spectators. And in this instance, as well as in all the variety of doing good, he that waters others is again watered in return; for he that blessed others, is always blessed in blessing them. None enjoy the blessings of the gospel more fully than they who are most active and influential in blessing others. What happy seasons are those in which we see many turning to the Lord! Now if we would have a perpetual feast, we must be perpetually devoted to the promotion of the happiness of others. We must live for God, as well as live to God.

In filling up these outlines, other matters still more minute, but perhaps equally important, will present themselves to the attention of the brethren. Now we can not set about these matters too soon. The time has again come, when judgment must begin at the house of God. The people who have long enjoyed the word of life and the Christian institutions, must soon come to a reckoning. They must give an account of their stewardship, for the Lord has promised to call them to judgment. An era is just at the door, which will be known as the Regeneration for a thousand years to come. The Lord Jesus will judge that adulterous brood, and give them over to the [481] burning flame, who have broken the covenant, and formed alliances with the governments of the earth. Now the cry is heard in our land, "Come out of her, my people, that you partake not of her sins, and that you may not receive of her plagues." The Lord Jesus will soon rebuild Jerusalem, and raise up the tabernacle of David which has so long been in ruins. Let the church prepare herself for the return of her Lord, and see that she make herself ready for his appearance.

[A. C.]

The Regeneration of the World

All the kingdoms of this world shall soon become the kingdoms of our Lord the King. He will hurl all the present potentates from their thrones. He will grind to powder the despotisms, civil and ecclesiastic, and with the blast of his mouth give them to the four winds of heaven. The antichristian power, whether it be called Papistical, Mahometan, Pagan, or Atheistic, will as certainly be destroyed as Jesus reigns in heaven. No trace of them shall remain. The best government on earth, call it English or American, has within it the seeds of its own destruction--carries in its constitution a millstone which will sink it to the bottom of the sea. They acknowledge not that God has set his Christ upon his throne. They will not kiss the Son. Society under their economy is not blessed. The land mourns through the wickedness of those who sit in high places. Ignorance, poverty, and crime abound, because of the injustice and iniquities of those who guide the destinies of nations. Men that fear not God, that love not his Son, and that regard not the maxims of his government, yet wear the sword, and sway the sceptre in all lands.

This is wholly adverse to the peace and happiness of the world. Therefore, he will break them to pieces like a potter's vessel, and set up an order of society in which justice, inflexible justice shall have uncontrolled dominion. Jesus will be universally acknowledged by all the race of living men, and all nations shall do him homage. This state of society will be the consummation of the Christian religion in all its moral influences and tendencies upon mankind.

How far this change is to be effected by moral, and how far by physical means, is not the subject of our present inquiry. But the preparation of a people for the coming of the Lord must be the result of the restoration of the ancient gospel and order of things. And come when it may, the day of the regeneration of the world will be a day as wonderful and terrible as was the day of the deluge, of Sodom's judgment, or of Jerusalem's catastrophe. Who shall stand when the Lord does this? But all the regenerations, physical and moral, individual, congregational, or national, are but types and shadows, or means of preparation for the [REGENERATION OF THE HEAVENS AND THE EARTH.]

[A. C.]

Regeneration of the Heavens and the Earth

The Bible begins with the generations of the heavens and the earth; but the Christian revelation ends with the regeneration or new creation of the heavens and the earth. This is the ancient promise of God, confirmed to us by the Christian Apostles. The present elements are to be changed by fire. The old or antediluvian earth was purified by water; but the present earth is reserved for fire, with all the works of man that are upon it. It shall be converted into a lake of liquid fire. But the dead in Christ will have been regenerated in body before the old earth is regenerated by fire. The bodies of the saints will be as homogeneous with the new earth and heavens as their present bodies are with the present heavens and earth. God re-creates, regenerates, but annihilates nothing; and therefore the present earth is not to be annihilated. The best description which we can give of this regeneration, is in the words of one who had a vision of it on the island of Patmos. He describes it as far as is connected with the New Jerusalem, which is to stand upon the new earth, under the canopy of the new heaven. As the natural close of our essay on regeneration, we shall transcribe the picture of this new earth and the New Jerusalem, drawn by the direction of that Spirit to whom the future is as intelligible as the past:--

"And I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the former heaven and the former earth were passed away; and the sea was no more. And I, John, saw the holy city, the New Jerusalem, descending from God out of heaven, prepared like a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a great voice out of heaven, saying, Behold the tabernacle of God is with men, and he shall pitch his tent among them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be among them--their God. And he shall wipe away every tear from their eyes; and death shall be no more, nor grief, nor crying; nor shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away." . . .

"And he brought me in the Spirit to a great and high mountain; and he showed me the city, the holy Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, having the glory of God; (its lustre was like to that of a precious gem, even as a jasper stone, clear as crystal;) having a great and high wall; having also twelve gates, and over the gates twelve angels, and names written upon them, which are the names of the twelve tribes of the sons of Israel: on the east, three gates; on the north, three gates; on the south, three gates; and on the west, three gates. And the wall of the city had twelve foundations; and on them the names of the Twelve Apostles of the Lamb. And he that spoke with me had a golden reed that he might measure the city, and its gates, and wall. And the city is square, and its length is equal to its breadth: and he measured the city with the reed, twelve thousand furlongs; and its length, and its breadth, and its height are equal. And he measured its wall, one hundred and forty-four cubits, according to the measure of a man, that is, of an angel. And the wall was built of jasper, and the city was pure gold, like refined [483] glass. And the foundations of the walls of the city were adorned with every precious stone. The first foundation is jasper; the second, sapphire; the third, chalcedony; the fourth, emerald; the fifth, sardonyx; the sixth, sardius; the seventh, crysolite; the eighth, beryl; the ninth, topaz; the tenth, chrysoprasus; the eleventh, hyacinth; and the twelfth, amethyst. And the twelve gates were twelve pearls: each of the gates was of one pearl. And the street of the city was pure gold, like transparent glass. And I saw no temple in it, for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it. And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon to shine in it; for the glory of the Lord enlightened it, and the Lamb is the light of it. And the nations of the saved shall walk in its light; and the kings of the earth do bring their glory and their honor into it. And the gates of it shall not be shut by day, (for there shall be no night there.) And they shall bring the glory and the honor of the nations into it. And nothing unclean shall enter into it, nor any thing which practices abomination and falsehood; but only those who are written in the Lamb's book of life." . . .

"And he showed me a river of water of life, clear as crystal, issuing out of the throne of God, and of the Lamb. In the midst of the broad street, and on each side of the river, was the tree of life, producing twelve kinds of fruit--producing its fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree are for the healing of the nations. And every curse shall cease. And the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it; and his servants shall serve him. And they shall see his face; and his name shall be borne upon their foreheads. And there shall be no more night; and they have no need of a lamp, nor of the light of the sun; because the Lord God shall enlighten them; and they shall reign for ever and ever."

[A. C.]

A Word to the Moral Regenerators of This Age

God, our heavenly Father, works by means, as we all confess. His means are wisely adapted to the ends he has in view. His agents are the best agents for the work he has to accomplish. He employs not physical means nor agents for moral ends and purposes. Nor does he produce physical effects by moral means and agents. He has been pleased to employ not angels, but men in the work of regenerating the world. Men have written, printed, and published the gospel for nearly two thousand years. They have perpetuated it from generation to generation. They have translated it from language to language, and carried it from country to country. They have preached it in word and in deed, and thus has it come down to our days.

During the present administration of the Reign of Heaven no change is to be expected; no new mission is to be originated, no new order of preachers is to be instituted. The King has gone to a far country, and before his departure he called together his servants, and committed to them the management of his estate till he return. He has not yet come to reckon with them. They were commanded first to proclaim the doctrine of his reign; then to write it in a book, and [484] to commit it to faithful men who should be able to teach it correctly to others. By these faithful men the records have been kept; and through their vigilance and industry they have been guarded from corruption, interpolation, and change. One generation handed them over to the next; and if ignorant and unfaithful copyists neglected their duty, others more faithful have corrected them; and now we are able to hear the words which Jesus spoke, and to read the very periods penned by the Apostles.

Thus whatever the Prophets and the Apostles have achieved since their death, has been accomplished by human agents like ourselves. Where men have not carried this intelligence in speech or writing, not one of our race knows God or his anointed Saviour. No angel nor Holy Spirit has been sent to the Pagan nations: and God has exerted no power out of his word to enlighten or reclaim savage nations. These indisputable facts and truths have much moral meaning, and ought to give a strong impulse to our efforts to regenerate the world.

The best means of doing this is the object now before us; and this is one, the importance of which can not be easily exaggerated. There are three ways of proceeding in this case, which now seem to occupy a considerable share of public attention. These are properly called theorizing, declaiming, and preaching; on each of which we may offer a remark or two in passing.

The theorizers are those who are always speculating upon correct notions, or the true theory of conversion. They are great masters of method, and with some of them it is a ruinous error to place faith before regeneration, or repentance after faith. Heresy, with these, is the derangement of the method which they have proposed for God to work by in converting the sinner. And the true faith which is connected with salvation is apprehension of this theory and acquiescence in it. These are all theorists, heady, or speculative Christians; and with them the whole scheme of redemption is a splendid theory. These are all cold-hearted and light-headed Christians. "Take off their heads," as a Methodist declaimer once said, "and you have got all their religion!"

Our maxim is, Theory for the Doctors, and medicine for the sick. Doctors fatten on theories, but the patients die who depend on theory for cure. A few grains of practice is worth a pound of theory. The mason and the carpenter build the house by rule; but he that inhabits it lives by eating and drinking. No man ever was cured physically, politically, morally, or religiously by learning a correct theory of his physical, political, moral, or religious malady. As soon might we expect to heal an ulcer on the liver by a discourse upon that organ, its functions, its diseases, and their cure, as to restore a sinner by [485] means of the theory of faith, repentance, regeneration, or effectual calling. But on this enough has already been said, and more than is necessary to convince those who can think, and who dare to reason on such themes.

The declaimers are not those only who eulogize virtue and reprobate vice; but that large and respectable class who address themselves to the passions, to the hopes and fears of men. They are those who are so rhetorical upon the joys of heaven and the terrors of hell: who horrify, terrify, and allure by the strength of their descriptions, the flexions of their voices, the violence of their gestures, and their touching anecdotes. Their hearers are either dissolved in tears or frantic with terror. These talk much about the heart; and on their theory if a man's heart was extracted, all his religion would be extracted with it. The religion of their converts flows in their blood, and has its foundation in their passions.

The preachers, properly so called, first address themselves to the understanding by a declaration or narrative of the wonderful works of God. They state, illustrate, and prove the great facts of the gospel; they lay the whole record before their hearers; and when they have testified what God has done, what he has promised, and threatened, they exhort their hearers on these premises, and persuade them to obey the gospel, to surrender themselves to the guidance and direction of the Son of God. They address themselves to the whole man, his understanding, his will and his affections, and approach the heart by taking the citadel of the understanding.

The accomplished and wise proclaimer of the word will find it always expedient to address his audience in their proper character; to approach them through their prejudices, and never to find fault with those prepossessions which are not directly opposed to the import and design of the ministry of reconciliation. He will set before them the models found in the sacred history, which show that the same discourse is not to be preached in every place and to every assembly, even when it is necessary to proclaim the same gospel. Paul's addresses to the Athenians, Lycaonians, Antiochans, to Felix, the Jailor, and king Agrippa, are full of instruction on this topic.

Augustine has written a treatise on preaching, which Luther proposed to himself as a model; but it is said that Augustine fell as far short of his own precepts as did any of his contemporaries. We all can with more facility give precepts to others, than conform to them ourselves. In Augustine's treatise, which in some respects influenced and formed the style and plan of Luther, and through him all the Protestants, there is much said on the best rhetorical mode of exhibiting the truth to others; but it savors more of the art of the schoolmen, [486] than of the wisdom of the Apostles. He labors more on the best style and mode of expressing oneself, than on the things to be said.

Our best precepts in this matter are derived rather from the books of Deuteronomy and Nehemiah, than from any other source out of the New Testament. The book of Deuteronomy may be regarded as a series of sermons or discourses, delivered to the Jews by their great teacher, Moses, rather than as a part of the Jewish history. Two things in this book deserve great attention. The first is the simplicity, fullness, and particularity of his narratives of the incidents on the journey through the wilderness;--God's doings and theirs, for the last forty years, are faithfully and intelligibly laid before them. The next is the use made of these facts; the conclusions deduced, the arguments drawn, and the exhortations tendered from these facts. For a fair and beautiful specimen of this, let the curious reader take up and carefully read the first four chapters of the book of Deuteronomy. The fact and the application, the argument and the exhortation, after the manner of Moses, can not fail to instruct him.

The writings of the scribes during the captivity, teach us how to address a people that have lost the true meaning of the oracles of God. The readings, expositions, exhortations and prayers of Ezra and Nehemiah, are full of instruction to Christians in these days of our Babylonish captivity. To address a people long accustomed to hearing the Scriptures, yet ignorant of them, and consequently disobedient, is a matter that requires all the wisdom and prudence which can be acquired from Jewish and Christian records.

The manner of address, next to the matter of it, is most important. The weightiest arguments, the most solemn appeals, the most pathetic expostulations, if not sustained by the gravity, sincerity, and piety of the speaker, will be like water spilled upon the ground. A little levity, a few witticisms, a sarcastic air, a conceited attitude, or a harsh expression, will often neutralize all the excellencies of the most Scriptural and edifying discourse. The great work of regenerating men is too solemn, too awfully grave and divine, to allow anything of the sort. Humility, sincerity, devotion, and all benevolence in aspect, as well as in language, are essential to a successful proclamation of the great facts of the Living Oracles. He that can smile in his discourse at the follies, need not weep over the misfortunes of the ignorant and superstitious. He that can, while preaching the gospel, deride and ridicule the errors of his fellow-professors, is, for the time being, disqualified to persuade them to accept the truth, or gladly to receive the message of salvation.

Those preachers have been sadly mistaken who have sought popularity by their eccentricities, and courted smiles rather than souls;--who, by their anecdotes and foolish jests, told with the Bible before [487] them, have thought to make themselves useful by making themselves ridiculous--and to regenerate men by teaching them how to violate the precepts of the gospel, and to disdain the examples of the Great Teacher and his Apostles.

It will not do. These are the weapons of this world, and no part of the armor of light. Jesus and his Apostles never sanctioned, by precept or example, such a course, and it is condemned by all sensible men, whether Jews or Gentiles, professors or profane.

In attempting to regenerate men, we must place before them the new man, not the old man, in the preacher as well as in the discourse; and while we seek out arguments to convince and allure them, we must show them in our speech and behaviour that we believe what we preach. So did all the Apostles and Evangelists. They commended themselves to every man's conscience, in the sight of Jesus Christ.

Error must be attacked. It must be opposed by the truth. But it may be asked, whether the darkness may not be more easily dissipated by the introduction of light, than by elaborate discourses upon its nature and attributes? So with moral darkness, or error. To dissipate it most effectually, the easiest and readiest way is to introduce the light of truth. No preacher is obliged to learn all the errors of all ages, that he may be able to oppose them; nor is a congregation enlightened in the knowledge of God by such expositions of error. Present opposing errors may require attention; but, to attack these most successfully it is only necessary to enforce the opposing truths.

This is a very grave subject, and requires very grave attention. Much depends upon a rational and Scriptural decision of the question, Which is the most effectual way to oppose and destroy error? To aid us in such an inquiry, it is necessary to examine how the Prophets and Apostles opposed the errors of their times. The world was as full of error in those days as it has ever been since. The idolatries of the Pagan world, and the various doctrines of the sects of philosophers, in, and out, of the land of Israel, threw as much labor into their hands as the various heresies of apostate Christendom have thrown into ours. Their general rule was to turn the artillery of light, and to gather into a focus the arrows of day, upon the dark shades of any particular error. Their philosophy was--The splendors of light most clearly display the blackness of darkness, and scatter it from its presence. Thus they opposed idolatry, superstition, and error of every name. Going forth in the armor of light, as the sun in the morning, the shades of the night retired from their presence, and the cheering beams of day so gladdened the eyes of their converts that they loved darkness no more. Let us go and do likewise. [488]

An intimate acquaintance with the Holy Scriptures is the best furniture for the work of regenerating men. The best piece I have found in the celebrated treatise of Augustine on preaching is the following:--

He then, who handles and teaches the word of God, should be a defender of the true faith, and a vanquisher of error; should both teach what is good, and unteach what is bad; and in accomplishing this, the object of preaching, he should conciliate the adverse, excite the remiss, and pour out to the ignorant their duty and future prospects. When, however, he finds his audience favorably disposed, attentive, and docile, or succeeds in rendering them so, then other things are to be done, as the case may require. If they are to be instructed then, to make them acquainted with the subject in question, narration must be employed; and to establish what is doubtful, resort must be had to reasoning and evidence. If they are to be removed rather than instructed, then, to arouse them from stupor in putting their knowledge into practice, and bring them to yield full assent to those things which they confess to be true, there will be need of the higher powers of eloquence; it will be necessary to entreat, reprove, excite, restrain, and do whatsoever else may prove effectual in moving the heart.

All this, indeed, is what most men constantly do, with respect to those things which they undertake to accomplish by speaking. Some, however, in their way of doing it, are blunt, frigid, inelegant; others, ingenious, ornate, vehement. Now he who engages in the business of which I am treating, must be able to speak and dispute with wisdom, even if he can not do so with eloquence, in order that he may profit his audience, although he will profit them less in this case, than if he could combine wisdom and eloquence together. He who abounds in eloquence without wisdom, is certainly so much the more to be avoided, from the very fact that the hearer is delighted with what it is useless to hear, and thinks what is said, to be true, because it is spoken with elegance. Nor did this sentiment escape the notice of those among the ancients, who yet regarded it as important to teach the art of rhetoric; they confessed, that wisdom without eloquence profited states but very little, but that eloquence without wisdom profited them not at all, and generally proved highly injurious. If, therefore, those who taught the precepts of eloquence, even though ignorant of the true, that is, the celestial wisdom "which cometh down from the Father of lights," were compelled by the instigations of truth to make such a confession, and that, too, in the very books in which their principles were developed; are we not under far higher obligations to acknowledge the same thing, who are the sons and daughters of this heavenly wisdom? Now a man speaks with greater or less wisdom, according to the proficiency he has made in the sacred Scriptures. I do not mean in reading them and committing them to memory, but in rightly understanding them, and diligently searching into their meaning. There are those who read them and yet neglect them--who read them to remember the words, but neglect to understand them. To these, without any doubt, those persons are to be preferred, who, retaining less of the words of the Scriptures, search after their genuine signification with the inmost feelings of the heart. But better than both is he, who can repeat them when he pleases, and at the same time understand them as they ought to be understood.--From the Biblical Repository, p. 574. [489]

Luther's favorite maxim was, "Bonus Textuarius, Bonus Theologus;" or, one well acquainted with the Scriptures makes a good theologian.

There is one thing, above all others, which must never be lost sight of by him who devotes himself to the work of regeneration. This all-important consideration is, that the end and object of all his labors is to impress the moral image of God upon the moral nature of man. To draw this image upon the heart, to transform the mind of man into the likeness of God in all moral feeling, is the end proposed in the remedial system. The mould into which the mind of man is to be cast is the Apostles' doctrine; or the seal by which this impression is to be made is the testimony of God. The gospel facts are like so many types, which, when scientifically arranged by an accomplished compositor, make a complete form, upon which, when the mind of man is placed by the power which God has given to the preacher, every type makes its full impression upon the heart. There is written upon the understanding, and engraved upon the heart, the will, or law, or character of our Father who is in heaven.

The Apostles were these accomplished compositors, who gave us a perfect "form of sound words." Our instrumentality consists in bringing the minds of men to this form, or impressing it upon their hearts. To do this most effectually, the preacher or evangelist must have the word of Christ dwelling in him richly, in all wisdom; and he must "study to show himself an approved workman, irreproachable, rightly dividing the word of truth." He that is most eloquent and wise in the Holy Scriptures, he who has them most at command, will have the most power with men; because being furnished with the words of the Holy Spirit, he has the very arguments which the Spirit of God chooses to employ in quickening the dead, in converting sinners. For to the efficiency of the living word not only Paul deposes, but James and Peter also bear ample testimony. "Of his own will he has begot us, by the word of truth, that we might be a kind of first fruits of his creatures" (Jas. 1. 18). "Having been regenerated, not by corruptible seed, but by incorruptible, through the word of the living God, which remains" (I. Pet. 1. 23). To the fruits of his labors, such a preacher with Paul may say, "To Jesus Christ, through the gospel, I have regenerated, or begotten you."

Thus, in the midst of numerous interruptions, we have attempted to lay before the minds of our readers the whole doctrine of Regeneration, in all its length and breadth, in the hope that after a more particular attention to its meaning and value, by the blessing of God, they may devote themselves more successfully to this great work; and not only enjoy more of the Holy Spirit themselves, but be more useful in forwarding the moral regeneration of the world. [490]

To God our Father, through the great Author of the Christian faith, who has preserved us in health in this day of affliction and great distress, be everlasting thanks for the renewing of our minds by the Holy Spirit, and for the hope of the regeneration of our bodies, of the heavens and of the earth, at the appearance of the Almighty Regenerator, who comes to make all things new! Amen.

EDITOR.

The Means of Regeneration

In 1856, page 70, Mr. Campbell says of the means of regeneration:

Into Christ's kingdom, we cheerfully depose, that no man can enter who is not born again--"born of water and of the Holy Spirit." It is not born of water, even of the Holy Spirit; but of both. No man nor animal was ever born from one parent alone. And, in all the proprieties of analogy, everything born has had two parents. Our Lord's metaphors, parables and allegories were natural, and in no case outrage the proprieties of nature or of society. But the same figure may be used and accommodated in both numerous and also various positions and relations. Hence we have the washing of the new birth, as well as the new birth. But we must not confound the imagery of Paul with that of the Lord Jesus himself, and subject them to one and the same import. Jesus has in his eye, or premises, the fact then recognized, that water and air were the parents of all vegetable, and, consequently, of all animal life. In ancient Eastern Philosophy--"The earth was nature's womb, and air and water the parents of all animal and of all vegetable life." But on such premises we build nothing--analogies are not facts. The great Teacher loved imagery; and, therefore, often spake in parables. We, therefore, interpret parables analogically, but do not transubstantiate them into literal facts. Still, water is not spirit, nor spirit water. And what the Lord has joined together, let no man separate.

[A. C.]

God's Part of the Work

In 1857, page 555, W. K. Pendleton wrote:

GOD'S PART OF THE WORK.

It is a little remarkable that much of the controversy that now agitates the Christian world, is about God's part of the work in human redemption, and especially as to the mode by which he does it. Some persons, it is true, do not admit of any co-operation in this matter. They can not consent that man and God are, in any sense, co-workers together, though there is express Scriptural authority for the fact.1 Of this class there are two parties--the one ascribing everything to God; the other devolving everything upon man. The one makes man a simple machine, moving only under the divine influence, without freedom of self-determining energy of any kind, and yet responsible for his actions. The absolute sovereignty of God is regarded as a satisfactory [491] justification against every knotty and restless question of the reason, and, in worse than idiot impotency, we are asked to sit down and wait till our time shall come, if, perchance, we may be found among the elect at all! In perfect harmony with this mechanical theory, the Spirit of God is introduced as a sort of mechanical force, an etherealized steam power to overcome the moral inertness of our souls, and by impulse of impact set them a whirling in the predestinal and changeless orbits of a sovereign grace. Man has no part to perform in this wonderful transformation, but sits as the passive clay in the hands of the potter. The work is all of God, unconditional and without justification, save upon the ground of the absolute and sovereign power of the worker. This is not the philosophic Calvinism of Geneva, but the stupid dogmatism of modern fatalists. It nullifies the law of God, it stultifies the wisdom of God:--It mocks the reason of man and paralyzes the springs of human hope. It lays its icy finger upon the aspiring powers of the soul, and chills the glowing warmth with which it burns under the hopeful words of Christ. It presses back with a heavy hand the anxious heart, who, when listening to the call to come, rises to go, and binds as with a new chain the convicted sinner struggling to be free. O, we thank thee, blessed Saviour, that it is not thus thou hast declared liberty to the captive! In breaking the fetters in which sin had bound us, and calling upon us to come forth from our slavery, thou didst not paralyze our powers to obey the glad summons, nor mock us with a promised joy beyond our reach. The fruit of the tree of life is not handed down to tantalize us, but that we may stretch forth our hands, pluck, eat and live forever.

An equally impious extreme denies all divine agency in man's salvation, save what is chronologically past. God is not now--at the time and during the process of the work, in any sense of the present agency, at all concerned or operative in the new birth. Man is both the subject and the cause of the new creation. He quickens his own heart, and nurses and develops it through the whole process of regeneration, with no concurring agency from God. He is, at once, his own spiritual father, mother, and child--and thus self-originated, he goes forth the sole and unaided architect of his own fortune, and climbs onward and upward to the rest of the perfect. True, he is furnished with a verbal directory, telling him the way, but with this no aid is given strengthening him to follow it. He must walk alone and in his own strength, amid its perils and over its wearisome heights, and experiencing nothing but the triumphs of his own power, and enjoying nothing but the self-gratulation of his self-saving victories, and hoping for nothing save the ultimate attainment of the promised reward, as meet achievement of his own meritorious struggles, he must [492] work out as a glorious and mighty hero, unaided and alone, his own salvation!

We trust there are but few who hold, even spiritually, this impious and godless theory of human deliverance. Sure we are, that no one can practically walk by it, and be a Christian at all. His heart is not, can not be in any vital union with Christ. As well might we expect a branch to furnish the juices of its own growth, or a stream to feed its own fountains, as that a Christian can live and grow in all spiritual graces, without constant and perpetual union with Christ, the everflowing fountain opened in the house of David for sin and uncleanness, in whom dwelleth all the goodness of the Godhead bodily, and in whom alone, as the head of all principality and power, we are complete. Of such it must be truly said, that being puffed up by their fleshly mind they do not hold the Head, from whom the whole body, by the joints which bind it, draws full supplies for all its needs, and is knit together, and increases in godly growth.

We know of no one thought more prominent and vital in the Christian scheme than this of actual, real, abiding, living union with Christ and his people. The writings of the Apostles abound with the overflowings of their faith in and experience of this ever-present and sustaining power. They describe it as Christ being in us, and as our being in Christ; John, the beloved Apostle, speaks of it as a matter of knowledge; "Hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us;" and again, "Hereby know we that we dwell in him and he in us, because he hath given us of his Spirit."2 Our Saviour himself says, "At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you."3

It is illustrated by a vine and its branches; by a foundation and the building resting upon it; by a body and its members; and with great force and beauty by the mysterious union and oneness of husband and wife.

Its beneficial results include all the peculiar privileges and blessings of the Christian--for without Christ we are nothing. It is because we are in him that his righteousness is imparted to us (Phil. iii. 9) that we are made free from condemnation (Rom. viii. 1); that we are delivered from the dominion of sin (John iii. 6); that we are created anew (II. Cor. v. 17); that the Holy Spirit dwelleth in us (Rom. viii. 10); that our prayers are answered (John xv, 7); and that we shall have confidence at his coming (I. John ii. 28); and surely the man who lacketh all these things, not being in Christ, not holding the Head, is no Christian. False teachers are all such, who would beguile us of our reward and keep us still subject to ordinances. Well might [493] the Apostle, filled with the sublime contemplation of this glorious union, exclaim, "For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named, that he would grant you according to the riches of his glory, to be strengthened with might by his Spirit in the inner man; that Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith; that ye being rooted and grounded in love, may be able to comprehend with all saints, what is the breadth, and length, and depth, and heighth; and to know the love of Christ which passeth knowledge, that ye might be filled with all the fullness of God.4

But whilst this is so manifestly a doctrine, we might almost say the sum total of practical Christianity, we are not content to receive it as such. We must push our speculations beyond the declared fact, and the experienced blessing, into the inquiry as to the possible manner in which the union is effected and enjoyed. We must have a philosophic answer to the how of this revealed doctrine, and if in these inquiries we can not agree, the next step is to erect our speculative defenses into grounds of fellowship, and tests of orthodoxy. So far as this inquiry relates to our part in entering into and enjoying this union, the inquiry is not only legitimate, but necessary. What he must do--his faith and his works are, indeed, man's great and appropriate concern. About these he must diligently search the Scriptures, and examine his own heart. Every means placed within his power must be known and employed; every instrumentality appointed to help him must be called into requisition, and diligently and faithfully used; no precept, and no example should be ignored or neglected. His faith must be commensurate with the truth as it is revealed, and his practice, the living exponent, and legitimate fruit of his faith. On these points he may, and it is his imperious duty, constantly and prayerfully to search the Scriptures.

But suppose that in this search he finds some promise, the performance of which rests with God. Suppose he meets with declarations respecting spiritual aids and influences, which, upon the condition of his faith and obedience, the heavenly Father, in the simplest, most literal and positive language, assures us he will render to his frail and erring children to help them in their endeavor to work out in fear and trembling their everlasting salvation;--shall he falter to receive such because he can not penetrate into the mystery of the manner in which it may be done? Because his speculative talent is weak, too weak to untangle the mystic maze of spiritual intercommunication, shall his faith be staggered and his prayers hindered? Or, if by long and vexing thinking and reflection, he has at length constructed a [494] cunningly devised theory by which, to his own satisfaction at least, he can solve the mystery, shall he next propound this as God's revelation and set it up as a standard of other men's thinking and believing? Should he not rather humbly and meekly say, God's ways are not as our ways. These are the deep things of God. Let us receive them in faith and practice, work and pray for the blessing, rather than dispute and divide about the philosophy. The promise is of God; the gift to be conferred is of his grace; the means, instrumentalities and conditions of its reception, so far as our action is involved, are clearly and positively revealed, and now, what have we to do to reply against God! Let us believe and obey--and the truth of the doctrine shall be demonstrated by the trial, in the sweet and blissful experience of every true and loyal-hearted disciple who sits as a child at the feet of Jesus and his inspired teachers--"If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God."5

Brethren, let us take care that we be not beguiled of our reward by these vain, and, in some instances, impious attempts to prescribe laws to the divine agency, and to set limits to the working of his wondrous will. It is enough for us to attend to our own part in the working out of our salvation, and to leave the part of God to himself. Our speculations can not make or unmake one principle or law, nor add to nor subtract from one element of agency or power that our Creator has reserved in his own hands, and we but waste our time and injure the peace of Zion when we presume to intrude into things which we have not seen; which are revealed to us as facts, the philosophy of which is not given, and which it may be is too high for our present power ever to reach.

W. K. P.

We then, as workers together with him, beseech you also that ye receive not the grace of God in vain. [491]

I. John iii. 24; iv. 13. [493]

John xiv. 20. [493]

Eph. iii. 14-19. [494]

John vii. 17. [495]

Regeneration and Remission of Sins

In the Harbinger for 1861, page 677, Isaac Errett says:

REGENERATION AND REMISSION OF SINS.

We frequently find an error in the use of the terms here used as a caption, out of which grow many misunderstandings. They are popularly used as equivalents, or nearly so. Hence the consciousness of a change within is often accepted as an evidence of pardon. The natural result of abandoning rebellion and returning to the will of God--namely, a sweet peace and satisfaction of soul--is regarded and accepted as the voice of God conveying an inner revelation of forgiveness. Hence, too, when we insist on the Bible affirmation of baptism. "for remission of sins," it is caught up as an affirmation of baptismal regeneration, we are regarded as teaching that in baptism God makes an immediate communication to the soul, alike of regenerating power and of spiritual joy--giving through baptism an inner revelation of pardon and adoption. [495]

It may be well, therefore, to clear these terms of ambiguity, and clearly mark the line of distinction between them.

Regeneration is a new creation. When this term or its equivalents is applied to physical nature--as to the resurrection of the dead, and the new heavens and earth1--it expresses a work of omnipotence wrought on inanimate matter, and is used in its literal sense. When applied to the spiritual nature of man, it expresses a work of grace wrought on a rational, responsible nature; and is used figuratively. It is a work resulting in new views, new principles, new affections, new aims, new enjoyments, and fully consummated in a new life.2 It is wrought, not by omnipotence, but by the word of truth, through which the life-giving, life-sustaining power of the Spirit is communicated;3 and is consummated in baptism, through which the believing penitent enters into new relationships and a new life.4 A regenerated man, therefore, is a new creature in these particulars:

1. He has new principles--being now a man of faith, where before he was an unbeliever, and walked by sight, "according to the course of this world." Thus while we read, in one passage, "circumcision availeth nothing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature;"5 we have the same sentiment expressed in the same epistle, substituting faith for the new creature: "For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision, but faith."6

2. He has new desires and affections--hating sin and loving righteousness--divorced in his heart from the world, and loving God. Hence the verse last quoted has the following attribute of faith specially mentioned: "which worketh by love."

3. He sustains new relationships--having entered into the kingdom of God, where God is his Father, Jesus his King and Saviour, the Holy Spirit his Guest, the church his home, Christians his brethren, angels his servants, and the world, the flesh and the devil his enemies. He is "in Christ Jesus," a new creature. "Old things are passed away; behold all things are become new."7

Now all this change--this series of changes--is internal, save the change of state or relationship accomplished by the birth of water--baptism. The first distinction, then, to be made is, That regeneration is wrought in or upon us; but the same can not be affirmed of the forgiveness of sins. Forgiveness takes place in the heart of the party sinned against. "There is forgiveness with God." "Forgive one another, even as God for Christ's sake hath forgiven you." Now when men forgive one another, does forgiveness take place in the heart of the offender? Nay, in the heart of the offended party. If A sins [496] against B, and forgiveness is ever exercised, every one must see that forgiveness is present as a matter of consciousness in the heart of B, and not in the heart of A. Therefore, while regeneration is wrought in us, forgiveness is accomplished in heaven, at the mercy-seat. It is the act of the Sovereign who holds the pardoning power. Is not this a very wide distinction--regeneration wrought on earth, forgiveness in heaven; regeneration wrought in the heart and in the life of the sinner, forgiveness in the heart of God? Is it not passing strange that they should ever be confounded?

It is replied, however, that although God dispenses pardon at the mercy-seat, yet he conveys the evidence of pardon to the penitent in an immediate communication of the Holy Spirit, so that pardoning love is felt and known in the sinner's heart. On this we remark:

1. That even were this true, the communication of pardon must still, in the nature of things, be widely different from that moral and spiritual change which is called regeneration. The fact that I hate sin and love righteousness and holiness, must always remain different from the fact that God has pardoned my sins. The former might be fully realized without any knowledge of the latter. The latter does not follow even as a logical consequence of the former, but simply because of the revelation God has made of himself in the gospel. But

2. We deny that there is any such special revelation to the individual heart of forgiveness. We do not deny the power of God to make such communication, if he saw fit; but we deny that he has promised to make such revelation. We affirm that he has forbidden us to expect it.

(a) In the general proclamation of pardon in the gospel, connecting the promise of pardon with certain conditions. "Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature; he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved."8 Now this is a mere nullity if there is a special revelation of the fact of pardon, apart from the gospel. Indeed, if such special revelation assures the soul of pardon on any other than gospel conditions, it contradicts the gospel, and makes it a lie--which is worse than a nullity. On the other hand, if the special revelation merely reaffirms the gospel conditions, it is useless, since these are already known and substantiated as divine; and, on this supposition, the special revelation can not be given until the conditions are complied with, when it surely is not needed, and has no value. Moreover, there is so much danger of delusion in these internal revelations, that they must be tried by the external revelation before one knows whether to believe them or not! "I have heard what the prophets said that prophesy lies in my name, saying, I have dreamed, I [497] have dreamed. How long shall this be in the heart of the prophets that prophesy lies? Yea, they are prophets of the deceit of their own heart; which think to cause my people to forget my name by their dreams, which they tell every man to his neighbor, as their fathers have forgotten my name for Baal. The prophet that hath a dream, let him tell a dream; and he that hath my word, let him speak my word faithfully: what is the chaff to the wheat? saith the Lord."9 "To the law and to the testimony; if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them."10

(b) It is forbidden by express Scripture precept. "Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? (that is, to bring Christ down from above: ) or, Who shall descend into the deep? (that is, to bring up Christ again from the dead.) The word is nigh thee, in thy mouth and in thy heart; that is, the word of faith which we preach; that if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved."11 Compare this with the passage from which it is drawn (Deut. xxx. 11-14,) and be satisfied that we have not to wait for special revelations.

(c) Facts forbid it. Not Cornelius, nor Saul, nor the Ethiopian, could get a special internal revelation of pardon. The angel would not tell Cornelius. The Holy Spirit would not tell the Treasurer of Ethiopia. Jesus himself would not tell Saul. Cornelius had to send for Peter.12 The eunuch had to learn from Philip.13 Saul had to learn from Ananias.14 From the day that Jesus ascended to heaven, there is not an instance of the evidence of pardon communicated in any other way than by the conditions and promises of the gospel, uttered by human lips. The evidence of pardon is in the gospel promise; and that promise being conditional, we approach it through compliance with the conditions. "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved."15 "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins."16 "If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved."17 "Whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved--for the same Lord over all is rich in mercy to all that call upon him." 18 "Arise and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling upon the name of the Lord."19

In perfect harmony with this, the Westminster Confession says: "The grace which is exhibited in or by the sacraments, rightly used, is not conferred by any power in them; neither doth the efficacy of a sacrament depend upon the piety or intention of him that doth [498] administer it; but upon the work of the Spirit and the word of institution, which contains, together with a precept authorizing the use thereof, a promise of benefit to worthy receivers."

We are not forgetful of the passage so constantly quoted to prove this disputed point: "The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit that we are the children of God."20 But this is wide of the mark. We are discussing the evidence of pardon--not the evidence of sonship.

We are prepared now to put the distinction between regeneration and forgiveness in another form. Regeneration is a matter of consciousness--forgiveness is a matter of faith. We know we believe; we know we repent; we know we are baptized; these are matters of experience, because they are wrought in or upon us. But we can not feel or know that our sins are forgiven; we believe this--our faith resting on the promise of God. We feel in consequence of forgiveness--a feeling of peace and joy, proportioned to the clearness and fullness of our faith, flowing in upon the heart that embraces the promise of pardon in the gospel.

Can not the reader now see that baptism can be for remission of sins, without involving the idea of baptismal regeneration? Baptism enables the proper subject of it to lay hold on the conditional promise of pardon, and say, this now is mine. It therefore simply conveys the Scriptural assurance of pardon to the person spiritually qualified to receive it.

There is, indeed, a point of contact between regeneration and remission of sins. The latter is the immediate result of the former. The baptism which consummates regeneration in a change of state or relationship, is the very act which brings us to the gospel promise of pardon. But if any minds unaccustomed to nice discriminations, find themselves in danger of confusion at this point, let them reflect, that all that is generally called regeneration has preceded the act of baptism. The change of mind and of heart--the turning of the inner man to the knowledge and love of Jesus, to a trust in His sacrifice, and an acquiescence in his will--has already been accomplished in faith and repentance. Baptism but accomplishes a change of state--an entrance into new covenant relations; and in establishing covenant relations, entitles its subject to the covenant promise, "I will be merciful to your unrighteousness, and your sins and iniquities I will remember no more."21

Gospel conditions run into each other and blend so perfectly, that we dislike to enter on too nice a classification. Yet it may assist to guide some minds aright if we present an outline of the gospel arrangement, so far as conditions are concerned. We simply forewarn the [499] metaphysical reader that we are aware how certainly these conditions run into each other, and how easily metaphysical cavils can be raised over this or any other syllabus:

1. Faith, or a new mind, } constitute a new creation, inter-

2. Repentance, or a new will, nally and externally, in princi-

3. Baptism, or a new state, ple, in aim, and in position.

II.

Faith ultimates in a new heart, purified from selfishness, and trusting in Christ;

Repentance in a new life, redeemed from rebellion, and accepting the Lordship of Jesus;

Baptism in a good conscience, purified from the sense of guilt.

So that the subject of these is

Pure in his desires;

Submissive to the will of God;

Pardoned and accepted as a child of God, and in his new state prepared to receive the Holy Spirit, and to live the Christian life.

III.

Faith rests on the truth of God;

Repentance on the goodness of God;

Baptism on the authority of the Lord Jesus.

We believe, because the truth of God banishes our doubts.

We repent, because the unspeakable love of God conquers our stubbornness.

We are baptized, because the authority of the Lord Jesus has become all in all to us.

The result of all this is,

The forgiveness of sins.

Adoption into the family of God.

The earnest of the Spirit.

The hope of everlasting life.

Is it not a new creation?

This regenerated person has now, as his portion, until heaven is gained

The Word of grace, to guide him.

The Throne of grace, to shelter him.

The Spirit of grace, to comfort him.

Continuing faithful to the end, he will be the subject of a physical resurrection of the dead; and a purified spirit in a glorified body will inherit the new heavens and earth, wherein righteousness shall dwell forever.

I. E.

Matt. xix. 28; II. Pet. iii. 13; Rev. xxi. 1, 5. [496]

John i. 13; iii. 3, 5; II. Cor. v. 17; I. Pet. i. 23; Tit. iii. 5. [496]

I. Pet. i. 23; Jas. i. 18. [496]

John iii. 5; Tit. iii. 5; Eph. v. 26. [496]

Gal. vi. 15. [496]

Gal. v. 6. [496]

See II. Cor. v. 17; Gal. v. 6; vi. 15. [496]

Mark xvi. 15, 16. [497]

Jer. xxiii. 25-28. [498]

Isa. viii. 20. [498]

Rom. x. 6-9. [498]

Acts x. 5, 6. [498]

Acts viii. 27-40. [498]

Acts xxii. 10-16. [498]

Mark xvi. 16. [498]

Acts ii. 38. [498]

Rom. x. 9. [498]

Rom. x. 12, 13. [498]

Acts xxii. 16. [498]

Rom. viii. 16. [499]

Heb. viii. 10-12. [499]

Regeneration, Justification, Sanctification, Adoption

In 1859, page 61, Mr. Campbell says:

REGENERATION, JUSTIFICATION, SANCTIFICATION, ADOPTION.

These are the four cardinal themes of the true Christology, and of a Biblical Theology. Very much, indeed, depends upon a Scriptural definition and appreciation of terms so cardinal. They give birth to four verbs of large comprehension,--to regenerate, to justify, to sanctify, and to adopt.

These being, one and all, Scriptural terms, we must consider their precise Scriptural currency and value in the apostolic writings, if we would enjoy the gospel. Their popular currency, in modern creeds, is, indeed, one inquiry, and their evangelic currency, in the apostolic diction and style, is quite another inquiry. The latter, with us, is paramount. We have, on former occasions, remonstrated against an erroneous conception and appropriation of these terms. They are yet occasionally used inappropriately, the four cardinal terms in modern and in original Christian terminology. Regeneration is represented in the Greek Christian Scriptures, by Paliggenesia. It is not found, or has no representative in the Hebrew Scriptures. It is a new covenant or New Testament term. And, therefore, it belongs exclusively to the Christian Institution. In Matt. xix. 28, its first occurrence, it is defined by our highest authorities in these words: "Regeneratio per quam ibi intelligitur totius naturae nostrae perfecta renovatio et instauratio, plenaria peccati et mortis abolitio;" which we literally translate in the following words:

By this word is here understood--"a perfect renovation and instauration of our whole nature;" or, in our every day currency,--a perfect renewal and restoration of our whole nature to that image of God in which our father Adam stood in the day of his generation or creation. We confidently affirm this, on the highest literary authority in Christendom, to be the legitimate and precise meaning of the word Paliggenesia, represented by the Roman and English word regeneration. No man, we presume to say, of literary reputation, will hazard that reputation by denying this exegesis or definition of the term.

We, however, think that our composite Saxon word renewal is as apposite and as intelligible to the masses of our community as any other word in our living currency.

This term paliggenesia, regeneration, is found but twice in the Christian Scriptures; and, in neither of these cases, does it correspond with its modern currency in Protestantdom or Romandom.

In its first occurrence (Matt. xix. 28) it indicates a new era. Every Biblical scholar in Christendom must concede this.

The era alluded to, in this passage, is by Alexander Clark and other commentators of authority, referred to the time "when Jesus shall sit [501] on the throne in his glory; and not to the time of our following him here" (Matt. xix. 28). So Boothroyd and many others read it. "At the renovation, when the Son of man shall sit on the throne of his glory, you, also, shall sit on the twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel."

Again, Tit. iii. 5, "He saved us"--"according to his own mercy, through the bath of regeneration, and the renewing of the Holy Spirit." These are not identical--"the bath of regeneration" is one, and "the renewing of the Holy Spirit" is another. The new birth, and the washing of the new birth, are not identical terms nor identical ideas. A man, a physical or an animal man, "must," under the Christian economy, "be begotten again"--"born of water and Spirit," before he can enter into "the kingdom of God." We only reiterate the express oracles of the Holy Spirit. We desire no other, we seek no higher, no lower authority.

Justification, sanctification and adoption are instantaneous acts of Divine grace, and are simultaneous, not successive acts, as more than half of our pulpits and presses in Christendom preach and teach. They are, on the contrary, both instantaneous and concomitant, or contemporary acts of Divine grace--the sickly dreams of some of our modern Rabbis to the contrary, notwithstanding.

One fact or truism, almost universally conceded, will place these misconceptions in midnight altitude. It is this:--There are degrees in character, but not in state. For example, we all concede, that the terms husband, wife, son, daughter, master, servant, citizen, subject, represent states--each and every one of them represents neither more nor less than a relation or state. But in character, there are, or may be, many degrees. A, B and C are masters. D, E and F are servants. These are two states obviously distinct. But A, B and C, in character, may be good, better, and best; or bad, worse, and worst. This is so obvious that all sound thinkers readily admit it. Hence, seeing that justification, sanctification, adoption, regeneration, represent states, and neither persons nor characters; those in these states are equally perfect in state, while there may be a greater or a less conformity of character to these states or relations. No Christian man can, therefore, be more regenerated, justified, sanctified, adopted, or saved than any other Christian man.

The Westminster Divines, as they are called, were, in this matter, correct, when they called these states--"acts of Divine grace." Politically, in our enlightened country, we are orthodox. An alien is transmuted or regenerated into a citizen. And, so soon as politically regenerated, he is equal in all the constitutional rights of citizenship with every other native-born citizen of mature age and reason, until he abjure these rights and becomes a rebel. [502]

When, then, an alien is naturalized, or born again, he is adopted and enfranchised with all the inherent rights, honors and immunities of a native-born citizen, under the same constitution. He is, in one particular only, limited. He can not, constitutionally, be President of the confederacy. So it is in the Christian Institution. A justified, sanctified, adopted and saved sinner, can never be king of the universe. Neither can an angel. But of a regenerated man we may say and sing:--

"Before the throne and first in song, Man may his hallelujahs raise; While wondering angels round him throng, And swell the chorus of his praise."

There are, then, no degrees in justification, sanctification, adoption, or regeneration. But in Christian character, and enjoyment, there may be degrees, beyond the power of all our powers of utterance. We give the Westminster divines all credit and honor, because they represented regeneration, justification, sanctification, and adoption as several and distinct acts of Divine grace and philanthropy. Hence they called them, one and all, "Acts of Divine grace." Sometimes, indeed, improperly calling it "sovereign grace," as if there could be any grace at all, human or Divine, that is not both sovereign and free.

A. C.

Justification

"If any man be in Christ," says Paul, "he is a new creation: old things have passed away; all things have become new." By the special favor of God, Jesus Christ "is made unto us wisdom, justification, sanctification, and redemption." Hence, as saith the Prophet, "In him shall all the seed of Israel be justified, and in him shall they glory." "He that boasteth," therefore, "let him boast in the Lord."

What, then, is justification, the first fruit of the heavenly cluster of Divine graces? It is, indeed, a trite but a true saying, that the term justification is a forensic word; and, therefore, indicates that its subject has been accused of crime, or of the transgression of law. It also implies that the subject of it has not only been accused and tried, but also acquitted. Such, then, is the legal or forensic justification. It is, indeed, a sentence of acquittal announced by a tribunal, importing that the accused is found not guilty. If convicted, he can not be justified; if justified, he has not been convicted.

But such is not justification by grace. Evangelical justification is the justification of one that has been convicted as guilty before God, the Supreme and Ultimate Judge of the Universe. But the whole world has been tried and found guilty before God. So that, in fact, "there is none righteous; no, not one." Therefore, by deeds of law no man can be justified before God. "For should a man keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all." He has despised the [503] whole authority of the law and the Lawgiver. It is, then, utterly impossible that any sinner can be forensically or legally justified before God, by a law which he has in any one instance violated.

If, then, a sinner be justified, it must be on some other principle than law. He must be justified by favor, and not by right. Still it must be rightfully done by him that justifies a transgression, else he will be liable to the charge of injustice to the law and the government. This is the emergency which must be met by evangelical justification. The mission and mediation of the Messiah was primarily to meet this emergency; though, indeed, he has done much more than to meet it. Evangelical justification is, therefore, a justification by favor as respects man; and it has been made just also on the part of God, by the sacrifice or obedience unto death of his Son. Still it must be regarded as not a real or legal justification. It is, as respects man, only pardon, or forgiveness of the past; but the pardoned sinner being ever after treated and regarded as though he were righteous, he is constituted and treated as righteous before God. He is as cordially received into the favor and friendship of God, as though he had never at any time offended against his law. This, then, is what is peculiarly and appropriately called "evangelical justification." Still, legally contemplated, God, in fact, "justifies the ungodly." And so teaches the apostle Paul.

Still every one of reflection will enquire, how can the justification of the ungodly be regarded as compatible with the justice, the purity, the truthfulness of God? How can he stand justified before the pure, and holy, and righteous peers of his celestial realm--the hierarchs and princes of heaven? This is, indeed, to very many, a profound mystery. And "great," truly "is the mystery of godliness." Standing at this point, and viewing it in all its bearings, heaven is always in rapture, while contemplating this new and grand and glorious revelation of the manifold wisdom of God. It is, however, a revealed mystery. One there is, and was, and evermore will be, who, by his obedience to that violated law, even unto death, has so magnified and made honorable that law and government, as to open a channel through which truth, righteousness, and mercy can harmoniously flow together and justify God, while justifying the sinner, by pardoning him and then treating him as though he never had sinned against his throne and government.

His death was, therefore, contemplated as the one only true, real, and adequate sin-offering ever presented in this universe, in the presence of God, angels, men, and demons, that does for ever justify God in justifying man. It will forever silence all demur, and fill the universe--heaven and eternity, with the praise of the Lord. Hence, in perfect harmony with all the types of the law, the oracles of the [504] prophets and the promises and covenants of God, he is truly, rightfully, and with the emphatic seal of God, surnamed--"JEHOVAH OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS." Therefore, as with Isaiah--"By the knowledge of him shall my righteous servant justify many whose iniquities he shall have borne."

How then is it dispensed? or rather, how is it received and enjoyed? "It is through faith," says Paul, "that it might be by grace," to the end, that the promise of eternal life "might be sure to all the seed;" whether by nature, Jews or Gentiles. It is through faith, and not on account of faith, as though there was in faith some intrinsic merit.

It is worthy of remark, that if faith were a work of the head or of the heart, or of both, possessing inherent and essential merit, it would be as much a work to be rewarded as any other exercise of the understanding or of the heart. Love is said "to be the fulfilling of the whole law," and covetousness is called idolatry. Were then justification to be founded on faith, hope, or love, as works of the understanding or affections; it could be no more of grace than any other blessing received on account of anything done by us or wrought in us.

Hence, in the evangelical dispensation of justification, it is in some sense connected with seven causes. Paul affirms, that a man is justified by faith. (Rom. v. 1; Gal. ii. 16; iii. 24.) In the second place, he states that "we are justified freely by his grace" (Rom. iii. 24; Tit. iii. 7). In the third place, on another occasion he teaches that "we are justified by Christ's blood" (Rom. v. 9). Again, in the fourth place, he says that "we are justified by the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the spirit of our God" (I. Cor. vi. 11). To the Galatians, in the fifth place, he declares that "we are justified by Christ" (Gal. ii. 16). In the sixth place, Isaiah says "we are justified by knowledge" (Isa. liii. 11). And James, in the seventh place, says "we are justified by works" (chap. ii. 21). Thus, by Divine authority, faith is connected as an effect, in some sense, of seven causes, viz.: Faith, Grace, the Blood of Christ, the Name of the Lord, Knowledge, Christ, and Works. May it not, then, be asked why do so many select one of these only, as essential to justification? This is one of the evidences of the violence of sectarianism.

Call these causes or means of justification and they may severally indicate an influence or an instrumentality in the consummation of this great act of Divine favor. He that assumes any one or two of them, as the exclusive or one only essential cause of a sinner's justification, acts arbitrarily and hazardously rather than discreetly or according to the oracles of God. We choose rather to give to them severally a Divine significance, and consequently a proper place in the consummation of evangelical justification. We feel obliged to use the same reason and discretion in ascertaining the developments of [505] this work of Divine grace, that we may employ in searching into the works of God, in nature and in moral government. How many agents and laws of nature co-operate in providing our daily bread? Suns rise and set, moons wax and wane, tides ebb and flow, the planets observe their cycles, morning, noon, and night perform their functions, the clouds pour their treasures into the bosom of the thirsty earth, the dews distil their freshness on the tender blade, and the electric fluid unobserved, in perpetual motion, as the anima mundi, ministers to life in every form of vegetable, animal and human existence.

Why, then, to reason's ear should it sound discordant, or to reason's eye appear uncouth, that, in the scheme of redemption and regeneration, God's instrumentalities should be as numerous and as various, yet as co-operative as those in outward and sensible nature?

Again, let us survey the works of man to man, his modes and forms of action in the consummation of some grand scheme of human benefaction. Take, for example, that philanthropist, who, standing on the sea-shore, descries a ship-wrecked crew clinging to a portion of the wreck tossed to and fro among the foaming billows of an angry sea. He calls to his son, and commands him to seize a boat and hasten to their rescue. He obeys. Cheerfully he plies the oars, and fearlessly struggles through many a conflicting wave, till he reaches the almost famished and fainting crew. He commands them to seize his arm and let go the wreck, and he will help them into his boat. They obey, and all aboard, he commands them to grasp each his oar and co-operate with him in seeking the port of safety. They cheerfully co-operate and are saved.

The spectators and the narrators of this scene, form and express very different views of it. One says, the perishing crew were saved by a man on the shore; another, by his son; another, by a boat; another, by getting into a boat; another, by rowing themselves to shore; another, by a favorable breeze.

They all told the truth. There is no contradiction in their representations. But a philosopher says, they were saved by all these means together. Such is the case before us.

These means may be regarded as causes co-operating in the result, all necessary, not one of them superfluous. But some one of them to one person, another to a second person, another to a third person, and another to a fourth, appears more prominent than the others; consequently, in narrating the deliverance, he ascribes it mainly to that cause which, at the time, made the most enduring impression on his own mind.

But the calm, contemplative thinker thus arranges these concurrent causes. The original or moving cause was the humanity and kindness of the father, that stood on the shore and saw them about to perish. [506]

His son, who took the boat and imperiled his life, was the efficient or meritorious cause. The boat itself was the instrumental cause. The knowledge of their own condition and the kind invitation tendered to the sufferers was the disposing cause. Their consenting to the condition was the formal cause. Their seizing the boat with their hands and springing into it was the immediate cause. And their co-operative rowing to the share was the concurrent and effectual cause of their salvation.

Had any one of the apostles been accosted by captious, inquisitive and speculative partizans for a reconciliation of all he had said, or that his fellow laborers had said in their narratives, or allusions to particular persons, scenes, or events happening in his presence, or under his administration of affairs; had he been requested to explain or reconcile them with what he, or others of equal authority, had, on other occasions said, or written, concerning them, doubtless in some such way he could, and would have explained them. Indeed, in the common experience of all courts of enquiry and tribunals of justice, where numerous statements are made on questions of facts, by a single witness, and still more when a plurality are examined, such diversified representations are made rather to the confirmation than to the detriment or disparagement of the import, or the credibility of these statements. How often, and by how many cavillers have the Four Gospels been subjected to such ordeals, on such pretenses? But who has yet found good reasons to disparage or discredit these narratives on account of such assaults or misunderstandings?

No question agitated since the era of Protestantism has occupied so much attention, or concentrated a greater amount of learning and research, than the question of justification by faith; not, indeed, because of the inherent difficulties of the subject, but because of the defection and apostacy of the papal hierarchy--and the thick pall of darkness and error with which it had enveloped the whole Bible. One extreme generates another. Hence the terminology of the most orthodox schools on this subject is neither so Scriptural nor so intelligible as the great importance of the subject demands.

To harmonize the seven statements found in the Bible, on this subject, we know no method more rational or more Scriptural than that indicated in the illustration given. We are pardoned and treated as righteous, or in other words, we are justified by the grace of God the Father, as the original and moving cause; by Christ his Son, and by his blood, or sacrifice, as the meritorious cause; by faith and knowledge as instrumental causes, by our convictions of sin and penitence as the disposing cause; and by works as the concurrent or concomitant cause. This, however, as justifying God in justifying us. "You see," said the apostle James, "how faith wrought by works," in the case [507] of Abraham, when he offered up his son upon the altar; "and by works his faith was made perfect." Indeed, true faith necessarily works; therefore, a working faith is the only true, real, and proper faith in Divine or human esteem.

Faith without works is no more faith than a corpse is a man. It is, therefore, aptly by high authority regarded as "dead." Faith alone, or faith without works, profits nothing. But as Romanists taught works without faith, Protestants have sometimes taught faith without works. The latter quote Paul, and the former quote James, as plenary authority. But the two apostles have fallen into bad hands. Paul never preached faith without works, nor James works without faith. Between these parties the apostles have been much abused.

Controversies generate new terms or affix new ideas to words. The question between Calvin and Arminius--or between their followers, is not the identical question between Paul and the Jews, or James and nominal Christians.

The works of the law and the works of faith are as different as law and gospel. Works, indeed, are to be considered as the embodiments of views, thoughts, emotions, volitions, and feelings. They are appreciable indications of the states of the mind, sensible exponents of the condition of the inner man. For example, he that seeks justification by the works of the law is not in a state of mind to be justified by the blood of Christ, or by the grace of God; he is ignorant of himself, ignorant of God; consequently, too proud of his powers to condescend to be pardoned or justified by the mere mercy and merits of another. Rich and independent in his views of himself, he can not think of being a debtor to the worth and compassion of one, who contemplates him as ruined and undone for ever. He is too proud to be vain, or too vain to be proud of himself. In either view he can not submit to the righteousness of faith. For this purpose, Paul says of the Pharisaic Jews, "They being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves to the righteousness of God," or to that righteousness which God has provided for the ungodly.

On the other hand, the works of him that is justified by faith are exponents of an essentially different state of mind. He is humble, dependent, grateful. Feeling himself undone, ruined, a debtor without hope to pay, he sues for mercy and mercy is obtained; he is grateful, thankful, and humble before God. In this view of the matter, to justify a man for any work of which he is capable, would be to confirm him in carnality, selfishness and pride. But convinced, humbled, emptied of himself, and learning, through faith in the gospel, that God has provided a ransom for the ruined, the wretched, and the undone, he gladly accepts pardon through sovereign mercy, and humbles himself [508] to a state of absolute dependence on the merits and mercy of another. Justification by faith in Christ is, then, the embodiment of views in perfect harmony with truth--with our condition, with the whole revealed character of God, and necessarily tends to humility, gratitude, piety, and humanity, while justification sought by works as naturally tends to pride, ingratitude, impiety, and inhumanity.

Such being the true philosophy of justification by faith, and of justification sought and supposed to be obtained by works of law, we need not marvel that the God of all grace after having sent his Son into our world to become a sacrifice for us--to die for our sins, and to rise again for our justification, should have instituted faith in him--in his death, burial, and resurrection; as the means of a perfect reconciliation to himself, commanding us not only to cherish this faith in our hearts, but exhibit it by a visible death to sin; a burial with Christ to sin, and a rising again to walk in a new life, expressed and symbolized by an immersion in water into the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, not as a work of righteousness, but as a mere confession of our faith in what he did for us, and of our fixed purpose to walk in him. Hence it is the only suitable institution to such an indication, as being not a moral work of righteousness, but a mere passive surrendering of ourselves to die, to be buried, and to be raised again by the merit and aid of another.

Baptism is, therefore, no work of law, no moral duty, no moral righteousness, but a simple putting on of Christ and placing ourselves wholly in his hand and under his guidance. It is an open, sensible, voluntary expression of our faith in Christ, a visible embodiment of faith, to which, as being thus perfected, the promise of remission of sins is Divinely annexed. In one word, it is faith perfected. Hence, when Paul exegetically develops its blessings, he says--"But you are washed, but you are sanctified, but you are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our Lord."1 Thus justification, sanctification, and adoption--the three most precious gifts of the gospel, are evangelically connected with faith in the Lord Jesus, and baptism into his death.

The immediate baptism of the first converts, after faith is satisfactorily explained in this view of it; three thousand, in one day, believed and were baptized. The jailor and his family were enlightened, believed, and were baptized the same hour of the night. Paul himself, so soon as he had recovered from the influence of the supernatural brightness which deprived him of sight, and before he had eaten or drank any thing, was commanded, without delay, to be forthwith baptized. "And he arose and was baptized." Baptism, with them, was the perfecting or confession of their faith. The Ethiopian Eunuch, [509] on his journey in the desert, is as striking an example of this as are the cases named. It was "putting on Christ," as their righteousness.

Baptism, without faith, is of no value whatever; for, in truth, baptism is but the actual and symbolic profession of faith. It is its legitimate embodiment and consummation. And whatever virtue there is in it, or connected with it, is but the virtue of faith in the blood of Christ applied to the conscience and to the heart. The burial in water is a burial with Christ and in Christ. "For in him shall all the seed of Israel," the believing children of Abraham, "be justified," and in him, "and not in themselves, shall they glory." It is, then, the sensible and experimental deliverance from both the guilt and the pollution of sin; and for this reason, or in this view of it, believing penitents, when inquiring what they should do, were uniformly commanded by the ambassadors of Christ to be "baptized for the remission of sins," as God's own way, under the New Institution, of receiving sinners into favor, through the death, burial, and resurrection of his Son, into whose name especially, as well as by whose mediatorial authority, they were commanded to be, on confession, buried in baptism.

Salvation, in the aggregate, is all of grace; and all the parts of it are, consequently, gracious. Nor do we, in truth, in obeying the gospel, or in being buried in baptism, make void either law or gospel, but establish and confirm both.

Harbinger, 1851, p. 318-325. [A. C.]

I. Cor. vi. 11. [509]

NOTE: From his Christian Baptism: With Its Antecedents and Consequents. Bethany, VA: Alexander Campbell, 1851. Pp. 277-285.

Remission of Sins

From time to time, Mr. Campbell issued extra numbers of the Harbinger, devoted to some special theme which he desired to treat more exhaustively than the space of the regular numbers would permit. Bearing date of July 5, 1830, we have the following extra on "Remission of Sins":

Luther said that the doctrine of justification, or forgiveness, was the test of a standing or falling church. If right in this, she could not be very far wrong in anything else; but if wrong here, it was not easy to suppose her right in anything. I quote from memory, but this was the idea of that great Reformer. We agree with him in this as well as in many other sentiments. Emerging from the smoke of the great city of mystical Babylon, he saw as clearly and as far into these matters as any person could, in such a hazy atmosphere. Many of his views only require to be carried out to their legitimate issue, and we should have the ancient gospel as the result.

The doctrine of remission is the doctrine of salvation; for to talk of salvation without the knowledge of the remission of sins, is to talk without meaning. To give to the Jews "a knowledge of salvation by the remission of their sins," was the mission of John the Immerser, as said the Holy Spirit. In this way he prepared a people for the [510] Lord. This doctrine of forgiveness was gradually opened to the people during the ministry of John and Jesus; but was not fully developed until Pentecost, when the secrets of the Reign of Heaven were fully opened to men.

From Abel to the resurrection of Jesus, the just obtained remission at the altar, through priests and sin-offerings; but it was an imperfect remission as respected the conscience--a shadowy and unconsolatory remission. "For the law," says Paul, (more perfect in this respect than the preceding economy,) "containing a shadow only of the good things to come, and not even the very image of these things, never could, with the same sacrifices which they offer yearly for ever, make those who come to them perfect. Since being offered, would they not have ceased? because, the worshippers being once cleansed, should have had no longer conscience of sins."

The good things to come were future during the reign of Moses and his institution. They have come; and a clear, and full, and perfect remission of sins, is the great result of the new economy in the consciences of all the citizens of the kingdom of Jesus. The perfection of the conscience of the worshippers of God under Christ, is the grand distinguishing peculiarity in them, compared with those under Moses. They have not only clearer views of God, of his love, of his character, and of immortality; but they have consciences which the Jewish and Patriarchal Ages could not produce.

If faith only were the means of this superior perfection and enjoyment, and if striking symbols or types were all that were necessary to afford this assurance and experience of pardon, the Jewish people might have been as happy as the Christian people. They had as true testimony, as much faith, and as striking emblems as we can have. Many of them through faith obtained a high reputation, were approved of God, and admired by men for their wonderful achievements.

The difference is in the constitution. They lived under a constitution of law--we under a constitution of favor. Before the law their privileges were still more circumscribed. Under the government of the Lord Jesus there is an institution for the forgiveness of sins, like which there was no institution since the world began. It was owing to this institution that Christians were so much distinguished at first from the subjects of every former institution.

Our political happiness in these United States is not owing to any other cause than to our political institutions. If we are politically the happiest people in the world, it is because we have the happiest political institutions in the world. So it is in the Christian institution. If Christians were, and may be, the happiest people that ever lived, it is because they live under the most gracious institution ever bestowed on man. The meaning of this institution has been buried under the [511] rubbish of human traditions for hundreds of years. It was lost in the dark ages, and has never been, till now, disinterred. Various efforts have been made, and considerable progress attended them; but since the Grand Apostacy was completed till the present generation, the gospel of Jesus Christ has not been in its original plainness, simplicity, and majesty, laid open to mankind. A vail in reading the New Institution has been on the hearts of Christians, as Paul declares it was upon the hearts of the Jews in reading the Old Institution towards the close of that economy.

To take that vail away, since we have discovered it, has been our constant object. The present essay is intended to develop the Christian Institution for the remission of sins. We can not promise much for the method we shall pursue, as we have not the means of transcribing this essay, and must put it to press just as it is written, a sheet at a time. But this we may say, being full of this subject, that we shall lay down and prove many propositions in it, which, when viewed in connection, we hope, will not fail to prove and illustrate the forgiveness of sins through immersion into the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, to every proper subject. We apprize the reader that such is our design, that he may examine with the utmost care every single proposition and every proof adduced. We do not wish to take him by stratagem, to captivate him by guile, nor to decoy him by mere speciosity. To the Law and to the Testimony! How do you read? What say the Scriptures? If they hear not these, neither would they be persuaded though one rose from the dead. We request the reader to examine the following propositions and their proof:--

PROPOSITION I.

The Apostles taught their disciples, or converts, that their sins were forgiven, and uniformly addressed them as pardoned or justified persons.

John testifies that the youngest disciples were pardoned, (I. Epis. ii. 12,) "I write to you, little children, because your sins are forgiven you on account of his name." The young men strong in the Lord, and the old men steadfast in the Lord, he commends for their attainments: but the little children, the youngest converts, he addressed as possessing this blessing as one common to all disciples, "Your sins are forgiven you on account of his name."

Paul, in his letter to the Hebrews, (chapters viii. and x.,) asserts, that one of the provisions of the New Institution is the remission of the sins of all under it. "Their sins and iniquities I will remember no more." From this he argues as a first principle in the Christian economy. "Now," (says he, chapter x., verse 18,) "where remission of these is, no more offering for sin is needed." The reason assigned [512] by the Apostles why Christians have no sin offerings is, because they have obtained remission of sins as a standing provision in the New Institution.

The same Apostle testifies that the Ephesian disciples had obtained remission, (chap. iv. 32,) "Be to one another kind, tender-hearted, forgiving each other, even as God for Christ's sake has forgiven you." Here, also, in the enumeration of Christian privileges and immunities under Christ, he asserts forgiveness of sins as the common lot of all disciples, (chap. i. 7,) "In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his favor." In his letter to the Colossians, (chap. i. 14,) he uses the same words--"By whom we have the forgiveness of sins."

Figurative expressions are used by the same Apostle, expressive of the same forgiveness common to all Christians, (I. Cor. vi. 11,) "And such guilty characters were some of you; but you are washed; but you are sanctified; but you are justified by the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God." Peter, also, is a witness here, (I. Epis. i. 22,) "Having purified your souls by obeying the truth through the Spirit."

But there is no need of foreign, or remote, or figurative expressions, when so literally and repeatedly the Apostles assert it as one of the adjuncts of being a disciple of Jesus. Had we no other testimony than that found in a single letter to the Colossians, it would be sufficient to sustain this position. The command given in chapter iii. 13, assumes it as a principle. "As Christ forgave you, so also do you." But in the second chapter, he makes this an inseparable adjunct of being in Christ. "You are complete in him--circumcised--buried with him--raised with him--made alive with him--HAVING FORGIVEN YOU ALL TRESPASSES."

These explicit testimonies from the most illustrious witnesses, sustain my first proposition. On these evidences I rely. I shall henceforth speak of it as a fact or truth not to be questioned; viz.: that all the disciples of Christ converted in the apostolic age, were taught by the Apostles to consider themselves as pardoned persons.

PROPOSITION II.

The apostolic converts were addressed by their teachers as justified persons.

We know that none but innocent persons can be legally justified; but it is not in the forensic sense this term is used by the Apostles. Amongst the Jews it imported no more than pardoned; and when applied to Christians, it denoted that they were acquitted from guilt--discharged from condemnation, and accounted as righteous persons in the sight of God. [513]

Paul at Antioch in Pisidia assured the Jews, that in or by Jesus all that believed were justified from all things, (certainly here it is equivalent to pardoned from all sins,) from which they could not be justified by the law of Moses. The disciples are said to be justified by faith. (Rom. v. 1.) By favor of grace. (Rom. iii. 24.) In or by the blood of Christ. (Rom. v. 9.) By the name of the Lord Jesus. (I. Cor. vi. 11.) By works. (Jas. ii. 24.) It is God who justifies. (Rom. viii. 33.)

Christians are said to be justified by God, by Jesus, by favor, by faith, by the blood of Jesus, by the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of God--also by works. Pardon and acquittal are the prominent ideas in every application of the term. God is the justifier. Jesus the Lord as the immediate and connecting cause; and by works an act of favor it is done; by the blood of Jesus, as the rightful and efficient cause--by faith; as the instrumental cause--by the name of Jesus the Lord as the immediate and connecting cause; and by works as the demonstrative and conclusive cause. Nothing is more plain from the above testimonies, than that all Christians are declared to be justified under the Reign of Jesus Christ.

PROPOSITION III.

The ancient Christians were addressed by the Apostles as sanctified persons.

Paul addressed all the disciples in Rome as saints or sanctified persons. In his first letter to the Corinthians, he addressed them all as the sanctified under Christ Jesus. "To the congregation of God which is at Corinth, to the sanctified under Christ Jesus." Paul argues with the Hebrews that "By the will of God we are sanctified by the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once only." "For by this one offering he has for ever perfected (the conscience) of the sanctified." So usual was it for the Apostles to address their disciples as sanctified persons, that occasionally they are thus designated in the inscription upon their epistles. Thus Jude, addressing indiscriminately the whole Christian community, inscribes his catholic epistle--"To the sanctified by God our Father, and to the preserved (or saved) by Jesus Christ, to the called." "The Sanctifier and the sanctified are all of one family," says the Apostle to the Gentiles. And therefore the sanctifier addressed the sanctified as his brethren; and all his brethren, the disciples, as sanctified. But once more we must hear Paul, and hear him connecting his sanctification with the name of the Lord Jesus. He says, (I. Cor. iv. 16,) "But now you are sanctified by the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God." [514]

PROPOSITION IV.

The ancient Christians, the apostolic converts, were addressed as "reconciled to God."

Paul repeatedly declares that the disciples were reconciled to God, (Rom. v. 10,) "When enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son." To the Corinthians, (II. Epis. v. 18,) he says, "God has reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ;" and to the Colossians, (i. 21,) he asserts, "It pleased the Father by him to reconcile all things to him, having made peace by the blood of his cross; I say, whether they be things on the earth or things in the heavens. Even you [Gentiles] who were formerly alienated in mind, and enemies by works which are wicked, he has now, indeed, reconciled in the body of his flesh through death." To the Ephesians he declares, that though "once they were without God and without hope in the world, far off, they are now, through the blood of Christ, made nigh." He has made the believing Jews and Gentiles one, that he might, under Christ, reconcile both in one body to God, through the cross, having slain the enmity between both thereby. Indeed, he represents God as in Christ, reconciling a world to himself; and so all under Christ are frequently said to be reconciled to God through him: which was the point to be proved.

PROPOSITION V.

The first disciples were considered and addressed by the Apostles, as "adopted into the family of God."

This adoption is presented by the Apostle as the great reason which called forth the Son of God. "God," (says he, Gal. iv. 6,) "sent forth his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, that he might buy off those under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons." "And because you are sons, he has sent forth the spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father." "You are, therefore, now sons of God."

Indeed, the same writer, in his letter to the Ephesians, goes still farther, and represents this adoption of Jews and Gentiles into the rank and dignity of sons and daughters of the Lord Almighty, as the great object contemplated in God's predestination. (Eph. i. 5.) "Having," says he, "predestinated, or beforehand determinately pointed us out, for an adoption into the number of children by Jesus Christ, for himself, according to the good pleasure of his will." Another testimony must suffice on this point. "Beloved," says the Apostle John, "now are we the sons of God; and what manner of love has God bestowed upon us that we should be called sons of God! If sons, then we are heirs of God--joint heirs with Christ." [515]

PROPOSITION VI.

My sixth proposition is, that the first Christians were taught by the inspired teachers to consider themselves as saved persons.

Because of some ambiguity in the popular import of the term saved, when applied to the disciples of Christ, we shall define it as used in this proposition. I need not here descant upon the temporal saviours and temporal salvations which are so conspicuous in sacred history; nor need I mention that Noah and his family were saved from the judgment inflicted upon the Old World; the Israelites from the Egyptians, and from all their enemies--as Paul's companions were saved from the deep, and God's people, in all ages, in common with all mankind, from ten thousand perils to which their persons, their families, and their property have been exposed. It is not the present salvation of our persons from the ills of this life; but it is the salvation of the soul from the guilt, pollution, and dominion of sin. "Thou shalt call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins." It is the salvation of the soul in this present life of which we speak. And here it ought to be clearly and distinctly stated that there is a present and a future salvation, of which all Christians are to be partakers. The former is properly the salvation of the soul, and the latter is the salvation of the body, or the whole man, at the resurrection of the just. There are few professing Christianity, perhaps none, who do not expect a future salvation--the glory or salvation to be revealed in us at the last time. Peter, who uses this expression in the beginning of his first epistle, and who invites the saints to look forward to the salvation yet future, in the same connection reminds them that they have now received the salvation of the soul. Indeed, the salvation of the soul is but the first fruit of the Spirit, and but an earnest until the adoption, "the redemption of the body" from the bondage of corruption. It was in this sense of the word that salvation was announced to all who submitted to the Lord Jesus, and hence it is in this connection equivalent to a deliverance of the soul from the guilt, pollution, and dominion of sin. Having thus defined the present salvation of the soul, I proceed to the proof of my second proposition, viz.--that the first Christians were taught by their inspired teachers to consider themselves as saved persons.

Peter, on Pentecost, exhorted the Jews to save themselves from that untoward generation, by reforming and by being "immersed for the remission of their sins in the name of the Lord Jesus." Luke, in recording the success attendant on Peter's labors, expresses himself thus, (Acts ii. 42,) "And the Lord added, daily, the saved to the congregation." Those who obeyed the gospel were recorded by Luke as "the saved." The King's translators supplied out of their own system [516] the words "should be." They are not in any copy of the Greek Scriptures. Such is the first application of the words, "the saved," in the Christian Scriptures.

Paul uses the same words in his first letter to the Corinthians, and applies them to all the disciples of Jesus, (chap. i. 18,) "To the destroyed the doctrine of the cross is foolishness; but to us, the saved, it is the power of God." In the same letter, (chap. xv. 2,) he says of the gospel, "By which you are saved if you retain in your memory the word which I announced to you." In his second letter he uses the same style, and distinguishes the disciples by the same designation: "We are to God a fragrant odor of Christ among the saved, and among the destroyed." The Ephesians he declares are saved through favor; and to Titus he says, "God has saved us not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his own mercy." By what means we shall soon hear Paul affirm. To multiply testimonies, when there is no need of them, is only making a display for its own sake. The above selections are chosen because they are pointed, express, and unequivocal. Promises of salvation to the obedient are to be found in almost every public address pronounced by the Apostles and first preachers. For the Saviour commanded them to assure mankind that every one who believed the gospel, and was immersed, should be saved. And, connecting faith with immersion, Peter averred that immersion saved us, purifying the conscience through the resurrection of Jesus.

While Christians are taught to expect and hope for a future salvation--a salvation from the power of death and the grave--a salvation to be revealed in the last time--they receive the first fruit of the Spirit, the salvation of the soul from guilt, pollution, and the dominion of sin, and come under the dominion of righteousness, peace, and joy. This is what Peter affirms of all the Christians in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia Minor, and Bithynia, to whom he thus speaks: "Jesus, having not seen, you love; on whom, not now looking, but believing, you rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory, receiving the reward of your faith, the salvation of your souls."

These six propositions, being each and every one of them, clearly sustained by the unequivocal testimony of God, as adduced, and as is well known to the intelligent disciples, by many more passages, equally plain and forcible, not adduced; we shall now engross them into one leading proposition, which we shall in this essay consider as not to be questioned--as irrefragably proved.

The converts made to Jesus Christ by the Apostles were taught to consider themselves pardoned, justified, sanctified, reconciled, adopted, and saved; and were addressed as pardoned, justified, [517] sanctified, reconciled, adopted, and saved persons, by all who first preached the gospel of Christ.

While this proposition is before us, it may be expedient to remark that all these terms are expressive not of any quality of mind--not of any personal attribute of body, soul, or spirit; but each of them represents, and all of them together represent a state or condition. But though these terms represent state and not character, there is a relation between state and character, or an influence which state has upon character, which makes the state of immense importance in a moral and religious point of view.

Indeed, the strongest arguments which the Apostles use with the Christians to urge them forward in the cultivation and display of all the moral and religious excellencies of character, are drawn from the meaning and value of the state in which they are placed. Because forgiven, they should forgive; because justified, they should live righteously; because sanctified, they should live holily and unblameably because reconciled to God, they should cultivate peace with all men, and act benevolently towards all; because adopted, they should walk in the dignity and purity of sons of God; because saved, they should abound in thanksgiving, praises, and rejoicings, living soberly, righteously, and godly, looking forward to the blessed hope.

As this essay is designed for readers of the most common capacity and most superficial education, I trust I may be permitted to speak still more plainly upon the difference between state and character. Childhood is a state; so is manhood. Now a person in the state of childhood may act sometimes like a person in the state of manhood, and those arrived at the state of manhood may in character or behaviour resemble those in a state of childhood. A person in the state of a son may have the character of a servant, and a person in the state of a servant may have the character of a son. This is not generally to be expected, though it sometimes happens. Parents and children, masters and servants, husbands and wives, are terms denoting relations or states. To act in accordance with these states or relations, is quite a different thing from being in any of these states. Many persons enter into the state of matrimony, and yet act unworthily of it. This is true of many other states. Enough, we presume, is said to contradistinguish state and character, relations and moral qualities.

It is scarcely necessary to remark here, that, as the disciples of Christ are declared to be in a pardoned, justified, sanctified, reconciled, adopted, and saved state, they are the only persons in such a state; and all others are in an unpardoned, unjustified, unsanctified, unreconciled, unadopted, and lost state. [518]

When, then, is a change of state effected, and by what means? This is the great question soon to be discussed.

We are constrained to admit that a change in any one of these states necessarily implies, because it involves, a change in all the others. Every one who is pardoned is justified, sanctified, reconciled, adopted, and saved; and so every one that is saved, is adopted, reconciled, sanctified, justified, and pardoned.

To illustrate what has already been proved, let us turn to some of the changes of state which take place in society as at present constituted. A female changes her state. She enters into the state of matrimony. So soon as she has surrendered herself to the affectionate government and control of him who has become her husband, she has not only become a wife, but a daughter, a sister, an aunt, a niece, etc., and may stand in many other relations in which she before stood not. All these are connected with her becoming the wife of a person who stands in many relations. So when a person becomes Christ's, he is a son of Abraham, an heir, a brother, or is pardoned, justified, sanctified, reconciled, adopted, and saved.

To be in Christ, or under Christ, then, is to stand in these new relations to God, angels, and men: and to be out of him, or not under his mediatorship or government, is to be in, or under Adam only. It is to be in what is called "the state of nature," unpardoned, unjustified, unsanctified, unreconciled, and an alien from the family of God, lost in trespasses and sins.

These things premised, the question presents itself, When are persons in Christ? I choose this phrase in accommodation to the familiar style of this day. No person is in a home, in a ship, in a state, in a kingdom, but he that has gone or is introduced into a house, into a ship, into a state, into a kingdom; so no person is in Christ but he who has been introduced into Christ. The Scripture style is most religiously accurate. We have the words "in Christ" and the words "into Christ" often repeated in the Christian Scriptures; but in no one place can the one phrase be substituted for the other. Hence in all places, when any person is said to be in Christ, it refers not to his conversion, regeneration, or putting on Christ, but to a state of rest or privilege subsequent to conversion, regeneration, or putting on Christ. But the phrase "into Christ" is always connected with conversion, regeneration, immersion, or putting on Christ. Before we are justified in Christ, live in Christ, or fall asleep in Christ, we must come, be introduced, or immersed into Christ. Into belongs only to verbs implying motion towards; and in to verbs implying rest, or motion in. He eats, sleeps, sits in the house. He walks into the field, he rides into the city. "Into Christ" is a phrase only applicable to conversion, immersion, or regeneration, or what is called putting [519] on Christ, translation into his kingdom, or submission to his government.1

Presuming on the intelligence of our readers, so far as to suppose them assured that this is no mere verbal criticism, but a discrimination that detects one of the pillars of an apostate church, I proceed to another preliminary proposition which I choose to submit in the following words, to wit:-- [520]

PROPOSITION VII.

A change of heart, though it necessarily precedes, is in no case equivalent to, and never to be identified with, a change of state.

In all the relations of this life, in all states or conditions of men, we feel the truth of this; and I would to Heaven that our readers could see as plainly what is of infinitely more importance to them, that no change of heart is equivalent to, or can be substituted for, a change of state! A change of heart is the result of a change of views; and whatever can accomplish a change of views may accomplish a change of heart or feeling, but a change of state always calls for something more.

Lavinia was the servant of Palemon, and once thought him a hard master. She changed her views of him, and her feelings were also changed towards him; still, however, she continued in the state of a handmaid. Palemon offered her first his heart, and then his hand, and she accepted them. He vowed and she vowed before witnesses, and she became his wife. Then, and not till then, was her state changed. She is no longer a servant--she is now a wife. A change of views and of feeling led to this change in state; but let it be noted that this might not have issued in a change of state; for Maria, who was another handmaid of Palemon, and changed her views of him and her feelings towards him as much--nay, more than did Lavinia; yet Maria lived and died the servant maid of Palemon and Lavinia.

William Agricola and his brother Thomas, both Canadians, were once much opposed to the constituted government of New England They both changed their views, and, as a matter of course, their feelings were changed. William became a citizen of Rhode Island; but Thomas, notwithstanding his change of heart, lived and died a colonial subject of a British King.

John and James Superbus became great enemies to each other. They continued irreconciled for many years. At length a change of views brought about a change of heart; but this change for more than a year was concealed in the heart, and by no overt act appeared. They were not reconciled until mutual concessions were made and pledges of a change of feeling were tendered and reciprocated. From enemies they became friends.

A thousand analogies might be adduced, to show that though a change of state often--nay, generally results from a change of feelings, and this from a change of views, yet a change of state does not necessarily follow, and is something quite different from, and can not be identified with a change of heart. So in religion a man may change his views of Jesus, and his heart may also be changed towards him, but unless a change of state ensues he is still unpardoned, unjustified, [521] unsanctified, unreconciled, unadopted, and lost to all Christian, life and enjoyment. For it has been proved that these terms represent states and not feelings, condition and not character; and that a change of views or of heart, is not a change of state. To change a state is to pass into a new relation, and relation is not sentiment, nor feeling. Some act, then, constitutional, by stipulation proposed, sensible, and manifest, must be performed by one or both the parties before such a change can be accomplished. Hence, always, in ancient times, the proclamation of the gospel was accompanied by some instituted act proposed to those who changed their views, by which their state was to be changed, and by which they were to stand in a new relation to Jesus Christ.

This brings us to "the obedience of faith." From the time the proclamation of God's philanthropy was first made there was an act of faith proposed in it by which the believers of the proclamation were put in actual possession of its blessings, and by conformity to which act a change of state ensued.

To perceive what this act of faith is, it must be remarked that where there is no command there can be no obedience. These are correlate terms. A message or proclamation which has not a command in it, can not be obeyed. But the gospel can be obeyed or disobeyed, and therefore in it is a command. Lest any person should hesitate in a matter of such importance, we will prove,

PROPOSITION VIII.

That the gospel has in it a command, and as such must be obeyed.

And here I need not ask, Where are they who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord? Paul replies, (II. Thess. 1. 8,) "They who know not God, and obey not the gospel of his Son." To "obey the gospel," and "to become obedient to the faith," were common phrases in the apostolic discourses and writings. Rom. 1. 5, "By whom we have received apostleship, in order to the obedience of faith in all nations, on account of his name." Rom. xvi. 26, "By the commandment of the everlasting God the gospel is made known to all nations for the obedience of faith." Acts vi. 7, "A great company of the priests became obedient to the faith." Rom. x. 8, "But they have not all obeyed the gospel." And I. Pet. iv. 17, "What shall be the end of them who obey not the gospel?" From these sayings it is unquestionably plain, that either the gospel itself, taken as a whole, is a command, or that in it there is a command through the obedience of which salvation is enjoyed.

The obedience of the gospel is called the obedience of faith compared with the obedience of law, faith in God's promise through Jesus Christ being the principle from which the obedience flows. To [522] present the gospel in the form of a command is an act of favor because it engages the will and the affections of men and pats it in their power to have an assurance of their salvation from which they would be necessarily excluded if no such act of obedience was enjoined.

Whatever this act of faith may be, it necessarily becomes the line of discrimination between the two states before described. On this side, and on that, mankind are in quite different states. On the one side they are pardoned, justified, sanctified, reconciled, adopted, and saved: on the other they are in a state of condemnation. This act is sometimes called immersion, regeneration, conversion; and that this may appear obvious to all, we shall be at some pains to confirm and illustrate it.

That a relation or a state can be changed by an act, I need scarcely at this time attempt to prove; especially to those who know that the act of marriage, of naturalization, adoption, and of being born, changes the state of the subjects of such acts. But rather than attempt to prove that a state is, or may be changed, by an act; I should rather ask if any person has heard, knows, or can conceive of a state being changed without some act? This point being conceded to us by all the rational, we presume not to prove it. But a question may arise whether faith itself, or an act of obedience to some command or institution, is that act by which our state is changed.

PROPOSITION IX.

That it is not faith, but an act resulting from faith which changes our state, we shall now attempt to prove.

No relation in which we stand to the material world--no political relation, or relation to society, can be changed by believing, apart from, the acts to which that belief, or faith, induces us. Faith never made an American citizen, though it may have been the cause of many thousands migrating to this continent, and ultimately becoming citizens of these United States. Faith never made a man a husband, a father, a son, a brother, a master, a servant, though it may have been essentially necessary to all these relations, as a cause, or principle preparatory, or tending thereunto. Thus, when in Scripture, men are said to be justified by faith, or to receive any blessing through faith, it is because faith is the principle of action, and as such, the cause of those acts by which such blessings are enjoyed. But the principle without those acts is nothing, and it is only by the acts which it induces to perform, that it becomes the instrument of any blessings to men.

Many blessings are metonymically ascribed to faith in the sacred writings. We are said to be justified, sanctified, and purified by faith--to walk by faith, and to live by faith, etc., etc. But these sayings as qualified by the Apostles, mean no more than by believing the truth of [523] God, we have access into all these blessings. So that as Paul explains, "by faith we have access into the favor in which we stand." These words he uses on two occasions (Rom. v. 2; Eph. iii. 12) when speaking of the value of this principle, contrasted with the principle of law; and in his letter to the Hebrews, when he brings up his cloud of witnesses to the excellency of this principle, he shows that by it the ancients obtained a high reputation--that is, as he explains, by their acts of faith in obedience to God's commands.

That faith by itself neither justifies, sanctifies, nor purifies, is admitted by those who oppose immersion for the forgiveness of sins. They all include the idea of the blood of Christ. And yet they seem not to perceive, that in objecting to immersion as necessary to forgive in connection with faith, their own arguments preclude them from connecting the blood of Christ with faith. If they admit that faith, apart from the blood of Christ, can not obtain pardon, they admit all that is necessary to prove them inconsistent with themselves in opposing immersion for the remission of sins; or immersion, as that act by which our state is changed.

PROPOSITION X.

But that an act of faith, and not faith itself, changes our state; we prove, not by reasoning analogically, but from the apostolic writings. And to these we shall now attend. This proposition is, we think, sustained by the following testimonies:--

The Apostle Peter, when first publishing the gospel to the Jews, taught them, that they were not forgiven their sins by faith; but by an act of faith, by a believing immersion into the Lord Jesus. That this may appear evident to all, we shall examine his Pentecostian address, and his Pentecostian hearers.

Peter now holding the keys of the kingdom of Jesus, and speaking under the commission for converting the world, and by the authority of the Lord Jesus, guided, inspired, and accompanied by the Spirit--may be expected to speak the truth, the whole truth, plainly and intelligibly, to his brethren the Jews. He had that day declared the gospel facts, and proved the resurrection and ascension of Jesus to the conviction of thousands. They believed and repented--believed that Jesus was the Messiah, had died as a sin-offering, was risen from the dead, and crowned Lord of All. Being full of this faith, they inquired of Peter and the other Apostles, what they ought to do to obtain remission. They were informed, that though they now believed and repented, they were not pardoned; but must "reform and be immersed for the remission of sins." Immersion for the forgiveness of sins, was the command addressed to these believers, to these penitents, in answer to the most earnest question; and by one of the [524] most sincere, candid, and honest speakers ever heard. This act of faith was presented as that act by which alone they could be pardoned. They who "gladly received this word were that day immersed;" or, in other words, that same day were converted, or regenerated, or obeyed the gospel. These expressions in the Apostles' style, when applied to persons coming into the kingdom, denote the same act as will be perceived from the various passages in the writings of Luke and Paul. This testimony, when the speaker, the occasion, and the congregation are all taken into view, is itself alone sufficient to establish the point in support of which we have adduced it.

But the second discourse, recorded by Luke from the lips of the same Peter, pronounced in Solomon's Portico, is equally pointed, clear, and full in support of this position. After he had explained the miracle which he had wrought in the name of the Lord Jesus, and stated the same gospel facts, he proclaims the same command "Reform and be converted that your sins may be blotted out;" or, "Reform and turn to God, so that your sins may be blotted out; that seasons of refreshment from the presence of the Lord may come, and that he may send Jesus whom the heavens must receive till the accomplishment of all the things which God has foretold," etc. Peter, in substituting other terms in this proclamation, for those used on Pentecost, does preach a new gospel, but the same gospel in terms equally strong. He used the same word in the first part of the command, which he used on Pentecost. Instead of "be immersed," he has here "be converted," or "turn to God;" instead of "for the remission of your sins," here it is, "that your sins may be blotted out;" and instead of "you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit," here it is, "that seasons of refreshment from the presence of the Lord may come."2 On Pentecost, it was, 1. "Reform." 2. "Be immersed." 3. "For the remission of your sins." And 4. "You shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." In Solomon's Portico, it was, 1. "Reform." 2. "Be converted." 3. "That your sins may be blotted out." And 4. "That seasons of refreshment from the presence of the Lord may come;" that "you may have righteousness, peace, and joy, in a holy spirit." So read the different clauses in these two discourses to the Jews, expressive of the same acts.

There is yet, in this discourse in the Portico, a very strong expression, declarative of the same gracious connection between immersion [525] and remission. It is the last period in the discourse. "Unto you, first, brethren of the Jews, God having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, every one of you, in the act of turning from your iniquities;" or, as we would say, in the act of conversion. Why the Apostle Peter should have used "converted," or "turning to God," instead of "be immersed," is, to the candid and unprejudiced reader of this narrative, very plain. After Pentecost, the disciples immersed on that day, having turned to God through Jesus, were spoken of by their brethren as discipled or converted to Jesus. The unbelieving Jews, soon after Pentecost, knew that the disciples called the immersed, "converted;" and immersion being the act of faith which drew the line of demarcation between Christians and Jews, nothing could be more natural than to call the act of immersion the converting of a Jew. The time intervening between these discourses was long enough to introduce and familiarize this style in the metropolis; so that when a Christian said, "Be converted," or, "Turn to God," every Jew knew, the act of putting on the Messiah to be that intended. After the immersion of some Gentiles into the faith, in the house and neighborhood of Cornelius, it was reported that the Gentiles were converted to God. Thus, (Acts xv. 3,) the Apostles, in passing through the country, gave great joy to the disciples from among the Jews, "telling them of the conversion" or immersion of the Gentiles. Indeed, in a short time it was a summary way of representing the faith, reformation, and immersion of disciples, by using one word for all. Thus, (Acts ix.,) "All the inhabitants of Sharon and Lydda turned," or were converted to the Lord."

While on the subject of conversion, we shall adduce, as a fourth testimony, the words of the Lord Jesus to Paul, when he called him. Paul is introduced by Luke in the Acts, telling what the Lord said to him when he received his apostleship. Acts xxvi. 17, 18, "I send you Paul, by the faith that respects me, to open their eyes; to turn or convert them from darkness to light; and from the power of Satan to God; that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and an inheritance among the saved." Every thing to be accomplished among the Gentiles was to be effected by the faith or truth in Christ. The Saviour connected that with opening their eyes; their conversion from the ignorance and tyranny of sin and Satan; their forgiveness of sins, and finally, an inheritance among the saved or sanctified. First, faith or illumination; then, conversion; then, remission of sins; then, the inheritance. All these testimonies concur with each other in presenting the act of faith--Christian immersion, frequently called conversion; as that act, inseparably connected with the remission of sins; or that change of state, of which we have already spoken. [526]

One reason why we would arrest the attention of the reader to the substitution of the terms convert and conversion, for immerse and immersion, in the apostolic discourses and in the sacred writings, is not so much for the purpose of proving that the forgiveness of sins, or a change of state, is necessarily connected with that act of faith called "Christian immersion;" as it is to fix the minds of the Biblical students upon a very important fact, viz.: that immersion is the converting act; or, that no person is discipled to Christ until he is immersed. It is true, that this view of the matter bears strongly upon the question; but it bears upon other great matters pertaining to the present and ancient order of things.

Discovering that much depended upon having correct views on this point, we have minutely examined all those passages where "conversion," either in the common version, or in the new version, or in the original, occurs, and have found an uniformity in the use of this term, and its compounds and derivatives, which warrant the conclusion, that the converting act is immersion; or that the assumption of the Lord's name is in this Institution. That such was the apostolic import of the term, we have no doubt. No person was said to be converted until he was immersed; and all persons, who were immersed, were said to be converted. If any apostatized, and were again converted, it was in that sense in which our Lord applied the word to Peter, "When you are converted, strengthen your brethren;" or, as James used it in his letter when he said, "If any of you err from the truth, and one convert him, let him know that he who converts a transgressor from the error of his way, shall save a soul from death, and hide a multitude of sins."

In a number of the Christian Baptist, nigh the close of seventh volume, we noticed, that in the commission to convert the nations, the act by which this work was to be completed, was the act of immersion. This was argued from the charge, as given by the Saviour, from the manner in which the order was ordained. "Going forth," says he, "disciple all nations, or convert all the nations--immersing them into the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, teaching the disciples to observe all the things I have "commanded you," etc. On this a question was proposed, viz.: "Does not the active participle always, when connected with the imperative mood, express the manner in which the thing commanded is to be performed? Cleanse the room, washing it; clean the floor, sweeping it: cultivate the field, ploughing it; sustain the hungry, feeding them; furnish the soldiers, arming them; convert the nations, immersing them--are exactly the same forms of speech. No person will, we presume, controvert this." This has, however, been warmly attacked by several writers. A writer in a New York paper, and Christianos, [527] and "No Theorist" in the Religious Herald, have warmly opposed this rule. They have only denied that it is universal. That is as a general rule, and that the examples given are all fairly under it, no one has, as yet, presumed to controvert. Its universality alone has been called in question. It was felt that its generality could not be impugned. To escape from its force, it is necessary to prove it not universal. If, however, it were proved not universal, still its generality might prevent the possibility of escape from its applicability in this case. And what surprises me not a little is, that brother Andrew Broaddus, the most acute, and discriminating of those who have impugned its universality, does not observe that here it must apply were it only a general and not a universal rule. There is but one position he can take to elude its applicability in this case; and this I am persuaded he will not take. He will not say, that a disciple is finished, and made, or completed, without immersion. That the work of discipling is finished before immersion and without immersion. Neither Catholics, nor Protestants, will, as such, contend that a Pagan or a Jew was ever discipled or converted to the Christian faith without immersion. Indeed, I presume, that brother Broaddus has been so much engrossed in discussing the mere universality of the rule, and has been so much engaged in attempting to find exceptions to it, that he has not looked to the bearing, nor to the cui bono, the utility, of his examples. That the nations could be converted to Jesus Christ without immersion, he must affirm, if he allege the rule is inapplicable in this place. Will he take this ground? If he does not take this ground, he is only beating the air; or, what is still less profitable, he is sapping and mining that which he has been building up all his life--that immersion is a discipling institution. I care not whether he object to those words: it is a fact, a sober fact, that he has, as a Baptist, made immersion a discipling institution. I would not say of him what I have to say of many of my opponents, that he would rather go back to Judaism, or Presbyterianism, than that I should convince him of the import of Christian immersion. Indeed, they are, in principle, going back to Pedobaptism; and before this controversy is ended they will be driven there, or into the ancient gospel.

"No Theorist," whom we suspect to have written much in favor of immersion against Dr. Rice of pamphleteering memory, is well skilled in managing Paidobaptist arguments; yet I will engage to show him, that he must "give up the ship," if he will try me on the affirmative of this position--"a person may be converted according to the commission without immersion." I say, let him take the affirmative of this position, (which he obliges himself to do in attempting to show that my rule is not applicable here,) and I will attempt to [528] prove that his argument against Paido-ism is, vox et preterea nihil, sound and nothing else.

The question is, Who is to be immersed--a Christian, a disciple, a convert to Christ; or a believing candidate for discipleship? One who has put on Christ; or one who wishes to put him on? One who is under Christ; or one who wishes to be under him? One in the Kingdom of Jesus Christ; or one who wishes to become a citizen? This, brethren, is the question. And, although you may not have seen it, in opposing my rule in its application here, you take the Paidobaptist side, and I am the Baptist now.

But, perhaps, he does not oppose the application of the rule in this case; but only wishes to try his strength in critical disquisitions: and thinking that he has got an advantage over me in this case, he and brother Keeling are determined to push me to the wall and to carry this point by dint of critical investigation. Be it so. I ought not to envy them this pleasure. But I wish them to bear in mind, that in succeeding in this case, their success will be a serious loss to themselves.

But as the question of conversion, as well as the act of converting, is implicated in this controversy upon the participle, I will, though it may appear tedious, introduce brother Broaddus at his own request, and let him speak to my readers, in reply to my former criticism upon his criticism.

To prevent mistakes I shall here transcribe a part of a note found in the Appendix to the second edition of the new version of the Christian Scriptures, page 452:

"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 eis 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--I. 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.' Acts xix. 3, 'Into what were you then immersed? When they heard this they were immersed into the name of the Lord Jesus.' I. Cor. i. 13, 'Were you immersed into the name of Paul? Lest any should say, I had immersed into my own name.' I. Cor. x. 1, 'Our fathers were all immersed into Moses in the cloud and in the sea.' Now in all these places it is eis, 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 protector, 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." [520]

There is no propriety in the common version of this member of the sentence--when, instead of that, "seasons of refreshment." Some make modern revivals" seasons of refreshment," such as these here alluded to. Then it would read, "That your sins may be blotted out in the times of revivals"--when revivals shall come! The term is opos, which, in this construction, as various critics have contended, is equivalent to "that" in our tongue. To promise a future remission is no part of the gospel, nor of the apostolic proclamation. All Christians experience seasons of refreshment in cordially obeying the gospel. [525]

[A. C.]

Criticism Again

[From the Religious Herald.]

CRITICISM AGAIN.

"Disciple or convert the nations, immersing them," etc.

The point at issue between Mr. Campbell and myself, in this case, is not whether baptism appertains to the character of a disciple of Christ: this I not only admit, but maintain. And so of the observance of the Lord's supper, and, indeed, of "all those things" which our King left in charge with his Apostles. Nor is the question between us, whether baptism is the act by which persons are formally recognized as disciples: for here again we agree. But the question is this:--Does it follow from the grammatical construction of the commission, when translated, "convert all the nations, immersing them," etc., that baptism is to be considered as really and properly the converting act: is that by which the command to convert was to be obeyed, and the nations converted? Mr. Campbell affirms, and I have undertaken to deny: and here we are at issue.

In support of his position, Mr. Campbell argues, that "the active participle does always, when connected with the imperative mood, express the manner in which the thing commanded is to be performed:" and thus, that the commission given by our Lord, "convert [529] all the nations, immersing them," etc., must be interpreted, convert them by immersing them: "That was the act [he says] by which the command to convert the nations was to be obeyed." (C. B., vol. 7, p. 164.)

Strongly persuaded that Mr. Campbell was too sanguine in his conclusion, I ventured to call in question the validity of his criticism; and undertook to show, that the universality of his position could not be maintained. That the active participle does not always express the manner of performing the preceding command; but that sometimes it expresses another thing, distinct from the first; or, in other words, that it has the force of another imperative mood. This point being established, the argument founded on Mr. Campbell's criticism would fall to the ground; and we must then resort to other data to decide the question, "Is baptism really the converting act?" Here still I differed from Mr. Campbell, and endeavored briefly to show that conversion does not consist in baptism. This, I believe, is a fair statement of the case.

From the manner in which my friend of the Harbinger has replied to my strictures, (waving his palm triumphantly over me,) it would seem that he is quite confident my "Criticism" is blown all to atoms; and possibly some others may think so too. Mr. Campbell can argue not only powerfully, when on the right side, but plausibly, when he happens to be on the wrong side. What will be thought when I now say, with confidence, (though I trust, with becoming modesty, and certainly with perfect friendship,) that I feel myself prepared to sustain my criticism, as well as to defend my theology! The point we have been on has not yet received a proper attention. It is desirable I should not be tedious, and I will enter immediately into the matter.

My position is this: that the active participle, connected with the imperative mood, does not always express the manner in which the preceding command is to be performed:--that sometimes (and more frequently indeed than I had supposed) it expresses a distinct action--having the force of another imperative, and being convertible into that mood, with the conjunction, and, before it, expressed or understood. Be it observed, that the construction I contend for, takes place in condensed sentences, condensed as to matter and form; there being a close connection between the parts of the sentence, and an affinity in the object.

I was just about to illustrate my position, by casting another bullet in the same mould; thinking it might be smoother than my other two; I was just about to invent another example. But I forbear; there is no need; and I might not only give my friend some trouble in "converting it into good common English," or in exposing [530] its good-for-nothingness; but bring on myself also some chastisement, for the violence I might happen to commit on the principles of language. Well then; let me exemplify from better authority.

I am called on to bring one example to my purpose, "only one example, from any standard writer, Grecian, Roman, or English;" and I will do more than that: I will perform, for once, a work of supererogation.

Col. iii. 16, "Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom; teaching and admonishing one another, in psalms, and hymns, and spiritual songs." Now permit me to say, that these two active principles, teaching and admonishing, do not, strictly and properly speaking, express the manner in which the foregoing injunction or exhortation is to be complied with; but that they express kindred exercises, requisite to be added to the first mentioned qualification; that, therefore, they are virtually distinct imperatives, and capable of being converted into imperative moods; the language, in both cases, being pure and classical. If I am correct, it can not be denied that I have here brought an example in point. And that I am correct, I call to witness the common version and Greek Testament, in both of which the active participles are used; and Dr. Macknight--yes, Dr. Macknight, the learned critic and translator, who has actually translated these participles by the imperative mood--rendering them clearly distinct from the first imperative, by introducing the copulative and. "Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly; and with all wisdom teach and admonish each other," etc. Now Mr. Campbell says, "To convert participles into imperative moods is only necessary when there is some unreasonable point to carry." But Macknight has actually done this: (see Mr. Campbell's New Translation) and I do not suppose Mr. Campbell will accuse him of having done this to carry some unreasonable point. Has not my good friend been rather rash and hasty? Most of us are liable to this: may we learn to improve! Here comes another example.

I. Pet. v. 6, 7, "Humble yourselves therefore under the mighty hand of God that he may exalt you in due time; casting all your care upon him; for he careth for you." It is unnecessary to repeat the above remarks which are apposite and applicable here. Macknight considers the participle as enjoining an additional exercise, and accordingly renders it by the imperative mood. "Cast all your anxious care on him," etc. (See New Translation again.)

Other similar examples might be adduced from the Epistles: other "bullets made in the same moulds," namely, in the Greek Testament, in the common version, and in Macknight's translation. But let us now once more try the commission. And here I might, by way of example, take this passage, as it stands in the common version. [531]

"Teach all nations, baptizing them:" for scarcely any person, I presume, would insist on a construction of this sort; "teach them by baptizing them." I might take this example, if it were necessary, to keep me in countenance at least. However, I will not here insist on it. Let us try Dr. Campbell's translation.

"Go, therefore, convert all the nations, baptizing (or immersing) them," etc. Here it is that we are told, without any hesitation or shadow of doubt, the meaning is, "convert the nations by immersing them:" and that it must be so for this reason, if for no other, namely, that the active participle, connected with the imperative mood, does always express the manner of performing that command. Already, however, the force of this criticism appears to be greatly spent. Macknight has withered its strength. Let us see how it will be treated by the illustrious Dr. George Campbell.

In his critical note (mark that! a critical note) on this passage, (Matt. xxviii. 19, 20,) he says, "There are manifestly three things which our Lord here distinctly enjoins his Apostles to execute with regard to the nations, to wit, matheteuein, baptizein, didaskein; that is, to convert them to the faith--to initiate the converts into the church by baptism--and to instruct the baptized in all the duties of the Christian life." Mr. Campbell says expressly, "If distinct commands, they ought to be distinct imperatives. So will decree all the colleges in Christendom." But his namesake the Doctor as positively maintains, that here "there are three things distinctly enjoined;" that is, virtually, three imperatives, though two expressed in the participial form. So decrees George Campbell, D. D., F. R. S., Principal of Marischal College, Aberdeen. Behind his ample Telamonian shield I take shelter.

It is now left to the candid and judicious--or I may say, to the learned, (for I too am willing to appeal, in this case, to the learned,) to all competent persons it is left to judge, whether I have not produced authority--good standard authority to justify my criticism. And I think I might ask my friend of the Harbinger himself whether it still appears that I was so glaringly wrong in supposing that the phraseology of the commission might well be construed according to that criticism? and whether I ought not to be considered, as in some measure redeemed from the charge of an outrage upon the peace and dignity of the commonwealth of letters?

In the discussion of this point, I have not been led on to oppose the views of my friend Mr. Campbell by an ambitious desire to pluck one laurel bud from the chaplet which decks his brow, though, indeed, if this were done, he might well afford it. He will have enough left to satisfy any reasonable man. We take pleasure in owning him the conqueror of Walker and M'Calla on Baptism; and the Christian [532] public must hail, with gratulation, the complete discomfiture of the atheistic Owen; who, like the Moloch of Milton,

"Down cloven to the waist, with shattered arms, And uncouth pain, fled bellowing."

Many admirable things, I own, Mr. Campbell has written; but we know he is not infallible. If my position is now established (as I think it is) "that the active participle, connected with the imperative mood, does sometimes carry the force of an additional injunction," then Mr. Campbell's argument, founded on the grammatical construction of the sentence, must fall of course, and his views must depend on other data for support.

Let me now take occasion to say, that on the point in question, there would probably be no material difference between us, were it not that Mr. Campbell in his zeal for external conversion, seems to lose sight of internal conversion, or to make it only a thing by the by; or, in other words, that he appears almost to disregard the line of distinction between the visible kingdom of Christ, and the power of that kingdom (or reign) within us. Mark well! I do not wish to separate, but to distinguish between them. "Convert the nations;" turn their hearts to the Lord: "immersing them;" thus preparing them to enter and enjoy the visible kingdom: "teaching them to observe all things," etc., thus accomplishing them as subjects preparing for the approbation of their King. "We come to Christ by baptism." Yes; but this is not the only way. We first come to him spiritually by a living faith; and then externally and visibly by being "baptized into his death." While I am writing, from my heart I am wishing, that I and all of us, could see, satisfactory ground for harmonizing more cordially with one, for whom personally I feel a real friendship; for whose talents and learning I have the highest respect; and to whose labors I own we are indebted for a noble vindication of the truth in some of its branches. Would that there were not some dangerous blows dealt out, against which I think we ought to be guarded.

The remarks in the above paragraph go, in some measure, towards a defense of my theology. There will not be space for me now to say much in that way. But I can not forbear expressing my surprise and regret, that Mr. Campbell should so vehemently reprobate my account of conversion. In the sincerity of my heart I thought it a good and valid account, and still I think it so. But this, I know, is not enough. Is it Scriptural? Clearly so, I think. "Conversion (I said) is a turning of the heart to holiness:" here Mr. Campbell stops me short, without quoting out the sentence, impatient, it would seem, to cast my definition (as an idol) "to the moles and bats." He stops me here, and talks about "mental converts," and "philosophical converts," [533] and how "Christian converts are persons whose lives are changed." Well! but hear me out (it is but fair) and see whether this essential requisite is not included. "Conversion is a turning of the heart to holiness, by repentance towards God, and faith towards our Lord Jesus Christ; this repentance bringeth forth "fruits meet," and this faith "working by love." Now I ask, Is not the necessary change of life embraced here? And what possible fault can be found with this account of conversion, by any person who considers a turning of the heart as well as a change of life to be necessary? And is not a turning of the heart to holiness necessary? Or will God, who requires the heart to be given to him, accept of mere external reformation? Or are our hearts naturally turned already to him? I go for conversion from centre to circumference--from the heart to the life. Ah, my good sir, I am aware indeed that the notions of many people about conversion, need correction; but let us take care, that while we are cutting away the unsound flesh, we cut not the heart.

Caroline, Virginia. CHRISTIANOS.

P. S.--Mr. Campbell, it is hoped, will be so obliging as to give this reply a place in the next Harbinger.

I am pleased to see that Christianos does not defend the examples which he before alleged. This is candid. And had not Dr. Macknight turned the Greek participles into English imperatives, in the two examples here adduced; I am so charitable as to think they would not have been here adduced on this occasion. This is another question involving other canons of criticism. How far a translator may, from the diversity of idioms in any two languages, change the moods and flexions of verbs, to give greater clearness and force of expression, is to be decided before another tribunal, and to be tried in another court, than before that in which we are to try the rights of an English writer to convert imperatives into participles, or participles into imperatives. The remark quoted from my former criticism, and applied with so much zest to this question of translation, is misplaced: "To convert participles into imperative moods is only necessary when there is some unreasonable point to carry!" If I had said to translate participles into imperative moods from one language into another, it would have been apposite; but, surely, the right an English writer has to convert participles into imperatives, is another question! I can not, then, so much admire the candor of my friend Christianos in this instance as in the former; especially as he knew that the Greeks have three voices, five moods, eight tenses, and in each voice they have eight participles, and six imperatives. If all these are translated into a language with fewer moods, tenses, and participles; changes of moods, tenses, and participles must take place. Supposing these remarks to have no bearing whatever on this question, [534] still they go to show the impropriety of converting a canon of writing English into a canon of translating. This remark applies to "No Theorist," as fully as to "Christianos." His whole criticism is, however, a mistake of the question; and as it seems he wrote his criticism at the request of somebody, not having read my remarks, as he says; it would be preposterous for me to pay any more attention to them than, to inform him, that he must read first, and write afterwards. Then will an apology for attacking, he knows not what, be unnecessary.

Christianos will yet see, I trust, that I have neither been as rash, nor as hasty as "No Theorist;" nor so rash and hasty as he, supposes me to have been, in alleging the universality of this rule in its legitimate interpretation and application. Dr. Macknight translating the participles by imperatives, and supplying an and may, or may not be defended, and still the rule be true. Indeed his inserting an and shows that he felt that if the participial form was changed, it must either be disconnected from the imperative by and, or cut off from it by placing a full period between them, which is a general rule in such cases. His translating a participle by an imperative, required a supplementary and according to my rule; but none, according to Christianos.

The reasons which induced Macknight in this case, appear to have been, that the punctuation in some Greek and English copies connected the words "in all wisdom," with the command, "Let the word of God dwell in you richly." This is the common version; but he follows the pointing which Griesbach preferred, and reads it, "Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, and in all wisdom teach," etc. To give it greater force, and to mark more distinctly the connection between "in all wisdom" and teaching, he chose this course. It would have been equally plain in rendering it as Thompson has done--"Let the word of the Christ dwell richly in you with all wisdom, when you teach and admonish one another, when with psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs you sing gratefully to the Lord with your heart." Here it is thrown into another mood. Pierce, as learned a critic as any of them, says the phrase, the word of Christ, is "the discourse concerning the Christ," and not the ordinary conversation of Christians, which is alluded to; and, therefore, it ought to read, "Let the history of Christ dwell richly among you, teaching," etc.

Having now attended to some of the reasons for the translation, let us hear our friend reason upon this his example. He asserts that teaching and admonishing "do not strictly, and properly speaking, express the manner in which the foregoing injunction is to be complied with;" but not strictly, and improperly speaking, they do! But [535] "they express kindred exercises," German cousins at least; but nothing nearer akin, and "therefore" (this is a logical particle after two assertions! ) they are "virtually" distinct imperatives! This is the reason why they, improperly speaking, express the manner of the action! My friend Christianos relied too much upon Dr. Macknight's helping him out, and thought that this would pass for logic, backed as it would be, by the new version.

But I have yet to make my most serious objection to this example; and it is, because it is not a pertinent one. There is more than a simple imperative mood; nay, virtually, two or three imperatives in this sentence. "Let the word of Christ dwell in you," would be a simple imperative. But, "Let it dwell in you richly," is another command: and what if teaching and admonishing belong to the richly, and not to the simple imperative? Then it, strictly and properly speaking, does show the manner in which the word is to dwell in us richly. This assertion, without argument, is certainly as conclusive as Christianos' assertion--that it does not strictly and properly express the manner. But I can do more than assert; for the following words show that the manner of dwelling in us, is the primary object. "In all wisdom, teaching," etc. The second imperative in this sentence is richly; and according to the common version, the third imperative is "in all wisdom." "Let the word of Christ dwell in you," is one command. "Let it dwell in you richly," is the second command. "Let it dwell in you in all wisdom," is a third command; and the participles teaching, admonishing, and praising, show the manner in which these commands are to be obeyed. I now leave it with the discerning public to say what has become of my friend Christianos' triumphant exception to this universal rule.

Having found that this is not the one example demanded in my former criticism, I will be excused from considering "the work of supererogation," for the second example falls before the same tribunal.

But it falls before another tribunal also. If separated, as Macknight does in his punctuation of the sentence, then it is not connected with the imperative humble; and so it destroys its being an example at all. And standing before two other imperatives, it may apply to them, or to one of them in sense. Suppose, then, that casting our care upon the Heavenly Father, does not express the manner of humbling ourselves under the mighty hand of God, it may show the manner in which the succeeding imperatives are to be obeyed. This, the punctuation must determine. Thompson, into whose version I have just now looked, points it as follows--"Having cast all your care upon him, for he careth for you, be sober, be watchful; because your adversary the devil is walking about," etc. What a [536] pity that my friend Christianos should be so unfortunate in finding examples!

Other critics have suggested to me as exceptions--"Take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, praying always with all prayer and supplication." But the praying always is the adjunct of the following words--"with all prayer and supplication, praying always"--and this is the manner in which every part of the Christian panoply is to be put on.

"Rising be immersed, and wash you from your sins, calling on the name of the Lord," is also adduced as an exception by two others. Calling here shows the manner in which he is to submit to the commandment. It is in the passive voice, and shows the manner of submitting, not of acting. In this way he is to connect his immersion with invocation of the name of the Lord. Thus, while immersing into the name of the Lord, all the immersed should invoke his name. And thus, in spirit and reality, do all who intelligently go down into the water.

"Standing, going, and arising," precede many imperatives in the Septuagint idiom. Because these are modes and manners in which a servant first places himself to receive or to execute instructions. Standing forward, be immersed; coming forward, wash your hands; arising, enter the synagogue, etc., are all expressions of the same family, and do not constitute exceptions to this rule. Because, even when most rigidly interpreted, they show the manner in which the person is to obey the command, or the manner in which the command is to be obeyed; and both are included in my definition of it.

But my friend Christianos returns to the commission, and after a mere hint of what might be achieved, if the common version could be sustained, ("teach all nations," instead of "convert") generously, however, giving this up, he throws himself behind the shield of Dr. George Campbell, which places me in as awkward a position as was William Tell, who had to split an apple on the head of his son; either at the hazard of his own life if he shot too high, or at the hazard of his son's if he shot too low. What in such a crisis is to be done? Try to escape, or to die like a soldier? We shall hear what are the conditions proposed. Dr. George Campbell says there are three distinct acts in the commission, and yet but one imperative; and I have said that if distinct commands, they ought to be distinct imperatives. Am I not stranded here!! I dare not say that Dr. George Campbell is in an error. I dare not retract my position, that if distinct commands they ought to be distinct imperatives. To save myself and the Doctor, is now a consummation most devoutly to be wished. Let us see if any way of escape remains. A says to B, Saddle my horse. This is one imperative. But, in obeying this command, B has to [537] perform three acts--to catch the horse, to bridle the horse, and to saddle him. D says to E, Make a fire in the study. One imperative again. But how many acts--go after the fuel, carry it into the study, build it upon the hearth, go after a spark, apply it, and fan it into a flame. One imperative and six acts. Well, now, I agree with Dr. George Campbell, that there are three distinct acts. There is first proclaiming the gospel; then immersing the believers; and then teaching the immersed how to behave themselves. But in each of these acts there are diverse acts. In immersing, for instance, there is walking to the bath or river; there is a call for the good confession; there is walking down into the water, taking hold of the candidate, pronouncing the words of the institution; putting the person under the water, and raising him up again. Here are seven acts. But who will say, that there ought to be seven commands? You say so, replies Christianos. I request him to read what I have written again: "If distinct acts, they ought to be distinct imperatives." No: that is not what I have written. If distinct commands, I say they ought to be distinct imperatives. And so one horn of the dilemma is broken!

In the most perfect good will and esteem for my very intelligent friend and brother Broaddus, I have written the preceding remarks. And I must add, that I feel obliged to him for the unsparing critical severity with which he has examined this rule. I feel, if possible, more confidence in it than before; seeing it pass the ordeal of one who has a hundred eyes for one of some of my opponents, and whose attainments, as a writer, are so conspicuous, and so generally acknowledged and admired as to need neither notice nor encomium.

I think my friend Christianos is quite alarmed at the idea if making baptism the converting act. This is the reason why he sought out exceptions to a rule which he has admitted is general, and with what success he has sought for exceptions I leave others to say. As I have given all the exceptions to it which I have heard from all quarters, I will now add the opinion of a plain good-sense English scholar, who never harangued a congregation. He is from a county bordering on the cure of bishop Broaddus.

"Christianos seems to be very tenacious of his views on Rom. viii. and also of his criticisms. But, not being able to produce one example similar to his own, he has given two examples quite foreign from the point. He might have given many such examples; but they are no exceptions to the RULE. Because in these examples the participles are used mentally, and do not relate to the same word which is governed by the imperative mood as in the commission. In this, and in all similar examples, the participles are used physically; that is, to denote an act of the body. To prevent all mistake, I would add to [538] your rule, provided the participle is used physically, to denote any act of the body."

I have heard the views of sundry learned persons, who are unanimous in their opinion of its perfect accuracy. But so long as the general accuracy of it is admitted by all, with the commission in all its circumstances, with the practice of the Apostles under it, declarative of the fact, that unless the nations were immersed they were not converted, I see no good reason for contesting, nor need for defending its absolute truth universally. I pray the teachers of the Scriptures to consider, that no person in the Scripture style, (and for that we contend) is said to be converted to God until he is immersed. I think I can reconcile, even Christianos to the idea, that the act of immersion is an act of conversion; and what may be called the new birth or regeneration, spoken of in the Holy Scriptures. Christianos will agree with me, that many terms have a Bible sense, different from the ecclesiastic sense, and that it is our safety, as it is our province, and our happiness, to understand the Bible language in the Bible sense, or to attach the apostolic ideas to the apostolic words.

[A. C.]

Sources:

1. Christianos (Andrew Broaddus). "Criticism Again" (From Religious Herald). The Millennial Harbinger Extra 1 (July 1830): 18-22.

2. Alexander Campbell. Reply to "Criticism Again." The Millennial Harbinger Extra 1 (July 1830): 22-27.

Proposition X

I now proceed to show that immersion and regeneration are two Bible names for the same act, contemplated in two different points of view.

The term regeneration occurs but twice in the common version of the New Testament, and not once in the Old Testament. The first is Matt. xix. 28. "You that have followed me in the regeneration, when the Son of man shall sit on the throne of his glory, you also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel." Dr. George Campbell, following the punctuation adopted by Griesbach, and substituting the word renovation instead of regeneration, renders it--"That, at the renovation, when the Son of man shall be seated on his glorious throne, you, my followers, sitting also upon twelve thrones, shall," etc. Genesis, being the term used for creation, palingenesia denotes the new creation. Either literally at the resurrection of the dead, or figuratively, at the commencement of the Christian era, or at the commencement of the Millennium. Josephus the Jew called the return of Israel to their own land, and institution, "the regeneration," or "palingenesia."

No writer of any note, critic or expositor, supposes that regeneration in Matt. xix. applies to what is, in theology, called the new birth, or regeneration of the soul--not even the Presbyterian Matthew Henry, nor Dr. Whitby, Campbell, Macknight, Thompson; nor, indeed, any writer we recollect ever to have read. Regeneration in this passage denotes a state, a new state of things. In the same sense we [539] often use the term. The American Revolution was the regeneration of the country or the government. The commencement of the Christian era was a regeneration--so will be the Millennial Era--so will be the creation of the new Heavens and new Earth. As this is so plain a matter, and so generally admitted, we proceed to the second occurrence of this term.

"God has saved us by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Spirit" (Common version, Tit. iii. 5). God has saved us through the bath of regeneration, and the renewing of the, Holy Spirit. This is the second time the word regeneration is found in the New Testament; and here it is conceded by the most learned Paidobaptists and Baptists, that it refers to immersion. Though I have been led to this conclusion from my views of the Christian religion, yet I neither hold it myself, nor justify it to others on this account. I choose rather to establish it by other testimonies, than by those who agree with me in the import of this institution. Amongst these I shall place Dr. James Macknight, formerly prolocutor or moderator of the Presbyterian Church of Scotland, and translator of the Apostolic Epistles. One of his notes upon Tit. iii. 5, is in the following words:--"Through the bath of regeneration." "Through baptism, called the bath of regeneration, not because any change in the nature" (but I would say in the state) "of the baptized person is produced by baptism; but because it is an emblem of the purification of his soul from sin." He then quotes in proof, (Acts xxii. 16,) "Arise, and be immersed, and wash thee from thy sins."--Paul. He supports this view also from Eph. v. 26, and John iii. 5. "The bath of regeneration," is then, according to the learned Paidobaptist, Christian immersion.

Parkhurst, in his lexicon, upon the word loutron, connects this same phrase, the washing or bath of regeneration, with Eph. v. 26, and John iii. 5, as alluding to immersion. So say all the critics, one by one, as far as I know. Even Matthew Henry, the good and venerable Presbyterian commentator, concedes this point also, and quotes Eph. v. 26, Acts xxii. 16, and Matt. xxviii, 19, 20, in support of the conclusion, that the washing of regeneration refers to baptism.

Our opponents themselves being judges, we have gained this point; viz.: that the only time the word regeneration occurs in the New Testament with a reference to a personal change, it means, or is equivalent to, immersion. Regeneration and immersion are, therefore, two names for the same thing. Although I might be justified in proceeding to another topic, and in supposing this point to be fully established, I choose rather, for the sake of the slow to apprehend, to fortify this conclusion by some other testimonies and arguments.

As regeneration is taught to be equivalent to "being born again," and understood to be of the same import with a new birth, we shall [540] examine it under this metaphor. For if immersion be equivalent to regeneration, and regeneration be of the same import with being born again, then being born again, and being immersed are the same thing; for this plain reason, that things which are equal to the same thing, are equal to one another. All must admit, that no person can be born again of that which he receives. For as no person is born naturally; so no person can be born again, or born metaphorically, of that which he receives. It destroys the idea, the figure, the allusion, and every thing else which authorizes the application of these words to any change which takes place in man, to suppose that the subject of the new birth, or regeneration, is born again of something which he has received. This single remark shows the impropriety, and inaccuracy of thought; or, perhaps, the want of thought, which the popular notions of regeneration sanction, and sanctify.

In being born naturally there is the begetter, and that which is begotten. These are not the same. The act of being born is different from that which is born. Now the Scriptures carry this figure through every prominent, point of coincidence. There is the begetter. "Of his own will he has begotten, or impregnated us," says James the Apostle. "By the word of truth," as the incorruptible seed; or, as Peter says, "We are born again, not from corruptible, but from incorruptible seed, the word of God which endureth forever." But when the act of being born is spoken of, then the water is introduced. Hence, before we come into the kingdom, we are born of water.

The Spirit of God is the begetter, the gospel is the seed; and being thus begotten, and quickened, we are born of the water. A child is alive before it is born, and the act of being born only changes its state, not its life. Just so in the metaphorical birth. Persons are begotten by the Spirit of God, impregnated by the Word, and born of the water.

In one sense a person is born of his father; but not until he is first born of his mother. So in every place where water and the: Spirit, or water and the Word, are spoken of, the water stands first. Every child is born of its father, when it is born of its mother. Hence the Saviour put the mother first, and the Apostles follow him. No other reason can be assigned for placing the water first. How uniform this style! Jesus says to Nicodemus, "You must be born again, or you can not discern the Reign of God." Born again! What means this? "Nicodemus, unless you are born of water, and of the Spirit, you can not enter into the kingdom of God." So Paul speaks to the Ephesians, (v. 26,) "He cleansed the church," or the disciples, "by a bath of water, and the Word." And to Titus he says, "He saved the disciples by the bath of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Spirit." Now, as soon as, and not before, a disciple, who has been begotten of God, is [541] born of water he is born of God, or of the Spirit. Regeneration is, therefore, the act of being born. Hence its connection always with water. Reader reflect--what a jargon, what a confusion, have the mystic doctors made of this metaphorical expression, and of this topic of regeneration. To call the receiving of any spirit, or any influence, or energy, or any operation upon the heart of man, regeneration, is an abuse of all speech, as well as a departure from the diction of the Holy Spirit, who calls nothing personal regeneration, except the act of immersion.

Objection 1.--"You then make every immersed person a child of God, by the very act of immersion; and you represent every person as born of God who is born of water, or immersed."

Provided always, that he has been begotten of God; or, that he has been impregnated by the gospel. If quickened by the Spirit of God before he is buried in the water, he is born of God, whenever he is born of water; just as every other child is born of its father, when born of its mother. But if he do not believe the gospel, or in other words, if he be not quickened by the Word, he is not born of God when he is born of water--he is, to speak after the manner if men, still born.

Objection 2.--"Then none are born of God, or of the Spirit, unless those who are immersed in water, and raised out of it."

I admit the objection; for he that has never been buried in water, never has been raised out of it. He that has never been in the womb of waters, never has been born of water. Begotten of God he may be; but born of God he can not be, until born of water. It is worthy of remark, that Dr. Macknight, who certainly had no predilections for this view of the matter, has the word begotten in every passage in the first Epistle of John, where the common version has the word born, and with the greatest propriety, too.

Objection 3.--"Then none of the unimmersed can be saved; for none can enter the Kingdom of God, but those born of water."

This is, or is not true, according as you understand the term saved. If you understand the term as defined in the preceding page, they are not saved; for the present salvation of the gospel is that salvation into which we enter, when we become citizens of the Kingdom of God. But whether they may enter into the kingdom of future and eternal glory after the resurrection, is a question much like that question long discussed in the schools, viz.: Can infants who have been quickened, but who died before they were born, be saved? We may hope the best, but can not speak with the certainty of knowledge. One thing we know, that it is not a difficult matter for believers to be born of water; and if any of them wilfully neglect, or disdain it, we can not hope for their future and eternal salvation. But we [542] have no authority to speak comfortably to them who will not submit to the government of the Saviour.

Many persons, I doubt not, who never were informed on these matters, but simply mistook the import and design of the Institution, who were nevertheless honestly disposed to obey, and did obey as far as they were instructed, may, as the devout Jews and Patriarchs who lived before the Christian era, be admitted into the Kingdom of future glory. But this by the way, to prevent the calumnies of those who are better disposed to censure every thing we write, than to obey the Lord. I am sure of one thing; because the decree is published, viz.: that he that believes the gospel, and is immersed, shall be saved; and he who submits not to the government of Jesus Christ shall be condemned.

Some curious criticisms have been offered, to escape the force of the plain declaration of Jesus and his Apostles, upon this subject. Some say, that the words, "Except a man be born of water and Spirit," are not to be understood literally. Surely, then, if to be born of water does not mean to be born of water, to be born of the Spirit must mean something else than to be born of the Spirit. This is so fanatical and extravagant as to need no other exposure. He who can not see the propriety of calling immersion a being born again, can see no propriety in any metaphor in common use. A resurrection is a new birth. Jesus is said to be the first born from the dead; because the first who rose from the dead to die no more. And, surely, there is no abuse in speech; but the greatest propriety in saying, that he who has died to sin, and been buried in water, when raised up again out of that element, is born again, or regenerated. If Jesus was born again, when he came out of a sepulchre, surely he is born again who is raised up out of the grave of waters.

Those, who are thus begotten, and born of God, are children of God. It would be a monstrous supposition, that such persons are not freed from their sins. To be born of God, and born in sin, is inconceivable. Remission of sins is as certainly granted to "the born of God;" as life eternal, and deliverance from corruption, will be granted to the children of the resurrection, when born from the grave.

To illustrate what has, we presume to say, been now proved, we shall consider political regeneration. Though the term regeneration is laxly employed in this association; yet, by such a license of speech, we may illustrate this subject to the apprehension of all. Yes, the whole subject of faith, change of heart, regeneration, and character.

All civilized nations and kingdoms have constitutions; and in their constitutions they have declared who are members of the social compact. Besides those who constitute the community at the time a constitution is adopted, they say who shall compose the community in [543] all time coming; that is, who shall be admitted into it, and by what means they shall become members of it. They have always decreed, that their own posterity shall inherit their political rights and immunities. But they have, also, ordained that foreigners; that is, members of other communities, may become, by adoption, or naturalization, citizens, or fellow members, of the same community. But they have, in their wisdom and benevolence, instituted a rite or form of adoption, which form has much meaning; and which, when submitted to, changes the state of the subject of it. Now, as the Saviour consented to be called a King, and to call the community over which he presides, a Kingdom, it was because of the analogy between these human institutions and his institution; and for the purpose, not of confounding, but of aiding the human mind in apprehending and comprehending the great object of his mission to the world. And it is worthy of the most emphatic attention, that it was WHEN SPEAKING OF A KINGDOM HE SPOKE OF BEING BORN AGAIN. Yes, on that occasion, and on that occasion only, when he spoke of entering into his Kingdom, he did speak of the necessity of BEING BORN AGAIN. And had he not chosen that figure, he would not have chosen the figure of a new birth. With these facts and circumstances before us, let us examine political regeneration as the best conceivable illustration of religious regeneration.

A B was born in the island of Great Britain, a native subject of George III., King of Great Britain. He was much attached to his native island, to the people, the manners and customs of his ancestors and kinsmen. With all these attachments, still increasing, he grew up to manhood. Then he heard the report of this good land; of this large, fertile, and most desirable country. The country, the people, and the government, were represented to him in the most favorable light. Sometimes these representations were exaggerated; but still he could separate the truth from the fable; and was fully persuaded not only of the existence of these United States, but, also, of the eligibility of being a citizen thereof. He believed the testimony which he heard, resolved to expatriate himself from the land of his nativity, to imperil life and property, putting himself aboard of a ship, and bidding adieu to all the companions of his youth, his kinsmen and dear friends. So full was his conviction, and so strong his faith, that, old Neptune and King Eolus, with all their terrors, could not appall him. He sailed from his native shores, and landed on this continent. He was, however, ignorant of many things pertaining to this new country, and government; and on his arrival asked for the rights and immunities of a citizen. He was told, that the civil rights of hospitality to a stranger could be extended to him as a sojourner; but not one of the rights, or immunities of a citizen, [544] could be his, unless he were born again. "Born again!" said he, in a disappointed tone, to Columbus, with whom he had his first conversation on the subject. "What do you mean by being born again?"

Columbus--You must be naturalized, or adopted as a citizen; or, what we call being born again.

A. B.--I do not understand you. How can a man be born when he is grown?

Col.--That which is born of Great Britain is British, and that which is born of America is American. If, then, you would be an American citizen, you must be born of America.

A. B.--"Born of America!" You astonish me! I have come to America well disposed towards the people and the country. I was once attached to England, but I became attached to the United States; and because of my faith, and attachments, I have come hither; and will you not receive me into your kingdom, because I could not help being born in England?

Col.--Well disposed as I am, and we are, to receive you, most assuredly, I say to you, unless you are regenerated in a court-house, and be enfranchised by and before the judges, you can never become a citizen of these United States.

A. B.--Yours is an arbitrary and despotic government. What airs of sovereignty you have assumed!

Col.--By no means. Right, reason, wisdom, policy, and benevolence for you; as well as the safety, dignity, and happiness of the whole community, require that every alien shall be naturalized, or made a citizen, before he exercise, or enjoy the rights of a citizen.

A. B.--You are certainly arbitrary--if not in the thing itself, of regeneration--in the place and manner in which it shall be done. Why, for instance, say, that it must be done in a court-house?

Col.--I will tell you: because there are the judges, the records, and the seal of the government.

A. B.--I understand you. Well, tell me, how is a man born again? Tell me plainly and without a figure.

Col.--With pleasure. You were born of your mother and of your father, when you were born in England; but you were born legitimately, according to the institutions of England. Well, then, you were born of England, as well as born in it; and were, therefore, wholly English. This was your first birth. But you have expatriated yourself, as your application here proves--I say, sentimentally you have expatriated yourself; but we must have a formal, solemn pledge of your renunciation; and we will give you a formal, solemn pledge of your adoption. You must, ex animo, in the presence of the Judges, and the Recorders, renounce all allegiance to every foreign [545] prince and potentate; and especially His Majesty, the King of Great Britain.

A. B.--Is that the thing? I can, with all my heart, renounce all political allegiance to every foreign prince and government. Is that all? I have, then, no objection to that.

Col.--There is this also:--You are not only to renounce all political allegiance; but you must also, ex animo, from the soul, solemnly vow, in the presence of the same Judges and Recorders, that you will adopt, and submit to, the constitution and government of these United States.

A. B.--I can do that also. I can renounce, and I can adopt. Nor do I object to the place where it shall be done. But, pray, what solemn pledge will you give me?

Col.--So soon as you have vowed renunciation, and adoption, in the presence of the Judges and the Recorders; we will give you a certificate, with a red seal, the seal of state, attached to it; stating that you, having now been naturalized; or born according to our institutions, are born of America; and are now a son, an adopted son, of America. And that red seal indicates that the blood, the best blood of this government, will be shed for you, to protect you and defend you; and that your life will, when called for, be cheerfully given up for your mother, of whom you have been politically born; as it would have been for your own natural political mother, of whom you were first born.

A. B.--To this I must subscribe. In my mother tongue it all means, that I give myself up politically to this government, and it gives itself up to me, before witness too. How soon, pray, after this new birth, may I exercise and enjoy all the rights of a citizen?

Col.--They are yours the first breath you breathe under your new mother. 'Tis true, we have not, in these United States, any symbol through which a person is politically regenerated. We only ask a solemn pledge, and give one. Other nations have symbols. But we understand that the moment the vow is taken, the person is politically born again. And as every other child has all the rights of a child which it can exercise, so soon as it inhales the air; so have all our political children all political rights, so soon as the form of naturalization is consummated. But, remember, not till then.

A. B.--You say other nations had their symbols. What do you mean by these?

Col.--I mean that the naturalized had to submit to some emblematic rite, by which they were symbolically detached from every other people, and introduced among those who adopted them, and whom they adopted. The Indian nations wash all, whom they adopt, in a running stream; and impose this task upon their females. The Jews [546] circumcised and washed all whom they admitted to the rights of their institutions. Other customs and forms have obtained in other nations; but we regard simply the meaning of the thing, and have no symbol.

A. B.--In this I feel but little interested. I wish to become a citizen of these United States; especially as I am informed I can have no inheritance among you, nor a voice in the nation, nor any immunity, unless I am born again.

Col.--You must, then, submit to the institution: and I know, that so soon as you are politically born again, you will feel more of the importance and utility of this institution, than you now can; and will be just as anxious as I am, to see others submit to this wise, wholesome, and benevolent institution.

A. B.--As my faith brought me to your shores; and as I approve your constitution and government, I will not (now that I understand your institutions) suffer an opportunity to pass. I will direct my course to the place where I can be born again.

I ought here to offer an apology for a phrase occurring frequently in this essay and in this dialogue. When we represent the subject of immersion as active, either in so many words, or impliedly, we so far depart from that style which comports with the figure of "being born." For all persons are passive in being born. So in immersion, the subject buries not himself, raises not himself; but is buried and raised by another. So that in the act the subject is always passive. And it is of the act alone of which we thus speak.

From all that has been said on regeneration, and from the illustration just now adduced, the following conclusions, must, we think, be apparent to all:--

1. Begetting and quickening necessarily precede being born.

2. Being born imparts no new life; but is simply a change of state, and introduces into a new mode of living.

3. Regeneration, or immersion--the former referring to the import of the act; and the latter term to the act itself--denote only the act of being born.

4. God, or the Spirit of God, being the author of the whole institution, imparting to it its life and efficiency, is the begetter, in the fullest sense of that term. Yet, in a subordinate sense, every one, skilful in the word of God, who converts another, may be said to have begotten him whom he enlightens. So Paul says, "I have begotten Onesimus in my bonds:"--and "I have begotten you, Corinthians, through the gospel."

5. The gospel is declared to be the seed; the power and strength of the Holy Spirit to impart life. [547]

6. And the great argument, pertinent to our object, in this long examination of conversion and regeneration, is that which we conceive to be the most apparent of all other conclusions, viz.:--that remission of sins, or coming into a state of acceptance, being one of the present immunities of the kingdom of heaven, can not be enjoyed by any person before immersion. As soon can a person be a citizen before he is born, or have the immunities of an American citizen while an alien; as one enjoy the privileges of a son of God before he is born again. For Jesus expressly declares, that he has not given the privilege of sons to any but to those born of God. (John 1. 12.) If, then, the present forgiveness of sins be a privilege, and a right of those under the new constitution, in the kingdom of Jesus; and if being born again, or being born of water and of the Spirit, is necessary to admission; and if being born of water means immersion, as clearly proved by all witnesses; then, remission of sins can not, in this life, be received or enjoyed previous to immersion. If there be any proposition, regarding any item of the Christian institution, which admits of clearer proof, or fuller illustration than this one, I have yet to learn where it may be found.

But before we dismiss the fifth evidence, which embraces so many items, I beg leave to make a remark or two on the propriety of considering the term "immersion," as equivalent to the term "conversion." And this I do with special reference to the objection of Christianos.

"Conversion" is, on all sides, understood to be a turning to God. Not a thinking favorably of God, nor a repenting for former misdeeds, but an actual turning to God, in word and in deed. It is true, that no person can be said to turn to God, whose mind is not enlightened, and whose heart is not well disposed towards God. All human actions, not resulting from previous thought or determination, are rather the actions of a machine, than the actions of a rational being. "He that comes to God," or turns to him, "must believe that God exists, and that he is a rewarder of every one who diligently seeks him." Then he will seek and find the Lord. An "external conversion" is no conversion at all. A turning to God with the lips, while the heart is far from him, is mere pretense and mockery. But though I never thought any thing else, since I thought upon religion; I understand the "turning to God, taught in the New Institution, to be a coming to the Lord Jesus--not a thinking about doing it, nor a repenting that we have not done it;--but an actual coming to him. The question then is, Where shall we find him? Where shall we meet him? Nowhere on earth, but in his institutions. "Where he records his name," there only can he be found; for there only has he promised to be found. I affirm, then, that the first institution in which we can meet with [548] God, is, the institution for remission. And here it is worthy of notice, that the Apostles, in all their speeches, and replies to interrogatories, never commanded an inquirer to pray, read, or sing, as preliminary to coming; but always commanded and proclaimed immersion as the first duty, or the first thing to be done, after a belief of the testimony. Hence, neither praying, singing, reading, repenting, sorrowing, resolving, nor waiting to be better, was the converting act. Immersion alone was that act of turning to God. Hence, in the commission to convert the nations, the only institution mentioned after proclaiming the gospel, was the immersion of the believers, as the divinity authorized way of carrying out and completing the work. And from the day of Pentecost, to the final Amen in the revelation of Jesus Christ, no person was said to be converted, or to turn to God, until he was buried in, and raised up out of the water. I call upon them who dissent, to specify an instance to the contrary.

If it were not to treat this subject as one of doubtful disputation, I would say; that, had there not been some act, such as immersion, agreed on all hands, to be the medium of remission and the act of conversion and regeneration; the Apostles could not, with any regard to truth or consistency, have addressed the disciples as pardoned, justified, sanctified, reconciled, adopted, and saved persons. If all this had depended upon some mental change, as faith; they could never have addressed their congregations in any other way than as the moderns do: and that is always in the language of doubt and uncertainty--hoping a little, and fearing much. This mode of address and the modern compared, is proof positive that they viewed the immersed through one medium, and we through another. They taught all the disciples to consider not only themselves as saved persons; but all whom they saw or knew to be immersed into the Lord Jesus. They saluted every one, on his coming out of the water, as saved, and recorded him as such. Luke writes, (Acts ii.,) "The Lord added the saved daily to the congregation."

Whenever a child is born into a family, it is a brother or sister to all the other children of the family; and its being born of the same parents, is the act causative and declarative in its fraternity. All is mental and invisible before coming out of the water: and as immersion is the first act commanded, and the first constitutional act; so it was in the commission, the act by which the Apostles were commanded to turn, or convert those to God, who believed their testimony. In this sense, then, is the converting act. No man can, Scripturally, be said to be converted to God until he is immersed. How ecclesiastics interpret their own language is no concern of ours. We contend for the pure speech, and for the apostolic ideas attached to it.1 [549]

To resume the direct testimonies declarative of the remission of sins by immersion, we turn to the Gentiles. Peter was sent to the house of Cornelius to tell him and his family "words by which they might be saved." He tells these words. He was interrupted by the miraculous descent of the Holy Spirit. But it is to be noticed, that the testimony to which the Holy Spirit there affixed his seal, was the following words:--"To him gave all the prophets witness, that every one, who believes on him, shall receive remission of sins by his name." While speaking these words, concerning remission of sins by, or through, his name, the Holy Spirit, in its marvelous gifts of tongues, fell upon them.

Many, seeing so much stress laid upon faith or belief, suppose that all blessings flow from it immediately. This is a great mistake. Faith, indeed, is the principle, and the distinguishing principle, of this economy. But it is only the principle of action. Hence, we find the name, or person of Christ always interposed between faith and the cure, mental or corporeal. The woman, who touched the tuft of the mantle of Jesus, had as much faith before as after; but though her faith was the cause of her putting forth her hand, and accompanied it; she was not cured until the touch. That great type of Christ, the brazen serpent, cured no Israelite simply by faith. The Israelites, as soon as they were bitten, believed it would cure them. But yet they were not cured as soon as they were bitten; nor until they looked to the serpent. It was one thing to believe, that looking at the serpent would cure them; and another to look at it. It was the faith, remotely; but, immediately, the look, which cured them. It was not faith in the waters of Jordan that healed the leprosy of Naaman the Syrian. It was immersing himself in it, according to the commandment. It was not faith in the pool of Siloam, that cured the blind man, whose eyes Jesus anointed with clay; it was his washing his eyes in Siloam's water. Hence the imposition of hands, or a word, or a touch, or the shadow, or something from the persons of those anointed with the Holy Spirit, was the immediate cause of all the cures recorded in the New Testament. 'Tis true, also, that without it it is impossible to be healed; for in some places Jesus could not work many miracles, because of their unbelief. It is so in all the moral remedies and cures. It is impossible to receive the remission of sins without faith. In this world of means, (however it may be in the world where there are no means,) it is as impossible to receive any blessing through faith without the appointed means. Both are indispensable. Hence, the name of the Lord Jesus is interposed between faith and forgiveness, justification and sanctification, even where immersion into that name is not detailed. It would have been unprecedented in the annals of the world, for the historian always to have recorded all the [550] circumstances of the same institution, on every allusion to it; and it would have been equally so for the Apostles to have mentioned it always in the same words. Thus, in the passage before us, the name of the Lord is only mentioned. So in the first letter to the Corinthians, the disciples are represented as saved, as washed, as justified, sanctified by the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God. The frequent interposition of the name of the Lord between faith and forgiveness, justification, sanctification, etc., is explained in a remark in James' speech in Jerusalem. (Acts xv. 17.) It is the application of an ancient prophecy, concerning the conversion of the Gentiles. The Gentiles are spoken of as turning to, or seeking the Lord. But who of them are thus converted? "Even all the Gentiles upon whom my name is called." It is, then, to those upon whom the name of the Lord is called, that the name of the Lord communicates remission, justification, etc.

Some captious spirits need to be reminded, that as they sometimes find forgiveness, justification, sanctification, etc., ascribed to grace, to the blood of Christ, to the name of the Lord, without an allusion to faith; so we sometimes find faith, and grace, and the blood of Christ without an allusion to water. Now, if they have any reason, or right to say, that faith is understood in the one case; we have the same reason and right to say, that water or immersion is understood in the other. For their argument is, that in sundry places this matter is made plain enough. This is, also, our argument--in sundry places this matter is made plain enough. This single remark cuts off all their objections drawn from the fact, that immersion is not always found in every place where the name of the Lord, or faith is found connected with forgiveness. Neither is grace, the blood of Christ, nor faith, always mentioned with forgiveness. When they find a passage where remission of sins is mentioned without immersion, it is weak, or unfair, in the extreme, to argue from that, that forgiveness can be enjoyed without immersion. IF THEIR LOGIC BE WORTH ANYTHING, IT WILL PROVE THAT A MAN MAY BE FORGIVEN WITHOUT GRACE, THE BLOOD OF JESUS, AND WITHOUT FAITH: FOR WE CAN FIND PASSAGES, MANY PASSAGES, WHERE REMISSION, OR JUSTIFICATION, SANCTIFICATION, OR SOME SIMILAR TERM OCCURS, AND NO MENTION OF EITHER GRACE, FAITH, OR THE BLOOD OF JESUS.

As this is the pith, the marrow, and fatness of all the logic of our most ingenious opponents on this subject, I wish I could make it more emphatic, than by printing it in capitals. I know some editors, some of our Doctors of Divinity, some of our most learned declaimers, who make this argument, which we unhesitatingly call a genuine sophism, the Alpha and the Omega of their speeches against the meaning, and indispensable importance of immersion, or regeneration. [551]

The New Testament would have been a curious book, if, every time remission of sins was mentioned, or alluded to, it had been preceded by grace, faith, the blood of Jesus, immersion, etc., etc. But now the question comes, which, to the rational, is the emphatic question--WHETHER DO THEY THINK, BELIEVE, TEACH, AND PRACTICE MORE WISELY AND MORE SAFELY; WHO THINK, BELIEVE, AND TEACH, THAT GRACE, FAITH, THE BLOOD OF JESUS, THE NAME OF THE LORD, AND IMMERSION, ARE ALL ESSENTIAL TO IMMEDIATE PARDON AND ACCEPTANCE;--OR THEY WHO SAY, THAT FAITH ONLY, GRACE ONLY, THE BLOOD OF CHRIST ONLY, THE NAME OF THE LORD ONLY--AND IMMERSION, NOT AT ALL? To all men, women, and children, of common sense, this question is submitted.

It is, however, to me admirable, that the remission of sins should be, not merely unequivocally, but so repeatedly declared through immersion, as it is in the apostolic writings. And here I would ask the whole thinking community, one by one, whether, if the whole race of men had been assembled on Pentecost, or in Solomon's Portico, and had asked Peter the same question, which the convicted proposed, would he, or would he not, have given them the same answer? Would he not have told the whole race to reform, and be immersed for the remission of their sins? or, to reform and be converted, that their sins might be blotted out?--to arise, and be immersed, and wash away their sins? If he would not, let them give a reason; and if they say he would, let them assign a reason why they do not go, and do likewise.

Some have objected against the "seasons of refreshment," or the comforts of the Holy Spirit being placed subsequent to "conversion,;' or "regeneration," or "immersion;" (for, when we speak Scripturally, we must use these terms as all descriptive of the same thing,) because the gifts of the Holy Spirit were poured out upon the Gentiles before immersion. They see not the design of thus welcoming the Gentiles into the Kingdom. They forget the comparison of the Gentiles to a returning prodigal, and his father going out to meet him, even while he was yet a good way off. God had welcomed the first fruits of the Jews into his Kingdom, by a stupendous display of spiritual gifts, called the baptism of the Holy Spirit, before any one of the Jews had been immersed into the Lord Jesus. And, as Peter explains this matter in Cornelius' case, it appears that God determined to make no difference between the Jews and Gentiles in receiving them into his Kingdom. Hence, says Peter, "He gave them the same gift which he gave to us Jews at the beginning," (never since Pentecost.) Thus Peter was authorized to command those Gentiles to be immersed by the authority of the Lord, no man daring to forbid it. But these gifts of the Holy Spirit differed exceedingly from the seasons of refreshment, or the righteousness, peace, and joy, in the Holy Spirit, [552] the common enjoyment of all who were immersed into the name of the Lord Jesus for the remission of sins.2

Let it be noted here, as pertinent to our present purpose, that as the Apostle Peter was interrupted by the baptism of the Holy Spirit, when he began to speak of the forgiveness of sins by the name of the Lord Jesus; so soon as he saw the Lord had received them, he commanded them to be immersed by the authority of the Lord. And here I must propose another question to the learned, and the unlearned. How comes it to pass, that though once, and only once, it is commanded, that the nations who believe should be immersed into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit; and though we read of no person being immersed into this name in this way; I say, how comes it to pass, that all sects use these words without a scruple, and baptize or sprinkle in this name; when more than once persons are commanded to be immersed for the remission of sins, and but a few of the proclaimers can be induced to immerse for the remission of sins, though so repeatedly taught and proclaimed by the Apostles? Is one command, unsupported by a single precedent, sufficient to justify this practice of Christians; and sundry commands and precedents from the same authority insufficient to authorize, or justify us in immersing for the remission of sins? Answer this who can; I can not, upon any other principle than that the tyrant Custom, who gives no account of his doings, has so decreed.

I come now to another of the direct and positive testimonies of the Apostles, showing that immersion for the remission of sins, is an institution of Jesus Christ. It is the address of Ananias to Saul. "Arise and be immersed, and wash away your sins, calling upon the name of the Lord." On this testimony we have not as yet descanted in this essay. It has been mentioned; but not examined.

Paul, like the Pentecostian hearers, when convinced of the truth of the pretensions of the Messiah, asked what he should do. He was commanded to go into Damascus, and it should be told him there what to do. It was told him in the words now before us. But to some this can not be understood literally.

For experiment, then, take it figuratively. Of what was it figurative? of something already received,--of pardon formerly bestowed! a figure of the past! This is anomalous. I read one writer, and but one, who converted this into a commemorative baptism, like Israel's commemorating the escape from Egypt, or Christians commemorating the Lord's death. And, if I do not mistake, some preacher said it was a figurative expression, similar to "This is my body!!" One, whom I pressed out of all these refuges, was candid enough to say [553] he really did not know what it meant; but it could not mean, that Paul was to "be baptized for the remission of his sins."

"To wash away sins" is a figurative expression. Like other metaphoric expressions, it puts the resemblance in place of the proper word. It necessarily means something analogous to what is said. But we are said to be washed from our sins in, or by, the blood of Christ. But even "washed in blood" is a figurative expression, and means something analogous to washing in water. Perhaps we may find in another expression a means of reconciling these strong metaphors. Rev. vii. 14, "They have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb." Here are two things equally incomprehensible--to wash garments white in blood, and to wash away sins in water! An efficacy is ascribed to water which it does not possess; and, as certainly, an efficacy is ascribed to blood which it does not possess. If blood can whiten or cleanse garments, certainly water can wash away sins. There is, then, a transferring of the efficacy of blood to water; and a transferring of the efficacy of water to blood. This is a plain solution of the whole matter. God has transferred, in some way, the whitening efficacy, or cleansing power, of water to blood; and the absolving or pardoning power of blood to water. This is done upon the same principle as that of accounting faith for righteousness. What a gracious institution! God has opened a fountain for sin, for moral pollution. He has given it an extension far and wide as sin has spread--far and wide as water flows. Wherever water, faith, and the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, are, there will be found the efficacy of the blood of Jesus. Yes; as God first gave the efficacy of water to blood, he has now given the efficacy of blood to water. This, as was said, is figurative; but it is not a figure which misleads, for the meaning is given without a figure; viz.: immersion for the remission of sins. And to him that made the washing of clay from the eyes, the washing away of blindness, it is competent to make the immersion of the body in water efficacious to the washing away of sin from the conscience.

From the conscience I say; for there its malignity is felt; and it is only in releasing the conscience from guilt, and its consequences,--fear and shame, that we are released from the dominion of sin, or washed from its pollution in this world. This immersion, says Peter, saves us, not by cleansing the body from its filth, but the conscience from its guilt; yes, immersion saves us by burying us with Christ, raising us with him, and so our consciences are purged from dead works to serve the living God. Hence, our Lord gave so much importance to immersion in giving the commission to convert the world, "He that believes, and is immersed, shall be saved." [554]

But, while viewing the water and the blood as made to unite their powers, as certainly as Jesus came by water and blood, we ought to consider another testimony given to this gracious combination of powers, by Paul the Apostle. Heb. x. 24, "Being sprinkled in heart from an evil conscience, and being washed in body with clean water." The application of water, the cleansing element, to the body, is made in this gracious institution to reach the conscience, as did the blood of sprinkling under the Law.

Some ask, How can water, which penetrates not the skin, reach the conscience? They boast of such an objection, as exhibiting great intellect, and good sense. But little do they think, that in so talking, they laugh at, and mock the whole Divine Economy, under the Old and New Institutions: for, I ask, did not the sacrifices, and Jewish purgations, some way reach the conscience of that people!! If they did not it was all mere frivolity throughout. And can eating bread, and drinking wine not influence, nor affect, the soul! And can not the breath of one man pierce the heart of another, and so move his blood, as to make his head a fountain of tears! He, who thus objects to water, and the import of immersion, objects to the whole remedial institution, as taught by Moses and by Christ, and insults the wisdom and goodness of God in the whole scheme of salvation. And he, who objects to water, because it can only take away the filth of the flesh, ought rather to object to blood; because it rather besmears and pollutes, than cleanses the body, and can not touch the soul. But all such reasoners are foolish talkers. To submit to God's institution is our wisdom, and our happiness. The experience of the myriads who were immersed for the remission of their sins, detailed in the Christian Scriptures, to say nothing of those immersed in our times, is worth more than volumes of arguments from the lips and pens of those who can only regard, and venerate the traditions of their fathers; because it is presumed their fathers were wiser, and more able to judge correctly than their sons.

But as it is not our object to quote, and expatiate upon all the sacred testimonies, direct and allusive to immersion for the remission of sins, we shall close the proof and illustration of this proposition with an incidental allusion to the cleansing efficacy of this institution, found in the 2d Epistle of Peter, i. 9. After enumerating the additions to faith necessary to securing our calling and election, of which courage is the first; and charity, or universal love, the last; the Apostle says, that "he who has not these things is blind, shutting his eyes, and forgetting that he was purified or purged from his old sins." I need not here say that this is, perhaps, (and certainly as far as I know,) universally understood to refer to Christian immersion. The "old sins," or "former sins," can, we presume, mean no other sins than [555] those washed away in immersion. No person has yet attempted to show that these words can import any thing else. It is one of the most unequivocal, and, because incidental, one of the most decisive proofs, that, in Peter's judgment, all former sins were remitted in immersion. With Peter we began our proof of this position, and with Peter we shall end our proof of it. He first proclaimed reformation for the remission of sins; and in his last and farewell letter to the Christian communities, he reminds them of that purification from sin, received in, and through immersion; and in the strongest terms cautions them against forgetting that they were so purified.

Were any person to reason upon the simple import of the action commanded by Jesus, I think it might be made apparent from the action itself, in its two parts, the burial and the resurrection, that it must import every thing we have heard the Apostles ascribe to it. Corruption goes down into the grave literally; but does corruption come forth out of it? Is there no change of state in the grave? Who is it that expects to come forth from the grave in the same state in which he descends into it? The first born from the dead did not; nor shall any of them who fall asleep in him. How, then, can it be, that any person, buried with Christ in immersion, can rise with Christ, and not rise in a new state! ! Surely the Apostle exhorts to a new life from the change of state effected in immersion. If, indeed, you have risen with Christ, set your affections above. Walk in a new life.

Again, and in the last place here, is a child in the same state after, as before its birth? Is not its state changed? And does it not live a new life, compared with its former mode of living? As new born babes desire the milk of the breast, so let the newly regenerate desire the unadulterated milk of the Word, that they may grow thereby. Call immersion, then, a new birth, a regeneration, a burial and resurrection, and its meaning is the same. And when so denominated, it must import that change of state which is imported in putting on Christ, in being pardoned, justified, sanctified, adopted, reconciled, saved, which was the great proposition to be proved and illustrated, and which, we think, has been proved and illustrated by the preceding testimonies and reflections.

Though no article of Christian faith, nor item of Christian practice, can legitimately rest upon any testimony, reasoning, or authority, out of the sacred writings of the Apostles, were it only one day after their decease; yet the views and practices of those who were the contemporaries, or the pupils, of the Apostles and their immediate successors, may be adduced as corroborating evidence of the truths taught, and the practices enjoined, by the Apostles; and, as such, may be cited; still bearing in mind, that where the testimony of the Apostles ends, [556] Christian faith necessarily terminates. After this preliminary remark, I proceed to sustain the following proposition:--

PROPOSITION XI.

All the Apostolical Fathers, as they are called; all the pupils of the Apostles; and all the ecclesiastical writers of note, of the first four Christian centuries, whose writings have come down to us; allude to, and speak of Christian immersion, as the "regeneration" and "remission of sins" spoken of in the New Testament.

This proposition I shall sustain by the testimony of those who have examined all Christian antiquity, and by citing the words of those usually called the Apostolic Fathers, and other distinguished writers of the first four hundred years. Whether the writing, attributed to Barnabas, be genuine or spurious, it is on all hands admitted to be a fragment of the highest antiquity:--

BARNABAS,

In his Catholic Epistle, chapter xi., says, "Let us now inquire whether the Lord took care to manifest any thing beforehand, concerning water and the cross: Now, for the former of these, it is written to the people of Israel, how they shall not receive that baptism which brings to forgiveness of sins: but shall institute another to themselves that can not. For thus saith the Prophet, "Be astonished, O Heaven! and let the Earth tremble at it; because this people have done two great and wicked things: They have left me, the fountain of living waters, and have digged for themselves broken cisterns that can hold no water. Is my holy mountain, Zion, a desolate wilderness? For she shall be as a young bird when its nest is taken away." "Consider how he hath joined both the cross and the water together. For this he saith, "Blessed are they, who, putting their trust in the cross, descend into the water; for they shall have their reward in due time: then, saith he, will I give it them." But as concerning the present time, he saith, "Their leaves shall not fail." Meaning thereby, that every word that shall go out of your month, shall, through faith and charity, be to the conversion and hope of many. In like manner does another Prophet speak: "And the land of Jacob was the praise of all the earth;" magnifying thereby the vessels of his Spirit. And what follows? "And there was a river running on the right hand, and beautiful trees grew up by it: and he that shall eat of them shall live for ever." The signification of which is this:--that we go down into the water, full of sins and pollutions; but come up again bringing forth fruit; having in our hearts the fear and hope which are in Jesus by the Spirit: "And whosoever shall eat of them shall live forever." That is, whosoever shall hearken to those that call them, and shall believe, shall live for ever." [557]

CLEMENT AND HERMAS.

The former gives no testimony on the subject. The latter deposes as follows. [Book of Similitudes, chapter xvi.]--

In speaking of a tower, built upon the water, by which he signified the building of Christ's church, he thus speaks:--"Hear, therefore, why the tower is built on the waters:--Because your life is saved, and shall be saved by water." In answer to the question, "Why did the stones come up into this tower out of the deep?" he says, "It was necessary for them to come up by (or through) water, that they might be at rest; for they could not otherwise enter into the kingdom of God: for before any one receives the name of the Son of God, he is liable to death; but when he receives that seal, he is delivered from death, and assigned to life. Now that seal is water, into which persons go down, liable to death; but come out of it, assigned to life: for which reason to these also was this seal preached: and they made use of it, that they might enter into the kingdom of God."

Both Clement and Hermas wrote about the end of the first, or beginning of the second century.

Hermas, moreover, deposes as follows, in another work of his, called "The Commands of Hermas." [Com. 4, chap. iii.]--

"And I said to him, I have even now heard from certain teachers, that there is no other repentance besides that of baptism; when we go down into the water, and receive the forgiveness of sins; and after that we should sin no more, but live in purity. And he said to me, Thou hast been rightly informed."

Having closely and repeatedly examined the Epistles of Clement; of Polycarp, to the Philippians; of Ignatius, to the Ephesians; that to the Magnesians; that to the Trallians, the Romans, the Philadelphians, the Smyrnians, and his Epistle to Polycarp; together with the Catholic Epistle of Barnabas, and the genuine works of Hermas, I can affirm that the preceding extracts are the only passages, in all these writings, that speak of immersion. This closes the evidence from the Apostolic fathers. Much more might be brought forward, but these voices are sufficiently clear and distinct. Let him who hath eyes see, and who hath ears hear these testimonies as to what was the custom and teaching during the times of the Apostolic Fathers.

Having heard the Apostolic Fathers, as they are called, depose to the views of the pupils of the Apostles, down to A. D. 140; I will summon a very learned Paidobaptist antiquarian, who can bring forward every writer and Father, down to the fifth century; and before we hear any of his witnesses, we shall interrogate him concerning his own convictions after he had spent several years in rummaging all Christian antiquity:-- [558]

TESTIMONY OF DR. W. WALL, AUTHOR OF THE HISTORY OF INFANT BAPTISM.

Pray, Doctor, have you examined all the primitive writers, from the death of John down to the fifth century?

W. Wall.--I have.

And will you explicitly avow what was the established and universal view of all Christians, public and private, for four hundred years from the nativity of the Messiah, on the import of the saying, (John iii. 5,) "Except a man be born of water and the Spirit, he can not enter into the kingdom of God?"

W. Wall.--"There is not any one Christian writer, of any antiquity, in any language, but who understand it of baptism; and if it be not so understood, it is difficult to give an account how a person is born of water, any more than born of wood."--4th London edition, page 116, vol. 1, A. D. 1819.

Did all the Christians, public and private, and all the Christian writers from Barnabas to the times of Pelagius, (410,) as far as you know, continue to use the term regenerate as only applicable to immersion?

W. Wall.--"The Christians did, in all ancient times, continue the use of this name, 'regeneration,' for baptism; so that they never use the word 'regenerate,' or 'born again,' but they mean, or denote by it, baptism. And almost all the quotations which I shall bring in this book, shall be instances of it."--Vol. 1, p. 24.

Did they not also substitute for "baptism" and "baptize," the words renewed, sanctified, sealed, enlightened, initiated, as well as regenerated?

W. Wall.--"For to baptize, they used the following words:--Most commonly, anagennan, to regenerate; sometimes, kainopoien, or anakainizo, to renew; frequently, agiazein, to sanctify. Sometimes they call it the seal; and frequently, illumination, as it is also called, Heb, vi. 4, and sometimes, teliosis, initiation."--Vol. 1, p. 8. "St. Austin, not less than a hundred times, expressed baptized by the word sanctified."--P. 194.

We shall now hear some of W. Wall's witnesses; and I choose rather to introduce them from his own pen, as he can not be supposed partial to the views I have presented in this essay:--

JUSTIN MARTYR.

Justin Martyr wrote about forty years after John the Apostle died, and stands most conspicuous among the primitive Fathers. He addressed an apology to the Emperor Antoninus Pius. In this apology he narrates the practices of the Christians, and the reasons of them. [559]

Concerning those who are persuaded and believe the things which are taught, and who promise to live according to them, he writes:--

"Then we bring them to some place where there is water, and they are regenerated by the same way of regeneration by which we were regenerated; for they are washed in water (en tu udati) in the name of God the Father and Lord of all things, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit: for Christ says, Unless you be regenerated you can not enter into the kingdom of heaven; and everybody knows it is impossible for those who are once generated (or born) to enter again into their mother's womb.

"It was foretold by Isaiah, as I said, by what means they who should repent of their sins might escape them; and was written in these words, 'Wash you, make you clean, put away the evil,' etc.

"And we have been taught by the Apostles this reason for this thing. Because we being ignorant of our first birth, were generated by necessity (or course of nature) and have been brought up in ill customs and conversation; that we should not continue children of that necessity and ignorance, but of will (or choice) and knowledge, and should obtain forgiveness of the sins in which we have lived, by water (or in the water.) Then is invoked over him that has a mind to be regenerated, the name of God, the Father, etc. And this washing is called the enlightening."

As you trace the history of infant baptism, Mr. Wall, as nigh the apostolic times as possible, pray why do you quote Justin Martyr, who never mentions it?

W. Wall.--"Because his is the most ancient account of the way of baptizing, next the Scripture; and shows the plain and simple manner of administering it. Because it shows that the Christians of those times (many of whom in the days of the apostles) used the word 'regeneration' (or 'being born again') for baptism; and that they were taught to do so by the Apostles. And because we see by it that they understood John iii. 5, of water baptism; and so did all the writers of these 400 years, NOT ONE MAN EXCEPTED."--P. 54.

Did any of the ancients use the word matheteuin (to disciple) as it is used in the commission; or did they call the baptized discipled?

W. Wall.--"Justin Martyr, in his second apology to Antoninus, uses it. His words are:--Several persons among us, of 60 and 70 years old, of both sexes, who were discipled (matheteuin) to Christ, in or the writers of these 400 years, NOT ONE MAN EXCEPTED."--P. 54.

So soon as they began to mysticise they began to teach that immersion without faith would obtain remission of sins, and that immersion without faith was regeneration. Then came the debates about original sin; and so soon as original sin was proved, then came the necessity of infant immersion for the remission of original sin. And [560] so undisputed was the import of baptism for remission, that when the Pelagians denied original sin, pressed with the difficulty, "Why immerse those who have no sins?" they were pushed to invent actual sins for infants; such as their crying, peevishness, restlessness, etc., on account of which sins they supposed that infants might, with propriety, be immersed, though they had no original sin.

TERTULLIAN.

Tertullian, the first who mentions infant baptism, flourished about A. D. 216. He writes against the practice: and among his most conclusive arguments against infant immersion, (for then there was no sprinkling,) he assumes, as a fundamental principle not to be questioned, that immersion was for the remission of sins; and this being universally conceded, he argues as follows:

"Our Lord says, indeed, 'Do not forbid them to come to me;' therefore let them come when they are grown up--let them come when they understand--when they are instructed whither it is that they come. Let them be made Christians when they can know Christ. What need their guiltless age make such haste to the forgiveness of sins? Men will proceed more warily in worldly goods; and he that should not have earthly goods committed to him, yet shall have heavenly! Let them know how to desire this salvation, that you may appear to have given to one that asketh."--P. 74.

ORIGEN.

Origen, though so great a visionary, is, nevertheless, a competent witness in any question of fact. And here I would again remind the reader, that it is as witnesses in a question of fact, and not of opinion, we summon these ancients. It is not to tell their own opinions, nor the reasons of them; but to depose what were the views of Christians on this institution in their times. There was no controversy on this subject for more than four hundred years, and therefore we expect only to find incidental allusions to it; but these are numerous, and of the most unquestionable character. Origen, in his homily upon Luke, says:

"Infants are baptized for the forgiveness of their sins. Of what sins? Or when have they sinned? Or how can any reason of the law, in their case, hold good, but according to that sense that we mentioned even now? (that is) none is free from pollution, though his life be but the length of one day upon the earth."

And in another place he says, that

"The baptism of the church is given for the forgiveness of sins."

And again:

"If there were nothing in infants that wanted forgiveness and mercy, the grace of baptism would be needless to them." [561]

In another place he says:

"But in the regeneration, (or new birth,) by the laver, (or baptism,) every one that is born again of water and the Spirit, is clear from pollution: clear (as I may venture to say) as by a glass darkly."--P. 82.

But now let me ask Dr. Wall--Do Gregory, Nazianzen, Basil, Ambrose, Chrysostom, and St. Austin, concur with all their predecessors in those views of regeneration and remission?

W. Wall.--Yes, exactly. I have observed, among the several names which the ancients give to baptism, they often, by this phrase, 'the forgiveness of sins,' do mean the sacrament of baptism."--P. 179. "And as for Chrysostom, he expressly says: "In baptism, or the spiritual circumcision, there is no trouble to be undergone but to throw off the load of sins, and receive pardon for all foregoing offenses."--P. 182. And again: "There is no receiving or having the bequeathed inheritance before one is baptized; and none can be called a son till he is baptized."--P. 183.

The controversy about infant baptism and original sin were contemporaneous, and just as soon as they decided the nature and extent of original sin, baptism for the remission of sins was given to infants because of this pollution, and defended because of the necessity of regeneration and forgiveness to salvation; and because immersion was universally admitted to be the Scriptural regeneration and remission. In this way, there is no reasonable doubt, but infant baptism began; and for convenience' sake, as Dr. Wall contends, it was substituted by infant sprinkling.

Unless we were to transcribe all the testimonies of antiquity, one by one, no greater assurance can be given, that, for more than four hundred years after Christ, all writers, orthodox and heterodox, Pelagius and Austin not excepted, concurred in the preceding views. Were I to summon others--Eusebius, Dupin, Lightfoot and Hammond, cum multis aliis--will depose the same.

This proposition we will dismiss with the testimony of the most renowned of the Bishops of Africa. I extract it from a work now generally read, called the "History of the Martyrs." It is from the account Cyprian gives of his conversion.--P. 317.

CYPRIAN.

"While (says he) I laid in darkness and uncertainty, I thought on what I had heard of a second birth, proposed by the divine goodness; but could not comprehend how a man could receive a new life from his being immersed in water; cease to be what he was before, and still remain the same body. How, said I, can such a change be possible? How can he, who is grown old in a worldly way of living, [562] strip himself of his former inclinations, and inveterate habits? Can he, who has spent his whole time in plenty, and indulged his appetite without restraint, ever be transformed into an example of frugality or sobriety? Or he who has always appeared in splendid apparel, stoop to the plain, simple, and unornamental dress of the common people? It is impossible for a man, who has borne the most honorable posts, ever to submit to lead a private and an obscure life: or that he who was never seen in public without a crowd of attendants, and persons who endeavored to make their fortunes by attending him, should ever bear to be alone. This (continues he) was my way of arguing; I thought it was impossible for me to leave my former course of life, and the habits I was then engaged in, and accustomed to: but no sooner did the life-giving water wash the spots off my soul, than my heart received the heavenly light of the Holy Spirit, which transformed me into a new creature; all my difficulties were cleared, my doubts dissolved, and my darkness dispelled. I was then able to do what before seemed impossible; could discern that my former life was earthly and sinful, according to the impurity of my birth; but that my spiritual birth gave me new ideas and inclinations, and directed all my views to God."

Cyprian flourished A. D. 250.

PROPOSITION XII.

But even the reformed creeds, Episcopalian, Presbyterian, Methodist, and Baptist, substantially avow the same views of immersion, though apparently afraid to carry them out in faith and practice.

This proposition will be sustained by an extract from the creed of each of these sects.

EPISCOPALIAN.

The clergy are ordered, before proceeding to baptize, to make the following prayer.--Common Prayer, p. 165.

"Almighty and everlasting God, who, of thy great mercy, didst save Noah and his family in the Ark from perishing by water; and also didst safely lead the children of Israel thy people through the Red Sea; figuring thereby thy holy Baptism; and by the Baptism of thy well-beloved Son Jesus Christ in the river Jordan, didst sanctify the element of water, to the mystical washing away of sin; we beseech thee, for thine infinite mercies, that thou wilt mercifully look upon these thy servants; wash them and sanctify them with the Holy Ghost; that they, being delivered from thy wrath, may be received into the Ark of Christ's Church; and being steadfast in faith, joyful through hope, and rooted in charity, may so pass the waves of this troublesome world, that finally they may come to the land of everlasting life; there to reign with thee, world without end, through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen." [563]

After reading a part of the discourse with Nicodemus, they are ordered to make the following exhortation.--P. 165:

"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 can not enter into the kingdom of God. Whereby ye may perceive the great necessity of the sacrament, where it may be had. Likewise, immediately after his ascension into heaven, (as we read in the last chapter of St. Mark's Gospel,) 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 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 also now save us, (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience towards 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."

This, I need not add, is in accordance with the sentiments advanced in this essay. What a pity that the Episcopal Church does not believe and practice her own creed!

PRESBYTERIAN.

The Presbyterian Confession, on Baptism, chap. xxviii., sect. 1., declares that--

"Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized in 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."

"A sign and seal of remission of sins!!" This is much nigher the truth than this church seems to be apprized of. However, she [564] can not believe her own creed; for she does not believe that baptism is a sign and a seal of remission of sins, nor of regeneration, in her own sense of it, to her baptized or sprinkled infants. But in paying any regard to the Scriptures, she could not say less than she has said. It is no wonder that many sectarians can not be persuaded to think that the Scriptures mean what they say; for they are so much accustomed to say what they do not mean, that they can not think God does mean what he says.

METHODIST.

The Methodist Creed says:

"Dearly beloved, forasmuch as all men are conceived and born in sin, (and that which is born of the flesh is flesh, and they that are in the flesh can not please God, but live in sin, committing many actual transgressions;) and that our Saviour Christ saith, None shall enter into the kingdom of God, except he be regenerate and born anew of water and of the Holy Ghost; I beseech you to call upon God the Father, through our Lord Jesus Christ, that of his bounteous goodness he will grant to these persons, that which by nature they can not have; that they may be baptized with water and the Holy Ghost, and received into Christ's holy church, and be made lively members of the same."

Then it is ordained that the minister repeat the following prayer:--

"Almighty and immortal God, the aid of all that need, the helper of all that flee to thee for succor, the life of them that believe, and the resurrection of the dead: We call upon thee for these persons, that they, coming to thy holy baptism, may receive remission of their sins, by spiritual regeneration. Receive them, O Lord, as thou hast promised by thy well-beloved Son, saying, Ask and ye shall receive, seek and ye shall find, knock and it shall be opened unto you: so give unto us that ask; let us that seek, find; open the gate unto us that knock; that these persons may enjoy the everlasting benediction of the heavenly washing, and may come to the eternal kingdom which thou hast promised by Christ our Lord. Amen."--Dis., p. 105.

Thus the Methodist Creed and Church are nearly as Scriptural as the church from which they sprang. She prays for those to be baptized, that in baptism they may receive remission of sins! Does she believe what she says?

BAPTIST.

Chapter xxx., Section 1:--

"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." [565]

The Baptist follows the Presbyterian Church as servilely as the Methodist Church follows the English hierarchy. But she avows her faith that immersion is a sign of remission. A sign of the past, the present, or the future! A sign accompanying!

Calvin and Wesley are with us here. Calvin makes remission the principal thing in baptism.--Inst. l. 4, c. xv., p. 327.

"Baptism," says he, "resembles a legal instrument properly attested, by which he assures us that all our sins are cancelled, effaced, and obliterated, so that they will never appear in his sight, or come into his remembrance, or be imputed to us. For he commands all who believe to be baptized for the remission of their sins. Therefore, those who have imagined that baptism is nothing more than a mark or sign by which we profess our religion before men, as soldiers wear the insignia of their sovereign as a mark of their profession, have not considered that which was the principal thing in baptism; which is, that we ought to receive it with this promise--'He that believeth, and is baptized, shall be saved.'"

John Wesley, in his comment on the New Testament, (p. 350,) speaks plainer than either the Methodist Discipline or the Regular Baptist Confession. His words are:--"Baptism administered to real penitents, is both a means and a seal of pardon. Nor did God ordinarily, in the primitive church, bestow this (pardon) on any, unless through this means." This is almost, if not altogether, as much as we have said on the forgiveness of sins through immersion.

May we not say, that we have sustained this last proposition to the full extent of the terms thereof?

With the testimony of John Wesley, the last of the reformers, I close my list of human vouchers for the import of Christian immersion. This list I could swell greatly; for, indeed, I have been quite disappointed in looking back into creeds, councils, commentators, and reformers, ancient and modern. I begin to fear, that I should be suspected to have come to the conclusions, which I have exhibited from consulting human writings, creeds, and reformers. My fears are not that we, who plead for reformation, may appear to have nothing original to offer in this reformation; that we are mere gleaners in the fields which other minds have cultivated. It is not on this account our fears are excited: for the reformation we plead is not characterized by new and original ideas, or human inventions; but by a return to the original ideas and institutions developed in the New Institution. Nor do we profess to have any originality of mind, strength of reason, or compass of imagination worthy of admiration, worthy of a temple, or a memorial of any sort whatever. But we fear lest any should suspect the views offered to be a human invention or tradition; because we have found so much countenance for them in the works of the most [566] ancient and renowned Christian writers, and the creeds of ancient and modern reformers. We can assure our readers, that we have been led to these conclusions from the simple perusal, unprejudiced and impartial examination of the New Testament alone. And, we may add, that we are as much astonished, as any reader of this essay can be, to find such a cloud of witnesses to the truth, and importance of the views offered.

Though we had, many years ago, read most of these documents, we read them as many of our readers read the Bible; without attending to what is read, or feeling the import of it. We can sympathize with those who have this doctrine in their own creeds unregarded, and unheeded in its import and utility; for we exhibited it fully in our debate with Mr. M'Calla, 1823, without feeling its great importance, and without beginning to practice upon its tendencies for some time afterwards. But since it has been fully preached and practiced upon, it has proved itself to be all divine.

We now press it upon all persons to believe the gospel, and to be immersed for the remission of their sins; that seasons of refreshment from the Lord, may come to them. Every one who has so much faith in the mission and character of Jesus Christ, and so much attachment to his person as to submit to his absolute government, we invite, command, entreat, to receive the bounty, and enlist during the war; to put on his regimentals, to stand in the ranks, and to fight the good fight of faith. We discover, in practice, that this change of state, this seal of remission, changes the affections still more and more, and reforms the lives of all who honestly submit to it. It produces more peace, love, joy, righteousness, and more holiness of heart and life, than we ever witnessed to result from the Calvinian, Arminian, or mixed gospels of the day. We love the ancient gospel for its fruits, its holiness of heart, and righteousness of life. None, but those who have frequently witnessed it, can form any adequate idea of the impulse which is given to the mind by a believing reception of this washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Spirit. Like a strong impulse given to a ball which puts it in motion, immersion for the forgiveness of sins, carries the mind forward, far beyond all the experiences formerly demanded as preparatory to immersion. A change of state so great, so sensible, so complete, so sudden, operates more like the ancient cures, than the cold, dark, and tedious mental regenerations of the philosophizing theologues. He, that passes from Virginia into Pennsylvania, passes over a mere imaginary geographical line, without scarcely perceiving the transition; but he that passes from Virginia into the State of Ohio by swimming the river, the natural and sensible boundary, immediately realizes the change. Still greater, and more sensible is the change from the state of condemnation to the state of favor. [567]

But to return to the argument. The propositions now proved, and illustrated, must convince all, that there is some connection between immersion, and the forgiveness of sins. What that connection is, may be disputed by some; but that such a connection exists, none can dispute, who acknowledge the New Testament to contain a divine communication to man. With John Wesley we say, it is "to the believing the means and seal of pardon for all previous offenses;" and we not only say we think so, but we preach it as such, and practice it as such. Those who think of any other connection, would do well to attempt to form clear ideas of what they mean: for we are assured there is no meaning in any other connection. To make it a commemorative sign of past remission is an outrage upon all rules of interpretation, and a perfect anomaly in all the revelation of God. To make it, prospectively, the sign of a future remission, is liable to the same exceptions. Nothing remains, but that it be considered, what it is in truth, the accompanying sign of an accompanying remission; the sign and the seal, or the means and the seal of remission then granted through the water, connected with the blood of Jesus by the divine appointment, and through our faith in it.

We have heard some objections, and we can conceive of new objections which may be presented to immersion for the remission of sins. Some of them are anticipated and attended to in the preceding remarks. We could wish that we had them all drawn up numerically, that we might examine and refute them. There can be objections made to any person, doctrine, sentiment, or practice, natural, moral, political, or religious, which ever existed. But notwithstanding all the objections made to every thing, there are thousands of matters and things we hold to be facts and truths indubitable. Amongst those certain and sure things, not to be shaken, is this Christian institution.

We will state and examine some objections partially noticed already: but, because they are the most common, or may become common, we will bestow upon them a formal statement, and a formal refutation.

Objection 1.--"To make the attainment, and the enjoyment of present salvation, pardon, justification, sanctification, reconciliation, adoption, dependent upon the contingency of water being present, or accessible, is beneath the dignity and character of a salvation from God."

And to make the attainment, and the enjoyment of present salvation, pardon, etc., dependent upon the contingency of faith being present or accessible--upon the blood of Jesus Christ being heard of, or known, is equally objectionable:--for what is faith but the belief of testimony? Or what is it in the most popular sense but something wrought in the heart, a compound of knowledge and feeling, of assent and consent? And what was the blood of Jesus shed upon Mt. Calvary but matter, and a few pounds of matter, viewed by itself abstractly [568] as some view water; I say, what was it but matter? And are not both blood and faith less accessible to mankind than the element of water? How much more water than faith, or candidates for immersion? And is there not as much power, wisdom, and goodness of God in creating water, as in creating air, words, letters, faith, etc.? Is not water more universal than language, words, books, preachers, faith, etc.? This objection lies as much against any one means of salvation as another; nay, against all means of salvation. Whenever a case shall occur of much faith and little water; or of a little faith and no water, we will repel it by other arguments than these.

Objection 2.--"It makes void the value, excellency, and importance of both faith and grace." By no means. If a man say, with Paul, we are justified by faith; does it follow that grace is made void? Or, if one say we are justified by grace; does it make the blood of Christ of none effect? Or, if, with Paul, a man say we are justified by his blood; does it make faith, repentance, and grace of no effect? Nay, indeed, this gives to faith its proper place, and its due value. It makes it the principle of action. It brings us to the water, to Christ, and to heaven. But it is as a principle of action only. It was not Abel's faith in his head, or heart; but Abel's faith at the altar, which obtained such reputation. It was not Enoch's faith in principle, but Enoch's faith in his walk with God, which translated him to heaven. It was not Noah's faith in God's promise and threatening, but his faith exhibited in building an ark, which saved himself and family from the Deluge, and made him an heir of a new world, an heir of righteousness. It was not Abraham's faith in God's call, but his going out in obedience to that call, that first distinguished him as a pilgrim, and began his reputation. It was not faith in God's promise that Jericho should fall, but that faith carried out in the blowing of rams' horns, which laid its walls in ruins, etc. It is not our faith in God's promise of remission, but our going down into the water, that obtains the remission of sins. But any one may see why faith has so much praise, and is of so much value. Because, without it, Abel would not have offered more sacrifices than Cain; Enoch would not have walked with God; Noah would not have built an ark; Abraham would not have left Ur of the Chaldees, nor offered up his son upon the altar. Without it, Israel would not have passed through the wilderness, nor crossed the Jordan; and without it, none receive the remission of their sins in immersion. And, again, we would remind the reader, that when he talks of being saved by faith, he should bear in mind, that grace is not lost sight of, nor blood, nor water, nor reformation, discarded.

We enter the kingdom of nature by being born of the flesh. We enter the kingdom of heaven, or come under the reign of Jesus Christ, [569] in this life, by being born of water, and the Spirit. We enter the kingdom of eternal glory by being born again from the earth, and neither by faith, nor the first regeneration. Neither by faith, nor baptism; but by being counted worthy of the resurrection of the just. "I was hungry, and you fed me." Not because you believed, or were born of water; but, because "I was hungry, and you fed me," etc.

There are three births, three kingdoms, and three salvations. One from the womb of our first mother, one from the water, and one from the grave. We enter a new world on, and not, before, each birth. The present animal life, after the first birth; the spiritual, or the life of God in our souls, after the second birth, and the life eternal in the presence of God, after the third birth. And he, who dreams of entering the second kingdom, or coming under the dominion of Jesus, without the second birth--may, to complete his error, dream of entering the kingdom of glory without a resurrection from the dead.

Grace precedes all these births--shines in all the kingdoms, but will be glorified in the third. Sense is the principle of action in the first kingdom; faith, in the second; and sight spiritual, in the third. The first salvation is that of the body from the dangers and ills of life, and God is thus "the Saviour of all men." The second salvation is that of the soul from sin. The third is that of both soul and body united, delivered from moral and natural corruption, and introduced into the presence of God, when God shall be all in all.

Objection 3.--"It is so uncharitable to the Paidobaptists!" And how uncharitable are the Paidobaptists to Jews, Turks, and Pagans!! Will they promise present salvation from the guilt, pollution, and the dominion of sin, with the well-grounded hope of heaven, to Jews, Turks, Pagans, or even Roman Catholics? Or will the Roman Catholics to them!! How uncharitable are they who cry "uncharitable" to us! Infants, idiots, deaf, and dumb persons, innocent Pagans wherever they can be found, with all the pious Paidobaptists, we commend to the mercy of God. But such of them as wilfully neglect this salvation, and who, having the opportunity to be immersed for the remission of their sins, wilfully neglect or refuse, we have as little hope for them as they have for all who refuse salvation on their own terms of the gospel. While they inveigh against us for laying a Scriptural and rational stress upon immersion, do we not see that they lay as great, though an unscriptural and irrational, stress upon their baptism or sprinkling; so much so, as to give it without faith, even to infants, so soon as they are born of the flesh?

Objection 4.--"But do not many of them enjoy the present salvation of God?" How far they may be happy in the peace of God, and the hope of heaven, I presume not to say. And we know so much of human [570] nature as to say, that he, that imagines himself pardoned, will feel happy as he that is really so. But one thing we do know, that none can rationally, and with certainty, enjoy the peace of God, and the hope of heaven, but they who intelligently, and in full faith are born of water, or immersed for the remission of their sins. And as the testimony of God, and not conceit, imagination, nor our reasoning upon what passes in our minds, is the ground of our certainty, we see and feel, that we have an assurance which they can not have. And we have this advantage over them, we once stood upon their ground, had their hopes, felt their assurance; but they have not stood upon our ground, nor felt our assurance. Moreover, the experience of the first converts shows the difference between their immersion, and the immersions, or sprinklings, of modern gospels.

Objection 5.--"This has been so long concealed from the people, and so lately brought to our view, that we can not acquiesce in it."

This objection would have made unavailing every attempt at reformation, or illumination of the mind, or change in the condition and enjoyments of society, ever attempted. Besides, do not the experience of all the religious--the observation of the intelligent--the practical result of all creeds, reformations, and improvements--and the expectations, and longings of society, warrant the conclusion that either some new relation, or some new development of the revelation of God, must be made, before the hopes and expectations of all true Christians can be realized, or Christianity save and reform the nations of this world? We want the old gospel back, and sustained by the ancient order of things: and this alone, by the blessing of the Divine Spirit, is all that we do want, or can expect, to reform and save the world. And if this gospel, as proclaimed and enforced on Pentecost, can not do this, vain are the hopes, and disappointed must be the expectations of the so-called Christian world.

[A. C.]

I must request Bro. Keeling to publish this, my reply, to Christianos, beginning on page 16, third paragraph, and ending here. [549]

See Christian Baptist, volume VI., p. 263. [553]

Recapitulation

As Christian faith rests upon, and Christian practice proceeds from, the testimony of God, and not from the reasonings of men, in this recapitulation I will only call up the evidences on one single proposition, assumed, sustained, and illustrated in the preceding pages--and that is the ninth proposition, as sustained by the apostolic testimony. We wish to leave before the mind of the diligent reader the great importance attached to Christian immersion, as presented in the Evangelists, the Acts, and the Epistles.

1. In the Evangelists.--It is called the forgiveness of sins. Matthew and Mark introduce the Messiah in his own person in giving the commission. Luke does not. Matthew presents Jesus, saying, "Go, convert the nations, immersing them into the name of the Father, the Son, [571] and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things which I have commanded you." This, of course, in order to salvation. Mark presents him, saying, "Go into all the world, proclaim the glad tidings to the whole creation: he who believes, and is immersed, shall be saved; and he who believes not, shall be condemned." Luke, however, does not introduce the Lord in his own person in giving the charge; but records it, in his own conception of it, in the following words:--That "reformation and forgiveness of sins should be announced in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem." No person, we presume, will question but that Luke thus records the commission; and, if so, then it is indisputable that, as Luke neither mentions faith nor immersion, he substitutes for them the received import of both, when and where he wrote. Metonymically he places repentance, or rather reformation, for faith, and remission of sins for immersion. In Luke's acceptation and time forgiveness of sins stood for immersion, and reformation for faith--the effect for the means or cause. In the commission salvation is attached by the Lord Jesus to faith and immersion into his name. He that believes, and is immersed, shall be saved. Thus immersion is taught in the testimonies of Matthew, Mark, and Luke.

2. In the Acts of the Apostles.--Sermon 1, Peter says, "Reform and be immersed, every one of you, into the name of the Lord Jesus, for the remission of your sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." Sermon 2, he says, "Reform and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out; that seasons of refreshment from the presence of the Lord may come, and that he may send Jesus," etc. In the same discourse, he says, "God having raised up his Son Jesus, has sent him to bless you, every one of you, turning from his iniquities." In his 3d Sermon, recorded Acts x., he says, "To him all the prophets bear witness, that every one who believes in him shall receive remission of sins by his name." Paul at Antioch, in Pisidia, declares, that through Jesus was proclaimed the remission of sins; and by him all that believe are justified from all things. Ananias commanded Paul to arise and be immersed, and to wash away his sins, calling upon the name of the Lord. Thus it is spoken of in the Acts of the Apostles.

3. In the Epistles.--The Romans are said to have been immersed into Christ Jesus--into his death; to have been buried with him, and consequently to have risen with him, and to walk in a new life. The Corinthians are said to have been washed, justified, and sanctified by the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God. The Galatians "were immersed into Christ, and had put him on." The Ephesians were, married to Christ by immersion, as brides were wont to be washed in order to their nuptials. The assembly of the disciples, called the congregation of the Lord, making the bride of Christ, [572] were said to be cleansed by the bath of water and the word. The Colossians were buried with Christ, raised with him, and are said to have been forgiven all trespasses when they were raised with him, (chapter ii. 11, 13, 14, where their resurrection with Jesus and their having all sins forgiven are connected). All the saints are said to be saved by immersion, or "the washing of regeneration and the renewing of the Holy Spirit" (Tit. iii. 5). The believing Jews had their hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and their bodies washed with clean water, or water which made clean. Peter taught all the saints in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, that the water of baptism saved them, as the water of the Deluge saved Noah in the Ark; and that in immersion a person was purged from all his former sins. And John the Apostle represents the saved as having "washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb," and all the baptized little children as "having their sins forgiven." Such are the evidences found in the Epistles. How numerous! how clear! and how unequivocal! Are we not, then, warranted to say, Except a man be regenerated of water, and of the Spirit, he can not enter into the kingdom of God? and that all who, believing, are immersed for the remission of their sins, have the remission of their sins in and through immersion?

[A. C.]

Conclusion

A word to the regenerated.--You have experienced the truth of the promise, and being induced by that promise, you have become, like Isaac, the children of promise. You heard the testimony of God concerning Jesus of Nazareth, and you believed it. You were, in consequence of your faith, so disposed towards the person of Jesus, as to be willing to put yourselves under his guidance. This faith and this will brought you to the water. You were not ashamed, nor afraid to confess him before men. You solemnly declared you regarded him as God's only Son, and the only Saviour of men. You vowed allegiance to him. Down into the water you were led. Then the name of the Holy One upon your faith, and upon your person, was pronounced. You were then buried in the water under that name. It closed itself upon you. In its womb you were concealed. Into the Lord, as in the water, you were immersed. But in the water you continued not. Of it you were born, and from it you came forth, raised with Jesus, and rising in his strength. There your consciences were released; for there your old sins were purged away. And although you received not the gifts of the Holy Spirit, which confirmed the testimony to the first disciples, you felt the powers of the world to come, were enlightened, and tasted the bounty of God: for seasons of refreshment from the presence of God came upon you. Your hearts were sprinkled from evil consciences, when your bodies were washed in the cleansing [573] water. Then into the kingdom of Jesus, you entered. The King of righteousness, of peace, and joy, extended his sceptre over you, and sanctified in state, and in the Spirit, you rejoiced in the Lord with joy unspeakable and full of glory. Being washed, you were sanctified, as well as acquitted. And now you find yourselves under the great Advocate, so that sin can not lord it over you; for you always look to the great Advocate to intercede for you, and thus if sin should overtake you, you confess and forsake it, and always find mercy. Adopted thus into the family of God, you have not only received the name, the rank, and the dignity; but also the Spirit of a son of God, and find, as such, that you are kings, priests, and heirs of God. You now feel that all things are yours, because you are Christ's; and Christ is God's. The hope of the coming regeneration of the heavens and the earth, at the resurrection of the just, animates you. You look for the redemption, the adoption of your bodies, and their transfiguration. For this reason, you purify yourselves even as he is pure. Be zealous, then, children of God; publish the excellencies of him who has called you into this marvellous light and bliss. Be diligent, that you may receive the crown that never fades, and that you may eat of the tree of life which grows in the midst of the Paradise of God. If you suffer with Jesus, you will reign with him. If you should deny him, he will deny you. Add, then, to your faith, courage, knowledge, temperance, patience, brotherly kindness, and universal benevolence; for if you continue in these things and abound, you shall not be barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. But should you be deficient in these things, your light will be obscured, and a forgetfulness that you have been purified from your old sins will come upon you. Do, then, brethren, labor to make your calling and election sure; for thus practicing, you shall never fall; but shall have an easy and abundant entrance into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

A word to the unregenerate.--Amongst you are sundry classes of character. Some of you who believe the gospel, and are changed in heart, quickened by the Spirit, are not generally ranked amongst the unregenerate. In the popular sense of this term, you are regenerate. But we use it in its Scriptural acceptation. Like Nicodemus, and like Joseph of Arimathea, you believe in Jesus, and are willing to take lessons from him in the chambers. You have confidence in his mission, respect and venerate, and even love his person; and would desire to be under his government. Marvel not that I say to you, You must be born again. Pious as you are supposed to be, and as you may think yourselves to be, unless you are born again, you can not enter into the kingdom of God. Cornelius and his family were as devout and as pious as any of you. "He feared God, gave much alms to the people, [574] and prayed to God continually." Yet, mark it well, I beseech you, it was necessary "to tell him words by which himself and his house might be saved." These words were told him: he believed them, and received the Holy Spirit; yet still he must be born again. For a person can not be said to be born again of any thing which he receives; and still less of miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit. He was immersed, and into the kingdom of God he came. Do as Cornelius did, and then you will think of it in another light--then you would not for a world be unregenerate. To have the pledge, the promise, and seal of God of the remission of all your sins, to be adopted into his family, and to receive the Spirit of a son of God, be assured, my pious friends, are matters of no every day occurrence; and when you feel yourselves constitutionally invested with all these blessings, in God's own way, you will say, that "his ways are not as our ways, nor his thoughts as our thoughts; for as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are his ways higher than our ways, and his thoughts than our thoughts." It is hard to make a slave feel and act as a freeman. As difficult, we often find it, to make the unregenerate feel and know the value and importance of regeneration. But the regenerate would not be unregenerate for the universe.

God has one way of bestowing every thing. We can not gather grapes off thorns, nor figs off thistles. The reason is, there they do not grow. We can tell no other reason why they can not grow there, but that they do not grow there. We can not have any blessing, but in God's own way of giving it. We can not find wool save on the back of the sheep, nor silk save from the worm which spins it from itself. Corn and wheat can not be obtained, but from those plants which yield them. Without the plant, we can not have the fruit. This is the economy of the whole material system. And in the world of spirits, and spiritual influences, is it not the same? Moral law is as unchangeable as the laws of nature. Moral means and ends are as inseparable as natural means and ends. God can not bestow grace upon the proud, and can not withhold it from the humble. He does not do it, and that is enough. He could shower down wheat and corn, and give us rivers of milk and wine, were it a question of mere power. But taking all together, his wisdom, power, and goodness, he can not do it. So neither can he give us faith without testimony, hope without a promise, love without an amiable object, peace without purity, nor heaven without holiness. He can not give to the unborn infant the light of the sun, the vivacity which the air imparts, nor the agility and activity which liberty bestows. He does not do it, and, therefore, we say, he can not do it. Neither can he bestow the blessings of the Reign of Heaven upon those who are children of disobedience. [575]

I know how reluctant men are to submit to God's government; and yet they must all bow to it at last. "To Jesus every knee shall bow, and to him every tongue must confess." But they will object to bowing now, and torture invention for excuses. They will tell me all that I have said is true of natural and moral means and ends; but immersion is not a moral means, because God forgave sins and saved men before immersion was appointed. "It is a positive, and not a moral institution." And is there no moral influence connected with positive institutions? A written law is a positive institution: for moral law existed before written law. But because it has become a positive institution, has its moral power ceased? The moral influence of all positive institutions is God's WILL expressed in them. And it matters not whether it be the eating or not eating of an apple, the building of an altar, or the building it with, or without the aid of iron tools; the offering of a kid, a lamb, a bullock or a pigeon, it is just as morally binding, and has the same moral influence, as, "You shall honor your father and mother;" or, "You shall not kill." It is THE WILL OF GOD in any institution, which gives it all its moral and physical power. No man could now be pardoned as Abel was--as Enoch was--as David was--as the thief upon the cross was. These all lived before the second will of God was declared. He took away "the first will," says Paul, "that he might establish the second will" by which we are sanctified. We are not pardoned as were the Jews or the Patriarchs. It was not till Jesus was buried and rose again, that an acceptable offering for sin was presented in the heavens. By one offering up of himself, he has perfected the conscience of the immersed or sanctified. Since his oblation, a new institution for remission has been appointed. You need not flatter yourselves, that God will save or pardon you, except for Christ's sake; and if his name is not assumed by you, if you have not put him on, if you have not come under his advocacy, you have not the name of Christ to plead, nor his intercession on your behalf--and, therefore, for Christ's sake you can not be forgiven. Could Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Aaron, think you, if living now--could they, I ask, find forgiveness at the altar? And will you imagine, that he, who honored every institution by Moses, by connecting rewards and punishments with the obedience or disobedience of his commands, be less jealous for the honor of the institution of his Son? And will that Son who, for no other purpose than to honor his Father's institution, was immersed in the Jordan, bestow pardon or salvation upon any who refuse to honor him, and him that sent him? He has been graciously pleased to adapt means to ends. He has commanded immersion. for the remission of sins, and think you that he will change his institution, because of your stubborn or intractable disposition. As well, as reasonably might you pray for [576] loaves from heaven, or manna, because Israel ate it in the desert, as to pray for pardon while you refuse the remission of your sins by immersion.

Demur not because of the simplicity of the thing. Remember how simple was the eating of the fruit of that tree, "whose mortal taste brought death into the world, and all our woe." How simple was the rod in the hand of Moses when stretched over Egypt and the Red Sea. How simple was looking at the brazen serpent. And how simple are all God's institutions. How simple the aliments of nature; the poisons too, and their remedies. Where the will of God is, there is omnipotence. 'Twas simple to speak the universe into existence. But God's will gives efficacy to every thing. And obedience ever was, and ever will be, the happiness of man. It is the happiness of Heaven. 'Tis God's philanthropy which has given us something to obey. To the angels who sinned he has given no command. 'Twas gracious to give us a command to live--a command to reform--a command to be born again--to live for ever. Remember light and life first came by obedience. If God's voice had not been obeyed, the water would not have brought forth the earth, nor would the sun have blessed it by his rays. The obedience of law was goodness and mercy; but the obedience of faith is favor, and life, and glory everlasting. None to whom this gospel is announced will perish, except those who know not God, and obey not the gospel of his Son. Kiss, then, the Son, lest he be angry, and you perish for ever.

To the unregenerate of all classes, whose education and prejudices compel them to assent to the testimony of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, James and Jude. You own the mission of Jesus from the bosom of the Eternal--and that is all you do! Each of you is living without God and without hope in the world--aliens from the family of God--of various ranks and grades among men; but all involved in one condemnation, because light has come into the world, and you love darkness, and the works of darkness, rather than the light. To live without hope is bad enough; but to live in constant dread of the vengeance of Heaven, is still worse. But do you tremble not at the word of God?

If you can be saved here, or hereafter, then there is no meaning in language, no pain in the universe, no truth in God--Death, the grave, and destruction have no meaning. The frowns of Heaven are all smiles, if you perish not in your ways.

But you purpose to bow to Jesus, and to throw yourselves upon his mercy at last. Impious thought! When you have given the strength of your intellect, the vigor of your constitution, the warmth of your affections, and the best energies of your life, to the world, the flesh, and the Devil; you will stretch out your palsied hands, and turn your dim [577] eyes to the Lord, and say, "Lord, have mercy upon me!" The first fruits and the fatlings for the Devil, and the lame and the blind for God, is the purpose of your heart; and the best resolution you can form!

The thief upon the cross, had he done so, could not have found mercy. 'Tis one thing to have known the way of salvation, assented to it, and to have in deliberate resolution rejected it for the present, with a promise of obeying it at some future period, and to have never known it, nor assented to it, till the end of life. Promise not, then, to yourselves what has never happened to others. The Devil has always said, "You may give to-morrow to the Lord--only give me to-day." This has been all that he has asked, and this is what you are disposed to give. Promise not to-morrow to the Lord, for you will be still less disposed to give it when it comes; and the Lord has not asked you for to-morrow. He says, TO-DAY, when you shall hear his voice, harden not your hearts. But you say, you are willing to come to the Lord to-day if you knew the way, or if you were prepared! Well, what does the Lord require of you as preparation? He once said, "Let the wicked man forsake his ways, and the unrighteous man his thoughts; and let him turn to the Lord, and he will have mercy upon him: and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon." He says also, "Draw nigh to me, and I will draw nigh to you;" "Cleanse your hands, you sinners; and purify your hearts, you men of two souls;" Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings;" "Reform and be converted;" "Turn to the Lord;" "Be immersed for the remission of your sins;" and "Submit to the government of Jesus." "What! just as I am!" Pray, how are you? Have you such a persuasion in your heart of the mission of Jesus, as God's own Son, and the only Saviour; and have you so much confidence in his personal character as to be willing to surrender yourself to him for the present and the future--for time and eternity? "I have," you say. As one that has heard his voice, I say then, Come and be regenerated, and seasons of refreshment from the Lord will come to you.

"But I thought I ought to feel like a Christian first, and to have the experience of a Christian, before I came to the Lord." Indeed? Did the Lord tell you so? "His ministers taught me so." It is hard knowing who are his ministers nowadays. His commissioned ministers taught you not so. They were not taught to say so. The Master knew that to wait for health before we went to the physician; to seek for warmth before we approached the fire; to wait till we ceased to be hungry before ever we approached the table--was not reasonable. And therefore, he never asked, as he never expected, any one to feel like a Christian before he was immersed, and began to live like a Christian. None but the citizens of any country can experience the good or evil [578] of the government which presides over it. None but the married can experience the conjugal relation and feelings. None but sons and daughters can have the experience of sons and daughters; and none but those who obey the gospel can experience the sweets of obedience. I need not add, that none but the disobedient can experience the pains, the fears, and terrors of the Lord, the shame and remorse which are the first fruits of the anguish and misery which await them in another world. As the disobedient, who stumble at the word, have the first fruits of the awful destruction from the presence of the Lord, which awaits them; so the obedient have the first fruits of the Spirit--the salvation of their souls, as an earnest until the salvation to be revealed at the coming of the Lord.

And now let me ask all the unregenerate. What do you propose to yourselves by either delaying or refusing to come to the Lord? Will delaying have any tendency to fit you or prepare you for his salvation? Will your lusts have less power, or sin have less dominion over you by continuing under their control? Has the intoxicating cup by indulgence diminished a taste for it? Has the avarice of the miser been weakened or cured by yielding to it? Has any propensity been destroyed by gratifying it, in any other way than as it destroyed the animal system? Can you, then, promise yourselves that, by continuing in disobedience, you will love obedience, and be more inclined to submit when you have longer resisted the Spirit of God! Presume not on the mercy of God, but in the way that mercy flows. Grace has its channels, as the waters have their courses; and its path, as the lightning of the clouds. Each has its law, as fixed as the throne of God; and think not that God will work a miracle for your salvation.

Think you that the family of Noah could have been saved if they had refused to enter into the Ark? Could the first born of Israel have escaped the destroying angel, but in houses sprinkled with blood? or could Israel have escaped the wrath of Pharaoh, but by being immersed into Moses in the cloud and in the sea? These things are written for our admonition upon whom the consummation of past ages has come. Arise, then, and be immersed, and wash away your sins, calling upon the name of the Lord. The many who refuse grace will neither prove you wise nor safe in disobedience.

"Multitudes are no mark--That you will right be found; A few were saved in the Ark,--For many millions drown'd. Obey the gospel call,--And enter while yon may: Christ's flock have long been small,--But none are safe but they."

[A. C.]

Eternal Life

In 1859, page 125 [sic], "H. T. A." (Henry T. Anderson) writes:

What can appear more paradoxical than this: to live, and yet be dead; to be dead, and yet live? How difficult, how hard to be heard, [579] was the word of the Messiah--"if a man keep my saying, he shall never see death." Is it possible that a believer in Christ shall never die? Jesus said to Mary, "I am the resurrection and the life; he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live; he that liveth and believeth in me, shall never die. Believest thou this?" What say you, kind reader? Believest thou that thou shalt never die? If thy faith is not yet established, come, let us reason together.

We will visit first the garden of Gethsemane. Who is this, that lies upon the ground and prays--"O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me?" Why is it that he is in such agony? Do you see that his sweat is, as it were, great drops of blood falling to the ground? Can it be that he fears the suffering which his body must undergo, while upon the cross? Can the prospect of physical suffering account for this agony? The thieves, who suffered with him, are they enduring this intense agony in view of the cross? Where will you find an instance like this? It can not be found. This is the Saviour of the world. He has come to the hour which he has dreaded. The sins of the human family are laid upon him; and he suffers for man. He is about to become a curse for us, while he bears, in his body, our sins upon the tree of the cross. He is about to make his soul an offering for sin, and endure, in mind and body, that curse that is due to us. See, now, an angel comes and strengthens him; and he arises and goes to his disciples, and meets the traitor and his company of officers and men, who have come to take him. He is bound and carried to the High-priest. He is delivered to Pilate, and condemned to death. There is darkness over all the land, from the sixth till the ninth hour. Hear him as he cries, "Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?" What means this? Has God forsaken him? Yes; for he has become a curse for us; and God withdraws from him while he is a curse. Sin is upon him. Our sins are counted to him. He dies for us; and we can never die. He abolishes death. By his death he takes away death; and we live forever in him. If he dies for us, we can not die. Strange, would it be, that we should die after that he has suffered death for us. It can not be that we shall ever die. We live because he lives.

But God had forsaken him only while the curse was upon him. The wages of sin is death. He has now endured the curse. He has discharged the debt. The curse is removed, and he rises, no longer cursed; but now, free from the curse, he is accepted of God, and offers himself, to God, in the Holy of Holies in heaven. God accepts the offering, and we are free. We can not die. "If any man will keep my saying, he shall never see death." "He that believeth on me shall never die." Do you believe this, reader? If you do not believe this, then, do you believe that he has died for you? How, then, can you [580] die? Do you think of the dissolution of soul and body, and conclude that this has been the lot of the Apostles and Prophets, and of all the followers of Christ, in all ages? And do you count this the death from which you are freed? If so, you labor under an error. The dissolution of soul and body is not the death from which you are freed. Nor was it the dissolution of soul and body that the Messiah so much dreaded. He was separated from God on account of sin. Inasmuch as he assumed our nature, and our sins were laid upon him, he must endure that which was due to sin--a separation from God, while he thus endured the curse. This is the death which he underwent for sin. And, as he took our sins upon him, and died for our sins, we are surely free from death, being free from sin, whose wages is death.

The Apostle to the Gentiles reasons thus--"The love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead." The human family is dead. Christ died for them, that they might live. If all have died, there is a cause--the sin of our first parents. "In the day that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die." The fruit was eaten, and our parents died that very day. They were alienated in mind from God, and, as proof of that alienation, that inward death, they hid themselves from Jehovah. Man has hid himself from God, from the day of transgression until now, being alienated in mind. Separation from God is the consequence of alienation. Mental alienation, or, if any one wishes, spiritual alienation, is the death that Adam died on the day on which he ate the fruit. His personal separation from God was a consequence of that alienation. His posterity have been, and are now, alienated from God; and hence, their personal separation from him. Sin is the cause of this. Sin is begotten in the spirit. This is spiritual alienation. Sin is brought forth in an act; and then follows a separation of ourselves, in person, from God. Adam died in the garden, and was driven out because he was thus spiritually separated from God.

But now, Christ has died for us, having taken our sins upon him, and endured that most terrible of sufferings, being forsaken of his God. What now constitutes the glad tidings of great joy? Christ has died for our sins. We believe in Christ, and live. We pass from death unto life. We shall not come into condemnation. "He that heareth my word, and believeth in him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation, but is passed from death unto life. Jesus is that eternal life which was with the Father, but has been manifested to us. He came into the world in which darkness and death reigned without restraint. He is the true light, who, having come into the world, gives light to every man. As the sun is the source of light and life to the natural world, so is Jesus the source [581] of spiritual light and life to the spiritual world. Those who receive his truth are enlightened in mind, and warmed into life in spirit. The spirit of man, though an ever-active, ever-enduring, never-perishing substance, is, as respects God, in a state of death. When the gospel is heard, which is the word of life, the spirit of man is made alive, begotten again, and by means of the word of life, has a new life imparted to it, by which it is enabled to enjoy the reign of God. The Spirit of God begets life in the human spirit by means of the truth On the part of the spirit of man, there is a conception of divine life, which, diffusing itself through the whole inward man, manifests itself in the production of fruits of righteousness. This divine life, which is imparted by the Spirit of God, is the everlasting life which the Saviour promises to those who hear his words. The receiver of this life can not die, provided he remains faithful to the Lord Messiah. He is alive, and his life is sustained by the Lord of life.

Now, if the dissolution of soul and body, which was endured by Jesus, was the death which he suffered for us, it would follow that we could not suffer thus; for we can not endure that which he endured for us. We being under the power of death, he came and died for us, that we might be saved from that in which we were held. He entered the prison-house and broke its bars and set us free. Delivered from sin and death, we live to God in Christ.

To be or to exist, is not to live. The human spirit will endure through the ages of ages. Yet, whether it lives or not depends on its acceptance of that eternal life, which God gives through the Messiah. To cease to be, is an idea not to be found in the oracles of God. To perish or to be destroyed, is not to cease to be. "O Israel, thou hast destroyed thyself." Yet Israel was in existence. The righteous perish, says Isaiah, and no man layeth it to heart. The righteous can not cease to be. To be dead, is not to cease to be. Death is not non-existence. It is true that the Sadducees used the word in this sense of non-existence; for they denied the existence of spirits or angels. When men died, they ceased to exist, in their estimation. When the Saviour, in reply to a question put by them on the subject of the resurrection, quoted the words of Jehovah--"I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, the God of Jacob;" he most pertinently added, "God is not the God of the dead." If Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were dead, in the Sadducean sense; that is, if they had no existence; then, it would follow, that God is the God of nothing, or of something not existing--which consequence was so obvious and so manifestly opposed to reason, that even the Sadducees were silenced by it. God, then, is the God of those who live; therefore, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob live; and as they live, they will again come forth to life. [582]

But Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are among the dead. Then, the dead yet live; and being dead is ceasing to be in a certain state or condition; in other words, death is a change of state. Dissolution of spirit and body is the death to which we all tend. By this dissolution we enter another state of being.

It may be profitable, here, to notice the style of the inspired writers. The distinction between the "me" and the "not me," is made broad and clear by the inspired men. Hear Paul, in his letter to the Philippians, "I am in a strait between two, having a strong desire to depart and be with Christ; which is far better: nevertheless, to abide in the flesh is now needful for you." There he speaks of himself as departing and abiding in the flesh. Now, if he departed, evident is it that he would leave behind him that in which he was then abiding--the flesh; for, surely, no one supposes that Paul went to heaven in the flesh. It is, therefore, evident that Paul, and Paul's flesh are not the same. The "I" that departed; the "I" that abode in the flesh, certainly was not the flesh. I, and my body, are two things. The "I" is not the body; but something, which, though abiding in the body for a while, departs after a while, and leaves the body. When I say my body, I speak of that, which, though mine, is not me or myself. Thus the Ego, and the non-Ego, are distinguished by the great philosophers of Holy Writ.

Peter also makes the same distinction. "The Lord Jesus has showed me how that shortly I must put off this, my tabernacle." Peter, and the tabernacle of Peter, are most obviously distinguished. Peter is the Ego; the tabernacle of Peter, the non-Ego. Peter is the true living being; the tabernacle of Peter, that in which he lived. The pulling down, the destruction of a tabernacle, is not the nonexistence of the inhabitant. Therefore, men, though dead to us, live to God. They are unseen of us, but known and seen by God.

But there is a life, which the righteous possess, which never dies--the everlasting life. The spirit of man possessed of the truth of God, becomes, as we have seen, alive to God; is possessed of a life which makes it akin to the divine nature--indeed, the Apostle Peter speaks of our being "partakers of the divine nature." This divine nature is the true source of the everlasting life. We receive Christ; and, from him, is imparted to us the divine nature, which gives that new life, by which we become victorious over sin and the flesh.

The Apostle John gives these words of John the Baptist: "He that believeth on the Son, hath life; he that believeth not the Son, shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him." The wicked exist eternally without life--a paradox; be it so: it is true. They exist eternally; they possess that existence which belongs to the nature of spirits; but without that life, which results from being [583] partakers of the divine nature. Without the divine nature, no spirit can love God or be obedient to him. This divine nature is imparted to us when we believe in Christ. It is not faith which gives us this divine life. Jesus himself, who is the life of the world, gives us this life through faith. Strong, indeed, are the words of our holy Apostle:--"We are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones." We are to Christ what Eve was to Adam. We are his bride. We partake of his nature, being joint-partakers of his spirit. He took our nature, and thus raised the human to the divine. He lives eternally, and we are supported by him. He is our light, our life, our strength. From him there comes forth a vis activa, a vis viva, a living, active power, that entering into the spirit of man vivifies, enlightens, and transfuses life through the whole man.

God is light. God is life. God is love. What must be the condition of that spirit, which is enlightened by this divine light, quickened by this life, and filled with this love? Is it not a partaker of the divine nature? Has not the divine descended and taken flesh? Why should not the divine transfuse itself into the human? Is it credible that the Logos became flesh? Then the divine has united itself with the human. When we are united to Christ, the human becomes united with the divine. Else, how is he that is joined to the Lord, one spirit?

We are to Christ as Eve to Adam, Paul being judge: "We are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones." Wonderful words are these! Wonderful union with the Messiah!

How, then, can we die? Death is abolished. Life reigns in us. Though our bodies must see the dust, we live, and shall live, forevermore. The present body is unfit for that habitation, which God has prepared for the righteous. It must undergo a change, either by being raised from the dust, or by being changed when the Lord shall descend from heaven: "For we shall not all sleep," no; some will be found on earth when the Messiah comes, and these will not sleep, but undergo a change which is necessary for them, that they may meet our coming Redeemer. A living, regenerate, sanctified body in which to live forever--a resurrection, becomes a consequence of the possession of life by the spirit. To the body will be given a life which is eternal. A pure spirit will inhabit a body that is immortal and incorruptible. This mortal (body) must put on immortality: this corruptible (body) must put on incorruption. In this body there is nothing that can secure it from corruption. From the dust there can come nothing that is immortal. That which is immortal and incorruptible comes from heaven. So our Apostle teaches that, "if our earthly house of this tabernacle perish, we have a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens." This heavenly house, or [584] body, which is immortal, will swallow up our mortality. Our mortal body will be clad with an immortal one from heaven, which will thus swallow up all that is mortal, and then our living spirit will inhabit forever a living, immortal, incorruptible, heavenly body. Death will then be swallowed up of life.

H. T. A.

The Tree of Life

In 1864, page 529, W. K. Pendleton writes:

Life and death, it may be truly said, are emphatically Bible themes. As nothing short of Revelation can give us correct and reliable information concerning them, so we do well to take care that our views and beliefs as to them are derived from the Scriptures. Nothing is more important to man than the subject of his origin and destiny. We do not mean to say that nothing actually so much engages his attention, for this, unfortunately, is not so; but that nothing should so much interest his mind and heart, must be admitted by every one who reflects. Whence am I? whither do I go, and what shall be my future destiny? Who is not infinitely concerned in these great questions?

Life and death are introduced to us in the opening chapters of human history. In the first, we are presented with the origin of life; in the second, with the origin of death. God is the author of the one, Satan of the other. Life and all that is from God is good; death and all that is from the devil is evil. Life is a creation; it is derived; it had a beginning; and hence is not, necessarily and essentially, eternal. The Scriptures nowhere assert the essential eternity of human life. Even before the fall--in the primitive state of paradisaical purity and innocence--Adam and Eve enjoyed a life that required to be nourished and sustained by influences out of itself--a life that needed food to make it immortal. Hence among the trees of the Garden, there is one, with virtue above all the rest--"the tree of life," a life-giving tree.

Whether we regard this tree as literally contributing the pabulum of life--the essence and element of immortality, directly, as an elixir vitae; or rather as a sacramental fruit, in and through which, it pleased the Creator to confer this power of life by endless divine communication, does not materially affect the question. In the first case, the fruit of the tree must be supposed to draw this power, not from the created sources of its own life, for they could not impart what was not in them, to wit, the power of immortality; but from the original and eternal fountain of life, which is God himself. In the second view, this power flows into man through the eating of this fruit, sacramentally, that is through the divine appointment, and not by any process which we can call natural. In either case, therefore, the source of the life is originally in God; but in the latter, there seems to be a harmony with the conception of elementary simplicity [585] in the principle of life, that we do not so readily perceive in the former of these views.

Life is not organization--it is distinct from it. It is rather the cause of organization. The organization of each particular life had its beginning in a previous life, but it is sustained and perpetuated by the life that is communicated to it. The organization of Adam was from God, and was first made before the breath of life was breathed into it by the Elohim. After this, the life thus divinely communicated, sustained and perpetuated the organization--the body. But the life itself is not necessarily immortal. It needs the sustaining supplies of the eternal fountain, and for this there is provided "The tree of life." The difference between this tree and all the other trees of the Garden of which man was permitted freely to eat, was this: they sustained the organization by the assimilative and organific power of the principle of life, but "The tree of life" sustained the principle of life itself. Now we can understand how an organization like the body, which is not simple, but composed of many elements, can be formed and sustained out of supplies furnished to the assimilative and organific power of life, in what we call a natural way; but we can not so understand the support and perpetuation of life itself, which is simple, and not compound. It must be given, not as something else, a heterogeneous compound to be, digested and wrought up into the product we call life, but as life itself--simple and pure, for what is the power that can take of the tree of life and digest life out of it? It is not the power of life, for this would be to make a finite power the origin of itself, which is absurd. It is not the organization, for the organization is itself, the effect of the power of life, and this would be to make an effect the cause of its own cause--an instance of reasoning in a circle, that the merest tyro in logic can not fail to perceive. Since, therefore, life must evermore be sustained by direct supplies from the eternal and original fountain in God, we prefer the view, which regards "the tree of life" as a sacramental medium, through the eating of which, just as in the symbols of the Lord's Supper, our first parents were furnished with supplies of life, directly by God, from whom originally we came, and in whom alone, perpetually, we live and move and have our being.

But whether naturally or sacramentally, the tree of life was designed to maintain in man the power of an endless life. It was placed in the midst of Paradise, and the freest access to it, and participation of its life-giving fruit, were granted to the happy occupants of the Garden of delights. There was no interruption of this high privilege so long as they continued to observe the only condition upon which it was suspended. Access to it was life. Separation from it was death, The awful hour of disobedience was the hour of this [586] separation, and so through disobedience death came. The forbidden fruit was plucked; the test of fealty was broken, and practical infidelity becomes the sin for which banishment and death are inflicted upon the first transgressors.

But though man is excluded from the garden, and the tree of life is carefully and powerfully guarded against his approach, by the symbolic cherubim, yet he does not leave his native and happy home without fond remembrances of its immortal fruit, and the divinely implanted hope of an ultimate return to its forfeited blessings. The way is guarded, but the tree still remains. Its fruit is still the sacramental medium of immortal life; and the longing of the soul for its life-giving power is the earnest of its future enjoyment. And so the hope of immortality springs up in the human soul from the inherited memory of the tree of life, which, like a divine intimation, descends to us with the experience of the fall, to soften its hardships, and lift us from the tyranny and hopelessness of despair, up to the anticipation of a blessed return to eternal life.

With the sentence of death resting upon him, and the consciousness of corruption and decay already working in him, and in the absence of a positive promise of a future return to the tree of life, Adam would have despaired. He would have seen in his approaching death the extinguishment, to him, of all being. The idea of immortality would indeed have remained, a relic from the wreck of Paradise;--but the hope of it must rest upon a ground of faith, and this faith upon the foundation of a divine promise. Without such a promise, man might indeed dream over the thought of an immortal, blissful future, and indulge his soul in happy pictures of an imaginary paradise to come, but the sad misgivings of his calmer moments of reason, would dash from his lips the pleasing chalice, and leave him with the consciousness of the stern reality, that he is, apart from the divine promise, "without hope and without God in the world."

The question whether the unaided reason can arrive at, or demonstrate, the idea of immortality, is clearly one for which there is left no necessity in the field of investigation, because it is unquestionably one of tradition. What could be more indelibly impressed upon the mind of Adam, than this great idea? It was this that led him, evermore, to eat of the fruit of the tree of life. It was this that the tree of life symbolized and sacramentally communicated; and it was from this that he was cut off because of transgression, and by his banishment from Eden. And would he not tell of it--talk about it to Seth, and Enos, and Cainan, and Mahalaleel, and Jared, and Enoch, and Methusaleh, with whom he was cotemporary for 243 years? And would not Methuselah tell it to Noah, with whom he was cotemporary for 600 years? And would not Noah tell it to Shem, and Shem [587] to Abraham, with whom he was cotemporary 150 years? And from Abraham could it fail to come fresh and unquestioned to Joseph, through Isaac and Jacob, and from Joseph to Amram, and from Amram to Moses--the immortal historian of this divine tradition? It is idle, therefore, to assume that the idea of immortality is to be derived through reasoning, when we have so clear and satisfactory a traditional origin for it, in the direct knowledge of Adam while in the Garden of Eden.

The tree of life, therefore, we must regard as the sacramental symbol of immortality, and this "pleasing hope, this fond desire, this longing after immortality," as the original instinct of our first parents, which led them to the tree of life for the replenishment of their wasting power, and which still turns the hearts of all their children with fond anticipation to the time of a blessed restoration to its life-giving fruit.

But, under the sentence of banishment from this medium, of life because of sin, upon what ground can man expect to return to its enjoyment, save that of acquittal or pardon? The cherubim guard the way, and though the tree of life is still blooming in the sweet fields of Eden, we can not of ourselves approach it. Condemned to die through the power of Satan, we can only hope to live again through the bruising of his head. Forbidden to eat because of unrighteousness, we can only return to the privilege through righteousness. It is in the promise of the seed of the woman, then, that this instinctive desire for immortality becomes a well grounded hope, and though death meets us this side of the cherubim-guarded portals and lays us low, yet in the very jaws of the grave the death-Destroyer comes to our aid with the promised deliverance, and carries us over to the sunny banks of the river of the water of life, and to the tree whose fruit is for the healing of the nations.

W. K. P. [588]

Source: This text is reproduced from The Millennial Harbinger Abridged (1902), compiled by Benjamin Lyon Smith from the writings of Alexander Campbell originally published in the Millennial Harbinger. The archive is hosted by Abilene Christian University (ACU) and Memorial University of Newfoundland.

Alexander Campbell, Regeneration, in Benjamin Lyon Smith (comp.), The Millennial Harbinger Abridged, Vol. I, Book VIII (Cincinnati: Standard Publishing, 1902).