William L. McCalla (1788-1859) Discussion of Christian Baptism (Philadelphia, George M'Laughlin, 1831) Part 1: (pp. 1-214) | Part 2: (pp. 215-397) |
|
A DISCUSSION OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM, AS TO ITS SUBJECT, ITS MODE, ITS HISTORY, AND ITS EFFECTS UPON CIVIL, AND RELIGIOUS SOCIETY. IN OPPOSITION TO THE VIEWS OF MR. ALEXANDER CAMPBELL, AS EXPRESSED IN A SEVEN DAYS' DEBATE WITH THE AUTHOR, AT WASHINGTON, KENTUCKY, OCTOBER, 1823, AND IN HIS SPURIOUS PUBLICATION OF THAT DEBATE, AND OF A PREVIOUS ONE, OF TWO DAYS, WITH THE REV. JOHN WALKER, OF OHIO. AND IN OPPOSITION TO THE VIEWS OF THE CELEBRATED MR. ROBINSON, AND OTHER BAPTIST AUTHORS. BY W. L. M'CALLA, Pastor of the Eighth Presbyterian Church, Philadelphia, and author of "A Discussion of Universalism." Philadelphia. PUBLISHED BY GEORGE M'LAUGHLIN. - - - - - 1831. |
( 57 )
Many Baptists, such as Booth, Butterworth, and Judson, appear as if they could adopt this proposition just as it stands. The second of these writers, in his Concordance, gives, as the fourth meaning of the word Church [[^ "The people of the JEWS, who was the CHURCH and people of God." In proof of this he refers to Acts vii. 38, which says, "This is he that was in the church in the wilderness." A person who is unacquainted with the ways of my Opponent, might suppose, from some of his declarations, that he also believed this doctrine. He has even accused Dr. Rallston of misrepresentation for denying it. In his Strictures at the end of his spurious Debate with Mr. Walker, (l) he speaks as follows, viz. Mr. R. affirms that I *' deny that there was a visible church in the world until the day of Pentecost.' He refers to no page in the Debate, nor could he, for there is not such a declaration in the whole book. Nay, so far is the above from fact, that I again and again speak of a visible church in the world from Moses' time to the day of Pentecost. Page 26, I called the Jews God's people, and spoke of their visible church state: so also in pages 40, 41, 43, 44, 53, 98, I spoke of the Jewish church, and of their visible church state; and __________ (l) p. 223.
repeatedly contrasted the Jewish Church with the Christian Church Yet Mr R. affirms that I denied there was a visible church on earth till the day of Pentecost!!" From this, one would suppose that it was a settled opinion with my Opponent that the Jewish people were long the visible church of God, and that he was much in the habit of insisting upon this point; and that he had especially urged this doctrine in the many pages to which he refers. The last of these references must be a mistake, as it does not contain a word upon the subject. If the first of them prove the ecclesiastical state of the Jews, it goes far to shew their identity with the Christian church. But this could not have been his meaning, since it is in direct opposition to the two succeding references. His second and third are occupied about Stephen's "church in the wilderness," which Butterworth, an eminent Baptist preacher, agrees with Mr. Walker, in considering "the people of the Jews, who was the church and people of God." This my Opponent disputes in the places referred to, by trying to prove that the word translated church may mean a mob, like that of Demetrius, at Ephesus, instead of a church of God! This is a curious way to prove the visible church state of the Jews. The only remaining reference in the whole list is of a piece with these. Instead of saying, as he pretends, that the Jews were the visible church of God, he tries to prove that they were not the Church of Christ, by an argument which, if true, must, go equally to prove that they could not be the church of God, unless he could shew that the latter was a different and inferior being to the former. It is evident
from his whole book, that he is far from being friendly to the doctrine in question, so that instead of Dr. Rallston's misrepresenting him, he has really misrepresented himself. It is true that he has, in this debate, offered to concede the point, provided that I will pass on without taking up time in proving it. This, however, has turned out nothing more than a ruse de guerre, to induce me to leave an enemy's garrison in the rear. For when he was called upon to fulfil a stipulation which was of his own asking, he refused, and offered to substitute something of a very different character, viz. "That the Jews, when called out of Egypt, became a church, or a religious assembly in some sense." (m) "a church, or a "religious assembly in some sense." In what sense, pray? His debate with Mr. Walker tells us. It is in that sense in which the very religious assembly at Ephesus was a church; that assembly which was convened and opened with a Hymn by the zealous Demetrius, and, after much noise and bodily exercise, addressed and dismissed by his Reverence the town-clerk. But this pretended concession denies that the Jews were a church or a religious assembly in any sense, till called out of Egypt. In accordance with this, he asserts that "they were never called a church until in the wilderness. This, says he, "may be denied, but there lives not the man that can produce an instance to the contrary." He farther assures us, that "the occurrences at Sinai are ever afterwards referred to by __________ (m) Spurious Debate with me p. S8C.
Jewish and Christian Prophets as the commencement of their ecclesiastic existence. The covenant at Sinai, therefore, is the only national or ecclesiastic covenant from Adam to the Messiah, recorded in the Bible." (n) That the Sinaitic covenant is the constitution of the Jewish Church, (if church he will permit it to be called,) my Opponent endeavours to prove by two positions. One is that "the occurrences at Sinai are ever afterwards referred to by Jewish and Christian ( ' Prophets as the commencement of their ecclesiastic existence." As this language plainly intimates that the Old and New Testaments are full of evidence to this effect, you might reasonably expect the author of so bold an assertion to specify a few instances: but he has not here given one; and (to use his own language) I can safely say, "there lives not the man that can produce an instance." His other argument or assertion that they were never called a church until in the wilderness," "at Sinai," is as irrelevant as it is incorrect. It goes upon the assumption that churches are made by names and not by acts. It is only a few years since the name of Baptists was given to any body of men on earth; for even the followers of John were not called Baptists. Is my Opponent willing to admit that they are no older than their name? Again; "the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch." Were there no Christians at all, until this name was given to them? This shews the utter irrelevancy of the argument that the Jews *' were never called a church until" the Sinaitic covenant, __________ (/^ Spurious Debate, p. 39p.
even if this statement were true, which it assuredly is not, although he has affirmed it so roundly. I will not say that our translation of the Old Testament calls them a church before their arrival at Sinai; but neither does it call them a church subsequent to that period. It is remarkable that our translators generally make congregation in the Old Testament correspond with church in the New. This is very much condemned by Dr. George Campbell, my Opponent's favourite critic, who says that "they ought constantly to have rendered the original expression either church in the Old Testament or congregation in the New." "What I blame, therefore," says he, "in our translators, is the want of uniformity." In the same connexion, the Dr. repeatedly declares that "the Hebrew word Sip [rendered congregation in the Old Testament] exactly corresponds to the Greek [[S**J^ __________ (o) See his Lectures on Ecclesiastical History. Lecture 10, page 163. 164. Philadelphia Edition of 1807. (//) Dr. Mason on the Church,
bible, rendered congregation, and both alike are used to signify the church. Now it is very easy for my Opponent to prove that they were called and considered a visible church after their arrival at Sinai, by such passages as Lev. iv. 14, 21, where it is said that "[[ ^npil the church shall offer a young bullock for the sin, and bring him before the tabernacle of "[[iyi the church," as "a sin-offering for [[7ftpn the church." It is certainly the true church of God that is here intended, and not a mob like that of Ephesus. But before this church had come to Sinai, or even left Egypt, it is said in Ex. xii. 6, concerning the sacrifice of the Passover, that "the whole [[fiiy 71p assembly of the church, or church of the congregation of Israel shall kill it in the evening." Concerning this also it may be said that the true church of God is here intended, and not a mob like that at Ephesus. An examination of Lev. viii. 3. xvi. 5, with the context, will shew plainly that, after their arrival at Sinai, the Israelites were called my the church in the ecclesiastical sense of the word; for they are represented as engaged in ecclesiastical business. But in Ex. xii. 3, 47, the same people are twice called by the same name, and represented as engaged in the same business, before they had set out on their journey to Mount Sinai. After that period, their discipline ordained that "the man that shall be unclean, and shall not purify himself, that soul shall be cut off from among THpft the church." (q) But before they left Egypt, it was similarly ordained concerning __________ (a} Num. xix. 20.
the Passover, that "whosoever eateth that which is leavened, even that soul shall be cut off SN*I" rnyO from the church of Israel." (r) It will be recollected that my Opponent referred to an instance in which he "called the Jews God's people" as a proof that he believed in "their visible church state." (s) According to this, "God's people" must mean the church of God. What is here plainly implied by my Opponent, is expressly declared by Dr. George Campbell, in a Lecture which is intended to build Congregationalism (the Baptist form of Government) on the ruins of Presbyterianism. After pointing out several expressions as "confessedly equivalent" to each other, he adds, "The same may be said of the phrases [[7Jlp <( CDTl/N and CD*n 7K Oy> n exxiqeu* esov and o?.ao$ 8tov the church of God and the people of God." (t) This was evidently the understanding of Butterworth, the Baptist writer, when he called the Jews "the church and people of God." This is in conformity with Lev. xvi. 33, which says "He shall make an atonement for the priests, and for all the [[SflpH CDJN people of the church." Moses uses the word people alone, in a sense which cannot easily be misunderstood. "Whatsoever soul it be that eateth any manner of blood, even that soul shall be cut off from his people." (a) The word people here evidently means the same church contemplated in Lev. xix. 20, and Ex. xii. 9, from which church it is ordained that a soul shall be cut off for eating leavened bread, and __________ (r) Exodus xii. 19. (s) Spurious Debate with Mr. Walker, p. 223, quoted above. f See his tenth Lecture on Ecclesiastical History, quoted above, (a) Lev, vii. 2f,
for neglecting to purify himself. And from premises which we have already shewn are admitted by Baptists and Pedobaptists, we fairly conclude that this visible church of God is meant by the people from whom the uncircumcised man-child is said to be cut off in Gen. xvii. 14. "And the uncircumcised man-child, whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; [that is, from his church;] ( he hath broken my covenant;" [that is my ecclesiastical covenant,] made four hundred and thirty years before my Opponent's ecclesiastical covenant, at Sinai. If I be not egregiously mistaken, my Opponent's own argument operates with irresistible force against himself, He reasons that the Jews were not a church until they came to Sinai, because they were not called a church until that period. Then if they had been called a church before, this would prove that they were really a church before the Sinaitic covenant. But we have shewn several proofs that they were called a church, in the ecclesiastical sense of the word, before they left Egypt, and we have shewn that they were called by a name "confessedly equivalent" in the covenant with Abraham, where the violation of that covenant is given as a reason for excommunication from that church. This subject we hope, with divine permission, to pursue farther before we are done with the proposition that "Abraham and his seed were divinely constituted a visible church of God." When we speak of Abraham's SEED, take notice that this is the language which the scriptures use on this very subject. God says to Abraham, "This is my covenant
which ye shall keep between me and you, and thy SEED after thee; every man-child among you shall be circumcised." (u) This term is not used to embrace the children of Hagar and Keturah. "And God said, Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed; and thou shalt call his name Isaac: and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with HIS SEED after him." (0) "And God said unto Abraham, let it not be grievous in thy sight, because of the lad, and because of thy bond-woman; in all that Sarah hath said unto thee, hearken unto her voice: for in Isaac shall thy SEED be called." (w) "Neither because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but in Isaac shall thy SEED bewailed. That is, they which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed." (a?) This ecclesiastical SEED does not embrace the descendants of Isaac universally. Reprobate Esau, and, to a great degree, his progeny, were excluded, with every uncircumcised male of Jacob's posterity, according to Gen. xvii. 14. Moreover, the excommunication of even circumcised persons must have sometimes occurred. Instances are mentioned in the New Testament. (y) At an earlier period, Ezra proclaimed a general meeting, from which, if any man were absent, "all his substance should be forfeited, and himself separated from the [[Sip church of those that had been carried away/']] On this passage, Dr. Gill, the greatest Baptist Commentator, __________ ii\ Gen. xvii. 10. JT) Rom. ix, 7, 8. (v) Gen. xvii. 19. (w) Gen. xxi. 12. (t/) John ix. 22, com p. Li)ke vi. 22,
says that the absentee from this meeting "should be excommunicated from them as a church, and be no more reckoned of the body politic, or a freeman of Israel, and so deprived of all privileges, both in church and state." (z) That very excommunication which the Doctor says was here threatened, was afterward inflicted upon the great body of the Jewish people, the old branches of the ecclesiastical olive tree. Paul says, because of unbelief they were broken off." (a) If, therefore, there had been no engrafting of foreign cions, the church would have been nearly or altogether extinct. We observe, therefore, that the ecclesiastical SEED did not embrac.e the descendants of Isaac exclusively. According to Moses, Edomites were permitted to enter into the [[^Jlp church of the Lord in their third generation," (b) In Isaiah, (c) God has promised great additions from Egypt and Assyria. And we are informed of the actual accession of Ebed-Melech, the Ethiopian., Rahab of Jericho, and Ruth the Moabitess. W) Besides this, there is an innumerable multitude whom Paul represents as saying "The branches were broken off, that I might be grafted on." (e) Concerning these he says, "They which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham;" (/) upon the ground, that "to Abraham and his SEED were the promises made." (#) These materials afford the following definition, viz. The SEED of Abraham are his descendants in the line of __________ z) Gill's Commentary on Ezra x. 8. (a) Rom. xi. 20. 6) Deut. xxiii. 7, 8. (r) xix. 23, 24. d) Jer. xxxviii. 7 12. Matt. i. 5. (e) Rom. xi. 19. /) Gal, in. 9. ( /r) Gal. iii. 16.
Isaac, in good standing as professors of the true religion, with others added to them. Substituting this periphrasis for the word SEED, in the proposition now under discussion, it will read as follows, viz. Abraham and his descendants, in the line of Isaac, in good standing as professors of the true religion, with others added to them, were divinely constituted a visible church of God. It will, of course, be understood that the phrase visible church means a society, distinct from the body of the elect, and distinct from that portion of the elect who are already in glory. These are called the invisible church, and the church triumphant; from which the visible church, whether under the old or the new dispensation, is quite distinct. It is a visible society, acting as the consecrated depository of the oracles and ordinances of revealed religion. With the substitution of this explanation, for the phrase which it is intended to define, the proposition under consideration will read as follows, viz. Abraham and his seed were divinely constituted a visible society, acting as the consecrated depository of the oracles and ordinances of revealed religion. In oppugnation of this position, it will not avail to prove that the Jews were a body politic; for this is quite consistent with their being an ecclesiastical body also: and the fact of their being both a church and a state, is admitted in the extract just now given from the great Baptist commentator, Dr. Gill. It is equally futile to produce instances of a simultaneous tenure of civil and ecclesiastical offices; for this is quite common amongst us, where church and state are certainly
distinct. Neither will it do to alledge the moral turpitude of individual members against the existence of the Jewish, any more than the Christian church; for spotless purity belongs to the church triumphant only, and even universal sincerity to the invisible church only. I would also wish you to remember that the question is not now concerning the sameness of the Jewish and Christian churches, but whether the Jews were a church at all. That they were, I shall endeavour to prove, by shewing that they had the qualifications and constituents of a church, in the following order: 1. The oracles of a church. 2. The ordinances. 3. The members. 4. The officers. 5. The constitution. 6. The inspired name of a church. If all these points can be proved from the word of God, we shall have good reason for believing that Abraham and his seed were divinely constituted a visible church of God; and we shall have advanced one step to the conclusion that a command given to him, for administering to infants the initiatory seal of the church, is still binding. POINT I. The Jews had the ORACLES of a visible Church of God.Paul says, "unto them were committed the Oracles of God." (A) The character and design of these oracles __________ (A) Rom. iii, 2.
were evidently not those of a mere political code; but to convey religious instruction, to testify of Christ, to give us hope, life, wisdom and salvation. Concerning them, Peter says, "We have also a more sure word of prophecy, where unto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day-star arise in your hearts." () Paul says, "From a child thou hast known the holy scriptures [of the Old Testament] which are able to make thee wise unto salvation, through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, (t and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness; that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works." (,/) John says, "The testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy." U) In addressing the Jews, our Saviour said, "Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life; and they are they which testify of me," "For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me, for he wrote of me." (I) When the rich man in hell besought the patriarch in heaven, to send an extraordinary messenger to his five brethren, "Abraham saith unto him, they have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them." When the rich man repeated his request that one might arise front the dead, Abraham replied, "If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded [[^ though one rose from the dead. (m) By the mouth of __________ (z) 2 Pet, i. 19. compare verses 20. 21. (y) 2 Tim. Hi. 1517, (fc) Rev. xix. 10. (/) John v. 39. 46, (m) Luke xvi. 2731.
Ezekiel, one of those prophets, God says, "I gave them my statutes, and shewed them my judgments, which, if a man do, he shall even live in them. Moreover, [[(f also, I gave them my sabbaths, to be a sign between (( me and them, that they might know that I am the Lord that sanctify them." (n) The Psalmist says, "For he established a testimony in Jacob, and appointed a law in Israel, which he commanded our fathers, that they should make them known to their children, that the generation to come might know them, even the children which should be born, who should arise and [[<( declare them to their children, that they might set u their hope in God, and not forget the works of God, but keep his commandments." (0) On the declaration of the Psalmist, that "he established a testimony in Jacob," the great Baptist commentator speaks as follows, viz. "This is established in the house of Jacob, (as the Targum;) in the churchy which is the pillar *' and ground of truth, among the saints and people of God, to whom it is delivered, and by whom it will be * kept, and with whom it will remain throughout all ' ages, for it is the everlasting gospel. "It is pleasing to find such high Baptist authority as Dr. Gill, admitting that the Old Testament oracles contained the gospel, and that this testimony was committed to Jacob as a church 9 as the saints and people of God. __________ (w) Ez. xx, 11, 12. (0) Psalm Ixxviii. 58
The Jews had the ORDINANCES of a visible Church of God. Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, [among which that with Abraham is prominent,] and the giving of ff the law, and the service of God, and the promises; whose are the fathers, [among whom Abraham holds a conspicuous place,] and of whom, as concerning the ""flesh, Christ [the substance of all the ordinances] came, who is over all, God blessed forever. [[v (j&) Long before the transactions at Sinai, the covenant with Abraham recognized the ordinance of circumcision. "And God said unto Abraham, thou shalt keep my covenant, (i therefore, thou and thy seed after thee, in their generations. This is my covenant which ye shall keep between me and you, and thy seed after thee; every man-child among you shall be circumcised." (gO In the wilderness God gave them the manna which was a daily spiritual feast. "For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world. Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread. And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst." (r) On the words "evermore give us this bread," Dr. Gill observes, "but to such who are true believers in Christ, who have tasted that the Lord is __________ om. be. 4, 5. (y) Gen. xvii. 9, 10. (r) John vi, 3335.
gracious, Christ, the true manna and bread of God, is all things to them; nor do they desire any other: they taste every thing that is delightful, and find every thing that is nourishing in him." Paul connects this with the stream which quenched their thirst. 6( And did all eat the same spiritual meat; and did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual rock which followed them, and that Rock was Christ." (s) On this passage, Dr. Gill remarks that Christ may be compared to the rock," "in the support of his church," "as he is the foundation of his church and every believer," "as the foundation of his church, abiding forever." Now compare the text and the Baptist commentary. The Apostle informs us that the Jews, long before the Christian dispensation, were supported by the spiritual Rock: the Commentator declares that those who were thus supported, stand in relation to Christ, as HIS CHURCH; and the expression HIS CHURCH is thrice repeated in a few lines. If there be meaning in language, this points out the Jews before the New Testament day, as the church of Christ. But my Opponent professes to produce New Testament authority, to shew that the ordinances of the Jews were not such as should belong to the spiritual and heavenly religion of the true God, but that they were worldly and carnal ordinances. Paul says, "Then verily the first covenant had also ordinances of divine service, and a worldly sanctuary." "Which stood" only in meats and divers washings, and carnal ordinances __________ (*) 1 Cor, x. 3, 4.
imposed on them, until the time of reformation." U) To support him here, he adduces the translation and commentary of the learned Dr. Macknight, a celebrated Pedobaptist. It would be well for him to examine his notes, and see whether this is not a mistaken reference. Although the Dr. had a tender regard for almost all descriptions of error, he does not support my Opponent, on the point for which he is cited. The Dr. tells us that this worldly sanctuary was called so, "not because it was a holy place on earth, and made of materials furnished from the earth, but because it was i{ a representation of the world or universe." It may surely be all this, and yet a proper sanctuary for the worship of the true God by his visible church. As for these carnal ordinances, he calls them "ordinances concerning the flesh "respecting the purifying of the body," "literally, righteousnesses of the flesh [[^ things which make the flesh, not the spirit righteous." These are his own words, in his translation, commentary, and notes. These words are correct, even where they oppose Dr. Magee's opinion that, in some cases, the Jewish sacrifices make a real satisfaction to divine justice. On these and the various ordinances connected with them, I believe, with Dr. Gill, "that they were all types and figures of Christ, and had their fulfilment in him." (w) He shews that Philo, the Jew, explained this worldly sanctuary as Macknight does; yet surely Philo believed the Jews to be a church. In opposition to them both, however, the Dr. says, "It was rather __________ (0 Hebr. ix. 1. 10. (u) On Hebr. ix. 1,
either a type of the church, or of heaven, or of Christ's human nature: the better reason of its being so called is, because it consisted of earthly matter and worldly things; it was in the world, and only had its use in the world, and so is opposed to the heavenly sanctuary." (u) None of these views have the least bearing against the doctrine that this worldly sanctuary is an ecclesiastical sanctuary, unless you will first prove that no church can exist in the world. But that we may not be at a loss concerning its ecclesiastical character, God said to Solomon, "I have heard thy prayer, and have chosen this place to myself, for an house of sacrifice." "Now mine eyes shall be open, and mine ears attend unto thy prayer, that is made in this place. For now have I chosen and sanctified this house, that my name may be there forever: and mine eyes and mine heart shall be there perpetually." (#) If a holy residence of God, consecrated to sacrifice and prayer, is not dignified enough to be called an ecclesiastical sanctuary, I should like to know where you would find a church in our day. This doctrine was held by the Jews, in opposition to the Samaritans, down to the time of our Saviour, to whom the Samaritan woman applied to decide the controversy. This gave him an opportunity of instructing her in the new dispensation, which has laid the dispute asleep almost ever since, until, in late days, it has been revived by some Baptists, who have a zeal not according to knowledge. Among those I am happy to find that the pious and learned Dr. Gill is __________ (w) On Hebr. ix. 1. (v) 2 Chr. vii, 12, 15, 16.
not numbered. He comments upon the words of the Samaritan woman, as follows, viz. "[[ Jlnd ye say that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship; u that is, in the temple there; who urged, and very rightly, that God had chosen that place to put his name, and fix his worship there; and had ordered them to come thither, and bring their offerings arid sacrifices, arid to keep their Passover and other [[ POINT III. The Jewish society had the MEMBERS of a visible church.The ordinances of which we have been speaking, were emblematical of sanctification, and required evidence of sanctification in their adult communicants. It is true that this is a thing of which my Opponent has no very high opinion, as he scoffs at the very Baptists themselves, for requiring of candidates some accownt of their religious experience, preparatory to initiation. But with pious Baptists this is esteemed important. So do the scriptures esteem it important in the subjects of circumcision. "Circumcise, therefore, the foreskin of your hearts, and be no more stiff-necked." (x) The Lord thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the lord thy God, with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live." (#) "All these nations are uncircumcised, and all the house of Israel are uncircumcised in the __________ (w) Gill on John iv. 20. For proof he refers to Dent. xii. 5. 6. xvj. 2, . (.r) Dent, x. 16. (y) Deut. xxx, 6.
heart." (c) "Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost; as your fathers did, so do ye." (a) "And thou shalt say to the rebellious; even to the house of Israel, thus saith the Lord God, ye house of Israel, let it suffice you of all your abominations, in that ye have brought into my sanctuary strangers, uncircumcised in heart, and uncircumcised in flesh, to be in my sanctuary, to pollute it, even my house, when ye offer my bread, the fat and the blood, and they have broken my covenant, because of all your abominations." (b) It is one glorious feature of the visible church, that it requires evidence of regeneration in those who are candidates for membership. The scriptures which have just now been read, plainly shew that the Jewish society had this feature of a church: for, according to these texts, they violated the constitution of the church, whenever they received proselytes without evidence of piety. This is so conspicuously the spirit of these passages, that I know no way of escaping their force, but by proving that they are not intended for the literal Israel, but that they are prophecies exclusively applicable to the Christian church. Dr. Gill says that the last authority which I have quoted (Ez. xliv. 6, 7.) well agrees with these declining churches in the latter day, and even in our times:" yet, unhappily for my opponent, the Dr. says at the same time, that the picture there given "is a character of literal Israel from the beginning." The Dr. tells us that they are condemned __________ (z) Jer. ix. 26. (//) Actsvii. 51, (b) Ez. xliv. 6, 7, .
for introducing strangers, because they are unregenerate men, who are in a state of alienation and estrangement to divine and spiritual things [[/' The uncircumcised in heart [[/' whom they were forbidden to receive as members, Dr. Gill understands to be those who never were pricked in the heart for sin, or felt any pain there on account of it; never had the hardness of their heart removed, or the impurity of it discovered to them; never were filled with shame and loathing because of it; or ever put off the body of sins in a course of conversation; or renounced their own righteousness." This last text censures the church for polluting the sanctuary by the introduction of persons who were even uncircumcised in flesh. These, the Dr. says, were (( carnal as they were born; men in the flesh, in a state of nature, mind and savour the things of the flesh, and do the works of it; having never been taught by the grace of God, to deny ungodliness and worldly lusts, and to abstain from fleshly ones: or who put their trust in the flesh, in outward things, in carnal privileges, and external righteousness. These the Lord complains were brought to be in my sanctuary, to pollute it, even my house; either to be members here, and partake of all the ordinances and privileges of the Lord's house; or to officiate here as priests and ministers of the Lord." According to these words of Dr. Gill, he must have thought, that evidence of regeneration was as requisite to membership in the Lord's house, under the Old Testament dispensation, as under the New. No wonder then, that he thought the Jews a church. This opinion is confirmed
in the New Testament, by the allusions which it makes to the Old; "and you being dead in your sins, and in the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses." (c) On this subject I would wish you attentively to read, and devoutly to consider Psalm 1. 7 23. On the first of these verses, which begins, "Hear my people," Dr. Gill remarks, "This is an address to the people of the Jews, whom God had chosen to be his people above all others, and who professed themselves to be his people; but a lo-ammi was about to be written upon them, being a people uncircumcised in heart and ears, refusing to hear the great prophet of the church, him that spake from heaven." Here people and church are used synonymously, as they are by my Opponent; and the Jews are justly said to be, by their own profession, and the choice of God, his people; and Christ is said to be the prophet of their church, as well as of the New Testament church. I have the same request to make concerning your perusal of Is. i. 10 20. The ninth verse predicts the destruction of Jerusalem, which threatened an utter extinction of God's people, "except the Lord had left unto us a very small remnant." "And this," says Dr. Gill, "was done unto us, for the sake of his church, that that might continue, and he might have a seed to serve him." Here the Dr. considers the Christian dispensation a continuance of the us to whom Isaiah __________ ' (r) Coll. ii. 13.
belonged; and this us he calls a church. The context to which I have referred you, shews that its members were called to the same holiness which is required in Christians. Thus does Dr. Gill explain God's command by Moses, that the Jews should be "an holy nation." () He says that it means "being separated from all others, and devoted to the worship and service of God, having holy laws and holy ordinances, and a holy service, and a holy place to perform it in, and holy persons to attend unto it, as they afterwards had." The same great Baptist writer declares the "holy seed" mentioned by Ezra,W to be "such as the Lord had separated from other nations, chosen them to be an holy people above all others, and devoted them to his service and worship." When the most excellent of the Baptist denomination speak thus of the Jews; but especially when the holy and infallible word of God speaks thus of the constitutional obligations of members of the Jewish society, can you wonder at us for calling them a visible church? POINT IV. The Jewish society had the OFFICERS of a visible church.The priesthood was an office consecrated to ecclesiastical purposes, and therefore was guarded from intrusion by severe penalties. After the earth had swallowed up Korah, Dathan and Abiram." There came out a fire from the Lord, and consumed the two hundred and __________ (/) Ex. xix. 6. (0 ix. 2,
fifty men that offered incense." (/) "And the anger of the Lord was kindled against Uzza, and God smote him there for his error, and there he died by the ark of God." (#) "And they withstood Uzziah the king, and said unto him, it appertaineth not unto thee, Uzziah, to burn incense unto the Lord, but to the priests, the sons of Aaron, that are consecrated to burn incense: go out of the sanctuary; for thou hast trespassed; neither shall it be for thine honour from the Lord God." (A) There is a very great contrast between my Opponent arid the old fashioned Baptists, about the officers of the church, and the manner in which they shall be supported. My Opponent is for putting down the clergy at a blow, as not only unworthy of being maintained by the church, but unworthy of any distinction by ministerial ordination. He is as complete a leveller as any infidel. This arises not from any love for liberty and equality, but from a desire to monopolize in his own person, all that influence which is now divided among the clergy of his own denomination and others, and from a desire to pervert to the destruction of souls that influence which they should use for edification. His way to scatter the sheep is to smite the shepherd. Not so our good old Dr. Gill, who, in every thing except public disputation, is worth a thousand of him. In commenting upon one of Ezekiel's appropriations for the priests, he says, "This holy portion of land, excepting that which is for the sanctuary, is to be for the __________ (/) Num. xvi. 35. (,) 2 Sam. vi. 7. (//) 2 Chr. xxvi. 18.
use of the priests, to build houses to dwell in; signifying that the ministers of the gospel are to be taken care of, and sufficient provision made for their maintenance." U) In another place he speaks of "the ministers of the gospel, who shall have a sufficient maintenance from the churches of Christ, as the priests had under the law." This last is on a verse in which the prophet mentions a spot which "shall be a place for their houses," on which the Dr. observes, In this large spot shall be many congregated churches, houses of the living God, where his priests and people dwell, and will be serving and praising him." ^*) On a similar subject, a little before this, he says, These [chambers] were for holy persons to dwell in, and for holy things to be done in, as the churches of Christ are; they consist of holy persons, men called i with a holy calling, and in them the holy word of God is preached, and holy ordinances administered." (A) Thus does the existence of ecclesiastical officers in the Jewish society, prove them to be a visible church; and thus does the best Baptist authority admit that they were as real a church "as the churches of Christ are." POINT V. The Jewish Society had the CONSTITUTION of a visible church.Whatsoever may have been said to Abraham and his seed concerning temporal and political blessings, God's __________ (i) Ez. xlviii. 10. Iiz. xlii. 13. (y) Ez. xlv. 4,
covenant with them did, nevertheless, contemplate eternal, spiritual, and ecclesiastical favours. *' And I will establish my covenant between me and thee, and thy seed after thee, in their generations, for 66 an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee: and I will give unto thee and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan for an everlasting possession, and I will be their God." (/) "Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me, above all people, for all the earth is mine; and ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation." (m) "The chariots of God are twenty thousand, even thousands of angels, the Lord is among them, as in Sinai, in the holy place; thou hast ascended on high, thou hast led captivity captive, thou hast received gifts for men, yea, even for the rebellious also, that the Lord might, dwell among them. [[<( Blessed be the Lord which daily loadeth us with benefits, even the God of our salvation. Selah. He that is our God is the God of salvation; and unto God the Lord belong the issues from death." (w) "He sent redemption unto his people, he hath commanded his covenant forever; Holy and reverend is his name." (o) "For he remembered his holy promise, and Abraham his servant, and he brought forth his people with joy, and his chosen with gladness. "[[ (/>) *' Blessed be the Lord God of Israel, for he hath visited __________ (/) Gen. xvii. 7. 8. (m) Kx. xix. 5. 6. (n} Ps. Ixviii. 1720 (o) Ps. cxi. 9. (/?) Ps, rv. 42, 43.
and redeemed his people;" "to perform the mercy promised to our fathers, and to remember his holy covenant, the oath which he sware to our Father Abraham." (gr) Among the authorities just now quoted, one of them mentions Sinai: but it will be observed that it does not refer to the transactions at Sinai, for the origin of the church. Yet that very ^passage proves that the Jews were a church. It is in this capacity "that the Lord God" promises to "dwell among them;" "that is," says Dr. Gill, "that they by the gifts and graces of the Spirit bestowed on them, might become a fit habitation for God; or that they, the rebellious, being now partakers of the grace of God and his gifts, might dwell with the Lord God IN HIS CHURCHES; enjoy his divine presence, and have communion with him in his word and ordinances." The salvation mentioned in the very next verse, Dr. Gill does not fritter down to a mere temporal deliverance, but calls it "temporal, spiritual, and eternal salvation." (r) It is true that Gill calls the redemption mentioned in one of the texts, (s) a "temporal redemption, as typical of the spiritual and eternal one;?? but in another of these texts, he believes the spiritual and eternal redemption to be meant, and the typical one only alluded to. The following are his words, viz. "For he hath visited and redeemed his people, as he did Israel of old, Ex. iii. 16, 17, when the Lord looked upon them, and delivered them out of the bondage of Egypt, and which __________ (7) Luke i. 68. 72, 73. (r) Gill on Ts. Ixviii. 18. 19. (,?) Ps, cxi. 9.
was a type and resemblance of redemption by Christ, and to which reference here seems to be had." But although the redemption here contemplated, refers to a temporal deliverance, the Dr. says that it "intends the spiritual and eternal redemption of them by the price of his blood, from the slavery of sin; the bondage of the law, and curse of it, and the captivity of Satan, and a deliverance out of the hands of every enemy; a redemption which reaches both to soul and body, u and secures from all condemnation and wrath to come; and includes every blessing in it, as justification, forgiveness of sins, adoption, sanctification, and eternal life, and is a plenteous, full, complete, and everlasting one." () It is plain, then, that the redemption here mentioned is not merely a temporal or political one, but a spiritual and eternal redemption. It is also plain that it is conferred upon God's "people" a word which my Opponent considers equivalent to church. The text moreover informs us that this was done, "to perform the mercy promised to our fathers," not at Mount Sinai, but to remember his holy covenant, the oath which he sware to our father Abraham;" many hundred years before the transactions at Sinai. It is in reference to this holy covenant, that Moses said to Israel, "thou art an holy people." "Not sanctified" says Dr. Gill, "in a spiritual sense, or having principles of grace and holiness in them, from whence holy actions sprang, at least, not all of them; but __________ (0 Gill on Luke i. 53.
they were separated from all other people in the world to the pure worship and service of God in an external manner, and therefore were to avoid all idolatry and every appearance of it." The remainder of the verse which speaks of their being chosen to be a special people, the Dr. understands to mean for special service and worship, and to enjoy special privileges and benefits, civil and religious." (u) Elsewhere, when Moses speaks of their being "an holy people unto the Lord," Gill explains it, "set apart by him from all other people, and devoted to his worship and service, and many of them were sanctified and made holy in a special and spiritual sense. "The remainder of the verse calls them a peculiar people. Gill explains this peculiarity as consisting "especially in things sacred." (v) My aim is to prove from scripture, that Abraham and his seed have the constitution of a visible church; that is, that they were a consecrated depository of the oracles and ordinances of revealed religion. Dr. Gill has proved from scripture, that they were "set apart" as a holy people, a special people, a peculiar people, "especially in things sacred and religious:" all this, too, upon the constitution of "his holy covenant, the oath which he sware to our father Abraham." They were therefore a church. __________ (M) Gill on Ex, vii. 6. Gill on Ex. xiv. 2,
These points are professedly intended to support the proposition that "Abraham and his seed were divinely constituted a visible church of God." Soon after that proposition was announced, some remarks were made, and more were promised, on the name of a church. My farther progress on this subject, my Opponent has endeavoured to obstruct by the authority of Dr. Mason, who has the appearance of being against me. He speaks as follows, viz. "The word church, derived from the Greek, [[xvgmxov, signifies the house of the Lord, and marks the property which he has in it. But the original words which it is employed to translate, signify a different thing. The Hebrew words [[7ft p and in the Old Testament, and the corresponding one in the New, all signify an assembly, especially one convened by invitation or appointment." That this is their generic sense, no scholar will deny; u nor that their particular applications are ultimately resolvable into it. Hence it is evident that from the terms themselves nothing can be concluded as to the nature and extent of the assembly which they denote. Whenever either of the two former occurs in the Old Testament, or the other in the New, you are sure of an assembly, but of nothing more. What that assembly is, and whom it comprehends, you must learn from the connexion of the term, and the subject of
the writer [[/ 9 (w) The Dr. then proceeds to give instances of the diversified application of these several words. When this eminent scholar observes that we must learn the meaning of the word "from the connexion of the term, and the subject of the writer/' he says what is true not only of the word church, but of those words which all will confess to have been reduced from their generic signification to an appropriate meaning. This remark may be elucidated by the title of the most distinguished officer in the church. It is the word apostle. Concerning this, we may say as Dr. Mason has of church, [[f( What an Apostle is, and whom it points out, whether [[i( an ordinary or extraordinary agent, whether Christ, one of the twelve, or any other person, you must learn from the connexion of the term, and the subject of the writer. "The Greek word signifies amessenger." (x) That this is its generic sense, no scholar will deny, nor that its particular applications are ultimately resolvable into it. Hence it is evident that from the term itself, nothing can be concluded as to the character of the messenger which it denotes. Whenever it occurs in the Old or New Testament, you are sure of a messenger, but of nothing more." After thus applying all Dr. Mason's remarks to the word apostle as well as church, suppose a question to arise concerning the apostleship of Paul, as one has arisen concerning the ecclesiastical standing of the Jews. Was __________ (7t) Mason on the Church, pp. 8 10. Christian's Magazine, vol. l, pp. 5456. (x} See Phil. ii. 25. and 1 Kings xiv. 6, in the Greek.
Paul an ordinary messenger of ordinary matters, from one ordinary man to another; or was he an extraordinary, spiritual, ecclesiastical Jlpostle of Jesus Christ? I say that he was the latter, and I very naturally try to prove it, by shewing that the scriptures apply to him the express, inspired, and unequivocal name of an Apostle. This conclusion is so far from being forbidden by Dr. Mason's remarks, that it is attained in the very way which he points out, "from the connexion of the term, and the subject of the writer." From these we plainly see that the term is applied to Paul, not in its generic sense, but in its appropriate meaning. It points him out, not as an ordinary, secular messenger from man, but as an inspired ecclesiastical messenger from our divine Redeemer. Shall we say then, that his being so called, in such a connexion, is no evidence of his apostleship, in the highest sense in which the term is applied to men? Shall we say that the mere fact that a word originally has a generic sense, shall forever disqualify it from pointing out a particular object? Shall we say, that because it has a variety of meanings, it can have no definite meaning at all? If so, then let us be consistent, and openly relinquish the common and well established proof of Christ's divinity, from the fact that the express, inspired, and unequivocal name of God is applied to him in the scriptures. But if we admit, as all real Christians do, that the application of this name to Christ, proves him to be the true God; and that the application of another name to Paul, proves him to be an apostle of God; then the application of a third name to the Jews will prove them to have been the rhiirrh of God.
When speaking on this subject before, I quoted some texts which contained both in the Hebrew and in the Septuagint, two words? both of which signify church, as Dr. Mason has correctly informed you. Other passages in which the same thing occurs, I shall have to quote now. That these two synonimous nouns are connected by a simple conjunction, is accounted for, upon a principle, which is remarkable in the Hebrew, though not peculiar to that language. It is, that nouns are often attached to other nouns, to answer the purpose of adjectives and participles. (y) When, therefore, [[7HD the churchy and my the church, are put together, they appear to signify the meeting met, or the congregation congregated, or the church assembled. Thus does Dr. Gill understand it in Prov. v. 14, where the Septuagint translates these words by [[(xxir^ta, and [[avvayoyy. "I was almost in all evil in the midst of the church assembled." The Dr. understands this to mean, "in the house of God, attending public worship," "even in the presence and before the people of God." This great Baptist Commentator evidently considered this text a proof that the Old Testament worshippers were the visible church of God: for what else can he mean by calling them the people of God, attending public worship, in the house of God? In the Septuagint of Levit. iv. 13, both these words __________ (t/) "When one substantive is joined to another by a copulative, the one" must be translated as governing the other." Macknight's fourth Preliminary Essay, Section 19. "As the Jews had but few adjectives in their language, they had recourse to substantives, in order to supply their place." Home's seventh rule on the Hebraisms of the New Testament. The same examples, in part, are adduced by both.
are rendered *********. "And if the whole **** church of Israel sin through ignorance, and the thing be hid from the eyes of *** the church." On this text Dr. Gill quotes, with approbation, the following words of Ainsworth; "that the church may err, and the thing be hid from the eyes of the assembly, congregation, or church, so that they don't know that it is a sin which they have committed." In Prov. xxi. 16, where the LXX has the same rendering, "the connexion of the term" shews that the word **** does not mean the church of God, but "an assembly" of Unitarians or Papists, Polytheists or Atheists. The man that wandereth out of the way of under standing, shall remain in the congregation of the "dead." In Prov. xix. 20, where the same words occur for church, in the Hebrew and LXX, "the connexion of the term" shews that it means the church of God, excommunication from which, Gill thinks may be intended. (z) The following five texts have **** in the Hebrew, and ******* in the LXX. "Whosoever eateth that which is leavened, even that soul shall be cut off from the church of Israel." (a) To be cut off "from u the Israelitish church-state, and have no communion in it, or partake of the ordinances of it," is one of several alternatives, which Gill thinks may be here intended. On this and the last text, the existence of the __________ (z) Compare his note on verse 13, to which he refers. (a) Ex. xii. 19, Comp. 15, and Gill on the latter, to which he refers from the former.
Israelitish church is taken for granted by this preeminent scholar of the Baptist Society. God directed Moses to have two silver trumpets made, for the calling of the church) and for the journeying of the camps." (b) On this Gill says, "Saints are pilgrims and travellers here; they are passing through a wilderness, their way is attended with many difficulties; Canaan is the place they are travelling to." When two and a half of the tribes of Israel built an altar before they crossed the Jordan, the rest of the church thought them apostates from the true religion, and sent a deputation to them on this subject. Gill copies our translation of the introduction of their messages, and comments upon it as follows, viz. "'Thus saith the whole congregation of the Lord,' -- By whom they were sent, and whom they represented; and they don't call them the congregation of Israel, but of the Lord, because it was not on a civil but religious account they were come, and not to plead their own cause, but the cause of God; and not so much to shew a concern for their own honour and interest, as for the glory of God." If they were a religious, and not a civil assembly; if they were a congregation of the Lord, and not of man; and if, (as the text proves, and Gill admits,) they acted in these respects, as a visible corporation, then they were just what you and I would call the visible church of God. In the same sense ought the following instance to be understood. "Praise ye the Lord, I will praise the __________ (b) Num. x. 2.
Lord with my whole heart, in the assembly of the upright, and in the church" (c) The following authority seems to unite civil and ecclesiastical privileges, and to refer them all, not to the Sinaitic covenant made with their fathers, whose carcases fell in the wilderness, but to the older covenant made with their father Abraham, and confirmed to Isaac and Jacob. "And because he loved thy fathers, therefore he chose their seed after them." (c?) Gill confirms my interpretation as follows, viz. "'And because he loved thy fathers/ Not their immediate fathers, whose carcases fell in the wilderness, and entered not into the good land because of their unbelief, but their more remote fathers or ancestors, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, who had some singular testimonies of the love of God to them. Abraham is called the friend of God, and Isaac was the son of promise in whom the seed was called; and Jacob is particularly said to be loved by God, when Esau was hated: ' therefore he chose their seed after them;? not to eternal life and tf salvation, but to the enjoyment of external blessings and privileges, to be called by his name, and to set up his name and worship among them, and to be a special people to him above all people on the earth, as to outward favours, both civil and ecclesiastical." By denying that they were chosen, in a body, to eternal life, the Dr. shews that he distinguishes them from the invisible church; but by saying that God had chosen them to be a special people, to have his worship among them, and to enjoy great outward favours, both civil (f) Ps. cxi. 1. (rf) Dent. iv. 37.
and ECCLESIASTICAL, he shews that they are the visible church. I proceed to give some instances in which the words 7Jlp an d exxivjota, are found in the Hebrew and the LXX, to point out the church. On the account which Joshua gives of his reading the law of Moses to the church, Dr. Gill comments as follows, viz. "There was not a word of all that Moses commanded which Joshua read not before all the congregation of Israel, [who were on this occasion called together, and not before the men only, but] with the women and the little ones," [who all had a concern in the things that were read to them.] (e) A church of men, women, and little ones, sounds very much like Pedobaptism. In another instance, he speaks still stronger in a similar strain. (/) In David's address to Goliath, he says, "And all this assembly shall know that the Lord sayeth not with the sword and spear." Dr. Gill says that the word assembly means, "The congregation of Israel, and church of the living God, great part of which was now gathered David says, "(I will give thee thanks in the great church; I will praise thee among much people." Dr. Gill explains this to mean, "the church and people of God" "the people of God meeting together for solemn worship." (A) David again says, 6i let them exalt him also in the church of the people." Gill says, "Of the people of __________ (0 Josh. viii. 35 (/) Gill on Joel ii. 16, (g} 1 Sam. xvii. 1. 7. (/;) Ps. xxxv. 18.
God, who are gathered out of the world, into a church-state, and who gather themselves together to attend the worship and service of God in some one place." (i) It is not my intention to tax your patience so far as to quote one fourth of the instances in which the Hebrew and the Septuagint apply [[/Hp and txx^aia, to the Jews, as the visible church of God. Out of the comparatively small number of examples which were selected for this point, from the Old Testament, I shall, at present, pass over twenty-two which are now before me. (v)
MR. CAMPBELL'S
__________ 0) Ps. cvii. 32. 0) 1 Kgs. viii. 14. 2 Chr. i. 3. 5. vi. 3. (comp. 2.) vi. 12. 13. xxix. 23. 28. 31. 32. xxx. 2. 13. 17. 25. 24. Ezr. x. 8.^ Nch. viii. 2. (comp. 38.) Ps, xxii, 22. xl. 9. Ixxxix. 5. cxlix, 1, Lam. i. 10.
works," of Campbell, Macknight, and Doddridge. Such of these alterations as affected ** the style," only, he professes to have 4i retained:" but "some of these alterations affected the sense;" these he professes to have brought back to the original works" of Campbell, Macknight, and Doddridge. In this translation, then, we are to look for the meaning of a certain set of men, clothed in another man's style. When the Ettric Shepherd first saw Duncan Campbell, the little stranger, though only seven years old, wore a coat originally made for a man. If this new style should give George Campbell and his companions as grotesque an appearance, my Opponent can account for it, upon the ground that they are just escaped from prison, through his benevolent interposition. Here a writer in the Western Luminary speaks as follows; viz. "Mr. Campbell, on this part of his subject, says something about the works of Campbell, Doddridge, and Macknight having been ' imprisoned;' and seems to take credit to himself for having brought them out to public gazej and considers his own precious existence necessary to prevent them from being again locked up." (/r) How enviable is the lot of my Opponent! in being the honoured instrument of preserving these eminent scholars from rotting in a dungeon. His agency in this business proves the rapid advance of the Western Country in the march of mind. Let posterity know, that, but for the labours of a certain inhabitant of Buffaloe Creek, the works of three of the most celebrated Doctors of Europe would soon have sunk into oblivion. As his alterations of his originals are far more numerous than one would expect from the title page, he tells us, in the close of his Appendix, that these emendations "are preferred merely because of their being more intelligible to common readers, "whose edification we have supremely in view." For these alterations he has made ample amends to the admirers of his three worthies, by stuffing their jugulated words into an Appendix, with such novel and convenient references, that they are __________ (*) Western Lum, for Jan. 3, 1827.
almost as easily found as a needle in a hay-stack. Speaking of this in his preface, he says, "All that we can be praised or blamed for is this one circumstance, that \ve have given the most conspicuous place, to that version which appeared to deserve it." That is, when the words of Campbell, Macknight, and Doddridge appear to my Opponent the most deserving, he gives them in the text, and places others in the Appendix: but when the words of these three men appear to my Opponent less deserving, he packs them off to the Appendix, and substitutes others in the translation, whose names are not mentioned in the title page. Thus every word of this version may be considered as having passed through the crucible of my Opponent's judgment. And who so well calculated to judge among the jarring translations of jarring sects, as that man who possesses the greatest literary and theological attainments, and is, at the same time, perfectly divested of all sectarian feelings or prejudices, as is evident from the whole career of my Opponent, from Mount Pleasant to Washington. Hear the words of his Preface on this subject. "If the mere publication of a version of the inspired writings requires, as we believe it does, the publisher to have no sectarian object in view, we are happy in being able to appeal to our whole course of public addresses, and to all that we have written on religious subjects, to shew that we have no such object in view!!!" Perhaps so great a portion of charity, anti-sectarian liberality, and the milk of human kindness, can hardly be found in the island of Great Britain, as my Opponent knows to exist in one little privileged spot on the banks of Buffaloe. It is reasonable, therefore, that he should claim to his work superior praise, over the London copy, whose Editors probably spent much of their strength in sectarian debates against infant-sprinkling, and the thirty-nine articles, and the thirty-three Chapters, and male and female Missionaries, and Bible and Benevolent Societies, and the observance of family prayer, and the sabbath day. As my Opponent never was known to whisper sectarian charges against other denominations, for holding doctrines or ordinances "injurious to the well-being
of society, religious or political," he must be indulged in a little commendable boasting, such as the following, viz. Taking every thing into view, we have no hesitation in saving, that, in the present improved state of the English language, *< the ideas communicated by the Apostles and Evangelists of Jesus Christ, are INCOMPARABLY better expressed in this, than * in any volume ever presented in our mother tongue." (/) Whenever, therefore, my Opponent's Translation of the New Testament is mentioned in this discussion, remember, that, taking every thing into view," particularly his own rare qualifications for such a work, it is "INCOMPARABLY" the best in the language. To set forth his unparallelled qualifications still more fully, he says, in his Preface, "The whole scope, design, and drift of our labours is to see Christians intelligent, united and happy." With regard to uniting Christians, his labours, in one way or another, appear to succeed in a small degree. The Western Luminary, (m) informs us that my Opponent has made an ingenious effort to prove that his two bosom friends, a Unitarian, * and Dr. James Fishback, are united in sentiment, in relation to our Saviour's person, although the former openly rejects the doctrine of his supreme and eternal Deity, and the latter would be thought to receive this doctrine. Moreover, they are now very cordially united in their opposition to creeds and confessions, those stubborn things which have been so much in the way of Unitarians, from the Council of Nice to the present day. If Mr. Greatrake and the Orthodox Pastors and Editors, Associations and Conventions of the Baptist denomination have not followed the amiable example of unity which these brethren have set them, it is their own fault. Mr. Greatrake will not admit that my Opponent is for peace abroad or unity at home. Writing to the Western Baptist Churches concerning my Opponent, he says, "Having had you for two or three years spectators of his __________ (l) Introduction to Appendix. (m) For Jan. 3, 1827. * The writer, through mistake, gave a wrong name to the Unitarian, as he afterwards informed me.
own personal combats, or familiarized your minds to a view of his own fightings, you will find, perhaps too late, that the object contemplated by Mr. C. was to prepare you for dissentions and fightings among yourselves; to the end that he might share the spoils by making you a divided people." (n) As my Opponent refers to his life for his antisectarian character, so Mr. Greatrake says to the churches, "Yes, brethren, search, search his whole life, as far as possible." He then tells them that this scrutiny will irrefragably prove "that you [Baptists,] as a denomination, have been made the citadel of his safety, while throwing the shafts of his hostility at other denominations; particularly at that one with which you most assuredly stand in the greatest degree of fellowship. The question then is, whether Mr. C. represents your feelings towards the Presbyterian and other Pedobaptist churches, against whom he breathes out threatenings and slaughter?' If he does, let us know what cause they have given for this interminable rage. But I need not put this sort of question to you, being fully persuaded that your greatest partiality is towards that very church which Mr. C. appears to hate with the most deadly hatred." (o) This is a righteous sentence pronounced in the name of the Western Baptist Churches, by one of their most respectable and worthy ministers, in exculpation of the much injured, and grossly insulted Pedobaptists of this country. It correctly represents my would-be antisectarian Opponent, as breathing threatenings and slaughter, and throwing the shafts of his hostility with interminable rage, and the most deadly hatred, at other denominations, particularly our own; and as doing this, not to oppose error, (for he is rotten to the core,) but all this zeal against others is, that he may prepare the Baptists for dissentions and fightings among themselves, that he may share the spoils of their divisions. He must surely be rarely qualified for writing an incomparable translation of the New Testament! One prominent feature of this anomalous production is, that __________ (n) Unitarian Baptist of the Robinson School Exposed, p. 88. (o) Do. p. 87.
it professes to reject every adopted or anglicised word. Dr. George Campbell's labours in favour of immersion give him some aid in this particular. Complaining of our Translators, the Dr. says, "some words they have transferred from the original into their language, others they have translated." He wishes that they had not transcribed the word baptism, but given it a dipping translation. He considers baptism, even now, "a foreign name. For this reason," says he, "I should think the word immersion (which, though of Latin origin, is an English noun, regularly formed from the verb to immerse,] a better English name than baptism, were we now at liberty to make a choice." (p) When great men sicken into a prurient longing to carry some wrong point, what weak arguments they will sometimes use! Now I would inquire of the literary world, if it be not as true, that BAPTISM, though of Greek origin, is an English noun, regularly formed from the verb TO BAPTIZE, as that immersion, though of Latin origin, is an English noun, regularly formed from the verb to immerse?" Both these words were originally foreign, and both are now naturalized; and if there be any difference, it is in favour of baptism, because this, being more generally known and understood, is more completely domesticated. Besides, the connexion of the term, in the scriptures, shews that immersion would be a perversion, instead of a translation, of the Original. It was evidently this consideration which sometimes made Dr. Macknight follow our Bible in transcribing. He does not say "All were immersed into Moses in the cloud and in the sea," as my Opponent's incomparable has said for him; but he says "all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea." When a man's zeal against the adoption of Greek words, leads him not only to publish Dr. Campbell's weak argument, but to invent a fact for Paul, and forge a translation for Macknight, I am ready to say in reference to a reproof once given to an incompetent imitator of Pindar, "Dr. Campbell was bold, but thou art impudent" __________ (p) See Appendix to the incomparable. No, 4. ' .
Scores of alterations, where this word is concerned, are confessed in the Appendix; and after he was taxed with the fault he shews that they were promised in the Prospectus, which, however, is not published with the work, and is in direct opposition to the promise contained in the title-page. His prospectus reads as follows, viz. "There is also one improvement of considerable importance which ought to be made in this work, and to which we shall attend. Sundry terms are not translated into English, but adopted into those translations from long usage. Those terms are occasionally translated into English by Campbell and Macknightj but not always. We shall uniformly give them the meaning which they have affixed to them, wherever they occur, and thus make this a pure English New Testament, not mingled with Greek words, either adopted or anglicised." ^) Here is a promise that he will make his translation such pure English, that it shall not contain any adopted words, such as Martyr, Archangel, Myriad, Mystery, Schism, Blasphemy, Denarius, Euroclydon, Tartarus, Abyss, Hades. Some of these words, such as myriad, denarius, tartarus, abyss, and hades, are translated and not adopted in our bible: but his translation is greatly to excel ours in this respect, and be much purer English. He promises to adopt none, but translate all. After this, would you expect to hear me say that he had actually adopted the whole of them, even those which our bible translates? Yet such is the fact! In one case, he copies Doddridge, concerning the martyrs of Jesus," (r) though in another he alters Doddridge's martyr into witnesses] Angel is a Greek word anglicised; he therefore rejects it utterly, and always uses the word Messenger for it. Archangel also is a Greek word transcribed, and might just as properly be rendered Prime-messenger: yet this word he uniformly adopts. (/) Myriad is a Greek word anglicised, and __________ (y) See it quoted in West. Luminary for Jan. 3, 1827. (r) Rev. xvii. 6. () Rev. ii. 13, T (0 In 1 Thess. iv. 16. Jude ix. the only places in which it occurs in the N. "1*.
when used in connexion with angels, is rendered by Macknight ten thousands of angels," (w) My Opponent's incomparable alters this into "myriads of messengers." How wonderfully this elucidates the subject! But in the Appendix he tells us that such improvements are made, that the scriptures may be *' more intelligible to common readers, whose edification," says he, "we have supremely in view." Some common readers, however, are so stupid that they would think this improvement worth very little more than a pair of leather spectacles. Besides copying Doddridge in transferring the word mystery, (v) and Macknight in transferring the word schism, (w] he holds fast to this adopted word twice, even where Macknight translates it [[$(#) in one of which instances he justifies himself by the authority of Dr. George Campbell, who first taught him to condemn such transcriptions, (y) The Dr. and his incomparable disciple sometimes translate blasphemy and blaspheme, though poorly enough; yet at other times both the noun and the verb are adopted by them. (z) As for denarius, I believe they uniformly transfer it;(a) although our American dime is a coin of the same value, and would, (in our country at least,) afford a good translation. He has adopted Euroclydon, (b) although he knows that Levanter is a translation familiar to the commercial world. To be more intelligible to common readers, he has adopted tartarus, (c) instead of translating it hell as our bible does. In one instance now before me, (d) he follows Dr. Campbell in transferring the word abyss, where our bible translates it the deep, notwithstanding their censures against it for transferring instead of translating. In other cases he copies Doddridge's abyss; (e] besides which he translates it the deep with Macknight, (f) and the bottomless pit, with Doddridge. () In relation to another word of similar import, my Opponent says, "There being no one word __________ u) Hebr. xii. 22. (v) Rev. xvii. 5. (w) 1 Cor. xii. 25. - x 1 Cor. xi. 18. i. 10. (zy) 1 Cor. i. 10. and Appendix, No. 67. In Matl. xxvi. 65, both occur. I have examined them in Matt, xviii. 28. xx. 2. 9. 10. 13. xxii. ir. Acts xxvii. 14. (c) 1 Pet. ii. 4. (d) Luke viii. 31. Rev. xi. 7. xx. 3. (/) Rom. x. 7. () Rev. ix. 11. xvii. 18. xx, 1.
in our language which corresponds to the term hades, he [Dr. George Campbell] is obliged to retain and explain it." He at the same time says, "We [Mr. Alexander Campbell] have uniformly followed his method in the books which he did not translate." ^) That is, the word hades is never translated, but always retained in his New Testament. This he does in despite of Macknight's grave, (i) and Doddridge's hell, (j) and his unseen world(k) yet in this last translation my Opponent actually copies Doddridge in three places, (/) notwithstanding his promise uniformly to retain hades after Dr. Campbell's example. From these instances we may conclude that when he promises to adopt, he will be sure to translate, and when he abuses our Translators for adopting, he means to adopt twice as much as they have done. As my Opponent promised always to translate, so his incomparable makes extraordinary pretensions to uniformity in its translations. His three guides have rendered the same word sometimes one way and sometimes another. This he seems determined to avoid as an error. He says "Wherever the word church is found in the common version, congregation will be found in this. We shall let Drs. Campbell and Doddridge defend the preference. For although they have not always so rendered it, they give the best of reasons why it should be always so translated." (m) Here the arguments of Doddridge and Campbell are given for a uniformity which they did not approve nor practise. But on this subject my Opponent is a professed disciple of Home Tooke, who was a great enemy to allowing a diversity of significations to the same word. After informing you that Dr. Johnson assigned forty-six meanings to an English monosyllable, he says, "But the celebrated Home Tooke demonstrates that it has but one meaning, and that all the pretended meanings of Dr. S. Johnson are resolvable [[kt into it." (/i) He then goes on to apply the remark to the __________ (/;) Appendix No 21. (i) 1 Cor. xv. 5.5. (j) Rev. vi. 8. () Rev. xx. 13. 14. (/) Acts ii. 27. 31. Rev. i. 18. ) Appendix No. 10. Y Spurious Debate with W. L. M. p. 313; Note.
Greek prepositions in opposition to Parkhurst, who allowed sixteen meanings to one, and eighteen to another. Let it be remembered that Home Tooke, in ascertaining his one meaning of a word, is governed by its etymology. Here also my Opponent follows him; and he gives this as a reason for banishing the word church from his New Testament. He says, "The term church or kirk, is, an abbreviation of the word xv^ov the house of the Lord, and does not translate the term [a calling out.] (o) Here the mere fact of two words being differently derived, is given as a reason why they cannot have the same signification, and why one of them cannot properly translate the other. If church cannot render ecclesiu, merely because it is etymologically the house of the Lord, and not a calling out, then surely his favourite congregation cannot render it, for this is, by derivation, a gathering together, and not a calling out. This places ecclesia in the same predicament in which he says that hades is, without a corresponding word in our language. To be consistent, then, he should either transcribe it, or form some new word, like evocation, of a similar derivation. So completely has my Opponent entangled himself by this position, that if it can be maintained, then he has destroyed his whole new version. If the mere want of coincidence in etymology is sufficient to disqualify church from rendering ecclesia, then his incomparable has not translated one verse of the New Testament correctly. If he were tried by his own test, he would fall infinitely below our own translators. This he knows very well, and, therefore, in direct defiance of his own principles, he condemns them for paying too much attention to the literal and etymological meaning of words. He says, "The kings translators have frequently erred in attempting to be, what some would call literally correct. They have not given *' the meaning in some passages where they have given a literal translation." More directly still to the point, he says, "that is what a classical scholar, or a critical etymologist [such as __________ (o) Appendix No, 10,
Home Tooke or his disciple] might approve, as a literal version of some passages, is by no means the meaning of the "writer." These sentiments, he informs us, are the fruit of his "better acquaintance with the idiomatic style of the Apostolic writings, and of the Septuagint Greek;" while he stigmatizes as u smatterers in the original Greek," (/) those who lean to the closer and stricter rendering of our Translators. He would have come nearer the truth if he had told you that instead of obtaining these sentiments from his own better acquaintance with the Greek Scriptures, he took them, second-handed, from Dr. George Campbell, who published them, as an apology for his extremely loose version of the four Gospels, which might more correctly be called a paraphrase than a translation. In avoiding the literal extreme of Arias Montanus, he went so completely into the liberal extreme, that he saw himself in danger of being accused of licentiousness. In relation to my Opponent's views of the words ecclesia and church, on account of their want of etymological coincidence, permit me to give you a little more from Dr. Campbell. In shewing how unsafe it sometimes is to trust to the etymology of a word for its meaning, he says, "There are many cases wherein, though its descent may be clearly traced, we should err egregiously, if we were to fix *' its meaning from that of the primitive or root." Thus the three words xw/ttjeoj in Greek, paganus in Latin, and villain in English, though evidently so conformable in etymology, that they ought all to denote the same thing, namely villager; have, for many ages, both lost that signification, and acquired others in which they do not in the least resemble one another. If the use in these languages should ever come to be very little known, and the history of the nations nearly lost, we may form a guess at the absurdities in explaining those terms, into which men would be misled by etymology." (q) Doubtless my Opponent will agree to all this when Dr. Campbell says it, just as he agrees to the very opposite when Home Tooke says it. __________ (*) Preface, p. 7. (y) Dr. Campbell's fourth Preliminary Dissertation. Sections 16, 17.
When he sells himself to two masters, he is for yielding implicit obedience to both, even when they are diametrically opposed to each other, and lead him into palpable contradictions and absurdities. The absurdity of his preferring congregation to church, as a rendering of ecclesia, and then uniformly adhering to that rendering, will soon be evident. The word ecclesia is used to denote the place of worship as well as the worshipping assembly. The word church has the same latitude of signification: but congregation has not. Paul says, "When ye come together in the ecclesia, I hear that there be divisions among you." (r) Our Bible says, "when ye come together in the church." Of this Dr. Gill approves, and says that the word means "the place where the church met together to perform divine service," which exposition he proves by the context. Accordingly Dr. Macknight says, "when ye come together in the church." As usual, my Opponent alters the word churchy and says, "When ye come together in the congregation." In another instance, according to Doddridge, "The Sadducees say, there is no resurrection, neither angel nor spirit." (s) My Opponent's incomparable reads, "There is no resurrection, neither [good nor evil] messenger," &c. What Doddridge calls angel in the next verse, my Opponent calls "heavenly messenger," without enclosing the word heavenly in brackets, as he did the words "good and evil" in the former verse. This way of translating leaves the common reader, (whose benefit my Opponent had supremely in view,) perfectly at a loss to know what is in Doddridge, what is in the Original, and what the new translator would be at. Another instance of the astonishing uniformity of my Opponent's New Testament. There are four texts in which Doddridge, with some claims to uniformity, transfers the word mystery. (t) In the first of these my Opponent agrees with him __________ (r) 1 Cor. xi. 18. (s) Acts xxiii, 8. (0 Rev. xvii. 5. 7. (com, 22) x, 7, i. 20.
in transferring. In the second and third, he translates it secret* In the fourth he renders it hidden-meaning. Again, there are six texts in which Doddridge uniformly transcribes the words blaspheme, blasphemer, blasphemy, blasphemously. (u) Only four of these are in those books of which he professes to give Doddridge's translation. In the first of these, my Opponent transcribes blasphemers as Doddridge does. In the second he translates detractions, in the third, abusive things, in the fourth reviled, in the fifth slander, and in the sixth defamation. All this is for the sake of an extraordinary and scrupulous uniformity! Once more. The word anastasis occurs four times in the compass of eight verses. (v) In the first of these instances, my Opponent's incomparable uniformity renders itfuture life, in the second resurrection, in the third that state, and in the fourth revival, where Dr. Campbell has it quickening. Now in all these places, our translation, which is so much censured for its want of uniformity, uses the word resurrection, as Doddridge does. With this uniform rendering agree the Latin translations of Jerome, Castalio, Beza, and that of Junius and Tremellius: as do also the German, Italian, and French, of Luther, Diodati, and De Sacy, with a variety of others in different languages. Even the Unitarian Improved Version, and the Universalist double-distilled version by Mr. Kneeland, renders the word uniformly resurrection as our bible does. My Opponent's superfine is the only one which professes an unparallelled consistency, and he and his pattern, whom he has altered, are the only ones who have given four renderings to this word, in a passage of eight verses. Let it be remembered that my Opponent does not openly offer to the public a new version of his own, but he proposes to give us the works of Drs. Campbell, Macknight, and Doddridge. In his Appendix he says, "we were scrupulously intent on giving __________ (u) Acts xix. 37. Mk. iii. 28. Luke xxii. 65. Acts xviii, 6, Rev. ii. 9. xiii. 6. (i>) Matt. xxii. 23, 28. 30. 31.
every word of the works proposed," (w) It is true that in making this declaration, he may have had his eye upon the notes, in which, however, he has not given every word of the works proposed, as may be seerf in the alteration last mentioned, and others without number. But if he had scrupulously given every word of theirs in the notes, would that justify him in imposing the work upon the community, as the "New Testament translated from the original Greek, by George Campbell, James Macknight, and Philip Doddridge, Doctors of the Church of Scotland?" He ought rather to have called it, the translation of one man, accompanied with the various readings of three others: or, at least, he should have given it such an honest title as that of the Unitarian translation; "The New Testament, in an Improved Version, upon the basis of Archbishop Newcome's new translation, with a corrected text, and notes critical and explanatory." The authors of this work did not dare to offer it to the British public, as [[<; the New Testament translated by Newcome, a Primate of the Church of England," but only a new version "upon the basis of Archbishop Newcome's." What then would they think of a Unitarian Baptist, who would publish a translation, purporting to be the work of three "Doctors of the Church of Scotland," and yet containing more variations from these Doctors, by three or four, if not ten times, than the Improved Version has alterations of Newcome's translation? Mr. Kneeland's New Testament is as good a copy of either Scarlett or the Improved Version, as my Opponent's is of the three Doctors: yet he had not the audacity to palm it upon the public as either of these works, but was satisfied with the puerile vanity of being the author of a new version, between which and its models there was no important difference. In some important instances, nly Opponent agrees with these corrupt versions, in opposition to those which he promised to copy. It is well known that the Unitarians endeavour to fritter down the interview between Paul and the jailer to little more __________ (w) p. 38,
than a consultation about temporal safety from civil punishment by the Roman government. This has been attempted I am told, by Dr. Holley in Lexington. With a view to this, the Unitarian Improved Version makes the jailer say, "Sirs, what must I do to be safe?" And it makes Paul and Silas answer, "Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be safe and thine house-hold." (a?) To the word safe, they append a note informing us that Newcome has the word saved in accordance with our translation: after which the note says "Mr. Wakefield explains it, to avoid punishment for what has befallen the prisoners and the prison. "This," he adds, "is beyond all doubt, the sense of the passage; though Paul, in his reply, uses the words in a more extensive signification: a practice common in these writings." Kneeland copies the translation and the note without giving credit for either. My Opponent translates, "O, Sirs, what must I do that I may be safe? And they said, Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be safe, and thine house." As there is nothing about this passage in the margin, and as there is no note referring from this or any other part of the chapter to the Appendix, any reader, who has not been accustomed to catching eels, would take it for granted that Doddridge had given the above translation in accordance with the Unitarian and Universalist versions. But on examining the Appendix, half of Doddridge's translation is found wedged in between notes to which reference is made from the preceding and succeeding chapters. In connexion with this half-reading, he gives the reason why he had thus hidden Doddridge, and u given the most conspicuous place to that [Unitarian] version, which appeared to deserve it." This reason is given in the words of Wakefield the Unitarian, as follows, viz. "The jailer meant no more than, what shall I do to be safe from punishment? for what had befallen the prisoners and the prison? This is, beyond doubt the sense of the passage; though Paul, in his reply, uses the words in a more extensive signification; a practice common in __________ (r) Acts xvi. 30. 31.
"these writings." These words in the Appendix are preceded and followed by the name of Wakefield, as the author of the translation and note. Thus, while there is a happy agreement between Doddridge and our translation, there is also a sweet harmony between the Socinian version of London, the Universalist of Philadelphia, and the Arian Baptist of Buffaloe Creek. It is well known that the exhortation of Paul "to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood," (y) is shocking to the feelings of those who do not believe in the supreme deity and true humanity of him whose blood has satisfied divine justice for the sins of his people. It even wounds weak Christians, on account of its appearing to attribute blood and suffering to God who is impassible. For this reason various transcribers and translators, ancient and modern, have softened down the Apostle's expression, by substituting, some, one word, and, some another, which may not be so^ shocking to their feelings. Some of these transcribers and translators are adduced by the Unitarian Improved Version, to prove that the word Lord is a better reading than that of the received text. Mr. Kneeland's Universalist Version also prefers the word Lord; and so does my Opponent's edition of Dr. Doddridge's translation, without one marginal note or reference to the Appendix from any part of the Chapter to shew that he was not reporting the Dr. correctly. On this account, "A Friend to Truth" in The Western Luminary," (jz) in noticing this alteration, says that my Opponent "passes over it silently." This mistake was owing to the violation of a promise made by my Opponent in his Preface. His words are these, viz. "instead of crowding the margin with different translations and critical notes, we have placed them in an Appendix and made references to them at the bottom of the page." () After having generally disregarded this engagement until he gets to the 224th page of his translation, he then refers to a note in the Appendix, which gives notice that he will violate this promise on a greater __________ (?/) Acts xx, 28. (z) For Jan. Hi, 1827. () p. 10.
scale "in the subsequent books of the New Testament, than in the preceding," and assigns as a reason for this course, that so many references "at the bottom of the page" "would rather have disfigured the page." I confess that if his work were bespangled with asterisks and other marks as numerous as the instances in which he has altered his three great men, it would give his page some resemblance to whortle berries and milk: but the right way to remedy this evil, is not to conceal the alterations, but to remove them, by giving a fair copy of his Doctors. At present, however, he saves his page at the expense of his veracity and honesty. Instead of making his notes plain for common readers, and opening them by distinct references, he makes them short, contracted, and to most men, unintelligible; and then wraps up a great number of them in a bundle, not with the order of a pedlar's pack, but with the confusion of a rag-man's sack. With the exception of one little note of less than a line, all my Opponent's notes on eight chapters now before me, are squeezed into one of these bales, to which there is only one reference in the whole translation. Snugly enclosed in the centre of this astonishing hurra's nest, you find the following note, viz. v. 29. ' Church of God;' Dod. [[< Of the Lord; Griesbach." This I perceive to be a note on the 29th verse of something. Going very little farther back, I find "Chap, xx." This therefore must be the 29th verse of the 20th Chapter of some book. Anxious to find the name of the book, I in vain explore this branch of notes to its source. Being disappointed here, I examine the batch of notes preceding it, and the one preceding that, until I have tried as many as you have fingers and toes, without being able to discover the name of the book to which one note belongs. Here he will say that this defect in the notes is supplied by the "references to them at the bottom of the page," where the text is found in the translation. This would have been the case in some measure, if he had performed his promise in making those references at the bottom of the page. But the text to which this note belongs, is on page 266. Here there is no reference, nor on any preceding page nearer than
259, where another verse of another chapter gives occasion to refer to this mass of notes, seven pages before the text in question, and thirteen pages before the last text contained in the mass. After a tedious search you can discover that his "v.9," means not the 29th, but the 28th verse of the 20th Chapter of the Acts of the Apostles; and that his [[< < Church of God;' Dod. ' Of the Lord;' Griesbach," means that Doddridge agrees with our bible in giving the name of God to him who purchased the church with his blood, whereas my Opponent had rejected Doddridge, and followed Griesbach, in substituting the word Lord. In answer to his detector in the Western Luminary (6) he defends this substitution by observing, "I said in the preface I gave the most conspicuous place to that reading or rendering which I thought deserved it and so it happens here." Yes, let it be remembered that he puts into the text of this new translation, whatever he thinks deserves it, and then publishes this compilation of a Unitarian Baptist, as the work of three Presbyterian Pedobaptist Doctors!!! As my Opponent in connexion with the above remark, gave his reason at large, for supplanting Doddridge with another reading, indulge me with the liberty of paying a moment's attention to them. They are three. One is that Griesbach "decides in favour of the latter." Another is that Ireneus "quotes it as in the new translation." A third is that "The Syriac translation, the oldest in the world, has it Lord," The two last reasons are alledged facts which he observes, "I [Mr. Campbell] added in my own mind to the authority of Griesbach." Thus my Opponent, with all his professed opposition to creeds and confessions of human composition, is not yet escaped from human authority. In favour of a Unitarian translation of Acts xvi. 30, he gives no other authority than that of Wakefield, a Unitarian writer: and in favour of a Unitarian reading of Acts xx. 28, he gives "the authority of Griesbach," whom the Unitarians claim. Real Christians call no man __________ (6) For Jan 3, 1B27,
Father; and they adopt a human creed, as they would preach or hear a human sermon; because they believe it to be founded upon the scriptures. But many unregenerate persons receive this creed, as my Opponent once did the Westminster Confession, upon no other ground than human authority; and they afterwards reject it, as my Opponent has done, because they prefer a Unitarian Master to any other. Here also it may not be improper to observe, as the writer in the Western Luminary has done, that the celebrated Nolan has proved that the criteria by which Griesbach has made his decision, are fundamentally erroneous, and Wakefield himself has decided against him in this instance. In answer to my Opponent's second reason, drawn from the testimony of one of the Fathers, in favour of his reading, I would observe that Middleton, who is not decided in favour of our reading of the passage, still says that "it is quoted or referred to by a great many of the Fathers." My Opponent's third reason exhibits, if I mistake not, a greater degree of moderation than he is accustomed to. He only says that "The Syriac translation, the oldest in the world, has it Lord." Considering the liberties which he usually takes, we should expect him to claim the Latin Vulgate, which is the next oldest in the world; and the Arabic and Ethiopic which are highly esteemed by some. Griesbach, my Opponent's Master, actually did claim the Ethiopic; in consequence of which his professed brother Wakefield declared his testimony on this point, "infamously false." (c) Yet it is not more false than the testimony of a certain translator, in claiming the Syriac Version in favour of his reading. The Syriac Version has neither his reading nor ours, (rf) but a reading which is found in no Manuscript, and which both parties consider unsupported by evidence. But my Opponent, no doubt, thinks that he has as good a right to alter ancient translations as modern ones; and in this I agree with him. __________ (c) Middleton on the text, But Messiah -- or Christ,
Before I dismiss this incomparable of my Opponent, permit me to notice his last refuge from that infamy to which the voice of an insulted and defrauded people will consign him. When his Prospectus says that he will translate such words as the three Doctors had adopted, he adds, "But in doing this [that is, in translating,] we shall not depart in any instance from the meaning which they have declared those words to convey." In answering his newspaper antagonist, the "Friend of Truth," he refers to this as a "promise of great importance," and adds, Now it can be proven in any court of law or equity where the English language is spoken, that I have not, in one instance, departed from this promise. I challenge all the colleges and divines on this continent, to shew that I have not, in every instance, so done. Let this Doctor of divinity, this * Friend to Truth' make an attempt." This pompous challenge would make some take it for granted that my Opponent never alters the meaning of either of his Doctors, although he may alter his words. But if this be the case, why does he, according to his Preface, (e) substitute the words of Dr. Campbell for those of Doddridge or Macknight, in every passage whicty he has translated? and why does he give as a reason for this, the superior "correctness and elegance" of his translations? Is there no difference of meaning between Dr. Campbell's correct and elegant translations, and those for which they are substituted? But correct and elegant as Dr. Campbell is, he is not to compare with my Opponent, to whose translations, those of Dr. Campbell as well as Macknight and Doddridge must give way, in order to form a book concerning which it may be said, that "the ideas communicated by the Apostles and Evangelists of Jesus Christ, are incomparably better expressed in this than in any volume ever presented in our mother tongue." Can this much altered translation be incomparably better than its models, as published by themselves, or in the London Edition, without any change in the meaning of __________ (0 p. 10,
one word? If there be no difference in meaning, how comes it to pass that when he substitutes hades for Doddridge's hell, he gives as a reason that the word "is very improperly translated hell?" (f) Is there no difference between the original and a very improper translation? Taking the Epistle to the Hebrews as a specimen of the whole work, he says, in his answer to the Friend of Truth," "About fifty times you will find Macknight in the Appendix in this one Epistle," and then offers a guess that there are as many as three thousand such alterations in the whole work, instead of the reduced calculation of fifteen hundred which his Antagonist had made. Are we to understand that he has altered the words of his authors fifty times in one Epistle, and three thousand times in all, without once changing their meaning? But the letter of his challenge calls for an instance in which his New Testament gives a meaning different from his Doctors, by translating a word which they had adopted. The word heresy is translated by my Opponent, and adopted by his author. Doddridge says, "After the way which they call heresy, so do I worship the God of my Fathers." My Opponent says, "After the way which they call a sect, so worship I the God of my fathers." Now if it can be shewn that my Opponent understands the word sect in an indifferent sense, and that Doddridge understands the word heresy in an evil sense, then my Opponent has altered his author's meaning by translating a word which his author had adopted. In a note to which my Opponent refers from this text, his meaning is conveyed to us in the language of Dr. Campbell. After explaining the original by class, party, sect, he observes, "The word was not, in its earliest acceptation, conceived to convey any reproach in it, since it was indifferently used, either of a party approved, or of one disapproved by the writer." Thus my Opponent's word sect is understood indifferently. Now although Doddridge gives the word sect in his paraphrase, he gives a reason for preferring the __________ (/) Rev. vi. 8. Compare Appendix No. 21,
word heresy in the text. He admits that on account of the circumstances of the primitive Christians, "they might properly be called a sector party of men," but he says, "I cannot but think this a place, where the word [[ai^crtf, which I own to be often indifferent, is used in a bad sense; for Paul plainly intimates, that Christianity did not deserve the name they gave it." Thus my Opponent's translation gives a word in an indifferent sense, which Doddridge thinks might properly be applied to Christians instead of his author's adoption of a word in an evil seme, which Doddridge thinks the Christians did not deserve. Yet my Opponent's promise says, "We shall not depart in any instance from the meaning which they have declared those words to convey." Paul once preached Christ to the Jews. My Opponent says, But when they set themselves in opposition, and reviled, he shook his garments." (g-) Would not any common reader understand from this, that the Jews reviled Paul? and was not this what my Opponent meant that they should understand? Yet Doddridge says, "they set themselves in opposition, and BLASPHEMED" that glorious name on which he was pressing them to fix their dependence. To the same amount, in other places, (A) Doddridge adopts blasphemy, and my Opponent translates slander, defamation. It is well known that in common language, reviling, slander, and defamation, denote an offence against our fellow men; whereas Dr. Allison, a Baptist Preacher, in his English Dictionary, says that "blasphemy is an offering of some indignity unto God himself." In accordance with this, Doddridge in describing the Roman Beast, says that it was "full of blasphemous names," (i) which his paraphrase explains by its "ascribing to itself, and the harlot upon it, properties and glories which belong to God alone." My Opponent, instead of "blasphemous names," translates "slanderous names." My Opponent might here urge in extenuation, that he was following his perfectly correct and elegant pattern, Dr. George __________ (g-) Acts xviii. 6. (//) Rev. ii, 9, 13, 1, (/) Rev. xvii. 3,
Campbell, as he promised in his preface. If this were true, it would only shew that he made two promises which were inconsistent with each other: one is that he would always substitute Campbell's words for those of the other two Doctors; and the other is that he would never depart from their meaning. But if I mistake not, while Campbell justifies him in one departure from Doddridge (j) his principles and practice condemn him in all the rest. He admits that the word blaspheme should be retained when God is the object of this offence. In the last text the Beast is said to be full of blasphemous names, because he claims divine attributes and honors. For this very thing the Jews repeatedly accused our Saviour of the same offence; and in no such case does either Dr. Campbell or my Opponent render it reviling* slander, or defamation, but they both retain the -word blasphemy. "Who is this that speaketh blasphemies? Can any one forgive sins beside God?'' "For a good work we do not stone thee, but for blasphemy, because thou, being [a] man, makest thyself God." (&) In these texts my Opponent has exactly followed his model, except in the insertion of our indefinite article before the word man, which, among three thousand alterations, can hardly be noticed. According to my Opponent's translation, Paul's reason for delivering Hymeneus and Alexander to Satan, was "that they might be taught by chastisement, not to defame." Although Macknight, whom he here professes to copy, uses the word revile in his commentary, yet as he expressly declares '* Christ or his doctrine" to be the object of this reviling, he retains blaspheme in the text, according to the principles of my Opponent's favourite, Dr. Campbell: "that they might be taught by chastisement not to blaspheme." ([) In another instance (m) he retains blasphemers, where my Opponent substitutes defamers, although Macknight's commentary explains it "blasphemers of God, by the injurious "representations which they give of him." I cannot tell how __________ 0') Actsxviii. 6. See his Prelim. Dissert. 9. Part 2. Sect. 12. () Luke v. 21. John x. 33. (/) 1 Tim. i. 00. (/) 2 Tim. Hi. 2.
many cases of this sort his book contains; but I have very little doubt that one whose time and patience would permit him to wade through this mass of perversion, would discover many other instances, in addition to the seven which I have pointed out, in which my Opponent's authors adopt a word with one meaning, and my Opponent translates it with another meaning: yet the promise of his Prospectus is, "But in doing this, we shall not depart in any instance, from the meaning which they have declared those words to convey." And after the work was published, he challenges "all the colleges and divines on this continent to shew" that he has "in one instance, departed from this promise." My Opponent may be called a challenge-monger. The Reformers used to challenge that they might debate: my Opponent debates that he may challenge. A Reformer once contended ten days upon the ground of one challenge: my Opponent does not stop at ten challenges in one day, and sometimes in one speech. When used as a manoeuvre, it sometimes appears ingenious, although it may be disingenuous. If a man accuse him of Unitarianism, he challenges him to prove him a Socinian, as if Unitarianism did not embrace his darling Arianism, as well as his brother Holley's Socinianism. A. accuses B. of stealing one of his cattle. B. challenges A. and all the colleges and lawyers on the continent to prove that he has stolen a cow; thinking thereby to conceal the fact that he had stolen a calf. But in the present case his right hand appears to have lost its cunning: for he challenges the continent to shew one instance in which he has departed from a promise, which he has directly violated in the seven specified cases, and we know not how many more. There was a time when I thought the Unitarian Improved Version a non-par eU in theological atrocity: but, in reapect of fraud and falsehood, this Arian Baptist's New Translation is incomparably beyond it. I am not sorry, therefore, that the word Church [[^ which introduced it to our notice, is not once found in this master-piece of deception.
THE POINT
__________ (ri) Acts xi. 26. xx. 17. xiii, 1. xii. 5. xiv. 23. (comp. 32.) xv. 41. xvi. ,5, Matt, xviii, 17. xvi. 1.
I. WORSHIP. "And all the church worshipped." And the whole church took counsel to keep other seven days:" ' in religious exercises/ as Gill says. (o) The religious exercises of the Old Testament were such as the following. 1. Sacrifices. "For Hezekiah, king of Judah, did give to the church a thousand bullocks, and seven thousand sheep: and the princes gave to the church a thousand bullocks and ten thousand sheep: and a great number of priests sanctified themselves." And they brought forth the he-goats for the sin-offering before the king and the church; and they laid their hands upon them." "Then Hezekiah answered and said, Now ye have consecrated yourselves unto the Lord, come near, and bring sacrifices, and thank-offerings into the house of the Lord. And the church brought in sacrifices and thank-offerings; and as many as were of a free heart, burnt offerings. And the number of the burnt-offerings which the church brought, was," &c. (p) 2. Festivals. "For the king had taken counsel, and his princes, and all the church in Jerusalem, to keep the passover in the second month." "And there assembled at Jerusalem much people, to keep the feast of unleavened bread in the second month, a very great church." "For there were many in the church,, that "were not consecrated: therefore the Levites had the charge of the killing of the passovers, for every one __________ (o) 2 Chr. xxix. 28. xxx. 23. (/O 2 Chr. xxx. 24. xxix. 23. 31. 32. xxx. 2.
that was not clean, to consecrate them unto the "Lord. (?) 3. Prayer. "And he stood before the altar of the "Lord in the presence of all the church of Israel, and spread forth his hands. For Solomon had made a brazen scaffold," "and upon it he stood, and kneeled down upon his knees before all the church of Israel, and spread forth his hands toward heaven." (r) Compare this with certain passages of the New Testament, in which Baptists themselves see evidence that the visible church of God is meant. "Peter, therefore, was kept in prison; but prayer was made without ceasing, "of the church, unto God for him." "Now there were, in the church that \vas at Antioch, certain prophets and teachers." "And when they had ordained them elders in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord on whom they believed." (s) 4. Praise. "I will give thee thanks in the great church, I will praise thee among much people." The great congregation," as our bible has it in the first clause of this verse, Dr. Gill explains, "the church" and "people of God." The expression in the last clause, he explains, "the people of God meeting together for solemn worship." The Psalmist says again, "The heavens shall praise thy wonders, Lord! thy faithfulness also, in the church of the saints." Here Gill says "holy men are meant, such as are called to be saints, and are gathered together in a gospel church-state." __________ (7) i Chr. xxx. 2. 13. 17. (r) 2 Chr. vi. 12. 13. (v) Actsxii. 5. xiii. 1. xiv. 23. (comp. 22.)
The same explanation he gives of the following: "Praise ye the Lord. Sing unto the Lord a new song, and his praise in the church of saints." It is plain that this is directly applicable to the Israelitish church, as well as prophetical of the Christian church. The same may be said of the following: "I will declare thy name "unto my brethren; in the midst of the church will I praise thee." U) Several of these texts mention sing' ing, one important means of ecclesiastical praise, [u] 5. Reading, expounding, and preaching. "There was not a word of all that Moses commanded, which Joshua read not before all the church of Israel, with the women and the little ones, and the strangers that "were conversant among them." "And Ezra the priest, brought the law before the church." "So they read in the book, in the law of God distinctly, and .gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading." "I have preached righteousness in the great church." (#) Compare this with the declaration that God anointed Isaiah "to preach good tidings unto the meek;" that he anointed our Saviour, the Antitype of Isaiah, "to preach the gospel to the poor;" that he actually "preached in the synagogues of Galilee:" and compare the whole with what is said of Paul and Barnabas, "that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch." (w>) Thus does the connexion of the word __________ (0 Ps. xxxv. 18. Ixxxix. 5. cxlix. 1. xxii. 52. (u) 2 Chr. xxix. 28. Ps. cxlix. 1. M Josh. viii. 35. Neh. viii. 28. Ps. xl. 9. (u) Isa. Ixi. 1. Luk. iv. 18. 44. Acts xi. 26.
shew that it denotes a society consecrated to religious purposes, both in the Old and New Testaments. 6. Implements and places for worship. "The brazen altar that Bezaliel the son of Uri, the son of Hur, had made, he put before the tabernacle of the Lord: and Solomon and the church sought unto it." "So Solomon and all the church with him, went to the high place that was at Gibeon; for there was the tabernacle of the church of God, which Moses the servant of the Lord had made in the wilderness." "The heathen entered into her sanctuary, whom thou didst command that they should not enter into thy church." And Ezra the priest brought the law before the church." "And he read therein." "And Ezra the scribe stood upon a pulpit of wood which they had made for the purpose." "And the king turned his face, and blessed the whole church of Israel, and all the church of Israel stood." "Even them will I bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in 66 my house of prayer: their burnt offerings and their sacrifices shall be accepted upon mine altar; for mine house shall be called an house of prayer for all people." "It is written, My house shall be called a house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves." (a?) Can any one suppose that when the word church occurs in the above passages, it means any thing short of a visible society, acting as the consecrated depository of the oracles and ordinances of revealed religion? __________ Or) 2 Chr. i. 5. 3. Lam. i, 10. Nch. vlii. 2. 3. 4. 2 Chr. vi. 3. Isa. Ivi. 7. Mat. xxi. 13.
II. DISCIPLINE. The rules by which a society refuses candidates, or expels members, will easily determine whether it is an ecclesiastical body or not. 1. Preclusion. Moses points out some characters who shall not enter into the church of the Lord," until the third generation, others until the tenth, and others never. (y) If this law goes no farther than to forbid their being invested with ecclesiastical offices, this, nevertheless proves the existence of a church to which those offices are attached. This will appear in the following words of Dr. Gill upon one of these statutes, which, he says, "is to be understood, not of the sanctuary of the Lord, or of being refused admittance into the church of God, and to join in religious rites, and partake of sacred ordinances, which all Israelites, and strangers that were proselytes, had a right unto; such might bring their offerings, keep the passover, &c. (z) 2. Exclusion. "But the man that shall be unclean, and shall not purify himself, that soul shall be cut off from among the church, because he hath defiled the "sanctuary of the, Lord: the water of separation hath not been sprinkled on him." (a) What it is to be thus "cut off," Gill professes not certainly to know, but among three conjectures, to a be excommunicated from the church," is one. To be cut off "from the Israelitish church-state," is one of three alternatives which he gives us on another similar statute; (b) and to __________ (t/) Dcut. xxlii. 1 8^ (z) For this, Gill on Dent, xxiii. 1, quotes Ex. xii. 48. 49. Lev, xxii. 18. Num. ix. 14. xv. 14. 15. (a) Num. xix. 20. (com p. 13, to which Gill refers from the 20th.) (b) Ex. xii. 19. (comp. 15, to which Gill refers for a fuller explanation.
be excommunicated from them as a church" is only a part of the punishment which Dr. Gill believes to be contemplated in one of Ezra's decrees. (c) III. CHARACTER. They were no synagogue of Satan, or "congregation of the dead," as such are called by Solomon. (d) They were not a confused and unlawful assembly, like Demetrius and his Ephesians. (e) Neither were they a civil society, although they were connected with such a body. When, in a certain case, they were called "the whole church of the Lord." (f) Dr. Gill says, "they don't call them the congregation of Israel, but of the Lord, because it was not on a civil, but religious account they were come." As they were not a civil, so they were not a military body, although they were the militant church, and when providentially called, entered the military establishment of their country: as in the case of David and the Assembly who were with him, which Dr. Gill says, was a "great part of" the congregation of Israel, and church of the living God." (g) Its members were consecrated to religious privileges and enjoyments. It was given in charge to the Levites "to sanctify them unto the Lord." (h) This was to prepare them to "worship at his holy hill," which "holy hill of Zion," Dr. Gill tells us, means "the church." (i) To the same amount does he explain Joel's proclamation for a religious fast, although it speaks of children as belonging to the congregation, and partaking of their consecration and their __________ (c) Ear. x. 8. (d) Prov. xxi. 16. (e) Acts xix. S2. 39, (f) Josh. xxii. 16. (g) 1 Sam. xvii. 47. (h) 2Chr. xxx. 17. (i) Ps. xdx. 9.
humiliation. "Gather the people, sanctify the church, assemble the elders, gather the children, and those that suck the breast." ^') In accordance with this, Gill says that Joshua's reading to the congregation was "not before the men only, but ' with the women and the little ones/ who all had a concern in the things that were read to them." (A) From this consecration, the officers of the church were, of course, not excluded. "A great number of priests consecrated themselves." (/) This ecclesiastical consecration, as well as spiritual sanctification, appears to be contemplated in calling the Jews and the Christians, "the church of saints." (m) Their imperfection in spiritual sanctification is confessed by all parties, and taught in the scriptures. Sacrifices are appointed for a case in which "the whole church of Israel sin through ignorance, and the thing be hid from the eyes of the church." (ri) This is the text by which Gill and Ainsworth prove "that the church may err." But on account of their perfect Head, and that degree of sanctification which they enjoy, the scriptures call them "the church of the upright," (o) and recognize an evident incongruity between church-membership and a life of iniquity. "I was almost in all evil in the midst of the church assembled." (p) These things evidently shew that they are a visible society, acting as the consecrated depository of the oracles and ordinances of revealed religion. IV. CONDITION. On that text which speaks of the __________ (j] Joel ii. 16. (comp. 15. 17.) () Josh. viii. 35. (/) 2Chr, xxx. 24. (m) Ps. Ixxxix. 5. cxlix. 1. 00 Lev. iv, 13. (o) Ps. cxi. 1. (/O Prov. v. 14.
trumpets which were made "for the calling of the churchy and for the journeying of the camps, (#) Dr. Gill takes occasion to remark that the Christian church is in the same condition: "Saints are pilgrims and travellers; they are passing through a wilderness, their way is attended with many difficulties; Canaan is the place they are travelling to, and the gospel [like the trumpets] is of singular use to them by the way both to refresh them with its joyful sound, and to direct them in the path in which they should go." But an inspired writer has said concerning Christ's presence with the Israelites, "This is he that was in the ff church in the wilderness, with the angel, which spake to him in the Mount Sina, and with our fathers, who received the lively oracles to give unto us." (r) The context shews that this person who was with them, was the Divine prophet, priest and king of the visible church, and it connects him and them with the tabernacle and temple which were ecclesiastical buildings; and thus shews that "the church in the wilderness" was really, and not nominally only, the visible church of God. Dr. Gill says that this "must be understood of the children of Israel, who were the then church of God, whom he had chosen and separated from the rest of the world, to be a peculiar people to himself, to whom were given the word and ordinances, the service '' of God, and the promises; and God always had, and will have a church; though that is sometimes in the wilderness; which has been the case under the gospel __________ (7) Num. x.?. (r) Actsvii, 38. (comp. 37. 44. 47.)
dispensation, as well as before; See Rev. xxii. 6. 14, and it was a peculiar honour to Moses, that he was in this church, though it was in the wilderness; even a greater honour than to be in Pharaoh's court." In accordance with this, Paul quotes David, as saying for himself and for his Antitype, concerning Jews and Christians, "I will declare thy name unto my brethren; in the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee." (s) You were told some time ago, of my Opponent's statement, that "the term church or kirk, is an abbreviation of the word [[xv&w __________ (s) Hebr. ii, 12. (comp. context.) (t) 1 Tim. Hi. 15.
Peter tells the churches that "the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God;" fe) Dr. Gill says, "By the house of God is either meant the temple of Jerusalem," or else the church of God, which is frequently called the house of God." When Paul says that we have "an high priest over the house of God," (v) Gill says that it means "the church of God, over which Christ is as prophet, priest, and king, and as the son and owner of it." When Paul says "every house is builded by some man," Gill understands it of "the whole church in general, of particular congregations, and of individual believers." When Paul says "he that built all things is God," Gill explains it "of Christ, and of his building the church." (w} This explanation he still continues, when it is intimated that Moses belonged to that house, as it is repeatedly, in the Epistle to the Hebrews. (x) When it is said that "Moses verily was faithful in all his house, as a servant," (y) Gill says, a servant in holy things;" He says, "he was not a servant in the world, and with respect to civil things, and the affairs of Providence, but in the church of God, and in divine things." And as the scriptures never once intimate that this church began with Moses, so neither does our great Baptist Commentator; but in the very same passage in which he says that "it was a peculiar honour to Moses that he was in this church," he also says that "God always had, and will have a church." (z) __________ (u) 1 Pet. iv. 17. ( (v) Hebr. x. 21. (comp. v. 6.) (w) Hebr. iii. 4. (x) Hebr. iii. 2. 3. (y) Hebr. Iii. 5. (z) Gill on Acts vii, f8, quoted above.
To me it seems that a small part of the evidence which has been adduced, ought to convince any one of the truth of the proposition, that Abraham and his seed were divinely constituted a visible church of God. They have been shewn to have the oracles and ordinances of a visible church, the members and officers of a visible church, with the constitution and the express, inspired, and unequivocal name of a church. Under this last point, they have been shewn to have the worship of an ecclesiastical body, such as sacrifices and festivals, prayer and praise, reading, expounding and preaching, together with ecclesiastical implements and places for worship, such as the altar and pulpit, the tabernacle and temple, which latter is called, in the Old and New Testament, the house of prayer. Under this point, it was proved, moreover, that they had the discipline of a church, in respect of preclusion and exclusion, and that the scriptures attributed to them the character and condition of a visible church. The existence, therefore, of the Patriarchal or Old Testament church, is as certain as the existence of the Christian or New Testament church. And some of you are ready to say that if my remaining propositions are as irrefragably proved as this first one, then the conclusion in favour of infant-baptism is inevitable. We proceed than to R |