Produced by Stephen Hutcheson and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net THE CHURCH, THE FALLING AWAY, AND THE RESTORATION BY J. W. SHEPHERD Editor of âHandbook on Baptism,â âQueries and Answers,â âSalvation of Sin,â âWhat is the New Testament Church?â GOSPEL ADVOCATE COMPANY Nashville, Tenn. 1961 Copyright 1929 By F. L. Rowe Gospel Advocate Co., Owner Nashville, Tenn. CONTENTS Preface 3 PART ONE The Church What Should the Church of the Present Be? 5 The Church and the Temple 9 Infant Baptism 16 Conditions of Membership 25 Conditions of Admission 25 Agencies 28 Conditions 28 Conditions of Continued Membership 29 The Worship 32 The Apostlesâ Teaching 36 The Fellowship 38 Breaking Bread 39 Prayers 40 Singing 40 Polity 42 The Word of God 42 Names 43 Congregational Independence 44 Elders 45 Deacons 47 Evangelists 47 PART TWO The Falling Away The Falling Away Predicted 49 The Falling Away 54 The Confessional 63 Indulgences 67 John Tetzel 69 PART THREE The Reformation In Europe John Wyckliffe 74 Translates the Bible Into English 75 William Tyndale 79 Erasmus Arrives in England 80 Tyndale Translates the Bible Into English 82 Goes to Hamburg 84 Bishop of London Supplies Money 86 Betrayed and Murdered 88 Martin Luther 89 A Friend Indeed 90 Becomes a Monk 91 Makes a Pilgrimage to Rome 94 Professor of Theology at Wittenburg 96 The Ninety-five Theses 97 Debates With John Eck and Burns the Papal Bull 100 Before the Diet of Worms 103 Under Imperial Ban 110 A Change Comes Over Luther 112 Retains What Is Not Forbidden 115 Origin of Protestantism 116 The Reformation in Switzerland 122 The Reformation in England 126 Changes Made by Edward VI 129 âBloody Maryâ 131 Elizabeth, the Protestant Queen 133 The Reformation in Scotland 138 The Independents 138 Haldane and Aikman 141 The Scotch Baptists 142 The Separatists 144 PART FOUR The Restoration Movement In America Spiritual Unrest in Many Places 148 Barton W. Stone 153 Confronted by Many Difficulties 153 Ordained to the Ministry 157 Remarkable Meeting at Cane Ridge 160 âA Time of Distressâ 163 Last Will and Testament 166 The Witnessesâ Address 167 Practices Modified in Many Particulars 169 âShakerismâ 170 The Work Prospers 171 Thomas Campbell 175 Conflict With the Seceders 175 The Declaration and Address 180 Alexander Campbell 188 Subject and Act of Baptism Settled 188 The Redstone Association 195 A Wider Field 199 The Campbell-McCalla Discussion 203 Visits the Kentucky Baptists 207 John Smith 209 Soul Struggles 210 Desires to Preach 213 Terrible Calamity 215 Preaches at Crab Orchard 215 The Christian Baptist 217 Fetters Cast Off 218 Resolves to Preach the Simple Gospel 220 âAncient OrderââBaptists in Kentucky 224 Walter Scott 231-236 A Sincere Truth Seeker 232 Turning Point in His Life 235 Reformers in Other StatesâJohn Wright 246 Herman Christian Dasher 249 The Christians and Reformers Unite 251 PREFACE An effort is made in the following pages to set forth what the New Testament church was when it came into the world through the preaching of inspired men; how it was led into apostasy; and an account of some of the many attempts to restore it to its original purity and simplicity. In proportion as any religious work becomes a potent force in affecting the welfare of mankind, its early history becomes interesting and important. This is especially true of the very beginning of its history where those influences which have molded its character are most clearly seen. It is due to the world no less than to the heroic men who were chief actors in such a movement, that the motives which inspired them, the principles which guided them, and the forces which opposed them, together with the results of this conflict, should be set down accurately for the information and for the benefit of those who are seeking the truth. If the writer did not most profoundly believe that this effort to restore the New Testament church was one of those providential movements designed by Jehovah to correct existing evils, and to purify religion from its corruptions that the gospel may run and be glorified in the earth, then he would feel but little interest in its history and achievements. But recognizing, as I do, the hand of God in this remarkable movement of the nineteenth century, it is believed that an important service is being rendered by putting on record the causes which gave birth to it, and the influences which by action and reaction have made it what it is. If God overrules in human affairs, and teaches men by means of history, then he who faithfully records historic facts fulfills an important service in the education of men. This is pre-eminently true of that kind of history which deals with the struggles of the human mind and heart to know God, and to understand his will concerning human redemption. It is of the very greatest importance to the successful carrying forward of the Lordâs work that the younger generation should become thoroughly acquainted with the spirit which animated, and the principles which controlled the men who, under God, gave the primary impulse to this great work. They should become familiar with the conflicts of those early days and with the tremendous sacrifices made by those valiant men and women who loved the truth more than popularity, more than ease, more than wealth, friends, and family ties. It is only as we shall be able to perpetuate this love of truth, this freedom from the bondage of tradition and inherited opinions, that we shall be able to carry forward, successfully the work they inaugurated. We need the same dauntless heroism, the same faith in God, the same zeal for truth and the same underlying principles which characterized them and who have transmitted to us the responsibility of carrying forward the work which they began. If this volume which is now sent forth shall serve to inspire the workers who are to succeed us with the same passion for pure apostolic Christianity, with the same spirit of loyalty to Christ, which marked the beginning of their work, the purpose of the writer shall have been fulfilled. J. W. Shepherd. Birmingham, Ala., July 25, 1929. PART I. The Church. CHAPTER I. WHAT SHOULD THE CHURCH OF THE PRESENT BE? That the church is the bride of Christ is clearly expressed in the following: âWherefore, my brethren, ye also were made dead to the law through the body of Christ; that ye should be joined to another, even to him who was raised from the dead, that we might bring forth fruit unto Godâ (Rom. 7:4). âFor I am jealous over you with a godly jealousy: for I espoused you to one husband, that I might present you as a pure virgin to Christâ (II Cor. 11:2). In these passages the bride evidently means the church. That the bride will remain till the Bridegroom comes there can be no reasonable doubt; that she has ever waited his coming is equally certain. She has been in great distress, being driven into the wilderness and deprived of much of her glory, but she has ever looked for the coming of her espoused. In what condition the Bridegroom will find her is a question about which there has been much speculation. Unless we believe that the Bridegroom, when he comes, will find his bride in dishonorâliving in fornication with the worldâwe may not measure the church by human standards. That the bride will be found wearing the name of the Bridegroom and living in chastity when he comes to claim her, there is no room for reasonable doubt. The world may be deeply defiled by crime, but the church will be arrayed in her robes of righteousness. Hence, while the church may have its impurities, as everything composed of humanity has, it must at least be uncontaminated to the extent of fidelity to Christ. This may cut off much of what the world calls the church, but not what God regards as the church. This has ever been the case since the apostasy, and will doubtless so continue to the end. In the days of the apostles, God had a people in Babylon, but while they were in Babylon they were not of Babylon. Hence the Lord says: âCome forth, my people, out of her, that ye have no fellowship with her sins, and that ye receive not her plaguesâ (Rev. 18:4). God doubtless has a people in Babylon now; but they and Babylon are two distinct things. Godâs church is not composed of the Babel of sectarianism. Just who Godâs people are who may now be in Babylon it is not my purpose to determine. God has revealed to us the things that pertain to his churchâthe faith, the practice, and the promisesâand with these it is my purpose to deal. Here, all is faith and assurance; beyond this, all is opinion and fruitless speculation. Concerning those in Babylon we have but one living direction. âCome forth, my people, out of her.â To this we should give faithful heed. For to console people in the Babylon of sectarianism, and to reconcile them to their bondage, we have no divine right; but to deliver them from it is a divine obligation. Therefore Godâs church is an institution separate and distinct from the Babel of denominationalism. In determining, then, what the church should be, it will be necessary to ascertain the characteristics of the apostolic church. If the church of the present day be essentially different from the apostolic as a matter of preference, it can not be the church of which God is the author. Hence it can not be a divine institution, neither can it be the virgin bride of Christ. It follows, therefore, that the church must possess the following characteristics: 1. It Must Be a Divine Institution At the beginning the church was a divine institution, and it can not cease to be divine and still be the church of God, for God does not begin with the divine and end with the human. Beginning in the spirit the things of God are not made perfect in the flesh. A divine institution must have for its organization and essential features divine authority, for the world can not make an ordinance or an institution divine. It must be specially appointed of God. No human institution, therefore, nor combination of institutions for which there is no special divine appointment, can ever constitute the church of God, for it is of God and not of men. Hence the church must be in all its essential features of specific divine appointment. These appointments are all found in the New Testament; therefore, the church to be a divine institution must be fashioned after that model. 2. It Must Be Governed Wholly by Divine Authority. The church was governed wholly by divine authority at the beginning. Should it substitute human for divine authority it would cease to be the church of God. A substitute for a divine thing can never itself be divine; therefore, anything substituted for the church as it was in the beginning is not that church. Just as certainly therefore, as Christ will own and accept his church when he comes again, so certainly will it be governed by his authority. Christ will accept only the church which he established. That which he established was governed wholly by divine authority: therefore the church of today must be so governed. 3. It Should Have Only the Names It Had at the Beginning. In the New Testament there are various names applied to the church and to its members. All these names have their significance, for the Holy Spirit never used them by accident, and for these names, and for these only, is there divine authority. The true church of to-day will be governed by divine authority; therefore, only these will the church accept. This with it is not simply a matter of taste, but of loyalty to Christ. Names unknown to the New Testament have come of the apostasy. 4. It Must Have the Form of Government Given to the Church in the Beginning. It must necessarily be true, since it recognizes only the same authority. The church of to-day could not disregard the government of the New Testament church and still be the same church. Its congregations are not bound in the coils of an ecclesiasticism as merciless as it is unscriptural. Its bishops are not diocesan, but congregational. There are not a plurality of churches, under one bishop, but a plurality of bishops in one church. Its government is not in the hands of a legislative body, but it is under the legislation of Christ, executed by the several congregations. 5. It Has the Unity of the Church of the New Testament. This conclusion is reached from several considerations. (1) Since the church is governed only by divine authority, has the same form of government that it had in the beginning, and wears only the names found in the New Testament, the unity that characterized the first church follows as a consequence. (2) The destruction of the unity of the church was the work of the apostasy; hence when the church is reclaimed from the apostasy it will be freed from this disunion. (3) There can be no doubt that Christâs prayer for the unity of his people can now be fulfilled as it was at the beginning. This unity can never exist through denominational walls. There were no denominational walls between the Father and the Son, neither was there any between the first disciples. Hence, if that prayer is answered in the restoration of the church, and it must be, there must be the same unity that characterized the church in the beginning. CHAPTER II. THE CHURCH AND THE TEMPLE Under the Patriarchal and Jewish dispensation there were numerous animal sacrifices by divine appointment. Not only so, but the people generally, who knew not the true God, have, all down the ages, poured sacrificial blood upon altars innumerable. This must have come about by the perversion of divinely-appointed sacrificial institutions, or from the felt need of fallen man for some way of mediation and of approach to God. That the need was felt by true worshipers is not open to doubt, for if sacrifice were devised by man, it would only have arisen from a sense of that need; and, on the other hand, if ordained of God, it could only have been acceptably offered under a consciousness thereof. Sacrifices, altars and priests have generally stood together; and so long as they have been upon divine lines have been highly beneficial. But it has been alleged that priests have been a curse rather than a blessing to the nations, and I am not prepared to dispute the allegation. But neither God nor the Bible is responsible, because the priesthood as instituted by the Jews was a good and not an evil to that people; while, on the other hand, the priestly system has no place in Christianity. The priests of heathendom and of Christendom are not of God. Then how widely different, how completely opposite, is the unpriestly worship of the Church of Christ from the sacerdotal ceremonies of the Jewish economy. There we find the costly temple, in the construction of which were gold, silver, precious stones and costly fabrics in unrestricted abundance; sacred places over which the people may not pass, and which the feet of priests and Levites only may tread; ceremonials which bring death to those who touch them with other than priestly hands; altars and fires, blood and incense, and priests, all of divine ordering, so that we read: Then the king and all the people offered sacrifice before Jehovah. And King Solomon offered a sacrifice of twenty and two thousand oxen, and a hundred and twenty thousand sheep. So the king and all the people dedicated the house of God. And the priests stood, according to their offices; the Levites also with instruments of music of Jehovah, which David the King had made to give thanks unto Jehovah (for his loving kindness endureth forever), when David raised by their ministry; and the priests sounded trumpets before them; and all Israel stood. Moreover Solomon hallowed the middle of the court that was before the house of Jehovah; for there he offered and burnt offerings, and the fat of the peace offerings, because the brazen altar which Solomon had made was not able to receive the burnt offering, and the meat offering, and the fat. So Solomon held the feast at that time seven days, and all Israel with him, a very great assembly, from the entrance of Hamath unto the brook of Egypt. And on the eighth day they held a solemn assembly: for they kept the dedication of the altar seven days, and the feast seven days. And on the three and twentieth day of the seventh month, he sent the people away unto their tents, joyful and glad of heart for the goodness that Jehovah had showed unto David, and to Solomon, and to Israel his people. (II Chron. 7:4-10.) The significance, and richness, and glory of that economy surpassed anything that the world had ever seen; but in the fullness of time it was superseded by a higher and more glorious dispensation, concerning which the Apostle Paul wrote: And such confidence have we through Christ to God-ward: not that we are sufficient of ourselves, to account anything as from ourselves; but our sufficiency is from God; who also made us sufficient as ministers of a new covenant; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life. But if the ministration of death, written, and engraven on stones, came with glory, so that the children of Israel could not look steadfastly upon the face of Moses for the glory of his face which glory was passing away: how shall not rather the ministration of the spirit be with glory? For if the ministration of condemnation hath glory, much rather doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory. For verily that which hath been made glorious hath not been made glorious in this respect, by reason of the glory that surpasseth. For if that which passeth away was with glory, much more that which remains is in glory. (II Cor. 3:4-11.) Shall we, then, look for still greater material splendor and wealth in temples, vestments, altars and instruments of music? If not, why not? And still, if not, why did the like exist under the former and inferior economy? We should look for nothing of the sort, nor suffer its intrusion upon the Church of Christ, and that for one reason, sufficient without others equally goodâthe former economy, in all its ceremonials, was typical of spiritual blessings then to come. There was a perfect typical system most expressive and opposite, but rendered useless when its antitypes appeared. The cross took the place of the altar; the High Priest of our confession came in the room of the Aaronic priesthood, âthe sacrifice of praise,â âthat is the fruit of our lips,â set aside the praise by trumpets, psaltery and cymbal. These were good and expressive in their day and place. âA shadow of things to come; but the body is Christâ (Col. 2:17). âFor the law having a shadow of good things to come, not the very image of the things, can never with the same sacrifices year by year, which they offer continually, make perfect them that draw nigh. Else would they not have ceased to be offered?â (Heb. 10:1). So we see that the Holy Spirit very aptly informs us that âthe bodyâ or substance, is Christâs, and when he came and filled to the full the types and shadows of the law, they passed away in their entirety, giving place to higher institutions, by means of which the worshipers could be made perfect. âAnd not only so,â as a ripe Bible student very forcefully says, âbut just in proportion as these abandoned shadows are intruded into the church and worship of God they become injurious and more or less substitutes for the realities of which, in their day and place, they were the proper types and symbols. Consequently, in setting in order, by the apostles, of the Church of Christ, the temple and its worship were in no degree taken as models, and this is highly reasonable, inasmuch as the existence together of the type and the antitype would be completely inadmissible. Nothing could have been easier than for the apostles to have adopted priestly, or modified priestly vestments. There could have been no manner of difficulty in burning incense as an act of praise of worship. It can not be supposed but that, long before the close of the apostolic ministry, they could have used and enjoined the use of instrumental music. But no! Nothing of the kind; no trace even of a leaning, or of a desire, in that direction. The things of the shadows were done with, and those of the substance took their place.â That the church is not modeled after the temple, but after the synagogue, is established beyond doubt by the testimony of the learned men in the denominational world. If objection be made to the inconsistency of denominational scholars putting forth such views, I answer that it is a well-known fact that men do confess truths that they fail to carry into effect; but the truth is not weakened thereby, but rather derives additional weight from the fact that it forces confession, even against the interests and associations of those who utter it. But however that may be, they write the truth abundantly clear. The first witness I introduce is âRichard Watson,â who the McClintock and Strong Cyclopedia says âgave the first systematic treatment of Wesleyan theology. His Institutes, though not the legal, have been the moral and scientific standard of Methodist doctrine.â All aspirants to the Methodist pulpit are required to study âWatsonâs Theological Institutes.â He says: The course of the synagogue worship became indeed the model of that of the Christian Church. It consisted in prayer, reading and explaining the Scriptures, and singing psalms; and thus one of the most important means of instructing nations, and of spreading and maintaining the influence of morals and religion among people, passed from the Jews into all Christian countries.... The mode of public worship in the primitive church was taken from the synagogue service; and so, also, was its arrangements of offices.... Such was the model which the apostles followed in providing for the future regulation of the churches they had raised up. They took it, not from the temple and its priesthood, for that was typical, and was then passing away. But they found in the institution of the synagogues a plan admirably adapted to the simplicity and purity of Christianity, ... and which was capable of being applied to the new dispensation without danger of Judaizing. (Theological Institutes, pages 640, 683, 684.) Lyman Coleman, Presbyterian, who was âeminent in solid abilities, in accurate scholarship, in stores of accumulated learning, and in extended usefulness,â says: He (Jesus) was a constant attendant upon the religious worship of the synagogue, and, after his ascension, his disciples conformed their acts of worship to those of the synagogue. They consisted in prayer, in singing and in the reading and exposition of the Scriptures, as appears from the writers of the New Testament, from the earliest Christian fathers, and from profane writers of the first two centuries. (Ancient Christianity Exemplified, page 94.) The eminent scholar of the Church of England, G. A. Jacob, in his âEcclesiastical Polity of the New Testament,â which is used as a text-book in some of the Episcopal theological seminaries in this country, says: In the temple was the priest consecrated according to a precise regulation, and a sarcedotal succession laid down by God himself, with the altar and its sacrifices at which he officiated, the incense which he burned, the holy places into which none might enter but those to whom it was especially assigned. In the synagogue was the reader of the Scriptures, the preacher or expounder of religious and moral truth, the leader of the common devotions of the people, unconsecrated by any special rites, and unrestricted by any rule of succession; with a reading desk or pulpit at which he stood, but with no altar, sacrifice or incense, and no part of the building more holy than the rest. And without attempting now to dwell upon all the remarkable contrasts thus displayed, it may suffice to say that the temple exhibited in a grand combination of typical places, persons and actions. God dwelling with man, reconciling the world unto himself in the person and work of Christ; and pardoning, justifying and graciously receiving those who come to him through the appointed Saviour; while the synagogue exhibited a congregation of men, already reconciled to God, assembled as devout worshipers for prayer and praise, for instruction in divine knowledge, and edification in righteous living. And the two systemsâthe one gorgeous and typical, the other simple and real; in one, God drawing near to man, in the other, man drawing near to Godânever clashed or interfered with each other; were never intermingled or confounded together. In the temple there was no pulpit, in the synagogue there was no altar.... They (apostles) retained and adapted to Christian use some Jewish forms and regulations; but they were taken altogether not from the temple, but from the synagogue. The offices which they appointed in the church, and the duties and authority which they attached to them, together with the regulations which they made for Christian worship, bore no resemblance in name or in nature to the services of the priesthood in the temple. The apostles had been divinely taught that those priests and services were typical forms and shadows, which were centered, and fulfilled, and done away in Christ; and to reinstate them in the Church would have been in their judgment to go back to the bondage of âweak and beggarly elementsâ from the liberty, strength and rich completeness of the Gospel dispensation. They saw that as the ordinances of the temple represented the work of God wrought out for man, not manâs work for God, to continue them after that work was finished in the life and death of Jesus, would be in effect so far to deny the efficacy of the Saviourâs mission, and to thrust in the miserable performances of men to fill up an imagined imperfection in the Son of God. (Ecclesiastical Polity, pages 96-98.) The apostles, therefore, by the directions of the Holy Spirit adopted official arrangements similar to those of the synagogue, and discarded those of the temple, in the institution of church offices, and plainly showed by this circumstance that no priestly powers or duties were attached to their ministrations. Another argument which leads to the same conclusion is deduced from the condition of the members of the Church as it appears in the New Testament, and the equality of standing in Christ, which Christians possessed. The way of access to God being open to all without distinction through the priesthood of Christ, there was nothing for a priest to doâno sacerdotal work or office for him to undertake. On this phase of the subject, Mr. Jacob has said some very pointed things, and I will call on him to give testimony. He says: A distinct proof that the office bearers in the Church of the Apostles were not, and could not be priests, or perform any sacerdotal duties, is seen in a condensed form in the epistle to the Hebrews, and is found at large in the whole of the Old and the New Testaments, of which that epistle, as far as the subject reaches, is so valuable an epitome. We there learn that from the very nature of the priestly office, it is necessary for those who hold it to be specially called and appointed by God, either personally by name, or according to a divinely instituted order of succession; and that, since the patriarchal dispensation, only two orders of priesthood have ever had this necessary divine sanction granted to them. The two orders are the order of Aaron and the order of Melchisedek. The priests of the former order belonged to the Jewish dispensation only, and have indisputably passed away. The only priest after the order of Melchisedek, even mentioned in the Bible, is our Lord Jesus Christâthe âpriest upon his throne,â without a successor, as he had none before him, in the everlasting priesthood of his mediatorial reign. This argument appears to me to be conclusive. It appears to me that the epistle to the Hebrews shuts out the possibility of there being any other priest in the Church besides Christ himself. But this does not so appear to a large number of our clergy. Bishops as far back as the third century claimed to be successors or vicegerents of Christ on earth; and our presbyters do not hesitate to declare that they are priests after the order of Melchisedek. To my mind and feeling this is an impious claim; but countenanced as they are by numberless past and present examples, good men are not conscious of impiety in making it. But, then it is necessary to ask the âpriestsâ for their credentials. Where is the record of their divine appointment to the sacerdotal office? In what part of the New Testament, and in what form of words, is the institution of such priests, and the manner of their succession, to be found? And to such inquiries no satisfactory answer has been or can be given. (Ibid, pages 102-104.) CHAPTER III. INFANT BAPTISM Another point in which the Church of Christ and the Jewish Covenant are at exact opposites is that of infant membership. In the Apostolic Church baptism preceded membership, and faith was prerequisite to baptism, consequently there was not, neither could be any place for infant membership. On this account we have in the New Testament neither precept for, nor example of, infant baptism, but on the contrary, much that renders it totally incompatible with apostolic teaching. But we are reminded by the advocates of infant baptism that in some sense baptism stands to its subject and the Church as circumcision did under the Abrahamic covenant. They emphasize that as an unquestioned fact, and seem to think there ought to be something in it, somewhere or somehow, in favor of infant baptism. Some claim that circumcision initiated into the Church under the former dispensation, and that baptism is initiative now; and that infants were formerly initiated by circumcision, and should now be initiated by baptism. Others hold that circumcision was a declaration of church membership under the Jewish dispensation; and that baptism is a declaration of membership now: and that as circumcision was extended to infants, so baptism should be extended. They further claim that infants were put in the Church which was established in the family of Abraham; that the Church of the old dispensation is identical with that of the new; that no law has since been enacted to put them out; and that they were then initiated by circumcision and that, as baptism has superseded circumcision, infants should now be initiated by baptism. To some this is a strong and satisfactory argument, but a few plain, simple facts should decide the question whether the Church of the new covenant is identical with that of the old and that baptism takes the place of circumcision: (1) âThe covenant of circumcisionâ (Acts 7:8) was a covenant with Abraham and to him âthat is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy moneyâ (Gen. 17:12, 13); while the new covenant embraces believers in Jesus Christ, without respect to Abrahamâs flesh or money. (See II Cor. 5:16, 17; Gal. 3:26-29; Heb. 8:8-12.) (2) Male children alone were subjects of circumcision. If baptism took the place of circumcision, none but the males should be baptized; but the advocates of infant baptism contend that infants should be baptized regardless of sex, flesh or money. (3) If baptism came in the place of circumcision, persons already circumcised could not be baptized. If the one came in the place of the other, the two could not exist at the same time in the same person. But all the Jews that had been circumcised on believing in Christ were baptized. The children of Jewish Christians were still circumcised. Is it possible that pedobaptists are so blinded in their contention for infant baptism that they can not see this? That there is a point of similarity between circumcision and baptism there is no doubt, for Paul says: âIn whom ye were also circumcised with a circumcision not made with hands, in the putting off the body of the flesh, in the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism, wherein ye were also raised with him through the faith in the working of God, who raised him from the deadâ (Col. 2:11, 12). In circumcision the foreskin of the flesh was cut off by the hands; so in baptism the sins were put off, and this putting off the sins was called âa circumcision not made with hands.â The Mosaic law given to the fleshly family of Abraham typified to some extent the spiritual family of God. Circumcision marked those born of the flesh as members of the kingdom of Israel; baptism marks those begotten of the Spirit as members of Godâs spiritual kingdom. To affix the spiritual mark to the fleshly birth is to do violence to the figure and to introduce those born of the flesh into the spiritual kingdom. Now faith is the first manifestation of the spiritual begetting, and only those begotten of the Spirit and manifesting it in faith can be introduced into the spiritual kingdom, or should have the mark of Godâs spiritual child. To place the mark of the birth of the Spirit upon one born of the flesh is to mislead and deceive that child and make the impression that it is one of Godâs spiritual children when it is not. The Spirit of God always connects the fleshly mark with the fleshly birth into the fleshly kingdom, and the spiritual mark (baptism) with the spiritual birth into the spiritual kingdom. Hence the Holy Spirit says: âGo ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spiritâ (Matt. 28:19). âGo ye into all the world, and preach the Gospel to the whole creation. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that disbelieveth shall be condemnedâ (Mark 16:15, 16). âRepent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sinsâ (Acts 2:38). âAnd now why tarriest thou, arise, and be baptized and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lordâ (Acts 22:16). Only those capable of believing, repenting and of thus showing that they are begotten of the Spirit, are fit subjects for baptism. To bestow the mark of the spiritual birth on those born of the flesh is to break down and carnalize the kingdom of God. The prophet says: Behold, the days come, saith Jehovah, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt: which my covenant they brake, although I was a husband unto them, saith Jehovah. But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith Jehovah: I will put my law in their inward parts, and in their hearts will I write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall teach no more every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, Know Jehovah: for they shall all know me from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith Jehovah: for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sins will I remember no more. (Jer. 31:31-34.) This shows that a new covenant different from that he made at Sinai would be made. That was a fleshly covenant with the house of Israel, into which they were born by a fleshly birth; but in the new covenant the law was to be written on their hearts, and all were to know him, from the least to the greatest. That is, all must know the law of God, accept it in their hearts before they could become members of the Church of God. So Paul asks: âWhat then is the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise hath been madeâ (Gal. 3:19). The seed that was to come was Christ, and this plainly shows that because of the transgression this law was to continue only until Christ should come. Then the new spiritual covenant was to go into force, and the members of it were all to believe in Christ. The following significant contrast is drawn by the Apostle Paul: âYe are our epistle written in our hearts, known and read of all men; being made manifest that ye are an epistle of Christ, ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not on tables of stone, but in tables that are hearts of flesh. And such confidence have we through Christ to Godward: not that we are sufficient of ourselves, to account anything as from ourselves; but our sufficiency is from God, who also made us sufficient as ministers of a new covenant; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life. But if the ministration of death, written and engraven on stones, came with glory, so that the children of Israel could not look steadfastly upon the face of Moses for the glory of his face; which glory was passing away: how shall not rather the ministration of the spirit be with glory? For if the ministration of condemnation hath glory, much rather doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory. For verily that which hath been made glorious hath not been made glorious in this respect, by reason of the glory that surpasseth. For if that which passeth away was with glory, much more that which remaineth is in gloryâ (II Cor. 3:2-11). In this the Ten Commandments, written upon the tables of stone, is contrasted with the law of Christ, written in the hearts of Godâs children. The law written on stones is called âthe letterâ that âkilleth.â It convicted of sin, but had no power to deliver from it. The sins were rolled and rolled year by year until Jesus came and shed blood, not only for our sins but for âthe redemption of the transgressions that were under the first covenant that they that have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.â The letter to the Hebrews was written to show the change from the old covenant to the new, and to show the immense superiority of the new to the old. To turn back from the spiritual law and the Church of Christ to the fleshly law and institution of Judaism is called falling âaway from grace.â âYe are severed from Christ, ye who would be justified by the law; ye are fallen away from graceâ (Gal. 5:4). Since it is so very evident that there is no ground whatever for infant baptism based on the arguments on the analogy of circumcision and the identity of the covenants it is quite appropriate to close this article with quotations from two great pedobaptist scholars. Dr. Jacob Ditzler, claimed to be the best debater the Methodist Church has produced, says: I here express my conviction that the covenants of the Old Testament have nothing to do with infant baptism. (Graves-Ditzler Debate, page 694). Moses Stuart, Congregationalist, Professor of Sacred Literature in Andover Theological Seminary, called âThe Father of Biblical Literature in America,â says: How unwary, too, are many excellent men, in contending for infant baptism on the ground of the Jewish analogy of circumcision! Are females not proper subjects of baptism? And again, are a manâs slaves to be all baptized because he is? Are they church members of course when they are so baptized? Is there no difference between ingrafting into a politico-ecclesiastical community, and into one of which it is said that âit is not of this world?â In short, numberless difficulties present themselves in our way, as soon as we begin to argue in such a manner as this. (Old Testament Canon, Â§ 22, page 369.) In the investigation thus far we have learned that under the old covenant infants were included, so were slaves, taken in war or bought with money. The covenant was with a nation, involving national laws and customs, and promising national and temporal blessings. The duly recognized, as embraced under that covenant, were not thereby entitled to eternal life. As the entire flesh of the nation, for national purposes, was included, the infants of that nation, from the moment of birth, stood in covenant relation with God and the covenant people. There was no ceremonial by which they entered into that relationshipâthey were born into it. They came not in by circumcision, for the male infant, continuing uncircumcised, was not said to be debarred from entering, but was to be âcut offâ from the people which implies previous covenant relationship. But all this is reversed under the new covenant. No one nation is chosen, but the people of the covenant are to be those who respond to a call made to all nations. No family is chosen, but the blessing is offered to each of all the families of earth. No infant is either invited or excluded, except as it comes to faith in, and obedience to, the Son of God. The covenant blessings are not national and eternal, based upon a living and active faith. As a consequence, infants are not, and could not possibly be embraced in the new covenant; and as the Church of Christ, as to its divinely-ordained membership, consists of those who have thus believed in him, infants are not and can not be in the Church of Christ, therefore are not subjects of baptism, for all who are Scripturally baptized enter into the church. We now turn our attention to the remaining methods by which the practice of infant baptism could be proven. They are: (1) Express command of an inspired man; or, (2) by an example from Scripture where an inspired man baptized infants, or where it was done in his presence, by his consent and approval. Inasmuch as it is admitted by renowned pedobaptists that there is neither express command for or example of infant baptism in the New Testament, I will make no attempt to answer the arguments to prove it, but let the most learned of their number speak for themselves. This is legitimate and has the divine sanction, for Jesus said: âOut of thine own mouth will I judge theeâ (Luke 19:22); and Paul, in meeting opposition to his preaching, said: âAs certain even of your own poets have saidâ (Acts 17:28); and again: âOne of themselves, a prophet of their own, saidâ (Titus 1:12). Henry Alford, one of the most variously-learned clergymen that the Church of England has produced, says: The language of the Bible is against them; and, on their own ground, which is a very sore perplexity. There is one escape, and that is a perfectly effectual one; but they are unwilling to avail themselves of its assistance. They might declare, and they ought to declare, that infant baptism was a practice unknown to the apostles; that not only does the New Testament not give one single expression which plainly and necessarily implies that infants were baptized in the apostolical churches, but it can be fairly argued from a passage in chapter 7 of II Corinthians 7 that such a practice could not have existed at Corinth. The recognition that the baptism of adults was the only baptism known to the apostles would clear every difficulty on this point out of the way of the Low Churchmen. It is natural that the sacred writers should assume that men who, at great worldly sacrifice, not free from risk of life, came forward to profess the Christian faith by a solemn initiatory rite, possessed the frame of mind which that fact impliedâthat they were honestly changed and renewed beings. And then it would be easy to pass on the conclusion that the baptismal service of the Church of England has been constructed on the language of the Bible, and that the embarrassment has proceeded not from a mistaken view of baptism, but from the application of the words used by Scripture of an adult person to an unconscious and, so to say, mindless infant. (Contemporary Review, Vol. 10, page 329.) Joseph Ager Beet, one of the finest scholars that the English Wesleyan Methodist Church has produced, Professor of Systematic Theology in the Wesleyan Theological College, Richmond, England, says: It must be at once admitted that the New Testament contains no clear proof that infants were baptized in the days of the apostles. (Christian Baptism, page 28.) Albert Taylor Bledsoe, of whom it has been truthfully said, âHe was one of the most candid and trustworthy writers that the Methodist Church has produced,â says: It is an article of our faith, that âthe baptism of young children (infants) is in any wise to be retained in the church, as one most agreeable to the institution of Christ.â But yet, with all our searching, we have been unable to find, in the New Testament, a single express declaration, or word, in favor of infant baptism. We justify this rite, therefore, solely on the ground of logical inference, and not on any express word of Christ or his apostles. This may, perhaps, be deemed, by some of our readers, a strange position for a pedobaptist. It is by no means, however, a singular opinion. Hundreds of learned pedobaptists have come to the same conclusion; especially since the New Testament has been subjected to a closer, more conscientious, and more candid exegesis than was formerly practiced by controversalists. (Southern Review, Vol. 14, page 334.) John Calvin, the founder of the Presbyterian Church, says: As Christ enjoins them to teach before baptizing, and desires that none but believers shall be admitted to baptism, it would appear that baptism is not properly administered unless when preceded by faith. (Harmony of the Evangelists, Vol. 3, page 38.) Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer, German Lutheran, the âprince of New Testament exegetes,â says: The baptism of the children of Christians, of which no trace is found in the New Testament, is not to be held as an apostolic ordinance; but it is an institution of the church, which gradually arose in post-apostolic times in connection with the development of ecclesiastical life and of doctrinal teaching, not certainly attested before Tertullian, and by him still decidedly opposed, and although already defended by Cyprian, only becoming general after the time of Augustine in virtue of that connection. (Commentary on Acts 16:15, page 312.) August Wilhelm Neander, Lutheran, who is unanimously conceded to be by far the greatest of all ecclesiastical historians, and is surnamed âthe father of modern church history,â says: Baptism was administered at first only to adults, as men were accustomed to conceive baptism and faith as strictly connected. We have all reason for not deriving infant baptism from apostolic institution somewhat later, as an apostolical tradition serves to confirm this hypothesis. (Church History, Vol. 1, page 424.) Moses Stuart, a Congregationalist, called âthe father of Biblical literature in Americaâ, says: On the subject of infant baptism I have said nothing. The present occasion did not call for it; and I have no wish or intention to enter into the controversy respecting it. I have only to say that I believe in both the propriety and expediency of the rite thus administered; and therefore accede to it ex animo. Commands, or plain and certain examples, in the New Testament relative to it, I do not find. Nor, with my views of it, do I need them. (Mode of Christian Baptism, pages 189, 190.) But I have given enough; it is a thing made out that infant baptism was not an apostolic practice. So, indeed, have all the scholars who have thoroughly investigated this subject conceded. I know of no subject which seems to be more clearly made out, and I can not see
{'title': 'The Church, the Falling Away, and the Restoration by J. W. Shepherd', 'source': 'Project Gutenberg', 'lang': 'en'}