Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

was the covenant of grace, confirmed before the covenant of works ; then adds, "the law," the Mosaic covenant of works" which was" or dained four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect," the gospel promise to Abraham, that in him all the families of the earth should be blessed. A promise and covenant receiving circumcision, for a time its seal, a promise extending to all the families of the earth, a promise manifested and made to Adam, the Patriarchs, Moses and the prophets, confirmed by Christ, illustrated, explained and enforced by his apostles, who tell us that baptism makes us heirs to the same gracious promise; for as many of you, says the apostle, as have been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ; there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond, nor free: i. e. the middle wall is broken down and the church is opened to all who will come, male and female; there being no distinction under the gospel, which concludes all under sin, and all equally want the washing of regeneration and the renewing of the Holy Ghost, by which all are made one in Christ Jesus; and if Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise. Hence circumcision was not a Mosaic institution, and much less an initiating seal into the covenant of works; for I appeal to all candid people, what promise, and they will answer the promise God made to Abraham. What was the seal? faith and circumcision. What is the seal? faith and baptism. Who were the subjects? Jews and all proselytes, with their familes and little ones. Again: Who are subjects? all nations and kindreds of the earth, of every age, sex and color, who embrace the gospel; Acts ii. 39-for the promise is to you and your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call. Can any thing be more plain and rational than this? Here we see God, who is unchangeable, acting by means always adapted to the nature of his creatures, (who are always the same by nature, and want the same by grace,) according to the different dispensations of his Providence.

But however evident the validity of infant baptism may be; however supported by scripture and reason, sanctioned by the Son of God, there are many popular objections-as, 1st. It is said that faith is a prerequisite for baptism which infants have not, therefore ought not to be baptized; for says Christ, he that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved. Very unhappily for our opponents, if this text proves any thing respecting infants, it proves an effectual bar against their entering into Christ's triumphant church, and sentences every infant dying before adult age, to damnation; for if want of personal faith debars an infant from the militant church, surely it must from the triumphant church: Thus adds our blessed Savior, he that believeth not shall be damned. It is always accounted unfair to produce a detached sentence of scripture to prove a favorite opinion, and especially if the whole passage proves the contrary (as in the above instance.) But if this loose random way of proving things from scripture will do, I will undertake to prove that infants ought to be starved to death; for thus says an apostle-he that will not work, shall not eat. Surely an infant is as incapable of earning its bread by the sweat of its brow, as to

S s

save its soul by the exercise of faith; therefore upon the reasoning of these people, it must be starved in this world, because it cannot work, and damned in the next because it cannot believe.

But neither of these texts are applicable to infants, but to those of - an adult age, who are capable of using means for the support of their bodies and souls; and as man is obliged to provide for those of his own household the necessary comforts of this life until they are of age to provide for themselves; so is he to believe for them, to pray for them, to offer them up to God in the way of his appointments; to promise for them till they are of age to take them upon themselves, and to instruct, and to bring them up in the nurture, fear, and admonition of the Lord. To say that a parent cannot promise for his child, is as inconsistent as to say he cannot clothe nor feed it. But that Christ will accept the child through the believing parent, is another evident fact from the following instances-Matth. viii. 13. And Jesus said unto the centurion, go thy way, and as thou hast believed, so be it done unto thee-and his servant was healed in the self-same -hour. The paralytic man being healed on the faith of his father, and the little daughter restored by the faith of her mother, are striking instances of the efficacy of the faith and prayers of parents for their children; instances, which if sufficiently and seriously considered, would cure the prejudices of people against sponsors in baptism; influencing them to resolve with Joshua, to serve God in sincerity and truth. But this I will omit for the present, and proceed to another objection.

2nd. Infant Baptism is denied because our Savior in his commission, says, go teach all nations, &c. therefore infants being not able to I receive instruction, must not be baptized.-I answer, 1st. Let it be considered that the disciples of Christ were commissioned to propagate christianity among all nations of the earth, by instructing them in the nature and design of this religion; and upon their receiving it as a divine revelation by Jesus Christ the Son of God, to baptize them in the name of the Father, &c. teaching them to observe all things, whatsoever Christ had commanded them. The word teach should in this place, imply no more than proclaiming the doctrines of the gospel, and disciplining (as the original stands) all those who receive it; afterwards teaching and explaining the laws and rules of christianity, as they were able to comprehend them; applicable to all christian nations and families, who offer their children in baptism; and as they grow in years, to teach them what a solemn vow, promise and profession they have made. Hence infants should no more be debarred from baptism, because they cannot be taught, than they should perish because they cannot feed and clothe themselves; for teaching, which implies instruction, is put after baptizing.

[graphic]

[To be continued.]

Calvinism Confuted.

A pamphlet has lately appcared in New-York, containing two Letters addressed to the EDITOR of the CHRISTIAN'S MAGAZINE, who, it seems, in that publication has attempted to enlist CALVINISM into his service, in the controversy concerning EPISCOPACY. Hence the Author of the pamphlet has stepped aside of his main point, for a few pages, in order to combat this auxiliary of Presbyterianism. With what good success the reader may judge from the following extract. [EDITOR.

I WAS in hopes, before I saw the Christian's Magazine, that Episcopacy would have been the only subject of dispute between us; but I find that you mean to discuss also the doctrine of election and the divine decrees. This, to be sure, has no particular bearing upon Episcopalians more than upon some other denominations, and, therefore, I might very well pass it over; but as it appears to me a very unreasonable and very unscriptural doctrine, it may not be amiss to say a few words upon it.

This subject you have introduced with a dilemma from the famous Calvinistic divine, Dr. Owen. The dilemma runs thus: "God imposeth his wrath due unto, and Christ underwent the pains of hell for, either all the sins of all men, or all the sins of some men; or some sins of all men." The latter branch of the disjunctive proposition, that Christ underwent the pains of hell for some sins of all men, is nothing to the purpose; for neither you nor I believe it. The dilemma then stands thus: "God imposeth his wrath due unto, and Christ underwent the pains of ell for, either all the sins of all men, or all the sins of some men." "The second," says the Doctor, "is that which we affirm, that Christ in their stead and room, suffered for all the sins of all the elect in the world. If the first, why then are not all freed from the punishment of all their sins?" To this question Christ himself gives a decisive answer-" Ye will not come unto me that ye may have life." Life then was procured for them." O Jerusalem, Jerusalem! How often would have gathered you together as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings; but ye would not." Christ would, but they would not. Again; "They which were called were not worthy"-were shut out from the marriage of the Lamb. Why so? Because, "they would not come."` Thus it appears from Christ's own words, that he died for the sins of all men, and then the assertion that "Christ died for the sins of the elect only," is false.

You certainly know, Sir, that no conclusion of a syllogism can be deemed valid, when either of the premises wants proof. The Doctor gives no proof from scripture, that Christ's dying for all men involves the actual salvation of all men. His minor proposition therefore (were the dilemma reduced to a regular syllogism), is questionable. Consequently, his conclusion is illegitimate. But the Doctor is not satisfied with Christ's declaration; ye will not come unto me that ye may have life, which is the same as saying, ye will not believe in me. On this declaration is raised another dilemma. This unbelief, is it a sin, or not?" Undoubtedly it is a sin. “If

it be, then Christ underwent the punishment due to it, or not?" He certainly underwent the punishment due to it. "If so, then why, must that hinder them more than their other sins for which he died, from partaking of the fruit of his death?" Justice demands, that those who will not accept Christ's atonement-who will not be indebted to him for life and salvation, should be excluded from the kingdom of heaven. As life eternal is attached to faith, bacause it is the principle of holiness so death eternal is the punishment of unbelief, because it is productive of wickedness. But for this unbelief Christ died. I would, said he, to the unbelieving Jews, but ye would not. Yet in the face of this declaration, Dr. Owen assumes the position, that Christ did not intend the salvation of all men. When men reason, they should remember, that there are certain indispensable rules attending it; and that one of these rules is, never to assume. And thusends the dilemma of that famous divine, whose "grasp was death."

It is really surprising that you, Sir, a man of sense and learning, should propose to your readers a dilemma that, in truth, has not a horn upon which a mere smatterer in logic could be hooked. How humiliating to human nature, that learned and unlearned, wise and simple, should be so much upon a level, when prejudice or passion sways them! "That was excellently observed, say I, when I read a passage in an author where his opinion agrees with mine. When we differ, there I pronounce him mistaken." This is, undoubtedly,

the philosophy of the matter.

Will you, Sir, have the goodness to bear with me, while I offer to you a few texts of scripture to comment upon, in some future numbers of your magazine. I shall arrange them according to similarity of expression.

My first assortment is as follows: "God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved."-John iii. 17. "Behold the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world."-John i. 29. "And he is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world."-1 John ii. 2. "And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the world."-John iv. 14. "For I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.”— John xii. 48. "For God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself," &c.-2 Cor. v. 19. And many others of this sort.

«Not

The second assortment of scriptures runs thus: "Who gave himself a ransom for all."-1 Tim. ii. 6. "Because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead: And that he died for all, that they who live," &c.-2 Cor. v. 14, 15. "That he by the grace of God should taste death for every man."-Heb. ii. 9. Who will have all men to be saved," &c.-1 Tim. ii. 4. willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance."--2 Pet. iii. 9. "Therefore, as by the offence of one, the judgment came upon ali men to condemnation, even so by the righteousness of one, the free gift came upon all men to justification of life."--Rom. v. 18. With many others.

My third collection of texts is the following: "Destroy not him with thy meat for whom Christ died."-Rom. xiv. 15. And Swift's Thoughts on various Subjects.

through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish for whom Christ died."—1 Cor. viii. 11. "Even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction."-2 Pet. ii. 1. "Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the spirit of grace?"-Heb. x. 29. "Then his lord, after he had called him, said unto him, O thou wicked servant! I forgave thee all that debt, because thou desiredst me: Shouldest not thou also have had compassion on thy fellow servant? And his lord was wroth, and delivered him to the tormentors, till he should pay all that was due to him. So likewise shall my hea venly Father do unto you, if ye from your heart forgive not every one his brother their trespasses."-Matt. xviii. 32, 33, &c.

In return for Dr. Owen's dilemma, I present to you, Sir, the following demonstration, with which, and a short view of Calvinism, I shall close this long letter.

If Christ died not for all men, then are not all men bound to believe in him for salvation. But all men are bound to believe in him for salvation. Therefore Christ died for all men...

The major proposition is so obvious to common sense, that I cannot suppose any man will hesitate to acknowledge the truth of it. The minor proposition-all men are bound to believe in him for salvation, is evident from the holy scriptures, which are as clear upon this point as the mid-day sun in an unclouded sky. "And the times of this ignorance God winked at: But now he commandeth all men ev ery where to repent."-Acts xvii. 30. If to repent, then certainly to believe in Christ. "And this is his commandment, that we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ."-1 John iii. 23. [A hard commandment to the reprobates, who, were they to believe in him, would believe a lie, as upon the Calvinistic principle, he did not die for them. Horrible!] Again: As God commands all men to believe in Christ, so he threatens with damnation all those who do not believe in him. "He that believeth not shall be damned."— Mark xvi. 16. "He that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him."-John iii. 36; and several other texts of the same import.

Further: As God commands all men to believe in Christ-threatens all with death who do not believe-promiseth life and salvation to all who shall believe; so he suggests reasons and motives to encourage men to believe in Christ, or on himself through Christ, for salvation. Sometimes he mentions his great love to them, as in John ii. 16. Titus iii. 4, &c. Sometimes his mercy and compassion. Exod. xxx. 6. Luke i. 72, &c. Sometimes the delight and pleasure he takes in showing mercy. Micah vii. 18. Ezek. xxxiii. 11. Sometimes he gives them an oath for their greater security in his promises. Heb. vi. 17, 18. Luke i. 72, 73. Sometimes he expresses his desire of their salvation. 1 Tim. ii. 4. Ezek. xxxiii. 11. Sometimes his grief at their wicked courses. Ezek. xviii. 31. Jer. xliv. 4. Sometimes he declares the abundant provision he hath made for their salvation. Matt. xxii. 4. Heb. ix. 14. And some. times he even condescends to the consideration, that glory will result

« ZurückWeiter »