The importance of the question, “Do the unimmersed commune?” is practical, not speculative. “Theta” says its value is to be found the practical influence the decision of the question is to have over the conduct of our churches toward other professors of religion. We think that there is another value attached to the question far more primary or elementary than this, to-wit: the practical influence which its decision is to have over the conduct of our churches toward the word of the living God.
The first and most important question is, What do the New Testament Scriptures teach, as to what sort or character of persons have a right to the Lord’s Supper or to keep the institutions of the gospel? The decision of this is prior, in order of time, to the one raised by “Theta” respecting the conduct of our churches toward other professors of religion.
In an attempt to return to the primitive or apostolic gospel, any issue which affects the perfectness of that return is of the same importance as truth itself. The guiding thought of those who aim at apostolic faith and practice must be the plain simple teaching of God’s word. If this guide is not followed, then, we are left to be directed solely by human opinion, or by a mixture of human opinion and divine truth, in the matter of religion. The first named principle is the most elementary conception of the present Reformation. The second distinguishes mere philosophy, and the third is the fundamental fact in the various religious sects of Christendom. If the Scriptures are really made the guide and authoritative rule in all matters of religious faith and practice, then the church may be permanent and consistent—its foundation being the authority of prophets and apostles, that of Christ being supreme over all. But if any other principle be assumed, the result will make the church changeable, and her history will be full of inconsistencies.
“Theta” admits three postulates as Scriptural facts: 1. That no man can enter the church or kingdom on earth without being born of water and Spirit. 2. That the Lord’s Supper is an institution belonging entirely to members of the church. 3. That the New Testament Scriptures do not contemplate any, except those who have been immersed, as communicants at the Lord’s table. “Theta” then remarks, “That these are Bible truths is wholly unassailable, the command being to preach them fully and to bring all the honest-hearted to their full appreciation and [283] acceptance.” In all candor, does not this settle forever the question in hand? We think it does; and we believe that “Theta” himself, were he not blinded by a misplaced affection for pious men who have been led astray, would see it in all its amplitude.
But in the face of those three “grand postulates” he says: “It may still be a legitimate inquiry, whether God ever makes allowances for the unfortunate circumstances of some good men so as to admit them into his church with anything less than a perfect understanding and a perfect obedience to the established conditions of salvation.” On this we remark: 1. That the inquiry is not legitimate, or it does not follow in regular sequence, if the object of it is to find a way of admission into the church upon any other than the established conditions named; since this would be but a bold and defiant rejection of revealed divine authority. This will be admitted. But 2. If “Theta” only means that it is a “legitimate inquiry” whether God in the Christian Scriptures makes allowance for some good men so as to admit them into the church on another plan, or on different conditions from those which he calls “established,” we enter no objection to it, simply as a question of fact. In this view of “Theta’s” meaning the inquiry is, simply, whether the word of God contains, as a fact, two plans of admission into the church—one for those who understand the first named or “established” conditions, and another for “some good men” who innocently, in human judgment, fail to comply with them. That the word of God contains two sets of terms of entering into the kingdom no well-informed man will assert. And though we do not think “Theta” intended to affirm so absurd a proposition, in our judgment he has done it by necessary implication, since his conclusion is that “some good” men who have not complied with immersion, which is one of the “established conditions,” do really enter the kingdom. 3. But why institute the inquiry for “some good men?” Why not for all good men in unfortunate circumstances? The unfortunate circumstances of “some,” are no more to be pitied than the unfortunate circumstances of all—who are really good. If the Scriptures teach a plan of admission into the church for some good men with less than a compliance with all of the established conditions, on account of the unfortunate circumstances which surrounded them—that is “some” good men—then it follows, on a principle of justice and impartiality, that all good men are, or ought to be, admitted into the church, and for precisely the same reason. If there be one truth more clearly revealed than another, it is this: God is a just Being. An overwhelming proof of his justice lies in two facts: 1. He has planted the principle of the Just in the human mind. 2. In his word he had commanded men to do justly by one [284] another. But where would be the justice of admitting one good man into the kingdom without a perfect compliance with the “established conditions,” on account of the unfortunate circumstances that surrounded him, and of rejecting another good man, who, with less than a perfect compliance with the established conditions, had the same unfortunate circumstances to commend him to the same principle of mercy?
“Theta,” however, may says that his language does not exclude some good men, while it admits others, on account of unfortunate circumstances, into the church, with less than a perfect understanding and obedience to the established conditions. We do not assert that his language does this. But he has left the point in an ambiguous light; and this very fact helps to cover up the unsoundness of his argument. Let it be assumed that all good men gain admittance into the church on account of the unfortunate circumstances that prevented them from understanding and obeying the established conditions of Scripturally entering into the church, and then we can see the argument as it is. This is, in point of fact, the ground of “Theta’s” reasoning.
The phrase “good men” cannot, so far as this question is concerned, be confined to the “unimmersed” alone. Certainly there are many “good men” among the Quakers who have not been baptized in or with water according to any “mode” whatever. Will anyone dispute that there have been many Quakers who would have been joyfully immersed, if they had only known that it is certainly the will of God? To answer no is to affirm that there never has been a good man among that sect. “Theta’s” intellect is too sharp and heart too tender to assume this position. His argument, then, gives them admittance into the church without baptism at all. The second plan, therefore, of entering the kingdom is, minus baptism of any sort. One of the “established conditions” is in this case not relaxed, but abrogated entirely; yet admission into the church is gained as perfectly as if it were complied with. Now just as much can in truth be said for Papists; there are a many good men among them, both of laity and clergy, and these are to be considered as genuine members of the church. Their mistake was sprinkling or pouring, in place of immersion; nevertheless they are in the kingdom by the side of the unsprinkled, unpoured,1 and unimmersed Quaker. In a word, all “good men” are members of the church of God on account of God’s allowance for their unfortunate circumstances. This is the true form of “Theta’s” argument.
Now, are there no “good men” who are not formally members of any church? We have seen many of them whose loving spirit and excellent lives ought to put many professed Christians to
1 No Pedobaptist critic will chastise me for using unsprinkled and unpoured, as it is his own form of words, I merely prefix a negative particle. [285]
shame. They are honestly of opinion that God does not absolutely require them to become members of any church; but they believe he is acceptably worshiped and served by living morally. They live honorable and virtuous lives, and die serenely in hope of a better world. Their unfortunate circumstances completely blind them. Now these also are to be regarded as in the kingdom. There are thousands of them attempting their salvation by the works of the moral law instead of by faith in Christ; and their mental blunder is to be traced to “circumstances” as much as the blunder of Quakers and Pedobaptists. Then what is to be thought of that dense mass of human beings whom we denominate heathens—millions, and millions more, who do not possess the Bible at all? Are none of these “good,” when judged by a standard that is just and benevolent to their “unfortunate circumstances?” Do not their hearts inquire for God whom they love in the “unfortunate circumstances” of their birth and education? Would not thousands of them love God if they knew him? Would not countless numbers of them joyfully believe in the Lord Jesus, if they only knew him? Would they not be pure and lovely in Christian graces of character—if they only “had a chance?” Many of them are men of sublime virtues. Cicero was a good man—Socrates was good—and M. Cousin says that he would have delighted to embrace Christianity. “Theta’s” argument, when applied to Cicero and Socrates and thousands of living heathen, will place them in the church, along with those who enter by obedience to all the established conditions. For the principle which allows for the unfortunate circumstances of those who mistake sprinkling and pouring for immersion, must allow also for the unfortunate circumstances in which every other honest blunder is committed. Now, then, only think of what a membership we have got in the church. Not only the unimmersed, but the unbaptized—that is, the unsprinkled and unpoured—the nonprofessor, and many who never so much as heard that there is a gospel of salvation by Christ. In a word, all good men are in the kingdom, and are entitled to the Lord’s Supper. Do not all the good on earth commune in fact, in intention, though they never literally come to the table? We feel assured that “Theta” will demur to this conclusion. For it is an elaboration of his argument which shows its absurdity; and we are only surprised that he did not see it before he concluded his defense of “some” good men.
The fallacy of “Theta” is this, that no one can be saved in heaven who is not a member of the church on earth. There is no [286] authority for such a position. Now because some good men—as Luther—was not in the church on earth according to the established conditions of entering the kingdom, “Theta” assumes that God admits him into the church on earth by abolishing, in his case, some condition of membership, in order to save him in heaven. Hence all men like Luther are true members, and are to be accepted as proper communicants at the Supper. This is a marvelous blunder. If Luther was worth saving—a question which we do not dispute—then our Father forgave him his errors, that is all. And so our kind Father may forgive the errors of some men of the world and of many heathens, and save them; but that fact no more puts men of the world, as real members, into the church on earth than it translates them to the moon. If our divine Father save any man in heaven who on earth was not born of water and Spirit, it is an independent act of sovereignty; and if he save any man who complied with only one or two of the terms of entering the kingdom, and made a blunder in respect to the third and final one, it is a sovereign act of mercy of the Great Judge which in nowise affects the terms of the apostolic commission. That God will make every allowance for every man that justice and mercy demand we do most joyfully believe; but this no more affects the “established conditions” of entering the kingdom—no more brings a character to the Lord’s table not contemplated in the Scriptures, than it affects the present state of the physical sciences. The church is constituted by divine authority. The terms of admission are matters of divine revelation and authority, over which no logic and no charity have any control. Our logic and kind affections cannot put a man in the church any more than they can give a man admittance into the everlasting city of peace.
“Theta” assumes that Luther is in heaven. Now we certainly have not prejudice against the great Reformer, and surely no hatred; yet truth and candor compel us to say that we do not know whether Luther is in heaven or not. If “Theta” has had any certain information on this point we should surrender to it; still we would like first to examine the credentials of the message. But if he has no certain revelation as to where Luther is, then is only his opinion that Luther is in heaven; or, in other words, like ourself, he knows nothing whatever on the subject. What, then, is his argument built on this unknown fact worth? Not one cent.
Besides, we have settled divinely revealed terms of admission into the church, and, by consequence, the terms of communing in the Lord’s Supper. Now we should like to know what Luther in heaven or in hell has to do with changing or modifying those [287] conditions so as to admit a man into the church who does not comply with them? and also what it has to do with accepting a class of persons as communicants at the Lord’s table whom the Scriptures never contemplated as privileged to partake of that feast? Are admission into the church and communion in the Supper to be defined by the salvation of Luther? Surely not.
“Theta” assumes the salvation of a man of a certain character, and erects upon the assumption a theory which accepts at the Lord’s table persons who have not been immersed. Well now, suppose some other brother should assume the salvation of William Penn, which is just as probable as the salvation of Luther, and elaborate a theory which, when finished, should invite and accept at the Supper all “good men” of Penn’s sect as members of the church. “Theta’s” theory relaxes the term of immersion so as to give validity to the sprinkling as its substitute. The other abolishes baptism altogether as a condition of church membership and communion. Another man, selecting a man of a different religious creed—say the Catholic Bishop, Fenelon—who, by the by, was a “good man” of a lofty type—and assuming his whereabouts in the spiritual universe, and reasoning on the same principles of “Theta,” will transfer all good men among the Papists into the church, and render them acceptable communicants in the Supper. Having first by the theory having got rid of immersion as an essential condition of admission into the church, the second theory abolishes baptism altogether as a term of membership; while the third theory practically destroys every distinction between Popery and, not Protestantism only, but Christianity itself! Surely this charity is broad enough to satisfy the most liberal mind. Indeed there is, in our candid opinion, no class of honest persons whom it will not transfer into the church and to the table of the Lord. It results in this simply: If a person is candid, honest, and pure in heart, and does the best he can, he will be considered by God as in the church, may commune in the Supper, if he choose, and will be saved in heaven, no matter whether he strictly obey the terms of the great divine commission or not.
This whole theory rests upon a mere speculation—an assumption which the united intellect of the world cannot prove, to wit: that Martin Luther is in heaven. And even if it were proved, “Theta’s” argument is still unsound, for the salvation of Luther cannot, in anywise abolish, change, or modify, one item of the gospel of Christ.
“Theta” admits that the terms of entering the church are fixed. But he argues that God will relax them, on account of the unfortunate circumstances of some or all good men. If God excused [288] Luther at the gate of heaven for not obeying some of the fixed laws of entering there, “Theta” demands, why should he not be excused at the door of the church for not having obeyed some of the conditions for entering the kingdom? And furthermore, he asks, who could invalidate his process of reasoning if he argue that Luther was thus excused at the door of the church? We invalidate it: 1. By stating the fact that “Theta” knows not that Luther was excused at the gate of heaven. 2. By the fact that God has nowhere told us in his word that he will excuse any one at the door of the church—if indeed there be such a place—for not complying with his Son’s authority, and take him in anyhow.
But what if we admit the thing which no one knows, that Luther was excused or forgiven at the gate of heaven for his errors? Must the structure of the church, its terms of admission to the privileges of God’s family on earth be remodeled, changed, and modified by that fact, so that an organized blunder on earth may be perpetuated through centuries as of equal authority with the truth of the Lord Jesus Christ? The mistake as to the action of baptism which Luther made is no mere intellectual blunder of a single man. To say nothing of the origin of sprinkling for baptism, it had been canonized and become part of the Romish church long before the days of the great Saxon. He merely transferred this rite from Popery into Protestantism. Thence it has spread and become an item of religious practice in several of the most powerful Protestant sects. It is propagated as truth—as divine truth—over more than half of the geographical limits of Christendom, and, to all human foresight, it may continue to be propagated for ages to come. Now “Theta,” as well as brother Isaac Errett and Prof. Pendleton, will affirm that the sprinkling of water on a person for baptism was never commanded by the Saviour or his apostles, and that it stands upon no divine warrant or authority, but upon human authority alone. The question then is, does this human invention transfer men into the kingdom, and give them a right to partake of the Lord’s Supper? If so, then immersion can do no more; and so sprinkling and immersion are equal in their practical value. But “Theta” will say that he only affirms that unimmersed good men are in the kingdom. Well, it is true that it is only immersed good men that really enter the kingdom, except in a most formal sense. Twist and torture the matter as you may, on “Theta’s” argument, sprinkling or no baptism is of the same practical value as immersion—since a good man may enter the kingdom without being immersed, and the immersed can do no more than enter it.
But let us not wander from the point. Is the structure or the terms of admission into the church to be changed because of the [289] divine judgment on Luther at the gate of heaven? If so, then it is only to be done for one reason—a conflict of divine authority; that is to say, the law of discipleship must stand in conflict with the law of final judgment, so that one or the other must give way. When human statutes conflict, the more recent one prevails, and the older is considered abolished. The law of entering the kingdom must stand until repealed by him who enacted it. The consequence of “Theta’s” argument seems to us to repeal this law, because the principles of the divine judgment admitting Luther into heaven are in conflict with the strict application of the terms of the commission; and if Luther can be saved when he had not been immersed, why not untold millions more under similar “unfortunate circumstances;” and if so, then immersion as a term of entering the church is practically set aside, or, in the language of “Theta,” relaxed. But from this reasoning another and very different conclusion can be reached. Not only is immersion as a divinely ordained term of admission to the church relaxed, but sprinkling or pouring receives the divine sanction at the gate of heaven! Truly here is a conflict of authority; and the very thing which was born on earth of nothing but human authority—i.e. sprinkling and pouring—is made to take precedence of immersion, and is acknowledged at heaven’s gate to be as valuable to good men under unfortunate circumstances as immersion is to a good man under any circumstance, since it transfers a man from the world to the church!
The idea that Christians on earth are justifiable in taking up the supposed principles of the final judgment of God on any man or any class of men, and apply them to the terms of admission into the church for the purpose of relaxing those terms or enlarging them, or of affecting them in any way whatever, is daring and shocking in the extreme. What judgment soever may have been passed on Luther, or Penn, or Swedenborg, or Fenelon, in no way justifies any one on earth in relaxing the terms ordained by Christ and set forth in the New Testament for the admission of men into the church. And it in no way justifies the church to accept as communicants persons whom the scriptures never did contemplate as participating in the Lord’s Supper. As men were not consulted in ordaining the terms of entering the kingdom, so no man living has any power over them, or any power to relax them or to make them more rigorous. To us they are of supreme authority. We may relax or make them more rigorous; but is the Lord Jesus bound by our wisdom and power? We may invite persons to observe the Supper whom Christ and the apostles do not invite. What, then, are we wiser and better than they? Will it work better than the simple teaching of the apostles? Immersed [290] believers are members of the church, and are the very persons whom the Scriptures contemplate as communing in the Supper. There is no issue on these two points. But whether unimmersed believers are members of the church, and may of right commune, are points which the Scriptures know nothing of whatever. Scripturally, such persons are not in the kingdom and have no right to commune. As to how God feels towards them, whether he will accept their will for the deed, and treat them as though they had been Scripturally translated into the church, are speculative questions which never can be solved on earth. They are matters for speculative solution, and every one may form his own opinion about them. But those opinions, whatever they may be, must not be permitted to relax or make more rigorous the law of entering the church, or operate upon the church so as to bring around the table of the Lord persons who are Scripturally excluded from it. This is all we mean, therefore, by affirming that no supposed principles of divine judgment at the last day can be made legitimately operative in changing the terms of entering the church or of approaching the Lord’s Supper. An attempt of this sort is an apostasy from the truth as it is Christ; and whenever the attempt is made, the identity of the true church will be necessarily lost. We see the effect of this and similar principles in the history of those painful and fatal divisions of the church in whose development and progress Christianity has almost disappeared.
This brings us to consider another fact of great weight in the question before us. In admitting the unimmersed as real members of the church to the communion of the Supper, there are many other errors to be practically indorsed beside the mere fact of non-immersion. There is infant baptism, whether by dipping or sprinkling; and, in a word, all the dogmas and unauthorized practices of Pedobaptists generally, as canonized in their several human creeds and established customs. Now, if pedobaptists are entitled, notwithstanding all these facts, as parts and parcels of their faith and practice, facts of which the Scriptures know no more than they do of unimmersed persons communing, or of baby baptism, or the supremacy of the Pope—if, notwithstanding all this, they are still entitled to sit down with our churches in the observance of the Supper, then, in the name of reason, why keep up the distinction of separate churches? Let us end all controversy by conceding that Protestantism is Christianity, and unite with all good men on the safe principle which gives the Lord’s Supper to them; and relax the commandments of Christ and the apostles so much as will enable us to unite the present sectarian [291] world, in harmony with all the antagonisms of doctrines and practices existing within it.
“Theta” may reply that he does not mean to infract a single one of the three “grand postulates.” We question not his meaning or his motive in this respect. It is his argument and its consequences with which we are dealing. If neither no immersion; nor positive and most elementary errors of faith and practice can prevent good men in unfortunate circumstances from entering the church on earth and coming to the Lord’s table, then we conclude that those errors, under such circumstances, are of the same practical value as the truth, since by the use of them entrance into the church and enjoyment of all its privileges are gained—and by the proper use of the truth no more can be gained by good men under any circumstances. When our churches, therefore, shall adopt “Theta’s” principle and bring the unimmersed to the Supper, there is a practical infraction not only of one of the “three grand postulates,” but a practical indorsement of all the errors of doctrine and practice characteristic of those unimmersed persons whom they admit to the Supper; that is, it is an admission that those errors are no bar to a real entrance into the church, which, it seems to us, is a sort of indorsement of their entire innocence to “good men” and to the real cause of the Master. For “what concord hath light with darkness?” If, then, Pedobaptists may commune with our churches, the antagonisms between us become mere intellectual conflicts, destitute of all moral principle. Therefore it is that “Theta’s” argument, in its real consequences, breaks down the distinction between elementary truth and error in religion, and makes the condition of entering the church to be “goodness” of heart disjoined from obedience to the divinely established conditions of entering it, and turns us away from the word of God and its authority on this subject to human reasoning, according to whose principles some men, at least, are to be received as church communicants in contravention to the teaching of the Scripture.
But granting “Theta’s” reasoning, how are our churches to determine who are the “good” among the unimmersed whose unfortunate circumstances create so much compassion in God that he admits them into the church on earth, and whom our churches ought to admit to the table of the Lord? Plainly and certainly, we can have no guide in the matter except the religious standing of the unimmersed in their own churches. Practically and for the practical purpose of admitting the unimmersed to the Supper, we must admit that generally, or in the main, they are all members of the church, and that all who stand well in their respective congregations are entitled to the communion. Here, then, the [292] real consequences of this specious theory is developed. Pedobaptists’ churches are the church of Christ in every sense that can interest a sound mind. The reader can now see who it is that is charging on his favorite Rosinante, not for the defense of the iii and 5th of John, but for its entire overthrow, as well as the authority and practical force of the commission which Christ gave to his apostles. If the unimmersed in the aggregate are to be recognized as the church of Christ and as entitled to church privileges, we again demand, where is the propriety of keeping up the controversy as to the action of baptism, or where is the propriety of controverting on any point, since, notwithstanding all the issues between us and them, they are just as well off as ourselves?
We now come to consider “Theta’s” appeal to the word of God. Here is the true test; for if his theory be not supported by the divine word it has no authority. We are glad to bring this question to the standard which must close every mouth, and furnish our churches a safe principle of practice as it respects other professors of religion.
1. “Theta” thinks he finds in Joshua v: 2-5 a principle that sanctions the recognition of unimmersed persons as members of the church, and consequently as proper persons to observe the Lord’s Supper. The case is as follows: “At that time the Lord said unto Joshua, Make the sharp knives, and circumcise again the children of Israel a second time. And Joshua made him sharp knives, and circumcised the children of Israel at the hill of the foreskins. And this is the cause why Joshua did circumcise: All the people that came out of Egypt that were males, even all the men of war, died in the wilderness by the way, after they came out of Egypt. Now all the people that came out were circumcised: but all the people that were born in the wilderness by the was as they came forth out of Egypt, them they had not circumcised.”
Before proceeding to remark on this passage we will give the reader Thompson’s translation of the second and third verses: “And at that time the Lord said to Joshua, Make thee stone knives of the hardest flint, and having again a fixed abode, circumcise the children of Israel. So Joshua made sharp knives of stone, and circumcised the children of Israel at the place called Hill of foreskins.” Thompson’s translation from the Septuagint.
“Theta” assumes that during the forty years of the children of Israel in the wilderness the omission to circumcise the children born there was a violation of the law of circumcision, and that the penalty of that law was not inflicted, but forgiven. But was the omission to circumcise the children born in the wilderness a violation of the divine command? In order to settle this [293] question we must give the entire subject our concentrated attention. Let us then attend to the original instruction of circumcision. “And when Abram was ninety-nine years old the Lord appeared to Abram and said to him, ‘I am thy God. Be well pleasing in my sight and be blameless, and I will establish that covenant of mine between me and thee and multiply thee exceedingly.’ Whereupon Abram fell on his face, and God spoke to him saying, ‘On my part lo! this is my covenant with thee, Thou shalt be the father of a multitude of nations, and thy name shall no more be called Abram, but thy name shall be Abraham; because I have made thee the father of many nations; and I will increase thee exceedingly, and cause thee to become nations; and kings shall spring from thee: and I will establish this my covenant with thee and thy seed after thee, throughout their generations, for an everlasting covenant, to be thy God and the God of thy seed after thee. And I will give thee and thy seed after thee this land in which thou sojournest; even all the land of Canaan for an everlasting possession, and I will be their God.’ Moreover God said to Abraham, ‘On thy part thou shalt keep this my covenant; thou and thy seed after thee throughout their generations. And this is the covenant which thou shalt keep between me and you, even thy seed after thee throughout their generations, every male of you shall be circumcised. Ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be for a sign of the covenant between me and you. And the child of eight days old shall be circumcised among you. Every male throughout your generations, including the home born servant, and him who is bought with money from any stranger, not of thy seed. Thy home born servant and he who is bought shall surely be circumcised. And this my covenant shall be on your flesh for an everlasting covenant. And with regard to the uncircumcised male, the flesh of whose foreskin shall not be circumcised on the eighth day, that soul shall be cut off from its family, because it hath broken my covenant.’” Gen. xvii: 1-14—Thompson’s translation.
Here the words “home born and stranger” servants born at home and bought with money, as well as the far-reaching phrase, “throughout their generations,” all point to a settled civil state of society. When Moses incorporated circumcision into his dispensation he connected it with the institution of the Passover or Paschal Feast, where the same words as employed above indicate that both circumcision and the Passover were designed for a permanent state of society. “This is the law of the Passover—No stranger shall eat of it; but every servant born at home or bought with money thou shalt circumcise and then he may eat of it. A sojourner or a hireling shall not eat of it. In one family it shall [294] be eaten, and you must not carry any of the flesh abroad out of the house; nor shall you break a bone thereof. All the congregation of the children of Israel shall keep this festival. And if any proselyte come to you to keep the Passover to the Lord, thou shalt circumcise all his males and then he may come and keep it, and he shall be as a native of the land. No uncircumcised person shall eat of it. There shall be one law for the home born and for the proselyte who shall come among you.” Ex. xii: 44-50.
That this law was but anticipative of the permanent settlement of the Israelites in Canaan cannot admit of the least doubt. The phrases home born, servants born at home and bought with money, the hireling and the proselyte, prove this. Now it is a fact that the Passover was celebrated but a single time in the wilderness. Num. ix: 1-3. They were once commanded to keep it according “to all the rites of it and according to all the ceremonies thereof.” This required all the males to be circumcised. But not observing it any more during their stay in the wilderness, the omission to circumcise their children born by the way was no transgression of the divine law, any more than the omission of the Passover itself, both of which ceased after their association and institution for the space of forty years—for the simple reason that the legislation was anticipative of a settled civil state.
So soon, therefore, as the children of Israel had crossed the Jordan, and God had fulfilled his promise to bring them into the land, he commanded that the people who had been born on the way should be circumcised and keep the Passover. Henceforward there is to be no omission either of circumcision or of the Passover, for, as Thompson translates, they had now a “fixed abode.” There was no transgression in the case, as “Theta” has fancied; but it was a case contemplated in the very legislation itself. The language used by God to Joshua indicates no displeasure, no neglect, no improper omission. But when the entire case is viewed in all its bearings, we think no one can fail to see that it was precisely in accordance with the law or divine will respecting that people while passing through the wilderness. This case does not give one particle of countenance to the speculation of “Theta,” but, on the contrary, it condemns it from the beginning to end. When we hear of a case in which God is said to wink at or overlook sin, we shrink and stand in doubt, and more especially in so open a case as the one we have been examining. Thus we take from “Theta” his first proof text that the unimmersed may commune.
2. The second Scripture brought forward by “Theta” is the case of David, who, when flying from Saul, entered the house of God and ate the loaves of presence or hallowed bread, which were [295] alone permitted to the priest and his family to eat. 1 Sam. xxi: 1-6. The first remark that we offer on this case is, that David certainly did not enter into the Tabernacle, for none except the priests could go into it. But he went into the house of the high priest, which was situated beside the court of the Tabernacle, and called the house of God on that account. The apartment in which the priest Eli and Samuel slept is called the house of the Lord. 1 Sam. iii: 15. Now, does our Lord justify the act of David and of the high priest? His words are these: “Have ye not read what David did when he was hungered, and they that were with him; how he entered into the house of God and did eat the shew-bread which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them that were with him, but only for the priests?” Matt. xii: 3-4. On these words we remark:
1. That Christ does not say that David and the high priest, who was accessory to the act, were justifiable. But the scriptures nowhere condemn the act, and the Jewish elders and teachers had not reprobated it. It served, therefore, to repel the charge of breaking the Sabbath which had been preferred against the disciples for plucking and eating ears of corn on the Sabbath day, but which charge was in fact leveled against Jesus himself. The Jews had never condemned David for an act apparently more gross than that which was now so loudly condemned—the eating of the first ripe corn in the field on the Sabbath. It clearly developed their spleen, and showed that they had no real love for the laws of God while apparently so devoted to them. This, we think, is the purport of our Lord’s word. David, on the occasion referred to, not only ate of the hallowed bread, but he framed a gross falsehood which had fatal consequences. Now our Lord says not a word in condemnation of this moral transgression, any more than of the other; yet they are both bound up together as soul and body. We think, therefore, that the liar can as safely appeal to this case as the unimmersed; and that “Theta’s” argument makes out as good a defense for the one as for the other.
2. The foregoing solution derives strong, almost certain confirmation, from the case of the priests, who are said “to profane the Sabbath” in the temple, and are “blameless.” Christ certainly did not intend to say that the temple service on the Sabbath day was a transgression of the divine law regulating the Sabbath, for this is not true; since God commanded the priests to perform certain services on that day. Num. xxviii: 9. But according to the crude opinions of the Pharisees such service would be a profanation. And this appears to us to indicate so much as this: that what the disciples had done was no violation of any divine law; the seeming violation existing in the ignorance of the [296] Pharisees alone. In the defense of the Master there is no attempt to justify any act of transgression. “Theta” says: “Here is a telling sentence—even the priests, and that in the temple and on the Sabbath, break that Sabbath, and yet are blameless.” This remark and assertion only show how easy it is for a man to be mistaken. As before observed, what the priests did on the Sabbath in the temple was in obedience to a divine command—not in violation of any. “Theta’s” theory receives no more countenance from the words of our Lord touching the Sabbath service than it does from the shortest verse in the Bible, which says, “Jesus wept.”
3. The third Scripture appealed to by “Theta” is the parable of the laborers in the vineyard. We think he has utterly mistaken the design of this parable. But we have no space to enter upon an exploration of it. Nor is it necessary, since all “Theta’s” reasoning upon it has been fully met in a preceding part of this review.
4. The case of the servants, the one beaten “with many,” the other with “few stripes” makes nothing for the theory we are opposing. Those chastisements certainly are not admissions or rejections of any class from the Supper, whether immersed or unimmersed. What God may do for the ignorant in another world, is no ground or reason for the church to relax or abolish any divine command on earth, so as to gratify our kind feelings by bringing to the supper those whom the Scriptures exclude from it.
5. The ten lepers. Christ commanded them to go and show themselves to the priest. This command was evidently meant to test their faith, and not to be obeyed; since they were healed before it could be fulfilled. Besides, the place where the lepers met Jesus was in the “midst of Samaria,” and one of the lepers was a “Samaritan.” Luke xvii: 16. This Samaritan would no more have been received by any Jewish priest than would a Gentile. Yet he was included in the command, “go show yourselves unto the priest.” Nor can we suppose that Jesus meant Samaritan priests. But the command to go to the priests, like that to Abraham to slay Isaac, was intended to put their faith to the proof, and not to be obeyed. Hence, “it came to pass that as they went, they were healed.” The command to go to the priests was abrogated the moment the miracle was wrought upon them; since being already healed there was no object to be attained by going to the priests. There was, therefore, no disobedience in the case. But the nine who returned not to pour out thanks and gratitude for their healing are, by implication, censured. The case of the lepers is not relevant to “Theta’s” position or line of argument. [297]
6. And lastly: “Will God credit any man for seriously and religiously doing as a command, that which he [God] has not commanded?” Italics not ours: Quarterly Dec. Really, and in all candor, what has this question to do with unimmersed persons communing in the Lord’s Supper? Whether God will or does accept their celebration of the Lord’s Supper is more than any living man can tell. It is a question not answered in the Scriptures—nor is it even hinted at. Any answer to it that may be given, can have no more authority than that of human opinion, which in this case amounts to no authority at all. Besides, such affirmative speculations have a bad moral tendency in confirming the ignorant, and in keeping alive the old maxim, “all is right if the heart be only right.” To argue from disobedience to God’s word the acceptance of the disobeying party, is daring and monstrous; and alike dangerous to all classes of persons. The cases cited by “Theta” from the Letter to the Romans, are cases in which there was, and still is, no law forbidding or commanding. Here is room for diversity of opinion and conscientious scruple. But this is wholly irrelevant before the three “grand postulates” admitted by “Theta” in the outset. There is an ordained plan of entering the kingdom and of approaching the Supper. If there were no established conditions of entering the church, then “Theta’s” argument would be in point; but as it is, it is wholly unsound. But even if, in human opinion, our churches should think with “Theta,” still that gives them no power over the terms of entering the church to relax one of them, or to connive at bringing or openly permitting persons to commune who are not contemplated in the Scriptures as communicants in the Supper.
We believe we have now fully met the entire essay of “Theta.” In attempting to bring out the consequences of “Theta’s” theory we must not be understood as in any sense attributing those consequences to him, as though he held them. We disclaim any such meaning. And in sometimes speaking of inviting or consentingly admitting the unimmersed to commune in our churches, we disclaim any insinuation that “Theta” teaches that our churches ought to do so. The main points before us have been to show, first, that “Theta’s” premises are not sound; and second, that our brethren can admit no one to the Supper who has not complied with the Scriptural conditions of entering the church. Between them and such act is the authority of Almighty God.
We may be accused of a want of charity—of excluding good men from the church on earth, and from heaven. We only say that such is not the fact. If we should argue that the unimmersed are in the church, that would not make it a fact. A united vote of the world affirming that they are in the kingdom, [298] would have no authority in the matter whatever. This is a question to be decided wholly by the word of God; and as “Theta” admits that the Scriptures do not contemplate the unimmersed as members or communicants, we say no more. As to what judgment our Heavenly Father will pass on errorists we know nothing, and any speculations of ours are worth nothing. Let us hold to the plain teaching of the sure divine word, and refuse to permit even our affections and sympathies to make us depart from it. A charity which leads away from divine authority, and urges the infraction of commands designed for its perfection, is among the most subtle temptations of Satan. Nor is this temptation designed to ensnare the bad only, but to overcome the best men in the church. Let us in all our decisions be first just to the truth as it is in Jesus—and honor all men, and treat them with gentleness and kindness. The immersed believer is in the kingdom, for God’s authority puts him there. He has a right to commune, for divine authority gives him that right. Here the Scriptures cease to speak—and here we close our review.
Cullan.
[299]
[Volume I: March, 1864]