« PreviousContinue »
neighbor, and every man his brother, såying, know the Lord, for they shall all know me, from the least to the greatest; for I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and iniquities will I remember no more."
This covenant differs from the old, in each of its four items: In the first, The laws were written on tables of stone, and as Moses brake the stones, so the people broke the laws. In the second or new, they are written on the hearts of all the subjects-consequently cannot be brokep. This is one of those better promises on which the better covenant is established. Item 2d, 6 I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people. In the first, he was their God in a national and temporal senseIn the second he is their God in a spiritual and eternal sense--In the first, their being his people depended upon an if-In the second, they shall be, positively and without an if, his people--Item 3d, « They shall not need to teach every man, his neighbor, saying, know the Lord, for they shall all know me from the least to the greatest" - The subjects of the old covenant required to be taught to know the Lord; many of them were infants and minors and at best a carnal people--but the subjects of the new, are all taught of God--they know him from the least to the greatest; consequently no infants are subjects of the new. Item 4th, “ I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their iniquities will I remember no more." No remission of sins, promised to the subjects of the old covenant, as such; but to the subjects of the new, as such, forgiveness is promised--Who will not say this is a better cove. want established upon better promises ? The last verse of this chapter confirms all that I have said on the abrogation and total disaonulment of the old covenant. Oh! that every pedo-baptist would remember it: It should forever silence my opponent on these topics-It reads thus, * In that he saith a new covenant, he hath made the first old-Now THAT which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away."
As this chapter gives us the sum of the Apostle's reasoning in this epistle, the last verse of it presents to us the end or intention of his reasoning. It was to demonstrate that the old musty covenant was now 6 ready to vanish away." The word now is the most emphatic word in this verse-formerly, it was valid, substantial, obligatory upon its subjects; but now, in the commence
ment of the Gospel age, it was ready, quite ready, fully ripe, completely fulfilled, necessarily tending to vanish away• Vanish away"-how strong the expression! How figu. rative and how striking! No word could more fully express its entire, its total, its perpetual abolition. 'Mr. W. quarreled with my epithet musty; but here the Apostle amply justifies it-Yes, it was motheaten, decayed,"
wasen old,' ready, as the shades of night, to vanish before the radient sun of the morning. Let me ask, if, when any thing is decayed, waxen old, and ready to van
is it everlasting in its nature is it perpetually binding-does it yet flourish? My opponent must answer, yes, or give up his system. I tell you,
my friends, this 8th chapter to the Hebrews cuts up the Pedo-baptist system, and leaves it neither root nor branch. [In the Appendix, under the article 66. the cavenants,” this subject will be still further illustrated..)
Mr. W. has again attempted to identify the Jewish state and Christian church. He actually concedes, that, if this cannot be proven, his cause is lost. In this he closely follows the Goliath of Pedo-baptists, the great Peter Edwards. Since Peter Edwards wrote, all the champions on his side take this ground; first prove, or attempt to prove, that the nation of Israel was the church of Christ that infants were members of it and then easily infer their right to baptism. In addition to his comment on the 11th chapter of Romans, he cites Stephen's testimony to sanction bis views-Stephen uses the phrase, “ the church.in the wilderness”-Here the whole stress of his proof rests upon the word 66 church," without any epithet to qualify or explain its acceptation.Now I will cheerfully admit the testimony of Stephen, in all its force; and I will call the congregation of Israelią the wilderness, a church: but will this prove that this congregation was a church of Christ? Mr. Walker, I presume, understands the word church, without an epithet, to mean neither more nor less than 6 an assembly":
I presume he will also confess, that a mob is once called a church in the New Testament. If he does not, I am ready to
to prove it-Acts 19th, we read of Demetrius, the silver-smith, and the mob which he raised against the Apostle and his companions : The whole town was in an uproar—the town clerk appeased this mob by an oration he delivered them, telling them that in a lawful church,
(eklesia, the same word used Acts 7, 38, the “eklesia" in the wilderness) their cause would be tried-and verse 41, when he had thus spoken, (apeluse ten eklesian) he dismissed the assembly or church. In this chapter, the word is applied to a inob, or an unlawful assembly, and it is also applied to a court, or lawful assembly, met to hear and judge causes. Thus the word eklesia, or church, was used by the holy penmen of the New Testament, to denote any sort of an . gogue, the epithet made it either an assembly of Jews or a "synagogue of Satan"—this criticism, I am confident, neither my opponent nor any man acquainted with Greek, will deny. Hence it follows, that his quotation from the 7th of the Acts proves nothing favorable to his views, inasmuch as it means no more than an assembly or congregation in the wilderness, without any respect to the character of it. It was an assembly or church of Jews, and not an assembly of Christians, or a church of Jesus Christ.
Seeing I am on the word “ eklesia," I may further observe, that as this word is composed of two Greek words, ek, out of, and kaleo, to call, the word eklesia signifies. 6 the called out." The Jews in the Wilderness were 5 called out" by Moses the messenger of God--the mob of Ephesus was called out" by Demetrius; and the lawful assembly of which the town-clerk spoke, was an assembly " called out" by those in authority--the church of Jesus Christ is an assembly 6 called out of the world by his grace, or separated from the world by his word and spirit-ence, says Christ, “ye are not of the world, I have chosen you out of the world.” Consequently no nation, as such, ever was the church of Jesus Christ.
That the Jewish nation was never considered the church of Christ by the Apostles, is evident from many portions of scripture, particularly from Acts 2, 47, And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved :" Query, was it to the Jewish nation, or the first church of Christ converted in Jerusalem, to which the Lord added such as should be saved ? The answer to this question is inevitably against the Jewish nation, and incontestably plain, that the writer considered not the Jewish nation, but the believers in Christ, of that nation, the Church.
Let us now attend to the defnitions and descriptions
we have in the New Testament of the church of Christ, and then we shall see how they will apply to the Jewish nation. Acts 20 & 28, we have an interestinng description of it, in these words : 5 Feed the church of God, which he has purchased with his own blood." Here, in this description of the Christian church, we have every thing against my opponent's viewsốin the first place, the church of God is said to be purchased with his own blood -Could this be said of the Jewish nation, as such? Their redemption from Egyptian bondage, by blood, was a beautiful emblem of the redemption of the true Israel or church by the blood of Christ. Again, the members of the church are represented, in this description of it, as being capable of nourishment froin the word by the labors of their pastors-> Feed the church of God”-“ Feed my sheep” Feed my lambs”-How? 6 With the sincere milk of the word.” Are infants capable of this ? No: they cannot understand it. Amongst all the advices, exhortations, and commandments, given to the elder bishops, or pastors of the churches of Christ, over which they presided, there is not one word which would insinuate, that they had any charge or care over the infants, or unbelieving children, of the members of the church ;these are private property; the property of the parents, and not the property of the church : hence parents, in their own capacity as such, have orders how to bring them up:
Open any of the Epistles, read any of the descriptions we have in the New Testament, of the Church of Christ, and we cannot find one hint that would suppose them to be assimilated to the Jewish commonwealth. [Here I read the introductions of several epistles, which all, in substance, agree with this mentioned below.] 1st Cor. 1, 2, “Unto the church of God which is at Corinth”. sí to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus called saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours." All the Epistles. written by the Apostles to particular churches described those churches as composed of believers, sanctified persong-active members, fruit bearing branches, in the true and living vine. They were commanded to keep separate from
all contaminating intercourse with the world ; and in their communion and church intercourse to have 130 féllowship with unbelievers, with immoral or ungodly
persons, such as the majority of the Jewish nation ever was. . What absurd conclusions will result from the hypothe. · sis, that the Jewish nation was the church of Christ. The
shurch of Christ put their own Saviour to death! Those Jews that were members of this hypothetical church, put the Messiah to death. Those Jews that made havoc of the church, were members of it!! Nay, those that repented, and were, in consequence, added to it,". · were members of it before they were added to it! These are a specimen of the consequences naturally and neces. sarily resulting from my opponent's system.
He has expressed considerable surprize, that I should think there was no church of Christ in the world for so long a time; nay, that I will not admit that Samuel the prophet, David the king, Isaac and Jacob, were members of the church of Christ. Now, I may express my surprize at this strange objection. That these saints, and thousands not inentioned, belonged to the society registered in Heaven, that they were saints approved of God, I hesitate not to affirm; but does the acknowledgement of their saintship, require nie to make them members of the church of Christ forinally existing in the world ? I had thought, all along, that we were deliberating on the visible or forinal exhibition of the church on earth, or the Christian church and not the có church invisible" in the language of my opponent. The least member of the Christian church, is greater, in consequence of his membership there, than the greatest saint or prophet from Adam to John the Baptist. Wherr Paul sums up a long list of renowned saints, of faithful worthies ; in the 11th of his Ep. to Heb. be proves their faith to be one and the same with that which Christians possessed-only that the great object of the faith of the patriarchs, was future to them, and that of Christians past. In the conclusion, he declares that these saints had not received the pro. mise, “ God having provided some better thing for us,. that they without us should not be made perfect.” I would wish to know to what church formally existing in the world, the patriarchs for 2500 years belonged ? The world was 2500 years old before this Jewish church got into operation, of which Mr. W. so often speaks. What. ever be the name of that church, there is not one word said of the membership of its infants; and it was of the