« PreviousContinue »
marks on his answers, but cannot carry conviction to any mind. I have often had sufficient evidence to say, that my opponent argued like an Old and a New Testament Arminian; but what is Calvin and who is Arminus ?--the names.of Walker and Campbell require as much breath to pronounce them, weigh as heavy, and are composed of as many vowels and consonants as Calvin or Arminus.
If to say, that all the blessings of the covenant of cir. tumcision, were conditional, be Arminianism, I am an Arminian ;--and if to say, that all the blessings of the New Covenant are unconditional, and enjoyed by grace, is Calvinism, I am a Calvinist. But as Mr. Walker admits that the privileges of both covenants are the same in nature and extent, and as those of the Jews were conditional, doubtless he, on his own assertion, is an Old and a New Testament Arminian.
Previous to my reviewing his answers to the last three questions, I must, to afford him time for deliberation, now propose him other three.
Query 7th--Was not Abraliam by covenant the father of a two-fold seed, a natural and a spiritual, Gen. 13th, 2 & 3, and Rom. 4th, 11 & 12? .
Query 8th-Did not Abraham's spiritual seed consist first of Christ, and all that in him inherit the faith of the father of the faithful, whether Jews or Gentiles, and of them only ? Rom. 4th, 11 & 12.
Query 9th--Did not the covenant of circumcision exclusively belong to the natural seed of Abraham, as such, and to them only, as specified Gen. 17 ?
Isball conclude my discourse, at this time, with a few remarks on his ar.swers to the 4th, 5th and 6th questions, which I proposed to hiny.
The 4th was, Wherein was the new a better than the old covenant, if they are the same in the nature and extent of their privileges ? To this be replied, that the car. nal ordinances being taken away rendered it better; but the Apostle leads us to consider it better on quite different grounds, viz. because 66 established upon better promises." Mr. W. says the superiority consists in ordinan. ces-Paul says in promises : better promises with Paul makes a better covenant-with Mr. W. an abrogation of carnal ordinances makes it a better covenant. A s better priesthood," a better mediator,” and “better promi. ses," characterize it a better covenant in Paul's view;
and it is doubtless better for us to adhere to the Apostle Paul than to Mr. Walker.
Mr. W. answers the 5th question as he has done all the preceding, with an eye to keep up the tottering fabric which will fall, and is now falling upon him : He says the puties are constantly the same under both covenantsthat is an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth," is the same as ó resist not evil" hate your enemy," is the same as 6 love your enemies !!” The new commandment « love one another” for Christ's sake, is the same as “ love your neighbor” as a fellow creature-the duty of being baptised, of commemorating Christ's death, &c. are just the same in substance as being circumcised, and eating the passover, &c.!! The paying of tythes to the Levites, the buying and selling slaves of the heathen, the la'ns concerning ploughing, gathering the vintage, wearing apparel, etc. are all the same in substance with paying stipends to the clergy, buying and selling slaves in the United States, &c.—What a compound of inconsistencies is necessary to constitute a Pedo-baptist!!!
Mr. Walker's answer to the 6th question finishes the grand climax to which we have been for some time approximating. I stand on the first ground, on which I have ever heard that there are no penalties attached to either covenant. I am very much mistaken, if the seceders do not call Mr. W. to an account for the answers he has this day given to these questions. If they do not, they are far apostatized from the zeal and doctrine of their brethren on the other side of the Atlantic. But, perhaps, they find it necessary to give up with other tenets, in order to maintain infant baptism. I will now read you some portions of scripture, which will point out the nature and difference of the penalties threatened under both covenants.
The penalties annexed to the old covenant, were numerous and severe. They are specified by Moses, in the book of Deuteronomy, at great length, chap. 28,15-20• If thou wilt not hearken unto the voice of the Lord thy God to observe to do all his commandments that all these curses shall come upon thee and overtake thee : cursed shalt thou be in the city, and cursed shalt thou be in the field. Cursed shall be thy basket and thy store. Cursed shall be the fruit of thy body and the fruit of thy land, the increase of thy kine and the flocks of thy sheep.
Cursed shalt thou be when thou comest in, and cursed shalt thou be when thou goest out. The Lord shall send upon thee cursing, vexation and rebuke, in all that thou settest thine hand unto for to do, until thou be destroyed, and until thou perish quickly, because of the wickedness of thy doings whereby thou hast forsaken me. The Lord shall smite thee with a consumption and with a fever and with an inflammation, and with an extreme burning, and with the sword, and with blasting and with mildew; and they shall pursue thee until thou perish,” &c. &c. These, and many more of a similar kind, were the curses or penalties annexed to the old covenant, to the violation of the statutes and precepts inculcated under it. There are about 40 verses of this chapter employed in exhibiting the curses to be poured out on the violaters of that covenant, and which ultimately fell upon the subjects of that covenant, for their departure from the precepts under it. The gum of all these curses or penalties is comprehended irr one verse, Gen. 17, 14, and is there incorporated with the covepant as first proposed to Abraham. It runs in these words: “And the uncircumcised man-child, whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people, he hath broken my covenant." The cutting off from his people was the penalty first proposed, and it is comprehensive of all the curses fully exhibited in the chapter to which I have referred. Hence, in after times, the Jews were rejected, cut off, and thousands of them destroyed by the most awful calanrities, in conse, quence of having incurred the penalties annexed to their covenant.
The penalties attached to the New are essentially dis. similar. In the 89th Psalm, when the promised seed is spoken of, his advent subjects and covenant, the penalties also are declared, and in prophetic language fully exhibited, verse 28-37. It reads thus-6 My nercy will I keep for him for evermore, and my covenant shall stand fast with him. His seed also will I make to endure for ever, and his throne as the days of Heaver. Jf his children forsake my law, and walk not in my judgments, if they break my statutes and keep not my commandments, then will I visit their iniquity with the rod, and their transgression with stripes. Nevertheless, my loving kindness will I not utterly take from him, nor suffer my faith. Iulness to fail. My covenant will I not break, nor after the thing that is gone out of my lips." And from these words we would conclude, that the penalties annexed to the New were only fatherly chastisements, which would not utterly cut off or destroy the subjects or seed of this covenant. But to have this more clearly and fully confivmed, I must request your attention to two portions of New Testament scripture, 1 Cor. 11-30, 31.In this chapter the new covenant is exhibited in the Lord's supper, and the unworthy reception of this ordinance is marked out as a subject of the severest penalty under the New Testament. The verses alluded to thus read. He that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh dam. nation (or judgment) to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep. But if we would juulge ourselves we should not be judged. But when we are judged we are chastered of the Lord that we should not be conden. ned with the world.” Here the judgment, damnation or condemnation spoken of, is expressly affirmed to be a chastisement to prevent a final condemnation or damna tion with the world. Some of the Corinthians, for their unworthy participation of this ordinance, had been chastized even unto temporal death, to prevent eternal condemnation. For this cause mapy are weak and sick. ly among you, and many sleep-die or are dead.” Why? “ That they might not be condemned with the world."
This corresponds admirably with the 89th psalm 6my loving kindness will I not utterly take from bim." The last portion to whieh I shall call your attention at this time is Heb. 12th, 6-11: "For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth, If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you, as with sons-for what son is he whom the Father chasteneth not ?-For they verily for a few days chastened us after their own pleasure, but he for our profit, that we might be partakers of his holivess,” &c.-From all which it appears that each covenant hath its sanctions or penalties, and that the penalties of the latter are essentially distinct from those of the former. The ultimate of all the penalties of the old covenant, was, the final and eternal rejection of refractory subjects, from being the people of God in any sense. But the ultimate of all the penalties of the new covenant, is, to make the subjects of it 66 partakers of his holiness," and to exempt them « from the condemnation of the world,
Mr. W. may proceed to refute these things if he can.
Mr. C. has continued to propose queries ; to these ! shall first attend. His seventh query, is, Was not Abraham by covenant constituted the father of a twofold seed a natural and a spiritual seed? To this I answer, No.-He is the father of the faithful alone. 'Abraham, by covenant. ývas constituted the father of the faithful, and, as such, were all the promises given to him. The blessing of Abraham comes upon the faithful alone, consequently none else were included in that relation to Abraham. My opponent, no doubt, wishes to make it appear that he was the father of a twofold seed; it may be necessary for his system, that he should be such, but it is not necessary for mine.- I pass on to his next query, viz.-Did not å bra. ham's spiritual seed consist first of Christ, and all that in him inherit the faith of the father of the faithful, whether Jews or Gentiles, and of them only ?-I answer, Yes. ' Christ undoubtedly is the promised seed of Abraham, and those connected with him by faith are viewed through Christ as his spiritual seed. It makes no difference whether they are Jews or Gentiles by natural birth, when they believe in Christ they become the spiritual seed of Abraham. 6 For,” saith the Apostle, “if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise. The promise mentioned here is no doubt that recorded, Gen. 12,3:56 In thy seed shall all the families of the earth be blessed."-Of this inheritance, of which they are called heirs, Canaan was a type, a striking type, and consequently the ground or reason wbich interested the Jews in it, was emblematical of the ground or reason which interests Christians in the spiritual inheritance of the heavenly Canaan.
The ninth question proposed my opponent was-Did not the covenant of circumcision exclusively belong to the natural seed of Abraham, and to them only, as specified, Gen. 17 ?_To this question, I decidedly answer-No. It belonged equally to all saints, ancient and modern, in consequence of faith in Christ.
I must now observe that the remarks made on the pena alties of the two covenants by Mr. C. appear to me very strange indeed. I must still maintain that neither of the two covenants had a single penalty annexed to them. The hanging of a man for murder, because forbidden by the law of Christ, may as well be called a penalty of the