Page images
PDF
EPUB

So.

ceive my thanks for the same, but with all due respect I must say, you have mistaken the scope of my letter in saying that it comments on your sermon, for I confined myself solely to respond to your questions. But you say that your object on that evening was not controversy, but simply to furnish the members of the Wesleyan Methodist church with the views you held on the subject of baptism, and some of the leading arguments by which those views are sustained. What in the world can you call this but controversy? You do not mean to say that you put those questions to the members of the above church. No, no-they do not think Then you must be addressing another party present on that evening, who taught and practised what you please to designate unscriptural and indecent actions. But again: when I had with you a private interview, you did not tell me, as I then informed you that I was engaged in answering your questions, that it was not to me personally that you addressed those questions, but to leave my replies for you. So, then, I cannot allow you to slide off the subject in the manner you propose. Believe me, I do not push this for the sake of victory, but for the sake of the truth as it is in Jesus. I must now comment a little on the epistle before me. You say that you have not the vanity to think of bringing those over to your opinions who differ from you. I tell you, as I told you before, those speculative opinions should have no resting place in Christianity. If every man would hold his opinions only as private property, they must soon die a natural

death.

You say, as far as your experience has gone, argument and controversy have done harm rather than good. I must say there is some strength in this objection, where men are to be found, as you say, "bigots to their opinions," in place of faith in the testimony which God gave of his Son. But, in the first place, was not the public life of Jesus Christ a life of controversy? Second, was not the public life of Paul, and that of Peter in particular, a life of controversy ? Third, was there ever harm done by any of their arguments? Fourth, were not sinners brought to a belief in, and repentance and obedience to, Jesus Christ, by truth and argument? Fifth, have not the disciples of Christ at the present day liberty to use the arguments of their Master, Lawgiver, and King? If so, what are we afraid of? Shall we by this course overturn our own principles? If they are bad, the sooner they are overturned the better-if they are good, they will bear the strictest investigation.

You have here about ten quotations of Scripture, in order to show me a fact, of your acceptance with God, which you offer me in compliment to put alongside of mine. You say, you were convinced by the Holy Spirit of God. I am glad to hear it, for that is the only Spirit that can convince men of sin, of right

eousness, and of judgment; but I have been looking for the fact which you gave of your birth into the kingdom of Jesus Christ on this earth, into which, "except a man be born again, he cannot enter." Show me this by a fact, or something done, and then accept the right hand of a fellow citizen.

Believe me, I have not the least doubt as to your sincerity in Methodism; but at the same time, we must not say that sincerity a sufficient test of the truth, for a person may be as sincere and happy in believing a lie as a truth, until he realize the contrary.

Now to the penitent thief again. It is true, I agreed with you when you said he was saved without baptism; but I must differ from the construction you now put on it. Where you say regeneration might exist without baptism, if you had said did exist, I should have passed it over. When you say may exist, however, I have an undoubted right to call you in question, because the Scriptures do not acknowledge any person to be regenerated who has not humbled himself as a little child, and put on Christ by faith and baptism.

Again, you cannot explain away the relation between regeneration and baptisin in the case of Simon Magus, because Scripture does not reconcile what you say about him. Luke says that he believed and was baptized, and continued with Philip until Peter and John came down from Jerusalem: then we find him offering the apostles money in order that he might obtain such power as they had. Pay strict attention to what the Apostle Peter said to him concerning that matter. Did he tell him he was not regenerated ?-I answer, No. Did he tell him that he was still in his sins?-No. Did he tell him that the thoughts of his heart were evil?-No. Did he tell him that he was in the gall of bitterness and in the bonds of iniquity?—Yes. What, then, was his accusation ?-I may answer it to be, the thought of his heart. Did the apostle address him, then, as though he had never received remission of sins?-or did he not rather exhort him, as a brother in the Lord, to repent and pray to God that the thought of his heart might be forgiven him? Scripture enjoins the latter, and if you will examine one more verse, viz. the 24th, in connection with those you have already quoted, you will find that Scripture leaves him, where we must, a penitent, baptized believer.

"Where there is

I now turn to unconscious infants again. You tell me you are glad that I allow there is no law in the New Testament prohibiting infant baptism, and that my quotation will serve you. Please read it again. no law, there is no transgression." Now though this Scripture serves to satisfy our minds as regards infants, idiots, or the untaught portion of the human family, it will not suit or serve for us to say, where there is no law, there is no transgression, for the man who makes one to suit his own purpose. Because I ask for scrip

tural proofs for your assertions and actions, you tell me that the burthen of proof rests with me. What do you wish me to prove? Anything that I say, I will try and prove, but nothing further. I affirm again, that infant baptism was not in practice in the days of the apostles at Corinth, nor is to be found in the bright pages of inspiration. As for the descendants of Abraham, Paul tells us how they obtained a good report, not by circumcision, as you wish to make it appear, but by faith, and obedience to the Lord's commands. See Heb. xi. Jesus Christ admitted them into his visible church on the same terms; and the children of the promise in Acts ii. 39, which you and I make a part, have no door of admission into the church of God on this earth than as above.

[ocr errors]

In the next place, you charge me with refusing infants admission into the Christian covenant by baptism. To this I plead not guilty. I cannot, I dare not, unchurch or condemn those for whom Christ died; neither can I refuse to admit them into the church by baptism, when they apply in person according to Scripture usage. May we not come to this conclusion, where there is no faith, there is no Christian life. If so, why put unconscious infants into the Christian church, where they cannot live, because faith is the principle of Christian life. "Now the just shall live by faith" (Heb. x. 38.) I am crucified with Christ, nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me, and the life which I now live in the flesh, I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me" (Gal. ii. 20.) If you consult your Bible you will find-1st, baptism is for the remission of our own sins (Acts ii. 38, xxii. 16); 2nd, baptism is for the commencement of a new life (Rom. vi. 4); 3rd, baptism is for the privilege of worshipping God; 4th, baptism is for the answer of a good conscience (1 Pet. iii. 20.) Consult your reason, and you will find-1st, infants have no sins of their own to be remitted; 2nd, infants cannot commence a new life; 3rd, infants cannot worship God; 4th, infants have no conscience, good or bad. Thus, while baptism is of no use whatever to infants, it makes void the law of God with the traditions of men, which is a great evil, as we learn from Mat. xv. 1-9, Mark vii. 1-13. By not baptizing our infants we do them no harm, for no right-minded person will say that infants dying unbaptized, will therefore perish; but if salvation, in the case of adults, depend upon being baptized after believing the gospel, as appears from Mark xv. 16, compared with John iii. 5, and many other passages, then by baptizing our infants, we peril their everlasting welfare, because they may refuse to be baptized after believing the gospel, on the ground that they were baptized in infancy. Indeed, I have been told by some who profess religion, that immersion for the remission of sins is damnable doctrine, on the same grounds as the above objection. But, to come nearer home

-one of the greatest struggles I ever experienced, was that of shaking off this ism--I was ready to call it anything but gospel. Let God be true, and every man who speaks not according to His revealed will, a liar.

As for those speculations about the common ward in the prison at Philippi, changes of raiment and naked people at the Jordan, together with the inmates of the households of Lydia and Stephanus, I must leave them, unless you can furnish me with their history.

Baptism is alluded to about one hundred and twenty times in the New Testament. It is termed a burial into, and a resurrection from it; and the places where it was originally administered being rivers, and localities where there was much water, demonstrate that pouring or sprinkling cannot be a proper definition of baptism, inasmuch as it is not possible to pour or sprinkle a person into water; nor is there any sense in saying that we are buried with Christ by pouring or sprinkling.

You are aware that the word is derived from the Greek, and not from the English; and you, as a teacher in Israel, should be able to tell us, in our mother tongue, what is its meaning, without saying, as you have to me, John baptized them in the Jordan. You know that the proper definition of any term, will always make as good sense as the term itself. Now I have never been able to ascertain that any translator has rendered this word sprinkle or pour, or by any equivalent to these terms. Is this not the case with you? Observe, also, that the greater part of these translators have been in favour of infant sprinkling or pouring, in the name of the Lord.

Leaving these first principles of the doctrine of Christ for the present, and taking a glance into the sacred records, in which alone Christianity yet remains in all its freshness, we ascertain who are the subjects invited to partake of the representations of the body and blood of Christ. Now one would think, if he be so lovely in character as he is held forth in his sufferings, death, resurrection, and glory, that he would invite all whom he receives into his visible kingdom to his visible table. Has he given authority to admit any person into the one and not to the other? What a poor kingdom that would be for families to enter, where the males only are invited to eat and drink at the table of the king! Again, in the natural state of marriage, how reasonable for the bride to expect to eat and drink at the table of her husband! How much more so, in the spiritual state of marriage to the Lamb of God!

But you say I have not satisfied you by my Scripture proofs, that women are to be admitted to the table of the Lord, or that the examples shown are not strong enough. Please to summon up the witnesses again, and see if they have anything further to say that may lead to stronger conviction. Matt. xxvi. 26, "As they were eating, Jesus took bread and blessed

it, and broke it, and gave it to his disciples and said, take eat, this is my body." You refer me to the 20th verse of the same chapter, in proof that he sat down with the twelve only. Now if this be a fact, I must give way to it; but I find no such sentence as the twelve only in any Bible I have, and I should be glad to know where you got it from. I cannot think, for a moment, that you have added this sentence to the Living Oracles. I cannot, therefore, have anything to do with this only speculation, but read the passage, He sat down with the twelve. Now it seems to me very proper, when our blessed Lord was about to transfer that soul-cheering token of his dying love to his disciples, that the twelve witnesses whom he had chosen to bear testimony of him to all nations, should be present when that transfer was made. Again, you refer me to the parallel passage by Luke xxii. 14; but why, I cannot see, because your interpretation excludes him as a witness, inasmuch as he was not one of the twelve. Besides, he would completely contradict your first witness. See Acts i. 21-22, 'Wherefore, of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day when he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be

[ocr errors]

a witness." In the 23rd verse we are informed two were appointed. Now neither of these, nor any of the body from which they were taken, could be a witness to prove facts of which he had no knowledge. Consequently, I am bound to believe that these men, together with Luke, formed part of the disciples referred to in Mat. xxvi. 26. What say you?

Let us return to Acts i. 14, and ascertain whether we can trace these 120 men and women, from that meeting for prayer and supplication, to the Lord's table. "And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place." Observe them, as you read from the one place to the 41st verse, "Then they that gladly received his word were baptized, and the same day were added unto them about three thousand souls." Add this number to them, (120 men and women) and it will make about 3120 souls. Accompany them to the next verse, "And they continued steadfast in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and breaking of bread, and in prayers;"" And all that believed were together, and had all things common." Thus we see that no one, whether man or woman, who bears the Christian character, can be considered an interloper at the Lord's table, when assembled on the first day of the week, to commemorate the Lord's death and resurrection; and that the many members who constitute the one body who worship the one Lord· who profess the one faith, and who put on Christ by the one baptism-are not distinguished as men or women, sects or parties, but as characters, the sons and daughters of the Lord Almighty.

--

In conclusion, I hope you will re-consider the matter, and not decide that, because you deem me to be in the wrong, and yourself in the right, therefore you are justified in holding your peace, and allowing one whom you once acknowledged your brother in the Lord, to go down to the grave, without showing him wherein he has departed from Scripture doctrine and usage. Consider the reward awaiting him who shall turn another from the error of his way. One thing is certain: if you have truth on your side, you have nothing to lose or fear. Take, then, the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God, and wield it manfully; and if you find about me the least root or branch of sectarianism, try to cut it off.

What I have said I consider to be in accordance with the word of God, by which I am to be judged at the impartial bar.

Your's, for the truth's sake,

THOMAS BUTLER.

[No. IV. is simply a letter from Mr. Ironside, declining to be drawn into any controversy on the subjects at issue, for the reasons stated in his first letter. No. V. consists of only a few lines from Mr. Butler, acquainting Mr. Ironside that it was his intention, at the request of several friends, to publish the correspondence.]

OBITUARY.

THROUGH inadvertence we omitted to report in our May number, the decease of our sister, Elizabeth Sutton, which occurred on the 28th of March last, at the advanced age of 86.

In the year 1841 she was induced, by the entreaty of a friend, whilst on a visit at Loughborough, to attend one of our meetings for social worship. Strange much surprised; but, on reference to the Scriptures, things were brought to her ears, at which she was she found them to accord with the teachings of the Holy Spirit. Being of a humble and teachable mind,

old

she soon became solicitous to cast in her lot with the disciples of the Lord, and on making the good confession, was baptized and added to the church. From that period to within a few days of her death, she was full of gratitude to God for having, in his gracious providence, led her to hear, believe, and obey the truth. She lived at a village six miles from Nottingham, and notwithstanding her great age, for four or five years walked to and from that town every Lord's day, to keep the ordinances as delivered. Then becoming feeble, she for the next three years walked over on the Saturday, and returned in like manner on the Monday. Rain or shine, poor Betty was sure of being in her seat at the commencement of worship, presenting a sharp yet silent rebuke to many half her years, and resident in the town. Her knowledge of divine things was but limited, yet the prominent facts of the gospel she highly prized, and firmly held. Her chief delight consisted in commemorating the death and resurrection of her blessed Lord; and a seat at his table was such a privilege and honor, that nothing but absolute inability would allow her to forego. Of this enjoyment, through prostration of strength, she was deprived for above a year before her death; and when visited in her affliction, the desire was always expressed, that she might once more be permitted to join in the feast of love and praise, and at the same time be able personally to present her grateful thanks, for the many acts of unwearied kindness bestowed. "Blessed are the dead, who die in the Lord."

AUGUST, 1851.

LECTURES ON EXODUS.- No. I.

THE BOOK of Exodus is the second in the Pentateuch, and like the Book of Genesis, is significant in its name of the principal event recorded in it. EXODUS, from the Greek, signifies departure, and alludes directly to the departure of the children of Israel out of Egypt. The beginning of life, and our departure out of it, are often suggested to my mind by the names of the first two books of the Bible. The Hebrew name, however, is taken from the first phrase of the book, and it was called SHEMOTH, the names. That Moses was the author of this book, is declared by Christ himself, which, to the Christian mind, precludes all occasion for doubt (Mark xii. 26, Luke xx. 37, xv. 31.) Some twenty-five passages are quoted from it by Christ and the Apostles in express terms, whilst there are nineteen indirect allusions.

The general design of the book was to preserve the history of the children of Israel, and the remarkable events which occurred during their sojourn in Egypt -their deliverance, and the reception of the law of God from Sinai by the hands of Moses. The particulars connected with these remarkable events are given in most interesting details, the consideration of which is well calculated to improve our knowledge of the government of God, and of his peculiar care for ancient Israel. It is a rehearsal of splendid miracles, which shows us the agency of Jehovah at almost every step. Here we are made to see the sore afflictions of the brethren and descendants of Joseph, among the very people whom he saved from famine, and who delighted to do him honor. The birth, preservation, and character of their great deliverer, Moses, are here given, and we are enabled to weigh the virtues of one of the greatest leaders of men. Here we behold ten successive miracles, signally performed and publicly acknowledged by both the friends and enemies of Moses. The origin, design, and declaration of the Passover the deliverance from the sea, whose waves overwhelmed the proud army of Egypt in the glory of their strength-the encampments in the wilderness, and the miracles wrought in their behalf for forty years-the manifestation of God on Sinai, and the precepts of his law - the formation of the tabernacle, and all its significant furniture-together with the most remarkable events which attended the children of Israel during the space of one hundred and forty-two years. Let us open and diligently study this sacred history, and so furnish our minds with a knowledge of the great truths of Christian religion, as to be able to profit not only by the wonderful events here recorded, but also by an application of their typical import.

[ocr errors]

From the chapter before us we learn, that not long after the death of Joseph, a revolution in Egypt brought a king to the throne who cared nothing for his past services, and who, beholding the rapid increase and vast numbers of the Israelites, began to fear that in the event of an invasion of his territory by a foreign foe, they might join his enemies and subdue the whole empire. He accordingly called a council to devise measures to prevent so disastrous an event. He decided to impose heavy taxes upon the Israelites-to confine them to hard and burdensome labor, such as making bricks and building stony cities-seeking thus to depress their spirits, wear out their bodies, and prevent their increase. His decision was soon carried into effect, and tyrannical task-masters were placed over them, who, by imposing heavy burdens of drudgery, and exercising cruel treatment towards them, soon rendered their lives miserable. But the expedient failed. The more the people were made to suffer from the cruelty of

their masters, the more prolific were their wives: showing that whom the Lord prospers is prospered, despite the counsel and machinations of men. Finding himself baffled in this scheme, the king resorts to a secret stratagem of a murderous character, by which to compass his ends. He employed two eminent midwives, Shiprah and Puah—who were perhaps mistresses in that art, and had all the midwives of Egypt under their control — whom he charged privily to strangle every male child of the Hebrews at the time of its birth. But they abhorred so bloody and impious a practice, disregarded the decrees of the tyrant, and at the peril of their own lives saved those of the children. When their conduct was inquired into by the king, they excused themselves by stating that the Hebrew women were of such vigorous constitutions, that delivery took place before they reached them. For the fear of God which these midwives manifested, He blessed them, and increased their own families (houses in the text, which often means family in scriptural style: 2 Sam. vii. 11, 1 Kings ii. 24, Acts xxxi. 16.) But Pharaoh adopts another expedient, and orders all his people to cast every male child of the Hebrews into the river, by which treatment he perhaps sought to appease the gods of his nation, and rid his country of the hated people.

1. We remark that our indebtedness to the Holy Scriptures for the early history of men and nations, is scarcely ever properly appreciated. The early history of all nations is fabulous, and seems to have been written in imitation of that of Moses, but for no higher purpose than that of affording food for national flattery or individual amusement. But for the records of the Bible we should know nothing of the history of the world for full three thousand years—more than half of its present duration. Here we have a record of the birth of Nature and Time -the history of the most venerable men of antiquity-the origin and fortunes of the most remarkable nations of the world — interspersed with the most exalted and just notions of the Deity, and the most faithful and instructive pictures of human life. In the book upon which we have now entered, he who has been conducting us amid the lives and fortunes of the Patriarchs from Adam to Joseph, enters upon his own history and times; and hereafter beholding the historian an actor amid the scenes of which he writes, we shall be called upon often to admire the simplicity, candour, and faithfulness with which he speaks of the most wonderful individual transactions. Sixty-four years have rolled away since the death of Joseph, and one hundred and thirty since Jacob with seventy souls went down into Egypt. Behold how a little one has become a thousand, and a small one a great nation! The divine veracity in the promise made to Abraham is about to be glorified, under most adverse and forbidding circumstances. The increase of Israel is here compared to the rapid fructification of trees and plants, which begin early in bearing, and frequently are double in their products. The Lord increases his people, and makes them stronger than their enemies (Psalm cv. 4.) And this, too, in a country which, however once it may have given them shelter and support, has now exchanged their protector for a sanguinary tyrant, who moistens the land with their tears and the blood of their infant offspring, and converts them from favorite subjects of the realm into odious and hardtasked slaves. Such are the mutations of time, and the alternations of human affairs. We may place a nation or an individual under ten thousand obligations for our indispensable services, rendered under the most critical circumstances of their necessity, and yet have no security that the claims of justice and humanity will ever be met. The interest, the ambition, and caprice of those we have favored, may change; and we may, ere we die, feel the chastisement of that rod

« PreviousContinue »