THOSE who favor trine immersion seem to think that their argument is strong if they can quote many authors who agree that trine immersion prevailed among the early Christians. We admit that it did, and ten thousand witnesses to that affect do not at all increase the truthfulness, nor yet the importance, of the fact. But, while we know that many scandalous errors, held to this day by some, but by most repudiated, prevailed at the same time, and were introduced fully as early, the bare fact that the practice existed at an early age proves nothing at all in its favor. The question is not, Did it exist? but, By what authority did it exist? Satan existed at a very early age, and assumed to take his place among the sons of God; but neither his age nor such association gives any sanctity to his character.
If it could be shown that the church was exceedingly pure in the age of its first recognition by "the Fathers," and that no other error had yet obtained a footing among the bishops and presbyters, that would be a presumption in its favor. Yet only a presumption, if it cannot plainly be found in the Scriptures. History makes no authority. It is for this reason we did not pursue the historical argument at the first, because it has no weight in our minds. We should not have deviated from the course first marked out, to notice the historical argument at all, had it not been for the request of brethren whom we highly respect, and whose judgment we honor. We said, and we repeat it, We care nothing for what people have done; our sole inquiry is respecting what they ought to have done. History may inform us what they did, but we look to the Bible alone for duty—for what we ought to do. But in addition to this statement, we must record our most solemn conviction that history—early history—is not at all in favor of trine immersion. We trace it directly to Africa, for its first adherents, and find them acknowledging tradition as its basis.
There are three points which we must examine: the weight of the testimony of the Greek Church; the light in which baptism was held among the ancient Christians; and the reasons which were early urged in favor of trine immersion. And first
THE GREEK CHURCH.
Though it is a matter of minor importance, yet Eld. Moore is not strictly correct in dating the age of the Greek Church prior to its separation from the communion of Rome in the latter part of the ninth century. Prior to that, they were considered one body; after that, the Greek and Roman churches became distinct. So far, however, as their practice is concerned, it is not, probably, affected by this circumstance. The Greek Church is often referred to as an example on the subject of baptism. It is said they ought best to understand their own original tongue; therefore it is safe to follow them in their definition of baptism.
We have said, We safely follow them in the definition of the word, but we dare not follow them in their construction of the ordinance. For this we can show a reason. In giving to baptizein the definition, to immerse, they follow the usage of the language in which the New Testament was written. But, having established the identity of baptism and immersion, if they follow tradition, and practice three immersions, which is in truth three baptisms, they then depart from the Greek text of the New Testament, which plainly says one baptism. And here truth compels us to leave them. Eld. Moore quotes Alexander de Stourdza as declaring that the Greek Church "administer baptism after the similitude of that of Christ," and as they practice trine immersion he infers that is after that similitude. We here repeat other words of this author as follows:—
"The church of the West has, then, departed from the example of Jesus Christ; she has obliterated the whole sublimity of the exterior sign; in short, she commits an abuse of words, and of ideas, in practicing baptism by aspersion, this very term being, in itself, a derisive contradiction. The verb baptizo, immergo, has in fact but one sole acceptation. It signifies literally and always to plunge. Baptism and immersion, therefore, are identical; and to say, baptism by aspersion, is as if one should say, immersion by aspersion, or any other absurdity of this nature."
This is surely a strong presentation of the case; but if it be true, which we all admit, that immersion and baptism are identical, it will take a wiser than Alex. de Stourdza to show that three immersions and three baptisms are not identical! And, inasmuch as baptism and immersion are equal, if three baptisms and three immersions are not equal, it is because three are not equal to three! There remains no dispute about the equality of baptism and immersion; the whole matter turns on the question, Is the number three equal to itself? Here is the absurdity of the trine immersion theory reduced to a mathematical demonstration. For it is an axiom that if equals are added to equals the results are equal. Then, as three are equal to three, if they be added respectively to immersion and to baptism, which are also equals, the results are equals. Hence three immersions equal three baptisms. We would be pleased to see somebody try to establish the converse of this proposition. But three baptisms are contrary to the Scriptures; therefore three immersions are contrary to the Scriptures.
Mr. Moore quotes Dr. Carson to confirm the view that the three immersions (properly designated three baptisms by Dr. Carson) have respect to the action, while one baptism (properly one immersion) has respect to the rite. Dr. Carson said:—
"The three immersions are, in the estimation of those who used them, only one rite."
Dr. Carson was a very conscientious man. He sacrificed everything that a man of the highest culture and best worldly prospects could sacrifice to introduce immersion into the practice of the church. But he never uttered one word in favor of three immersions, as we would expect him to do if he believed that to be the sense of the Scripture injunction.
There is, moreover, an error in distinguishing between the action and the rite. A rite is necessarily an action; the sense of one determines the sense of the other. The distinction assumed, "in the estimation of those who used them," as Dr. Carson said, we assert is unjust. Mr. Moore says of Alexander Campbell's advocacy of one baptism:—
"The one baptism, or one immersion, seen by Campbell, was not the action by which the rite was performed, but the rite itself. . . . three immersions seen through his historical glasses were the same thing, only under a different appearance."
And it is only by the magic power of "historical glasses" that anybody can see three immersions. The real value of the sight we have tried to lay before our readers. We have noticed for some time that historical spectacles are a panacea with a certain class given to theological squinting. We consider it a device of empirics, injurious to the moral vision, sometimes resulting in total Bible obscuration.
Constantinople was the central city of the Greek Church, as Rome was and is of the Latin. The present head of the Greek Church, so-called, is the Czar of Russia. They were of one communion till the ninth century; but it was decided by Pope Gregory the Great that a diversity of practice in regard to baptism did not invalidate the ordinance. We have seen that the Greek Church do not act consistently with the New Testament in practicing three baptisms. Have we any other reasons for distrusting their testimony and their example? We have.
1. They practice infant baptism, which is plainly a corruption of the ordinance. They profess to found this also directly on the teachings of Christ; affirming that baptism is the new birth spoken of in John 3:5, which only can secure their entrance into the kingdom of God. Thus we see that we cannot trust to their example, nor to their claim that they derive it from the Scriptures.
2. They practice infant communion, which is also a corruption of the gospel. But they profess to draw this also from Christ's own words in John 6:53, 54. They affirm that in the communion is the flesh and blood of Christ, which infants also must eat and drink, or lose eternal life. This, another perversion of Scripture, proves that they are not safe guides in faith and practice.
3. In common with the Latins, the Greek Church are addicted to the grossest idolatry in image worship. This is confessed by Chrystal, who yet points us to the Greek Church as worthy to be followed in its three immersions. Thus he says:—
"The Greek Church in the matter of image worship and creature worship, and the prevalence of superstition, is nearly as far from primitive truth as the Latin." Page 140.
And again:—
"This church, with all these grand memories and advantages in its own worship, is, in practice, the most thoroughly creature-worshiping part of Christendom." Page 168.
How inconsistent, then, to ask us to follow the Greek Church with the idea that in her practices we shall find the ordinances of the gospel preserved in their purity!
4. They acknowledge the authority of tradition, holding it equal to the Scriptures. It is well known that the authority of tradition was placed beyond question in the whole Catholic Church, long before the separation of the Greek and Latin parts. But we need not argue the point on this occasion, for Eld. Moore himself says: "Indeed, the scriptural and traditional authority are with the Greeks equally binding." This decides the question as to the value of their practice as example for us. The Scriptures are our only rule. We can harmonize with others as far as they harmonize with this rule; when they leave it, or corrupt it, or exalt tradition to an equality with it, we cheerfully take another direction, and separate from their company.
J. H. W.
"NEITHER SORROW NOR CRYING."
By W. N. Glenn
BY W. N. GLENN.
INFIDELS and universalists, in their opposition to the doctrine of a final punishment of the wicked, make much ado over the supposed sorrow, the redeemed would experience in realizing that their near and dear relatives and friends had been forever cut off. It is argued that, if Christians feel so great solicitude for their beloved ones as is manifested in this life, and are so grieved because they do not repent and accept salvation through Christ and his truth, surely their sorrow hereafter will be immeasurably increased and prolonged when it shall indeed appear that those for whom so many prayers have been offered and tears shed are irretrievably lost. It is claimed that this knowledge must of necessity destroy even the happiness of Heaven; and there are not a few earnest Christians who are sometimes troubled with such thoughts.
A few considerations are worthy of notice, and may help to dispel fears of the happiness of Heaven being marred on account of the fate of those who refuse or neglect to accept its joys.
And first of all is the necessity of a true appreciation of that great beatitude, justice, without which there can be no security, even in Heaven, and consequently no assurance of lasting happiness. There is a certain degree of anxiety on the subject of salvation which is very ardent concerning ourselves and friends, but does not go far enough to comprehend the dignity and glory of the Author of salvation, and the honor due to his name and station. This phase of religious zeal deals altogether in mercy—is rather shy of justice. But when the heart is opened wider, and the mind's eye begins to look beyond to the high origin and insulting nature of sin, and its direct antagonism to the government of the great Creator, then begins to spring up a desire to see the honor of Heaven vindicated, the glory of God universally portrayed, and his authority unquestioned. To this end justice must be established throughout creation, and sin, with its author and host of devotees, must be utterly dispelled.
God himself has loved sinners as no earthly friend can; in long forbearance, unparalleled mercy, and the gift of his only Son. Yet, when mercy shall have ceased to avail, he will pour out upon them the vials of his wrath, and visit them with swift destruction. Does any one think that God will afterward be unhappy because the irredeemable offenders are cut off?
The tender love of Jesus, his wonderful self-sacrifice, suffering, death, and long intercession in behalf of sinners, are familiar to all who know his name. Yet he will shortly change his attitude; he will cease to intercede for sinners, and descend from heaven to take vengeance upon the ungodly ones whose rejection of mercy will have rendered his atonement of no avail to them. Will he afterwards be sad on account of having executed judgment upon them?
The angels who have so long acted as messengers of mercy between heaven and earth, and have so often assisted poor weak mortals in their5efforts to resist the power and wiles of Satan, must feel a deep sympathy for the fallen race. Yet, when the last judgments are being poured upon the earth, they will be loud in their approbation of retributive justice: "Salvation, and glory, and honor, and power, unto the Lord our God; for true and righteous are his judgments. Allelulia, for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth."
And the perfect Christian, who will have washed his robe in the blood of the Lamb, and been resurrected or translated to immortal glory, will be all absorbed in sympathy with Heaven. When mercy casts down the censer, all sorrow and sighing for sinners will cease, and justice will finish the work.
The final situation of the redeemed is thus described by "a voice out of heaven:" Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them and be their God. And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes, and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain; for the former things are passed away." Rev. 21 : 3, 4.
THE MORAL AND CEREMONIAL LAWS.
At Mount Sinai, God proclaimed the moral law, speaking it with his own voice and writing it with his own finger. By his directions, the two tables on which the law was written were placed in the ark of the covenant, which was made on purpose to receive it. Ex. 25:10-22; Deut. 10:1-5. And the ark, containing the law of God, was placed in the second apartment of the earthly sanctuary—the most holy place. Ex. 14; Heb. 9. The top of the ark was called the mercy-seat, because that man who had broken the law contained in the ark beneath the mercy-seat could find pardon by the sprinkling of the blood of atonement upon this place. The whole system of ceremonial law was ordained to enable man to approach again to this broken law, and to typify the restitution of the pardon to their inheritance, and the destruction of the impenitent.
The law within the ark was that which demanded an atonement; the ceremonial law which ordained the Levitical priesthood and the sacrifices for sin, was that which taught men how the atonement could be made. The broken law was beneath the mercy-seat; the blood of sin-offering was sprinkled upon top, and its pardon was extended to the penitent sinner. There was actual sin, and hence a real law which man had broken; but there was not a real atonement, and hence the need of the great antitype of the Levitical sacrifices. The real atonement, when it is made, must relate to the law respecting which an atonement had been shadowed forth. In other words, the shadowy atonement related to that law which was shut up in the ark, indicating that a real atonement was demanded by the law. It is necessary that the law which demands atonement, in order that its transgressor may be spared, should itself be perfect, else the fault would in part, at least, rest on the Lawgiver, and not wholly with the sinner. Hence the atonement, when made, does not take away the broken law; for that is perfect, but is expressly designed to take away the guilt of the transgressor.
In the New Testament we find the great antitype of all the offerings and sacrifices—the real atonement—as contrasted with the Levitical one. The death of our Lord Jesus Christ, as the great sacrifice for sin, was the antitype of all the Levitical sacrifices. The priesthood of our Lord Jesus Christ in the heavenly sanctuary is the great antitype of the Levitical priesthood. Heb. 8. The heavenly sanctuary itself is the great original after which the earthly one was patterned. Heb. 9:23; Ex. 25:6, 9. And the ark of God's testament in the temple in Heaven, Rev. 11:19, contains the great original of this law. And thus we see under the new dispensation a real atonement, instead of the shadowy one; a High Priest who needs not to offer for himself; a sacrifice which can avail before God; and that law, which was broken by man, magnified and made honorable at the same time that God pardons the penitent sinner.
We shall find the New Testament to abound with reference to the essential difference between these two codes, and that the distinction in the New Testament is made as clear and obvious as it is made by the facts already noticed in the Old Testament.
Thus the one code is termed "the law of a carnal commandment," Heb. 7:16; and the other, it is affirmed, "We know that the law is spiritual." Rom. 7:14. The one code is termed "the handwriting of ordinances," which was "contrary to us," and which was nailed to the cross and taken out of the way, Col. 2:14; the other code is "the royal law," which James affirms that it is a sin to transgress. Chap. 2:8-12.
The first is a code of which "there was made of necessity a change," Heb. 7:12; the second is that law of which Christ says, "Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law till all be fulfilled." Matt. 5:18. The one law was a "shadow of good things to come," Heb. 10:1, and was only imposed "until the time of reformation," Heb. 9:10; but the other was a moral code, of which it is said by John, "Whosoever committeth sin, transgresseth also the law; for sin is the transgression of the law." 1 John 3:4. The one is a yoke not able to be borne, Acts 15:10; the other is that "law of liberty" by which we shall be judged. James 2:8-12. The one is that law which Christ abolished in his flesh, Eph. 2:15; the other is that law which he did not come to destroy. Matt. 5:17.
The one is that law which he took out of the way at his death, Col. 2:14; the other is that law which he came to magnify and make honorable. Isa. 42:21. The one was a law which was disannulled "for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof," Heb. 7:18; the other is a law respecting which he inquires, "Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid; yea, we established the law." Rom. 3:31. The one is that law which was the middle wall of partition between Jews and Gentiles, Eph. 2:14; the other is that law, the work of which even the Gentiles are said to have written in their hearts, Rom. 2:12-15, and to which all mankind are amenable. Rom. 3:19.
The one is the law of commandments contained in ordinances, Eph. 2:15; the other law is the commandments of God, which it is the whole duty of man to keep, Eccl. 12:13, which are brought to view by the third angel, Rev. 14:12, which the remnant of the seed of the woman were keeping when the dragon made war upon them, Rev. 12:17, and which will insure, to those who observe them, access to the tree of life. Rev. 22:14.
Surely, these two codes should not be confounded. The one was magnified, made honorable, established, and is holy, just, spiritual, good, royal; the other was carnal, shadowy, burdensome, and was abolished, broken down, taken out of the way, nailed to the cross, changed, and disannulled, on account of the weakness and unprofitableness thereof.
Those who rightly divide the word of truth will never confound these essentially different codes, nor shall they apply to God's royal law the language employed respecting the handwriting of ordinances.
That the ten commandments are a perfect code of themselves, appears from several facts: 1. God spake them with his own voice, and it is said, "He added no more," Deut. 5:22, as evincing that he had given a complete code. 2. He wrote them alone on two tables with his own finger, another incidental proof that this was a complete moral code. 3. He caused these alone to be placed under the mercy-seat, an evident proof that this was the code that made an atonement necessary. 4. He expressly calls what he thus wrote on the tables of stone, a law and commandments. Ex. 24:12.
The precepts of this law are variously interspersed through the books of Moses, and mingled with the precepts of the ceremonial law. And the sum of the first table is given in Deut. 6:5; and that of the second, in Lev. 19:18; but there is only one place in which the moral law is drawn out in particulars, and given by itself with no ceremonial law mixed with it, that is in the ten commandments.
The four Gospels were written for a totally different end from that of all other biographies, and needed a totally different style, therefore, from that of other narratives—a style specially adapted to that end. Hence, the words to be recorded must be selected by the biographer by the over-ruling intellect which held that end in view, that the record might be made with infallible accuracy. Therefore, men of the literati, who had definite ideals of their own floating in the mind, could not draw the character perfectly. But peasants, in the main unlettered, and who had no pattern to imitate in the terrestrial lineage of man, were the only proper masters for the work. And, mind you, they were Jews, and yet they drew him not for the Jews alone, but for all nations—they lived in a remote age, and yet his portraiture stands for all time. Criticism has inspected their majestic figure for 1800 years, with the keenest eye and under most searching lights, but without detecting the slightest blemish. The telescope has detected spots in the sun at high-noon, but the acutest inspection has never found one spot upon the face of God's Anointed. Fishermen have done what no other men ever did. They have drawn a living man of their own acquaintance, all that the living God can be, the one perfect on earth as the other is perfect in Heaven. They have made parchment talk as angel and man never could, and given us a mediator between God and man, as majestic as the Jehovah on whom he lays his divine hand, and as lowly as a little child who takes our human hand in his.
Penalty of Wrong Doing.
By Channing
The lines of suffering on almost every human countenance have been deepened, if not traced there, by unfaithfulness to conscience, by departure from duty. To do wrong is the surest way to bring suffering; no wrong deed ever failed to bring it. Those sins which are followed by no palpable pain are yet terribly avenged, even in this life. They abridge our capacity of happiness, impair our relish for innocent pleasure, and increase our sensibility to suffering. They spoil us of the armor of a pure conscience and of trust in God, without which we are naked amid hosts of foes, and are vulnerable by all the changes of life. Thus, to do wrong is to inflict the surest injury on our own peace. No enemy can do us equal harm with what we do ourselves whenever or however we violate any moral or religious obligation.—Channing.
THINGS TO SEE.
If we but saw how the gates of opportunity open and close, how the possibilities of to-day neglected, become to-morrow the things which never can be done; how unused strength wastes away and brings up behind it no other strengths; how the grace that lies about all our occasions, ready to flow upon them at the touches of our diligence, slighted, lifts itself up into the heavens and leaves us in hardness and death; how on the other hand, when used it drops upon us like the rain and distills like the dew; how work done makes work easier; how the voluntary use of "all that is within us" and without us, too, of soul and sinew, of love and thought, of time and strength, and hours of prayer, will bring upon us the gentle pressures of God's newest, freshest grace. If we but saw such things as these what girdings there would be among us.
Faith Behind the Cloud
WHEN a cloud comes between us and the sun, it robs us for the time of the enjoyment of its beams. It does not prevent him from shining, it merely hinders our enjoyment of him. Exactly so is it when we allow trials and sorrows, difficulties and perplexities, to hide from our souls the bright beams of our Father’s countenance, which ever shine with changeless luster in the face of Jesus Christ. There is no difficulty too great for our God; yea, the greater the difficulty the more room there is for him to act in his proper character, as the God of all power and grace. It is the privilege of faith to find God behind the cloud in all his faithfulness, love and power.
Pulpit Eloquence
By Colton
Pulpit Eloquence.—The great difficulty in pulpit eloquence is, to give the subject all the dignity it so fully deserves, without attaching any importance to ourselves; some preachers reverse the thing: they give so much importance to themselves, that they have none left for the subject.—Colton.
Recognizing Divine Nature and Hope
By Watchman
WE cannot claim anything as of ourselves. We cannot boast. But may we not in all humility and thankfulness recognize the divine nature imparted to us and the bright prospects set before us? This will not be so much the assertion of self as the assertion of Christ and his religion.—Watchman.
A Sigh Heard by God
A SINGLE sigh breathed from the bottom of a burdened heart is a loud cry in the ear of God.
EVIDENCES OF THE END.
By James White
By most people, the evidences of the soon coming of Christ are considered insufficient to base faith upon. But the testimony and acts of one man condemned the people destroyed by the flood. The evidences then were sufficient, otherwise the world would not have been condemned. But a hundred times more convincing evidences come pouring in upon us that the day of the Lord is near, and hasteth greatly. We follow down the numerous prophetic chains of Daniel, and of the Revelation, and we find ourselves in every instance standing just before the day of wrath. We see the signs spoken of by prophets, by Christ, and in the epistles, fulfilling or fulfilled. And at the right time and in the right manner, to fulfill certain prophecies, a solemn message arises in different parts of the world: "Blow ye the trumpet in Zion, and sound an alarm in my holy mountain; let all the inhabitants of the land tremble; for the day of the Lord cometh, for it is nigh at hand." Joel 2:1. Wherever we look we see prophecy fulfilling. While the knowledge of God and the spirit of holiness are departing, spiritual wickedness, like a flood, covers the land.
But these evidences are considered insufficient to rest faith upon. Well, what kind of evidence would the unbelieving have? "When the signs of the end," says the skeptic, "are fulfilled they will be so plain that no one can doubt." But if the signs are of such a nature, and are fulfilled in such a manner as to compel all to believe in the coming of Christ, how can it be as it was in the days of Noah? Men were not then compelled to believe. But eight believing souls were saved, while all the world besides sank in their unbelief beneath the waters of the flood. God has never revealed his truth to man in a manner to compel him to believe. Those who have wished to doubt his word have found a wide field in which to doubt, and a broad road to perdition; while those who have wished to believe have ever found everlasting rock upon which to rest their faith.
Just before the end, the world will be hardened in sin, and indifferent to the claims of God. Men will be careless about hearing warning of danger, and blinded by cares, pleasures and riches. An unbelieving and infidel generation will be eating, drinking, marrying, building, planting and sowing. It is right to eat and drink to sustain nature, but the sin is in excess and gluttony. The marriage covenant is holy; but God's glory is seldom thought of. Building, planting and sowing necessary for convenient shelter, food and clothing are right; but the world has gone wholly after these things so that men have no time nor disposition to think of God, Heaven, Christ's coming, and the Judgment. This world is their god, and all their energies of body and mind are devoted to its service. And the evil day is put far away.
The faithful watchman who sounds the alarm as he sees destruction coming, is held up before the people from the pulpits of our land, and by the religious press, as a "fanatic," a "teacher of dangerous heresies;" while in contrast is set forth a long period of peace and prosperity to the church. So the churches are quieted to sleep. The scoffer continues to scoff, and the mocker mocks on. But their day is coming. Thus saith the prophet of God; "Howl ye; for the day of the Lord is at hand; it shall come as a destruction from the Almighty. Therefore shall all hands be faint, and every man's heart melt." Isa. 13:6, 7. Most dreadful day! And is it near? Yes; it hasteth! It hasteth greatly! What a description given by the prophet! Read it! and as you read, try to feel how dreadful will be that day: "The great day of the Lord is near, it is near and hasteth greatly, even the voice of the day of the Lord: the mighty man shall cry there bitterly. That day is a day of wrath, a day of trouble and distress, a day of wasteness and desolation, a day of darkness and gloominess, a day of clouds and thick darkness, a day of the trumpet and alarm against the fenced cities and against the high towers. And I will bring distress upon men, that they shall walk like blind men, because they have sinned against the Lord: and their blood shall be poured out as dust, and their flesh as the dung. Neither their silver nor their gold shall be able to deliver them in the day of the Lord's wrath; but the whole land shall be devoured by the fire of his jealousy: for he shall make a speedy riddance of all them that dwell in the land." Zeph. 1:14-18.
Now we hear the peace-and-safety cry from the pulpit, and all the way along down to the grog-shop. "Where is the promise of his coming?" is murmured from the impious lips of a thousand last-day scoffers. But the scene will speedily change. "For when they shall say peace and safety, then sudden destruction cometh upon them," The scoffing of the haughty scoffer will soon be turned to wailing and howling. "The lofty looks of man shall be humbled, and the haughtiness of men shall be bowed down, and the Lord alone shall be exalted in that day. For the day of the Lord of hosts shall be upon every one that is proud and lofty, and upon every one that is lifted up; and he shall be brought low." Isa. 2:11, 12.
The doctrine of the second appearing of Christ has been held by the church ever since her Lord ascended to the Father to prepare mansions for her reception. It is the event that consummates her hopes, terminates the period of her toils and sorrows, and introduces her eternal repose. What sublime scenes will then open before the waiting children of God! The blazing heavens will reveal the Son of God in his glory, surrounded by all the holy angels. The trumpet will sound, and the just will come forth from the grave, immortal. And all—Redeemer and redeemed, attended by the heavenly host—will move upward to the mansions prepared for them in the Father's house.
To those who really love their absent Lord, the theme of his soon return to bestow immortality upon the dead and living righteous is fraught with unspeakable blessedness. This event, with all its grand results, has always been the hope of the church. Paul could look over eighteen long centuries, and speak of it as "that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ." Titus 2:13. And Peter exhorts: "Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God." 2 Pet. 3:12. And Paul again, after speaking of the descent of the Lord from Heaven, the resurrection of the dead in Christ and their ascent with the living righteous to meet the Lord in the air, says, "Wherefore comfort one another with these words."
BAPTISM IN THE EARLY CHURCH.
Wise men do not always reason wisely when their own opinions are in question. That the Independent is ably conducted none will dispute. It is also very liberal; sometimes too much so for the benefit of religious truth and practice. We love liberality, but do not like it when it approaches to "liberalism," or when it makes concessions to error. The Independent does not like to have the Baptists claim that immersion only is baptism. From an article in a recent number we clip the following:—
"Prof. Fox objects to our assertion that the Baptists are the first and, we believe, the only sect or party in Christendom who ever assumed the position that immersion is essential to baptism.' We shall not question the statement of Dean Stanley about the meaning of the word baptize and the practice of the Apostolic church. But, admitting its correctness, we do question whether the Apostolic church went to the extreme of asserting that immersion is essential to baptism. Baptist writers have never shown that such an issue was raised in the early church. It is an issue of modern times. The question here is not one of philology; but it is a question of Church history. We do not raise the question whether the word baptize means to immerse or whether that was the practice of the first Christians; but we ask for proof that the first Christians had advanced to the point of asserting that immersion is essential to baptism. Evidently a long period of development was required to reach that extreme position."
We think the Independent is quite safe in its position that "such an issue was not raised in the early church." But we think the true reason is the very opposite of that which it gives.
Let Dean Stanley's assertion as to the meaning of baptize stand admitted, and we must also admit that the early church was aware of that meaning, for their practice corresponded therewith. Then the following facts stand admitted in regard to the early church:—
The early Christians accepted immersion as the meaning of the word baptizo.
They practiced immersion in the ordinance of baptism.
The issue as to whether immersion is essential to baptism was not raised among them.
The reasonable conclusion is found in the following:—
4. The early church admitted that baptizo meant to immerse, and practiced immersion as baptism. Therefore the issue whether immersion only is baptism was not then raised because "the Baptist position" was not then called in question.
This conclusion must stand unless Dean Stanley's assertions are disproved. But the argument of the Independent would stand somewhat after this manner:—
The early church believed that baptizo meant to immerse.
It practiced immersion as baptism.
The issue as to whether immersion is essential to baptism was not raised in that age.
Therefore they did not consider that immersion is essential to baptism.
If anybody can see logical force in this conclusion they have reasoning powers to which we cannot lay claim. To us the inference of the Independent is as just as it would be to assert that George Washington was not an eminent man because nobody denied that he was!