Gentile Baptism by Archippus (James Fishback) Christian Messenger.

From the Christian Messenger.      

BY an unhappy turn in the wheels of the car of Reformation, we find ourselves thrown back upon the ages that succeeded the Apostles in which, from an erroneous interpretation of the figurative language of a few passages in scripture, in which the symbol was identified in word, with the thing signified, very similar to the mistake which afterwards led to transubstantiation.

It was universally supposed that baptism was invariably accompanied with a supernatural effect, by an immediate divine agency, which totally changed the state and character of the candidate, and constituted him a child of God, and an heir of the kingdom of heaven. 

Hence it was almost constantly denoted by the terms illumination, regeneration,
        and others, expressive of the highest operations of the Spirit:
        and it was believed to obtain the plenary remission of all past sins;
        it was sometimes, in order to insure that benefit, purposely deferred to the latest period of life.
This was the case with the Emperor Constantine, who, after having spent many years in adjusting the order, and orthodoxy of the christian religion, and determining matters of controversy, between bishops and councils, and ratified the Nicene Creed, submitted to baptism, as we are informed by Eusebius, for purifying himself from offences, and cleansing his soul from guilt, which he believed was to be effected by the power of mystic words and the saving love. When he was baptized, which was just before his death, he said to the bishops who surrounded him, "This is the period 1 have so long hoped and prayed for; the period of obtaining the salvation of God." Constantine was a Novatian. The Novatians formed a sect that sprung up in the third century, which, on account of their views of baptism in washing away sin, and their interpretation of Heb. vi. 4. 6. believed that no person who had been excluded from the fellowship of the church, ought ever to be restored, even upon repentance. A practice contrary to this sentiment caused them to separate from the church, and to form a new sect. They reasoned thus: Baptism is tote performed but once in a man's life, and it is the only act, by which sin is renewed; therefore, all the sin that is committed after baptism, has no remission; and a church which readmits persons, who by having sinned [156] after baptism had forfeited their membership, is a corrupt church. 

Constantine, to avoid the remediless fate of those who might sin after baptism, preferred to sin on until just before his death, to which period he designedly put off his baptism, when he was baptized and cleansed his soul from all sin, and received the salvation of God. The Roman Catholics have remedied this evil by instituting the ordinance of confession, which is one of their seven sacraments. They maintain that "all sins committed previous to baptism need not be confessed, for it is the doctrine of the church that they are all washed away by the administration of that rite;"' and they "maintain that the remission of sins committed after baptism can be secured in no other way but by confession to a priest, when this can be done; when a priest cannot be obtained, then the desire to confess will be accepted of God." I shall be very sorry to see Bible Christians of the present day, or any portion of them, return to this system of things, or to any part of it. I greatly fear that this will be the case from the signs of the times. This old doctrine, in part, is brought to view as a new discovery, and is about to be made the occasion of a new sect. I feel greatly afflicted at this, and regard it as a real calamity. I do this, because I am fully convinced that the leading idea of the system is founded in mistake, and because the present sectarian system of things which is so derogatory to the honor and service of Jesus Christ, the happiness of his people, and the conversion of the world, will be strengthened and perpetuated by it. I say, this new principle, or this old one revived, that is about to be the basis of a new sect among the Baptists, is founded in error. 

The error arises from wrong views of the few places in the New Testament, in which the promise of the remission of sin is connected in expression with baptism. From this it is asserted that baptism is the only medium or action known in the word of God, by which he remits the sin of believers. With fully as much confidence as this sentiment is asserted, I assert the contrary.

Here, then, is an issue made up fairly between what may be called the Baptist Reformers and myself. I desire to be fully understood upon this subject, and will state the principle, which I defend with proper limitations and qualifications. 

I maintain that it is the doctrine of the New Testament, 
        that God JUSTIFIES the Gentiles by faith alone,
        and that baptism has no more to do in PROCURING the remission of sins,
        or is no more the action through or by which sin is actually remitted,
        than any other work of faith is; 
        and I moreover assert, with a view of proving it beyond any reasonable doubt, by the word of God,
        that baptism is wholly misapprehended in its design and use as administered to the Gentiles,
        when viewed as the reformers view it. 

You perceive that I limit my observations on the subject of baptism, to the Gentiles. I do this to elicit investigation and to bring the subject to a narrow and definite compass.

What I have now said will excite many inquiries.
         It will he asked, Why this difference between Jew and Gentile?
        Has God one way of saving the Jew, and another to save the Gentile?
        In my turn I would propose a few questions, too, for consideration.
                What was the difference between the Jewish state, [157]
        and the state of the Gentiles before the death and the resurrection of Jesus Christ?

What was the difference between the Jewish state before the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ; and afterwards, before they embraced the Christian religion?

What was the difference between the Jewish state after the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, and the Gentile state, before they embraced Christianity?

Did John the Baptist preach the baptism of repentance to the Gentiles? And if not, why did he not? What was the difference between Jesus' disciples and christians?

Were there any difference between the ministry and baptism of John, and the ministry and baptism of Jesus Christ and his disciples previous to the day of Pentecost? and if there was, what was it?

How far were any of the discourses delivered by Christ during his ministry to the Jews, before his crucifixion, applicable to the Gentiles?
        Was the discourse delivered by Peter on the day of Pentecost applicable to the Gentiles,
        and if it was in any degree, to what extent?
How far were the Jews being pricked to the heart on the day of Pentecost, and their inquiry, men and brethren what shall we do? limited to, and produced by their state, as distinguished from the state of the Gentiles?   
        and how far was Peter's reply,
        Repent and be baptized every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sin, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost, for the promise is to you and to your children and them that are afar off, &c. owing to, and limited by the peculiar situation and state of the Jews, as distinguished from the Gentiles? The same inquiries may be made of Saul of Tarsus in reference to his baptism.

When these subjects are fully understood, all the difficulties that now seem to present themselves will disappear.

In the next number of the Messenger, I will adduce my proof before its readers, 
        that the New Testament does not authorise the belief,
        that the sins of the Gentiles are remitted in baptism at all.

In the mean time I hope your readers will examine the scriptures with honest and untiring care, by reading the Old and the New Testament, so as to be able to satisfy themselves truly and scripturally, in reference to the subjects on which I have propounded the above questions.

The essential qualifications of a real reformer consists, in my judgment, in supreme love to Jesus Christ and his truth, with a correct acquaintance with it, and the exclusion of all sectarian principles and feelings. Such a person with the truth of the gospel, cherishes the affections, motives and sympathies of the gospel. He will call everything by the right name, and have every thing in its right place, and can quote every part of scripture which treats of doctrine, ordinances and duties, with equal pleasure; and while he fellowships all christians, to the extent they fellowship Christ and the Apostles, in their acts of worship, and in participating with them in the blessings of the gospel, he withholds his approbation from their errors, and all partyism. Without these qualifications, any reformation that may be attempted will amount to but little more in the end than the reformation of a sect, or a party. Presbyterians may reform so as to sing [158] Rouse's version of the old Psalms, or so as to form a Cumberland Presbyterian sect; and the Methodist may so reform as to get clear of the supremacy of their bishops, and divide the legislative, judicial and executive power of their sect into more numerous hands, and have a more divided representation in their conferences, and other ecclesiastical meetings; and the Baptists may reform so as to give to baptism the efficacy of remitting sin, or of making it the action by which sin is remitted. But after all this, they are sectarian still, and may be but little better, and perhaps worse for mending. I cannot give utterance to what I believe and know to be the direful consequences of sectarianism in its mildest forms, upon the interests of religion, and the peace and happiness of society.

ARCHIPPUS.

---

Response

Always willing that our readers shall have the same opportunity of judging for themselves that we have, I am solicitous that they may hear both sides of every important question, and know all that can ho said against, as well as for every proposition which we offer. This is what we ask from our opponents: and although they will not yield to our importunities, still we feel ourselves compelled by the controlling principles of our religion, not to imitate them, but to give a fair exhibit of both sides.

The essay above quoted from the Christian Messenger deserves special attention,
        because it contemplates a new ground of opposition to the Apostolic Gospel, as we consider it.
        The writer of it seems to be a half reformer or middle-ground man, who divides baptism into two species; one for the Jews, for remission of sins--and one for the Gentiles, after they are pardoned. He has taken a middle ground. To the Jew he would preach baptism for remission; to the Gentiles, baptism without remission. From the versatility of his genius in other matters, we shall not be surprised to find him abandon his Jewish baptism, that he may secure his Gentile baptism.

But it will be time enough to examine the grounds and reasons of this opinion when he has presented them to the public. In the mean time, we shall offer to him and the public a few remarks on the essay before us:

The author of this essay is supposed to be a reformer, but a reformer of a peculiar class; and if public fame be worthy of credit, the "car of his reformation" moves in a circle, or, after starting from the city of Presbyterianism, and after much hard toiling for some years, it has stopped in the suburbs of the old city again. He has the same doctrine of communion which this essay exhibits on baptism. 

He admits that among the old converts there was no breaking of the loaf, save among the immersed disciples; that sprinkling infants is a human tradition; yet he teaches that among the Gentile christians of the present day, all christian union, even to the breaking of the loaf; ought to be practised irrespective of the views of the participants in favor of infant sprinkling, or christian immersion. It is not to be wondered at, then, that he should divide the institution of baptism, as he [159] has that of the Supper, and give it one meaning to a Jew, and another to a Gentile. I doubt not but this peculiarity arises from a warm desire to promote brotherly kindness and love. We only state these premises to enable the reader to appreciate the conclusions to which he has come.

But we have some complaints to offer which we think are worthy of the attention of Archippus, and these we will arrange in numerical order:

1. Why should he assert that our views of immersion throw us back upon the ages which succeeded the Apostles? He would insinuate not to the age immediately succeeding, or the age of the Apostles itself, but to the third or fourth age after the Apostles. This is "ad captandum vulgus," to catch the thoughtless by representing that we had not gone back to the Apostolic Age, but only to some dark age subsequent to that age. But where is the proof? This he has as yet kept to himself!! Will this saying prove any thing? Nothing for him, and nothing against us. It is only to prejudice, or to inveigle the undiscriminating. Why tell us of the conversion of Constantine, and his notions of baptism? What will this prove? But he wished to introduce the Novatians, and he tells us that Constantine was a Novatian. This we complain of as an unlawful, wanton, and pointless attempt to prejudice, rather than to convince.

2. Why introduce the name of Novatius, or the Novatians, and represent the idea of baptism for the remission of sins as originating with them? or at least, as the first public advocates of this view'? This is not a fact. We challenge him for the proof.

3. Or does he intend to side with the Catholics and call the Novatians heretics, and thus ally us with heretics? This is unmanly, unjust, and every way illogical. We complain of these things, as unworthy of a high-minded man, and of a fair controversialist. But in the next place,

4. We complain of his alleging false facts in his allusions to history. The following sentences he cannot sustain from any authentic document on earth. 

"The Novatians formed a sect that sprung up in the third century, which, on account of their views of baptism [not a fact] in washing away sin, and their interpretation of Heb. vi. 4-6. believed that no person who had been excluded from the fellowship of the church ought ever to be restored, even upon repentance. 

A practice contrary to this sentiment caused them to separate from the church, [what church? Ask Mr. Jones] and to form a new sect." This is in a great measure imagined by our friend. He cannot adduce any document to sustain him. I have no doubt but he thought that his imaginations on this subject were all true history. 

I was confounded when I read these sentences, and immediately brushed the dust off Eusebius, from whom all the moderns borrow, but behold, Eusebius says no such thing. The Catholics call the Novatians heretics, and our friend catches their spirit. But Eusebius never once mentions any peculiarity in this views of baptism. 

He only says, (London Edition Folio A. D. 1709, page 120) that Novatius "disalloweth of [160] Holy Baptism," without a single specification. In a note it is explained, that he contemned the baptism of the Catholic Church as inefficient. Yea, the very reverse of Archippus' saying, is the fact, as stated by Valesius. In his note upon the passage, he says: 

"The confession of faith made by the catechumens before baptism, when they said 'they believed the remission of sins,' he abolished; for, says Valesius. Novatian did not allow remission of sins." 

I have examined every allusion to Novatian in Eusebius, and find no countenance for the assertions of Archippus. Mosheim, vol. 1 p. 299 of his history, exonerates the Novatians from the charge of Archippus. He says, "Novatian, a presbyter of the Church in Rome, was a man of uncommon learning and eloquence;" of an "austere and rigid character," The sect of the Novatians, (he avers) cannot be charged with having corrupted the doctrine of Christianity by their opinions. Their crime was the unreasonable severity of their discipline--by which they made an unhappy rent in the Church.

      Again, page 300, Mosheim says, "There was no difference in point of doctrine between the Novatians and other Christians. What distinguished them was, their refusing to re-admit to the communion of the church those who after baptism had fallen into the commission of heinous crimes, [such as idolatry or apostacy, not every offence,] though they did not pretend that even such were excluded from all possibility or hopes of salvation." Mosheim assigns them no peculiar views of the meaning of baptism. "They only," says he, "considered the baptism administered in those churches [which were lax in discipline] which received the lapsed to their communion even after the most sincere and undoubted repentance, as absolutely divested of the power of imparting the remission of sins," which was the doctrine of the whole church at this time: for "in doctrine the Novatians differed not from other Christians." Mosheim refers to Eusebius; but Eusebius does not justify all his remarks. I have read the references. They rebaptized all whom they received from the Catholic Church, not because they had a new or different baptism, but because they considered that church immoral and impure.

      Jones, whom I think Archippus regards as one of the best historians, condemns all his allusions to the Novatians. So also does the historian Robinson. These worthy Baptists speak in the highest terms of the Novatians. All Jones alleges against the Novatians, and this he does with considerable doubt, is, that it is said Novatian refused to receive into the communion of the church any, who in time of persecution, had been induced through fear of sufferings or death, to apostatize from their profession, and offer sacrifices to the heathen deities, a principle which he founded upon a mistaken view of Heb. vi. 4. 6. The following is one of the fairest accounts of the true character of the Novatians which we can find on the pages of any historian:--

THE NOVATIANS.

"The following is the account given of Novatian by the late Mr. Robert Robinson, in his Ecclesiastical Researches, p. 126; and I the more readily [161] submit it to the reader, because none who knew Mr. Robinson, can, for a moment, suspect him of having any undue predilection for the principles of Novatian. "He was," says he, "all elder in the Church of Rome, a man of extensive learning, holding the same doctrine as the church did, and published several treatises in defence of what he believed. His address was eloquent and insinuating, and his morals irreproachable. He saw with extreme pain the intolerable depravity of the church. Christians within the space of a very few years were caressed by one emperor, and persecuted by another. In seasons of prosperity many persons rushed into the church for base purposes. In times of adversity they denied the faith and reverted again to idolatry. When the squall was over, away they came again to the church, with all their vices, to deprave others by their examples. The bishops, fond of proselytes, encouraged all this; and transferred the attention of christians from the old confederacy for virtue, to vain shows at Easter, and other Jewish ceremonies, adulterated too with paganism. On the death of bishop Fabian, Cornelius, a brother elder, and a violent partisan for taking in the multitude, was put in nomination. Novatian opposed him; but as Cornelius carried his election, and he saw no prospect of reformation, but, on the contrary, a tide of immorality pouring into the church, he withdrew and a great many with him. Cornelius, irritated by Cyprian, who was just in the same condition, through the remonstrance of virtuous men at Carthage, and who was exasperated beyond measure with one of his own elders, named Novatus, who had quitted Carthage, and gone to Rome to espouse the cause of Novatian, called a council and got a sentence of excommunication passed against Novatian. In the end Novatian formed a church, and was elected bishop. Great numbers followed his example, and all over the empire Puritan churches were constituted and flourished through the succeeding two hundred years. Afterwards, when penal laws obliged them to lurk in corners, and worship God in private, they were distinguished by a variety of names, and a succession of them continued till the Reformation."

"The same author, afterwards adverting to the vile calumnies with which the Catholic writers have in all ages delighted to asperse the character of Novatian, thus proceeds to vindicate him:--

"They say Novatian was the first Antipope; and yet there was at that time no pope, in the modern sense of the word. They call Novatian the author of the heresy of puritanism; and yet they know that Tertullian had quitted the church near fifty years before, for the same reason, and Privatus, who was an old man in the time of Novatian, had, with several more, repeatedly remonstrated against the alterations taking place; and, as they could get no redress, had dissented and formed separate congregations. They tax Novatian with being the parent of in innumerable multitude of congregations of Puritans all over the empire; and yet he had no other influence over any, than what his good example gave him. People "every where saw the same cause of complaint, and groaned for relief; and when one man made a stand for virtue, the crisis had arrived; people saw the propriety of the cure, and applied the same means to their own relief. They blame this man, and all these churches for the severity of their discipline; yet this severe discipline was the only coercion of the primitive churches, and it was the exercise of this that rendered civil coercion unnecessary. Some exclaimed, it is a barbarous discipline to refuse to readmit people into christian communion, because they have lapsed into idolatry or vice. Others, finding the inconvenience of such a lax discipline, required a repentance of five, ten, or fifteen years; but the Novatians said, You may be admitted among us by baptism; or, if any Catholic has baptized you before, by rebaptism; but if you fall into idolatry, we shall separate you from our communion, and on no account readmit you. God forbid we should injure either your person, your property, or your character, or even judge of the truth of your repentance or your future state; but you can never be readmitted to our community, without our giving up the last and only coercive guardian we have of the purity of our [fellowship.] Whether these persons reasoned justly or not, as virtue was their object, they [162] challenge respect, and he must be a weak man indeed, who is frighted out of it, because Cyprian is pleased to say they are the children of the devil."

The doctrinal sentiments of the Novatians appear to have been very scriptural, and the discipline of their churches rigid in the extreme. They were the first class of Christians who obtained the name of (Cathari) Puritans, an appellation which doth not appear to have been chosen by themselves, but applied to them by their adversaries; from which we may reasonably conclude that their manners were simple and irreproachable."------[Jones' History.]

Upon the whole, the Novatians are defended by Lardner and by Jones, Robinson, and some others, as the purest branch of the Church, as it is called; and notwithstanding their requiring apostates to be re-baptized, they stand with the fairest character of any sect on the page of history down to the times of the Waldenses, or even to the time of the Reformation, though merged in other names. They are the parents of the Baptist sect, so far as it has any parentage out of the Church of Rome.

---

The vindication of the Novatians is no concern of mine; for it avails nothing with me whether they taught the Jews baptism, or the Gentiles baptism, according to my worthy friend Archippus. But we must do justice to the dead as well as to the living, 

and nothing can be more unwarranted, from all history, than to say that "they were excluded from the Church of Rome because of their views of baptism in washing away sin." 

I now call upon Archippus to retract this charge, or to make an effort to sustain it. And here I will take occasion to say, that he cannot find any man of any note, or any sect mentioned in history from Peter's Sermon on Pentecost till Constantine the Great, who held his views of baptism; nor any man who taught that baptism was not connected with the remission of sins. Both his orthodox Church which excluded Novatian, and his heretic Novatian, agreed in their views of "baptism, as washing away sin." 

Let Archippus name the man in all antiquity who opposed baptism for the remission of sins. We only use this as an argumentum ad hominem. When an opponent would represent us as reviving old heresies, or as holding the views of heretics, we wish him to remember that the orthodox, his own orthodox and the heretics were one in this matter. In this style does the present orthodox Roman Church represent all the Protestants, as reviving old heresies.

Upon the whole, we are glad to see Archippus make his issue on this question, seeing he is determined to be opposed; much more so, however, to have seen him act a more consistent part both towards me, himself, his friends, and the community. He has thrown down the gauntlet on a mere phantom of his own creation, and joined issue with the very persons, whom, of all others, he is the most bound from his own principles, concessions and professions to have sustained. We know his love for his own offspring. No father ever loved an only child with more enthusiasm, than this good doctor loves his own creations. We know it will require him some months to get down to the temperature of calm reason and dispassionate inquiry; and therefore we expect a vigorous effort on his part to maintain his Gentile [163] Baptism. But, reader, be assured he will have to surrender either his Jews baptism or his Gentile baptism before many moons, in the estimation of all men of sense and intelligence; and among these I would include himself. He has a good library, and has access to all the libraries in Lexington, Kentucky. And as he has fairly made an issue, we expect him to put forth all his powers in his own defence.

I have been at some pains to convict him of the loose and declamatory manner in which ha alludes to facts and documents. Facts are stubborn things, not so pliable as speculations and opinions. We will show that his scripture allusions are as fanciful as his allusions to ecclesiastical history.

His distinction between the import of baptism when a Jew and a Gentile is the subject, I would inform him is not new to me: for that thought occurred to me years ago, and was thoroughly canvassed. It amounts to little more than this, and all his preliminary questions amount to no more than this;--A was a drunkard; B, a thief; C, a liar; D, a Samaritan; E, an Ethiopian; F, a Frank; G, a Briton; I, an Italian; and H, a Hellenist: they were all converted to Jesus Christ. Now did baptism signify the same thing to A, B, C. &c. and was there no difference between these persons, national or characteristic, which caused baptism to mean one thing to one, and another thing to another? But I enter not into the merits of his views until he have farther committed them to writing. In this I only complain of his unfairness. EDITOR.  

REVIEW OF ARCHIPPUS--No. II.

WE had fully intended to republish all the essays of Archippus on the question of Gentile Baptism not for the Remission of Sins; but, by some fatality, the numbers of the "Christian Messenger," containing his 2d and 3d essays, have been mislaid, and we can only for the present cite from our recollections. We have written for a copy of these numbers, and if we have omitted any of his strong points we shall notice them hereafter.

His strongest argument, and, indeed, his only argument that has any plausibility,
         is, that "the first Gentile congregation addressed by Peter,
        were not commanded to be immersed for the remission of sins, [232]
        but that the Holy Spirit fell upon them
        before they were immersed
        and that they were afterwards reported,
        Acts xv. to have had their hearts purified by faith."

Acts 15:6 And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter.
Acts 15:7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us,
        that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the WORD of the gospel, and BELIEVE.
Acts 15:8 And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us;
Acts 15:9 And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.

g2511. katharizo, kath-ar-id´-zo; from 2513; to cleanse (literally or figuratively): — (make) clean(-se), purge, purify.
g2513. katharos, kath-ar-os´; of uncertain affinity; clean (literally or figuratively): — clean, clear, pure.

Eph. 5:26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it
        with the washing of water by the word, [INTO the Word or School of Christ]
g3067. loutron, loo-tron´; from 3068; a bath, i.e. (figuratively), baptism: — washing.
g3068.  louo, loo´-o; a primary verb; to bathe (the whole person;

Heb. 10:22 Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith,
         having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience,  [blood applied by God]
        and our bodies WASHED (baptized] with pure [purifying] water.

Acts 15:11 But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ
        we shall be SAVED, even as they.
Rom. 5:9 Much more then,
        being now justified by his blood,
        we shall be saved from wrath through him.

 

From which he infers that they were pardoned through faith previous to immersion. This is, we think, a fair statement of his main argument. With seeming confidence in the irrefragable strength of his position, he asks, "Can we suppose that those persons on whom the Holy Spirit fell were yet in their sins? and certainly they received the Holy Spirit before they were immersed--consequently, while in their sins."

It is always expedient, as well as lawful, to have the whole strength of an argument or objection presented before an attempt is made to meet or repel it. Having in the above the full strength, as we conceive, of the argument in favor of immersion after remission, or immersion not for the answer of a good conscience, or not for the remission of sins, we shall devote a few periods to its examination.

In the first place it will be conceded by Archippus himself, that the gifts of the Holy Spirit bestowed on the house of Cornelius, were those gifts now called miraculous; such as the gift of speaking foreign languages, or the gift of interpreting, prophesying, &c. This being conceded, it will follow that if these gifts were bestowed at any time upon persons without regard to a change of state, or character, or to purity of heart, it can prove nothing in favor of the remission of the sins of these Gentiles before immersion. As he makes the reception of these gifts a proof of their remission before immersion, it is essential to the truth and validity of his argument that he prove that these gifts were never bestowed upon persons who were not pardoned. But this he cannot prove; for something like the contrary can be proved; and this at once makes his reasoning fallacious and inconclusive. For so long as it is written that the Spirit of God fell upon Saul, (1 Sam. x. 10.) and that Balaam prophesied, and that Judas had all the spiritual gifts which were possessed by the Apostles previous to the ascension of the Saviour; and that persons have wrought miracles in the name of Jesus; and have tasted the powers of the world to come, who were not pardoned, but died in their sins--his argument, drawn from the gift of tongues bestowed on the Pagans in the house of Cornelius, is illogical and fallacious. There is nothing pardoning or purifying in such gifts. Even the Christians in Corinth, who were foremost in the possession of them, were, in the estimation of Paul, carnal and walked as men. They even envied one another because of the gifts of the Holy Spirit which they possessed, and had not prudence to use them for the purposes for which they were bestowed. The gifts bestowed on these Gentiles were for a sign; and so Peter always used them when speaking in vindication of himself to his Jewish brethren. This immersion in the Holy Spirit, as Peter explained it was bestowed on the Gentiles as it had been on the Jews. The Spirit confirmed the testimony to Jesus and Gentiles at its first promulgation by the same operations. This is the legitimate use of this incident; and its falling upon the Gentiles, so soon as remission sins by the name of Jesus was announced, was intended to confirm [233] that statement; and, therefore, as soon as Peter recovered from the panic of this interruption of his discourse, he commanded their immersion by the authority of the Lord.

Archippus, it appears, mistakes the meaning of this incident altogether. The Jews on Pentecost, the Gentiles on their first calling, and the Samaritans were not received into the kingdom of Jesus exactly in the same manner, for reasons which might, perhaps, be discovered.

The Samaritans beard, believed, and were immersed before they received anyone of these gifts of the Holy Spirit. When the Apostles in Jerusalem heard that the Samaritans believed and were immersed, they sent Peter and John to lay hands upon them that they might receive the Holy Spirit. Their former standing, and their controversy with the Jews, perhaps, required this peculiarity in the economy of Heaven towards them. At all events, they did not receive the Holy Spirit either as the Jews or Gentiles at the beginning, but by the intervention of the hands of Jews, whom they had nationally and unrighteously opposed. As well might Archippus urge this case to prove that risen might believe and be immersed and brought into the kingdom of Jesus Without the Holy Spirit and without pardon, as to apply that incident in the house of Cornelius to prove that they were pardoned before they were immersed.

But this is not all: his own argument can be retorted upon himself with all the factitious force he has given it. Can it be possible, one might say to him, that Cornelius, so good a man, so pious, so benevolent, so charitable, who gave much alms to the people, and continually prayed to God, was in an unsaved, unpardoned state, before Peter came "to tell him words by which himself and his house might be saved!" Yet this must be admitted because an angel said so, (Acts xi. 14.) But had he not been so informed, I doubt not but the same ingenuity which discovered that Cornelius and his household were pardoned before they were immersed, would have proved that he was saved before Peter announced the gospel to him!!

Having disposed of this part of the argument, we proceed to notice another saying on which our friend Archippus relies with much assurance. The Gentiles had been purified in their hearts by faith. A very slight attention to the words in connexion with which these stand might have shown our friend that this saying proves too much for him, for it proves that the Jews as well as the Gentiles were saved by the same grace and purified by the same faith. If he maintain his ground here, it must be at the expense of his identifying both the immersion on Pentecost and that of Cornelius, which subverts the distinction he would fain introduce between Jewish and Gentile baptism. 

But how does it read? "And God who knows the heart, bare witness to them, (the Gentiles,) giving them the Holy Spirit, even as he did to us, and made no distinction between us and them, having purified their heart, by faith." So, then, God made no such distinction between the meaning of immersion to a Jew and to a Gentile, as my friend Archippus would make. 

He did not command the Jews to be immersed for the [234] remission of their sins, 
and the Gentiles to be immersed because their sins were forgiven. 

He purified the hearts of both Jews and Gentiles by faith. Alas! how shortsighted are they who oppose the truth! Did Archippus think that either grace, blood, water, or obedience can purify the heart of man without faith? Neither the grace of God, nor the blood of Jesus, nor the institution of immersion; nor obedience can purify the heart of man without faith. Faith is that principle which brings us nigh, or under, that influence which saves us. Neither can faith without blood, nor faith without grace, save or purify the heart or soul of man. 

And he who relies upon faith for pardon, without grace, blood, water, and obedience to every divine institution, relies upon a foundation which imagination, and neither reason nor revelation has laid.

Because faith is that principle in us which realizes, apprehends, and embraces the whole christian institution, it is of all other principles, natural or acquired, the most deserving to stand first, and to have the salvation of men ascribed to it. And so it generally stands first, because, in our order of things, it is the first. But, in God's order, it is the third. In the order of things as respects him, it is first grace: second, the sacrifice, or blood of Jesus; third, faith; and fourth, reformation, or obedience. As respects our arrangement of things, it is first faith; then the blood of Jesus; then the grace of God; then obedience. To explain: Obedience springs from faith; faith regards the blood of Jesus; and then the grace from which it flowed. But we are said to be "justified by faith." "justified by grace," "justified by his blood," "justified by works," and "saved by water." We stand up for them all; but every one in its own order. And if our friend Archippus has found out a new way for the Gentiles, in which they have only four steps, while the Jew has five, he must be honored by all the Gentile world. Hence the Gentile part of the Baptist population will thank him for nullifying immersion and for giving to faith all that is ascribed to both grace, blood, water, and obedience. But this must suffice for the present. We shall still farther expose the inadvertencies of our good friend Archippus. EDITOR.  

also purified pigs

Review of Archippus.--No. III., by Alexander Campbell, pp. 266-269. Signed "Editor."

REVIEW OF ARCHIPPUS--No. III.

THE question of justification is a question which all confess to be worthy of the most serious, solemn, and profound investigation. It is now revived. The meaning of christian immersion has called up this question in a new form, and has elicited, and is likely still to elicit, a peculiar attention. 

We are bold to affirm our conviction that since the great apostacy from original christianity, justification has not been placed clearly, fully, scripturally, satisfactorily before the minds of any portion of the community. 

Expecting to have seen before this date the remarks of Mr. Andrew Broaddus on the "Extra, No. 1, on Remission of Sins," we have delayed offering to our readers any remarks on the subject of remission of sins under the term justification. Archippus has made it necessary that we should pay some attention to it sooner than we had contemplated. 

What appears to us a confused view of the doctrine of justification, lies at the bottom of the opposition to immersion for the forgiveness of sins. In anticipation of the forthcoming review of Mr. Broaddus, and in reply to the essays of Archippus on the import of baptism as preached to the Gentiles, we are constrained to call the attention of our readers to the "doctrine of justification." Archippus and Mr. Broaddus, however they may agree in the import of immersion, appear to stand upon the ground that the Gentiles are justified by faith ALONE. Now, reader, is it not strange that differing from them both, and they differ from one another in some respects, we should take the same premises; or, in other words, contend with them that we are justified by faith, and yet preach immersion for the remission of sins? Such, however, is the fact, as the sequel will show.

Every thing here, as in all other discussions and examinations, depends on the proper definition of the terms. The "doctrine" of justification is with us the meaning of the word justification: for words are signs of ideas, and therefore our ideas are known by words. The first question here, then, is, In what sense did the Jews, or rather in what sense did the Apostles use the terms justify, justified, justification? This decided, and we are prepared to examine the objections of our dissenting brethren.

Ask the gentlemen of the forum, or rather the members of the courts of judicature, what this term imports in their usage, and we vouch for them they will not say that to be justified and to be pardoned are the same thing. Nay, they will assert that they cannot be applied to the same person in the same state. 

The person justified with them cannot be pardoned; and he that is with them pardoned, cannot be justified; for he is condemned. 

Hence pardons come not to the justified, but to the condemned. 

To justify a person with them [266] is to prove him innocent of the crime alleged--it is to declare him just; and, therefore, he that is justified with them has nothing to be forgiven. Commentators on law and religion admit this to be the forensic import of the term. But the question is, Did the Jews, or did the Apostles use the term in the forensic use? Or did they use it as equivalent to pardon? To decide this matter with certainty, we have only to examine the use of the term in all the passages in which it occurs. Some of them will doubtless furnish decisive evidences of the meaning which they applied to justify, justified, and justification.

After a diligent examination of all the passages in which this term occurs, we are assured that, with them, to be pardoned and to be justified represented the same state, or the same act; and, therefore, pardon and justification were, with them, synonymous. For examples:--

Before detailing these examples which fix its meaning in reference to the question of personal justification or pardon, it ought to be remarked that the word is sometimes used in a forensic sense when applied to persons not needing pardon. Thus Jesus is said to have been justified in, or by the Spirit; i. e. declared to be just, or fully sustained in all his pretensions to he the Messiah. "Wisdom is also justified of her children." "By thy words thou shalt be justified." "That thou mightest he justified in thy sayings," sustained or proved to he just and true. But these are not to the point, and we only allude to them for the sake of the captious.

In reference to sinners, it is equivalent to pardon. Acts xiii. 39. "Through this man is proclaimed to you the forgiveness of sins, and by him all that believe are justified from all things (from all sins) from which you could not be justified by the law of Moses." Here it certainly is equivalent to pardon or forgiveness of sins. Thus the term "justified" is used always in the Acts of Apostles. Paul, in the Romans, uses it in the same sense, chap. iv. verse 5. "God justifieth the ungodly." In proof of this justification of the ungodly, he quotes David saying, "Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered! Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin." The non-imputation of sin, the remission of it, and justification, are here shown to be convertible phrases--of the same sense and meaning. In the same chapter, verse 25, the Apostle says Jesus was delivered for our offences and raised again, not for our offences, but for the removal of them--"for our justification." In the 5th chapter also it is used in the same sense:--condemnation for one offence and justification from many offences are contrasted to show the difference between the Fall and the free gift by Jesus. But, indeed, it is always used in this sense when a change of state is spoken of, or when sinners are said to be justified.

The term "justify," and all its derivatives, being thus defined, we are now prepared to inquire whether a man is justified or pardoned by faith. If we ask the Westminster Assembly they will soon decide the matter. They ask the question and answer it for us:--

"Quest. 70. What is justification?"

"Ans. Justification is an act of God's free grace unto sinners, in [267] "Which he pardoneth all their sin, (very good) accepteth and accounteth their persons righteous in his sight, (very good) not for any thing wrought in them, or done by them, but only for the perfect obedience and full satisfaction of Christ by God imputed to them, and received by faith alone."

This by faith alone is Archippus' and I think my friend Broaddus' answer to the question. I would say by faith alone too, had it not been that James positively says "not by faith alone." "You see," says James, "that a man is justified by works, and not by faith alone." That a man is justified by faith, both Paul and James declare; but neither of them will say by faith alone. This is just the jet of the whole controversy--by faith in connexion with other considerations, or by faith alone.

Those who preach pardon by faith alone, among whom is my friend Archippus, rely upon those passages which speak of justification and faith as connected; such as "God will justify the pagan by faith," or "being justified by faith," &c. not considering that none of them says what the Assembly's catechism says, viz: that we are justified by faith alone. We preach that a man is justified by faith; but they add "alone." Now we have the scriptures, and they have not; and that is all the difference between us. They have not a verse, from Genesis to Revelation, which says "by faith alone"--we have one that says "not by faith alone," and some that ascribe pardon and justification to other principles, as worthy of having "alone" attached to them as faith.

I would ask my friends who proclaim faith alone, whether they would allow us to say by grace alone, by blood alone, by works alone, by water alone, by knowledge alone? and it must be confessed that sinners are said to be justified, or pardoned, or saved, by each of these. "By grace you are saved;" but not by grace alone--"God has saved you by the washing of regeneration;" but not by the washing of regeneration only--"Baptism does also now save us;" but not baptism alone--"justified by his blood;" but not by his blood alone--"you see that a man is justified by works;" but not by works alone. If, then, they will not allow us to add "alone" to grace, blood, water, works; we will not allow them to add "alone" to faith. 

Grace, blood, knowledge, faith, water, the Holy Spirit, and good works, are all necessary to the enjoyment of the full salvation of the gospel. Hence either justification or salvation is ascribed to each of these, in the oracles of God--

1. "You are justified freely by his grace, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus"--
2. "Being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him"--
3. "By the knowledge of him shall my righteous servant justify many,
           whose iniquities he shall have borne"--
4. "Being justified by faith, we have peace with God"--
5. "Immersion does also now save us, by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead"--
6. "God has saved us, not by works of righteousness (previously done) but by his own mercy  through the bath of regeneration and the renewal of the Holy Spirit. 
7. You see that a man is justified by works, and not by faith alone."

Give, then, to [268] each of these its due, its proper place in the development and enjoyment of the salvation of the gospel, and we have the whole Apostolic doctrine; but so soon as any sectary comes with his pen and places alone when and where he pleases, and thus excludes one, or changes the order of some of these great principles, he assumes the character of him whom we Protestants distinguish by the appellation of Anti-Christ.

We speak not of any of the human family who have not had the gospel preached to them, but of those to whom the word of this salvation is sent, and to them we say, that each and all of these are necessary to the full enjoyment of this salvation.

You must confess to salvation as well as believe to righteousness; you must have the knowledge of God and his Son Jesus Christ; you must have the grace of God and receive the blood of Christ, and be immersed into the name of the Lord Jesus, as well as implicitly rely upon all that is promised in the book. So we speak to all those who have ears to hear what the Spirit of God testifies to mankind concerning Jesus and his salvation.

In hopes that Archippus and my friend Andrew Broaddus will give all that consideration which is due to these remarks, I have, in reply to the former and in anticipation of the latter, hastily sketched the premises for various arguments, which shall be forthcoming when occasion requires.

Please, reader, remember these are but premises. Yet from them we have, we think, already concluded, to the conviction or confutation of all opponents, that, to say salvation comes, is received, or enjoyed by faith alone, is not of God, but of man. EDITOR.   

ARCHIPPUS ON THE REMISSION OF SIN.--No. II. Barton W. Stone's second published

While I claim to myself the right to controvert all that I deem erroneous in the religious sentiments of others, I concede to them the same right, to controvert any that I may entertain. And while this is assumed and yielded as a mutual right, I desire it to be distinctly understood, that, on my part, the exercise of it, does not proceed from an unfriendly disposition towards those whose opinions and views are opposed. 

I do not believe that the word of God authorizes, in any degree, the belief that the sins of the Gentiles are, or ever [297] have been remitted in water, or in the action of baptism. Feeling confident of the truth of this sentiment, and the error of the opposite one, I feel it to be a duty to adduce proof of the truth of the one, and of the fallacy of the other.

I would define remission of sins, as others have done, to consist in forgiveness, or pardon; that is, the giving up of the punishment due to them. Justification is of the same meaning in the Gospel, and consists in remission of sins, and absolution from guilt and punishment; or an act of free grace, by which God, pardons the sinner, and accepts him as righteous in the account of the atonement of Christ. 

Meritorious justification is predicable only of sinless beings, while gratuitous justification is that alone which is suited to the state of sinners; it is an acquittal from condemnation by free forgiveness, and an acceptance of him into a state of favor. 

The instrument of gospel justification is faith alone. 

Thus God is said to justify the ungodly by faith--his faith is counted to him for righteousness, Rom. iv. 5; and being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom also we have access by faith into the grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in the hope of the glory of God. Rom. v. 1, 2. The meritorious ground or cause of the remission of sin, made so by the grace of God, is the blood of Christ: "this is my blood of the New Testament, which is shed for many, for the remission of sins" Mat. xxvi. 28. All having sinned, "the righteousness of God is by the faith of Jesus Christ unto all, and upon all them that believe--we are justified freely by his grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God hath set forth a propitiation through faith in his blood to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins, Rom. iii. 22-25. The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself: in whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins according to the riches of his grace. Eph. i. 3-v. 7. In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins, Col. i. 14. If there be a single principle in the doctrines of grace, among those taught by the Apostles, which can be considered fundamental, it must certainly be that of the remission of sin through the death of Jesus Christ--upon this subject there is no difference of opinion between the Baptist Reformers and myself. The only question between them and myself is this: Is the efficacy of the blood of Christ, in the remission of the sins of believing Gentiles, by divine appointment, suspended upon their being baptized or immersed in water? They take the affirmative side of the question, and I the negative. Peter must determine this question under the infallible direction of the Holy Spirit.

To Peter was given the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, to open the gospel and to pronounce the order of the Kingdom to the Gentiles. He had, moreover, the qualifications bestowed upon him by the King and the Judge of the living and the dead, so infallibly to bind and loose on earth, as to oblige him to ratify his declarations and decisions in heaven. Let us turn then to the tenth chapter of the acts of the Apostles, and other passages, to learn the truth on this subject. I pass by at this time the account of the conversion and Baptism of the Jews on the day of Pentecost, and of Saul of Tarsus, on account of the circumstances by which they were distinguished from the Gentiles. They shall be attended to in my next number.

After the great preparation had been made by the revelations of the spirit, and the supernatural appearance to Peter, and the communications and instructions of the Angel to Cornelius which were sent to Peter, Peter set out to visit the town of Cornelius, at Cesarea, who was an officer, a centurion of the band called the Italian band. As he approached it, Cornelius met him and told him that he had sent for him; "Now," said he, "we are all here before God (Cornelius, his kinsmen and near friends) to hear all things that are commanded thee of God." 

Then Peter opened his mouth and said, "Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons; but in every nation he that feareth him and worketh righteousness is accepted of him." The word [298] which God sent unto the children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ: (he is Lord of all:) that word I say ye know which was published throughout all Judea, and began from Galilee after the baptism which John preached; how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost, and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the Devil, for God was with him. And we are witnesses of all things which he did, both in the land of the Jews, and in Jerusalem; whom they slew and hanged on a tree: him God raised up from the dead the third day, and showed him openly; not to all the people, but unto witnesses chosen before of God, even to us, who did eat and drink with him after he rose from the dead. And he commanded us to preach unto the people, and to testify that it is he which was ordained of God, to be the Judge of the quick and the dead. To him gave all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.

"While Peter was yet speaking these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. And they of the circumcision which believed, were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify or glorify God. 

Then answered Peter, "Can any man forbid water that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days." Acts x. 34-48.

Now I ask, were these Gentiles in their sins when they received the Holy Ghost, spake with new tongues and glorified God, both of which were done before they were baptized? Or, were their sins not remitted through faith? and were they not received into the divine favor the moment they believed what Peter said concerning Jesus Christ? and were not the gifts of the Holy Ghost a seal and confirmation of these facts, both of which occurred before they were baptized? After that they believed, (before they were baptized) they were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, which was the earnest of their inheritance. Eph. i. 13, 14. Being the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus, God sent forth the spirit of his Son into their hearts crying Abba Father. They were then baptized into Christ, and put him on. Gal. iii. 26, 27, ch. 4, 6. We will let Peter explain this matter. In Acts xi. we are informed that when Peter was come up to Jerusalem, they that were of the circumcision, contended with him for going in to the Gentiles and eating with them. But Peter rehearsed the matter from the beginning, and expounded it in order unto them. Peter told them that the angel directed Cornelius to send for him, (Peter) who shall tell thee (C.) words whereby thou and thy house shall be saved. And, said Peter, when I began to speak, (that is when he had already spoken what was stated in the 10th chap.) the Holy Ghost fell upon them, as it did upon us (the 120, Acts i. 15.) at the beginning. Acts ii. 1-4. Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost. Acts i. 45. Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gifts, as he did unto us who believed; what was I, that I could withstand God? When they heard these things, they held their peace and glorified God, saving, then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life. Acts xi. 2-18. It deserves notice that although Peter rehearsed the matter from the beginning, and expounded it by order unto them that were of the circumcision, so as perfectly to satisfy them that God had granted to the Gentiles repentance unto life, for which they glorified God, he said not one word to them about his having baptized them--nor did he, when telling the Gentiles all things that were commanded him of God to tell them; and even the words whereby they should be saved, tell them that they were to be baptized for the remission of their sins, or in order to obtain their remission. The reason he did not tell them this, was, that it was not included in the words which God commanded him to tell them, whereby they should be saved. A proof of it is, the Holy Ghost fell [299] upon them as he did upon Peter, and the rest of the one hundred and twenty disciples who believed at the beginning, by which God testified that he had remitted the sins of the Gentiles, and received them into his favor before they were baptized. There can be no mistake here, because the gift in a miraculous way of the Holy Ghost, or the baptism of the Holy Ghost was given to them, to prove that God had purified their hearts by faith, and given them repentance unto life before they were baptized; and the Apostles, and they of the circumcision who contended with Peter, received this testimony as conclusive in the case. We will turn to the 15th chapter of the Acts, and hear Peter further upon this subject. Here, before the council at Jerusalem, composed of the Apostles, elders and brethren, over which the Holy Ghost presided--a council to be sure, very different from the ecclesiastical councils and associations of this day. Peter rose up and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago, God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel and believe. And God which knoweth the hearts bear them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost; even as he did unto us; and put no difference between us and them, having purified their hearts by faith. I use the new translation Acts xv. 7-9. That is, having purified the hearts of the Gentiles by faith, he baptized them with, or gave them the miraculous gifts of the Holy Ghost as his witness or proof of it; and after he had thus purified their hearts, and sealed them with the Holy Spirit of promise, after they believed, which was an earnest of their heavenly inheritance, Peter commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Eph. i. 13, 14.

The baptism or the miraculous gift of the Holy Ghost, which were bestowed upon these Gentiles, did not give them faith or save them, for they had faith and were justified before they received this gift, and the gift of tongues, &c. was bestowed upon them as God's witness, seal and confirmation, that what Peter had said was true, and that he had through the faith of Jesus Christ, imparted to them by the words of Peter, given to them eternal life.

The quotations that I have made from the Acts of the Apostles, are the only divinely authenticated narrative of the order and plan of the introduction of the gospel to the Gentiles. All that is said in the Epistles relative to this subject, is by way of allusion, and must be interpreted and explained agreeably to the order of faith, remission of sin and baptism, as stated in their connection and order of succession in the Acts of the Apostles.

We have now seen in what sense Peter and the rest of the Apostles, and the Jewish converts understood God's plan or method in the gospel, by which he pardons or remits the sins of the Gentiles, and purifies their hearts, which I confidently believe justified me, when I said that, baptism as administered to the Gentiles, is wholly misapprehended as to its design and use, when it is regarded as the action by, or in which their sins are remitted, and justified me also when I said, "that it is the doctrine of the New Testament, that God justifies the Gentiles by faith alone;" I mean Gentile enemies and sinners. Such cannot be justified in any degree by works, till they are justified by faith without works. Till then they are in a state of guilt and under condemnation, and the wrath of God abideth on them. This was their state and character when Christ died for them, and so their actual deliverance from that state through faith in Christ's blood, is justifying the ungodly. Rom. iv. 5. This is the principle of justification for which Paul argues. But James treats of the justification of the righteous; that is, of persons who are not duly justified in Paul's sense, but who in consequence, of this are righteous, by doing good and righteous works; for he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous. 1 John, iii. 7. They are not forgetful hearers but doers of the work, James i. 25; they practise pure and undefiled religion, v. 27: they are christians--but more of this hereafter. "Ye are the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus," whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ, is born of God; Gal. iii. 27--1 John v. 1. The great principle of christian fellowship is faith--by faith we are justified from all things, and hold [300] fellowship with the Father and the Son, and with the Apostles; and by it christians hold fellowship with one another. If I have ever known feelingly and experimentally the pardoning grace and love of God, it was several years before I was immersed, and it was during the period that I had no thought of being immersed; being justified by faith, I had peace with God through the Lord Jesus Christ. Notwithstanding this, I consider it the duty of all who believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, to be immersed, as soon as they do believe, with the approbation of the heart. I have intentionally omitted saying anything about the design and use of baptism, in this number; neither have I attended to the baptism of the 3000 on the day of Pentecost, or to Saul of Tarsus. I will take up the subject in my next number, and endeavor to show the reason of the difference between the baptism of the Jews, and of the Gentiles, or the difference in the account of them, so as to reconcile them in reference to their baptism, and maintain the principle that there is one God, who justifies the Jew by faith, and the Gentile through faith.

ARCHIPPUS.

---

REPLY TO ARCHIPPUS--No. IV.

A LETTER received from James Fishback, D. D. of Lexington, Ky. assures us that he is the writer in the "Christian Messenger," signed "Archippus." Having been favored with the missing Nos. of the C. Messenger, by the kindness of its Editor, we lay before our readers the 2d No. already replied to in our April number. Before we can in propriety publish any thing more from the pen of Dr. Fishback, we must review what he has written on this subject. Had he wished to discuss the subject in due form, he would have sent us one argument or essay, and waited our reply; 

but as he selected the Christian Messenger, and continued his numbers till he had delivered himself fully, (to which course we had no objections,) he cannot expect us to hear or answer any thing from him until we have examined what he has already made public property.  

When we have finished our review, if he feel disposed farther to discuss the question, the main question, we will hear him through the pages in which he commenced, and thus, if agreeable to brother Stone, all his readers will hear the Doctor as well as mine. 

THE COMPLAINT.

I must, however, inform my readers that he has complained in the June No. of the Messenger, and in a letter to me, of some injustice done him in representing him as contending for a baptism peculiar to the Gentiles, which we called "Gentile baptism."

Before seeing this complaint in the Messenger, I expected to have seen him either atone for the unfairness complained of in our first No. or make an attempt to sustain his references to the history of the Novatians. But as he only complains in turn, it is presumed he wishes to balance the charge of injustice by a credit of so much injustice received in return. 

Thus is my prediction already more than verified. In April last we predicted (page 164) that "before many moons he will surrender either his Jew's baptism or his Gentile baptism in the estimation of all men of sense and intelligence, and among these I include himself." 

And in June, he not only abandons his Gentile baptism as distinct from the Jew's baptism, but considers it injustice to be represented as contending for a baptism peculiar to [301] the Gentiles; or, in other words, that baptism means more or less to a Gentile than to a Jew. This more than verifies my conjectures.

CAMPBELL PROVES THAT FISHBACK IS NOT TRUTHFUL

But is it possible that we shall have to prove that no injustice has been done him in representing him as pleading that baptism, to a Gentile, meant not exactly what it meant to a Jew

When no less than fourteen questions are asked, (see pages 157, 158, of this volume) to indicate the differences between the state of the Jews and Gentiles, with a reference, too, to the proposition--"That God justifies the GENTILES by faith alone;" and "that baptism has no more to do in procuring remission of sins, than any other work of faith has"--"but," adds he, "you perceive that I limit my observations on the subject of baptism to the Gentiles." Yet it is an act of injustice in us to "perceive" this, or that the question of Jew or Gentile has any thing to do in this matter of remission!!!

But I did him injustice in heading the article "Gentile baptism," notwithstanding he limits his observations on the subject of baptism to the Gentiles!! How can this be, when he selects the cases of Gentile baptism, designates them exclusively as the subject of examination, and attempts to prove from these cases that baptism to the Gentiles is not for remission of sins? If he intended to show that we had misunderstood baptism, and misapplied the scriptures on this subject, why not meet us on the whole New Testament premises--why select the Gentiles, and confine himself to them and to the scriptures referring to them!! But I see no necessity to prove a matter which is now before the reader in Nos. 1 & 2, from the pen of Archippus himself. The coming Nos. as far as we have read them, are as full to the point.

The preceding article we have laid before our readers for reasons already assigned. They will recollect that we have already replied to it in the May and June numbers. We stated the contents of it from memory, and see nothing affecting the main question left out or overlooked, and shall not repeat our reply to it. One thing, indeed, was not formally alluded to in our reply, which we discover in the preceding essay is much relied on by brother Fishback: Peter, he avers, did not, "when telling the Gentiles (mark--the Gentiles) all things that were commanded him of God to tell them, and even the words by which they should be saved, tell them that they were to be baptized for the remission of their sins, or in order to obtain their remission."

And, candid reader, will you ask our friend what did Peter tell them to do for the remission of their sins? Did he say, "Believe for the remission of your sins"? for remission comes "by faith alone," as he has decided!! It is evident, then, that our friend is too sanguine here. He might as well, yes as reasonably argue, that the Gentiles are saved without either repentance or reformation; for Peter never once said to the Gentiles repent or reform in telling them "words by which they were to be saved." This would be every way as scriptural and as reasonable a distinction between Jews and Gentiles, and its good a proof that reformation is not as necessary to Gentiles as it was to the Jews, as is his position and his proofs for Gentile baptism [302] after remission. Nay, he might as well array Peter and Paul against each other, as Peter against himself in Jerusalem and Cesarea. For Paul says to the Athenians "that God commands all men, every where, to reform;" but Peter gave no such commandment to the Gentiles!

But, replies our worthy friend, faith implies repentance and reformation. Well, grant it--and what then? The name of the Lord implies immersion--for it was through the name of the Lord that Peter told the Gentiles remission came.

But what did Peter say to these Gentiles? Did he command them to believe, repent, or be baptized for remission? Not directly, Archippus himself will say. Did he mention grace, blood, or the renewal of the Holy Spirit before they received the Holy Spirit? No. I cannot tell what Archippus might not prove from all these facts, if he were to try. But let us hear Peter speak the last sentence preceding the marvellous gifts of the Spirit--

[New version] "To him bear all the prophets witness that every one who believes on him shall receive remission of sins by his name"--[Common version] "To him gave all the prophets witness, that through his name, whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins." The Vulgate, as translated by Father Simon, reads: "All the prophets bare witness of him, that all those who shall believe in him shall receive remission of sins through his name." Here is no command for remission; but the fact is declared, that the prophets affirm that "remission of sins was to come through the name of Jesus to all believers." It is not en to onomati, by the authority, but dia tou onomatos, through the name. 

Now if our friend would ask how remission comes through the name, he would find that Peter preached remission to the Gentiles as he did to the Jews on Pentecost. Men were by the authority of the Lord immersed into the name of the Lord; and if our learned and ingenious friend would ask when remission comes through his name to a believer, unless when it is put upon him and he is immersed into it, he might be constrained to see that Peter does not preach one gospel on Pentecost, and another in Cesarea. And is it not a little remarkable, that our ingenious brother should not have noticed that immediately after the interruption of Peter's discourse was ended, he forthwith commanded immersion in water. The name of the Lord, and water, with faith in Jesus, were, it appears, preached to the Gentiles, when Peter told them the words by which they were to be saved!!

His not placing the words in the same order, or using identically the same words he used on Pentecost, is nothing to this question more than his changing of his phrases in the discourse in Solomon's Portico, Acts iii. To these Jews he said, "Be converted that your sins may be blotted out." I wonder why some ingenious brother has not noticed that not a word was said about immersion in Peter's second discourse. One might say from it that Peter only preached faith and baptism to certain classes of sinners: to the more sedate he preached faith for remission; and to the more flagitious, baptism for remission! EDITOR. [303]    

No. 8 (August 1831).

• [Archippus on the Remission of Sin.]--No. III., by Archippus (James Fishback), pp. 337-342. From Christian Messenger.

FROM THE CHRISTIAN MESSENGER.

NO 8 VOL. III.

The difference between the state of the Pentecostal Jews, and of Saul of Tarsus; and of the Gentiles when the Gospel was first preached to them

IN my last number I showed, by the only divinely authenticated word that we have of the introduction of the gospel to the Gentiles, that God remitted their sins through faith, before they were baptized. 

This is believed by some not to have been the case with the 3000 Pentecostal Jews, and Saul of Tarsus, from the expressions used by Peter to the former in Acts ch. ii, and by Ananias to Saul, as stated in Acts ch. xxii. I confess that the phraseology used in these cases, authorises this belief, in a great degree; and I have no controversy with those who entertain it; but I am unwilling that the order of the facts, and the phraseology that appeared and were employed at the introduction of the gospel to the Gentiles, as we have them recorded is the 10th and 11th chapters of the Acts of the Apostles, shall be thrown aside, and those which are recorded in reference to the Jews, be substituted for them. 

The Jews and the Gentiles were under entirely different circumstances, in many respects, which occasioned the difference that appeared in the facts, and in the style of address when the gospel was preached to them, and they were proselyted to it. The commission under which Peter acted, and the circumstances attending its execution, when he preached to the Gentiles, were as distinct and peculiar as if they had had no connexion whatever with the preaching of the gospel to the Jews on the day of Pentecost. And it is remarkable, that in no instance, in which he speaks of the introduction of the gospel to the Gentiles as well as to the Jews, does he ever refer to the conversion of the 3000, or any thing that occurred in reference to them, as analogous to any thing that took place in the order, or facts, when the gospel was preached to the Gentiles; but he uniformly refers to those of the Jews, who were converted before the day of Pentecost, who had not participated in the murder of Jesus Christ, and upon whom the Holy Ghost was poured out, when the day of Pentecost was fully come, for facts of similarity. But let us attend to the distinctions that existed between the Jews and [337] Gentiles with some care, that we may see the consistency and propriety of maintaining and understanding the facts and circumstances that occurred, in reference to the Pentecostal Jews and Saul of Tarsus.

We must not forget the fact, that the Jewish nation was incorporated as the church of God, upon the old covenant, under the law of Moses, by which they were distinguished from the whole world besides. The honor and privileges bestowed upon them by Jehovah, as his people, were signified by terms peculiar to them. They were called God's chosen or elect people. He was said to have begotten them--they were called his children, his sons and daughters which were born unto him; and they were denominated a kingdom of Priests unto God. In none of all these, however, did the Gentiles partake; and they were on that account represented as strangers, and aliens, and as no people; and being idolators, were denominated enemies.--The above appellations of honor, and the expressions of peculiar relationship which the Jewish nation sustained to God, were owing, I repeat, to their being incorporated by the old and typical covenant, and under the law of Moses.

The Jews relied upon the extraordinary piety and merits of their ancestors, and the promise of God to bless their posterity, for the pardon of their sins. They moreover relied upon the knowledge and study of the law of Moses--and circumcision and sacrifice for the remission of all their sins. The Gentiles had no plan for the remission of sin. In consequence of the foreseen wickedness of the Jewish nation, Moses and the prophets predicted the most awful calamities, and signal destruction, that would come upon them. The period of their national ruin was styled the great and terrible day of the Lord. Deut. xxviii. 49-64. Joel ii. 28-32. Mala. iv. 1-3, 5; and Jesus Christ forewarned them of it. Mat. xxii. and xxiv. Mark xii. Luke xxi; and Peter alluded to it on the day of Pentecost; Acts ii. 20. As the Gentiles did not participate in their privileges, neither did they in their guilt and danger. The Jews in the most wicked and atrocious manner murdered the Messiah, when Pilate determined to let him go: Pilate declared his innocence, and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person; see ye to it--while the Jews imprecated his blood upon them, and oil their children; Mat. xxvii. 24, 25.

John the Baptist was sent to the Jews agreeably to prophecy, as the forerunner of the Messiah, who preached the baptism of repentance for the remission of sin, and proclaimed the approach of the Kingdom of Heaven; and the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and all Judea, and all the regions round about Jordan, were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins. Jesus Christ moreover preached to the Jews three years, and wrought miracles, before they crucified him, preparatory to the new covenant or gospel dispensation. By the joint labors of John and of Jesus Christ, a number of Jews believed in Messiah, and associated with him as his disciples; among whom were the Apostles. One hundred and twenty of these disciples composed the congregation or church who were met together in [338] obedience to the commandment of Jesus Christ, when the day of Pentecost was fully come, and upon whom the Holy Ghost was poured out, as Christ had promised--these had not been baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.

Let us now turn to the 2d chapter of the Acts of the Apostles, and read it carefully, and it will be seen that every thing exhibited was restricted to the Jewish nation. Peter standing up with the eleven, lifted up his, voice and said unto them, "Ye men of Judea, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem." He charged upon them the guilt of having "taken and by wicked hands crucified Jesus Christ, a man approved of God among them by miracles, and wonders, and signs, which God did by him in the midst of them, as they their ownselves also knew." "This Jesus," saith he, "hath God raised up, whereof we are all witnesses. Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this which ye now see and hear," which consisted in visible, divided tongues of fire, which sat upon the 120 Galileans, and in their speaking in seventeen or more different languages, the wonderful works of God. Therefore, said he, let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ, after quoting the declaration of David, Ps. ex. 5. The Lord said unto my Lord, sit thou on my right hand till I make thine enemies or foes thy footstool, till I subdue them under thee, and cause them to acknowledge thee their Sovereign and Lord.

Now when they heard these things, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and the rest of the Apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do? Then Peter said unto them, Repent and be baptized every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sin, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost, for the promise is to you, and to your children, &c. and with many other words did they testify and exhort, saying save yourselves from this untoward generation. Then they that gladly received the word were baptized, and the same day were added about three thousand souls.

These were Jewish sinners, and were in different circumstances from any company of Gentile sinners that the Apostles ever addressed. They were exposed to the vengeance of the great and terrible day of the Lord, which was to destroy the Jewish state and nation, on account of their unparalleled wickedness, Mat. xxiii. 34-36. To be saved from the, guilt and danger, in which they were involved as the murderers of the Son of God, was the leading concern of these 3000. The occasion was a most suitable one, for the display of divine mercy and love, through the death of Christ. The same Jesus, whom they had with wicked hands crucified and slain, is made both Lord and Christ: his blood cleanseth from all sin, and is the meritorious ground of salvation. Peter's reply to the inquiry, What shall we do? was most appropriate. I suppose the following things were comprehended in it: Repent or Reform--change your minds and your [339] conduct in reference to Jesus Christ, and yourselves--renounce your Judaism, your dependence upon the law of Moses, and upon your circumcision and sacrifices, for the forgiveness of your guilt and acquittal from condemnation. Repent and be baptized every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sin. John preached the baptism of repentance for the remission of sin, and baptized with that baptism, saving unto the people, that they should believe on Christ Jesus, who should come; this Jesus is come, and you have crucified him; and he is the only name given under heaven by which you must be saved. Be baptized into his name--into him for the remission of sin, that is in reference or in order to the forgiveness or removal of sins; renounce every thing else, and rely upon him alone for every thing, and you shall be saved, and shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost as a proof, and in confirmation of it, for the promise is to you &c. They that gladly received the word were baptized--they put him on--by these means they passed from the old into the new covenant, and having been born to God by the old typical covenant, they are born again under the new covenant established by the blood of Christ, which was shed for the actual remission of sin; and thus God justified the ungodly by counting their faith for righteousness, and being justified by the blood of Christ, they were saved from wrath through him. I have little or no doubt, but that in that case an immediate miraculous manifestation of the Holy Ghost, was made to the minds and hearts of the 3000 in the act of baptism, and immediately afterwards, as there was to Saul of Tarsus, when he was commanded to be baptised and wash away his sins, calling upon the name of the Lord, which confirmed the truth of, and was answerable to Peter's declarations. Saul was not only converted to Christ, but was made an Apostle, and was to be a witness of the things which he had seen. The day of Pentecost was the beginning of the reign of the exalted King, and required all the miraculous and supernatural attestations that were made, to manifest, confirm, and establish his character and Kingdom. We have reason, however, to believe, that Saul of Tarsus was sealed with the Spirit before he was baptized, Acts ix. 17, 18.

When Peter preached to the Gentiles the scene was a different one, corresponding; with the difference that existed between their state and the state of the Pentecostal Jews. The Gentiles had never been under the authority of the Jewish covenant and laws. They had not been preached to by John the Baptist, or by Jesus Christ; neither had they rejected or crucified the Messiah. They were not exposed to the destruction of the great and terrible day of the Lord, which was in 30 years to destroy the Jewish state and nation, from which the 3000 were saved by their conversion, and from which the 120 had been saved by believing in Christ before his crucifixion, and by placing themselves under his instruction, guidance, and protection. The Gentiles were not Jewish, but Gentile sinners, and renounced Gentile sins, the sins of ignorance, sensuality, idolatry, &c. When Peter preached to them, he did not charge them with the murder of Jesus [340] Christ, nor of being exposed to the vengeance of the great and terrible day of the Lord, that was to destroy the Jews; for had Cornelius, his kinsmen, and near friends been living when that day came, and been officers and soldiers in the Roman army, they would have been the instruments to have brought it on. Accordingly when Peter preached to them they were not pricked in the heart or terrified. They believed his testimony concerning Jesus Christ, and the remission of sin through faith in his name, and in receiving Christ they received remission; in proof of which they were baptized with the Holy Ghost, which was God's witness that he had by faith given to them repentance unto life, and purified their hearts. In consequence of these things they were baptized in water, by which they renounced their Gentilism and put on Christ, and thus in Christ Jesus, they were one with the Jews. These Gentiles were not in their sins when they were baptized, and of course their sins were not remitted in the water. A distinction existed and must be maintained, between the state of the Pentecostal Jews and the Gentiles, and the events in reference to their order of succession, in their conversion and baptism, were different, and it is a most palpable absurdity to place the Gentiles now in the state of the Pentecostal Jews, and address them a they were addressed in all respects. A much less distinction obtained between the 120 disciples, who were converted before the crucifixion of Christ, or who became his disciples, and did not participate in his murder, and the Gentiles, than there was between the 3000 Pentecostal Jews and the Gentiles. The Apostles, as I before remarked when speaking of the Gentiles in Acts x. in no case compares their conversion with the conversion of the 3000, as being or having been in situations at all analogous. But they uniformly when speaking explicitly, compare them with the 120 disciples at the beginning, who were baptized in water before the death of Christ, or the day of Pentecost. Peter considered the Gentiles in Acts x. & xi. after they believed and before they were baptized in water, as in the same state of divine favor that he and the rest of the 120 disciples were after they were baptized, and long after the day of Pentecost. Acts xv. 10. 46, 47; xi. 15-18; xv. 7-9.

I have mentioned these things to show what views and opinions of baptism are entertained in our day, derived from Acts ii. and xiii which were not entertained by the Apostles, and which have a tendency to deprive, I fear, and if indulged in, will deprive thousands, as it will myself, of much happiness in participating with those we love, in the blessings of the gospel, and in preventing its dissemination. 

These I say are my fears, and they are my reasons for writing,--Christ is the Saviour of the Jews and of the Gentiles; he saves the Jews by faith, and the Gentile through faith--and by baptism since the miraculous gifts ceased they receive a symbolical pledge and representation of the remission of their sins, when submitted to by faith, and have the answer of a good conscience towards God--they renounce every thing else and put on Christ; as he is made of God to them wisdom, righteousness, sanctification, and redemption. [341]

I desire to say something more of baptism and of the new covenant, which I will reserve for another number, and after that I shall be glad to see your remarks, bro. Stone, upon my views generally. Afterwards I desire to write a number or two on the death of Christ, and the doctrine of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, with a view of exhibiting the gospel principles of Christian fellowship and union.

ARCHIPPUS.

REVIEW OF ARCHIPPUS--No. V.

AFTER reading the above essay, no person, I think, can say that I have erred in representing this writer as making a difference between the meaning of baptism to a Jew and to a Gentile. Why, else, all this explanation of the differences subsisting between the state and circumstances of the Jews? Why so often contrast them with the Gentiles, and Peter's address to them with his speech to the Gentiles, if he preach not one baptism for the Jew and another for the Gentile! 

Immersion, as respects the action, is the same whether man, woman, child, table, or cup, be put under water. It is the meaning of the act which characterizes it; and if immersion has one meaning to a Jew, and another meaning to a Gentile, then there are two baptisms instituted by Jesus Christ. This I contend is the legitimate import of the above essay. But the writer does not mean what he says! He explains himself as making no difference between the Jew and the Gentile, as respects the meaning of immersion. We must, then, ascribe to him what some of our good preachers ascribe to the Holy Spirit, viz: "He says one thing and means another."

But Archippus will tell us that he reasons upon the differences between the Jews and the Gentiles, 

not to show that Peter preached baptism for remission to the Jews, and baptism because of remission to the Gentiles, but merely to justify the style that Peter used to the Jews. 

For, in truth, according to him it is only a difference in style; and the Jews, owing to their peculiar circumstances, ought to be spoken to in one style, and the Gentiles in another. This is his plea, as I understand him. Well, then, it follows that if the difference in style be merely rhetorical, and not logical; if it be only in the selection of synonymous words, and not of words conveying different ideas, baptism must mean the same thing to Jew and Gentile, and the question will be, whether shall we explain literally the address to the Gentiles by that to the Jews, or that to the Jews by the address to the Gentiles? May we not rather say that Peter spoke the meaning of baptism literally in his first address; and that if ever he spoke of it in any other style, his meaning must be ascertained from his first address, when the introduction of the institution required the greatest plainness? We have, we think, all the principles of interpretation in our favor, and against Archippus: for according to his own exposition the difference is only in style, and reason and universal usage require that we explain every other address by the first, and not the first by the subsequent addresses.

Admitting then, for the sake of argument, that there is a [342] difference in the style of his address to the Jews from that to the Gentiles, and that baptism means the same thing to Jew and Gentile, only expressed differently, because of differences in their condition, the question will be, whether we shall learn the meaning of baptism from the Pentecostan address, or from some subsequent address? 

This is the only question which lies between us, on the hypothesis that he give up his Gentile baptism as not of a different meaning from the Jew's baptism. I repeat it again, the question now is,--whether shall we learn the meaning of baptism from the Pentecostan speech, or from any subsequent one addressed either to Jew or Gentile? I answer, from the Pentecostan, and for the reason already assigned.

The Campbell's understood that Church is "A School of Christ" and Worship is "reading and musing the Word." Barton W. Stone relied on the emotional breakdown demonstrated at Cane Ridge to judge one's salvation. Thus the appeal to people who are sincere  whatever they do with the direct commands of Christ. The nature of the Great Commission would prevent anyone from seeing one gospel to the Jews and another to the Gentiles.  Matt. 28:18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying,         All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Matt. 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations,         baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Who are the nations: G1484 ethnos eth'-nos Probably from G1486 ; a race (as of the same habit), that is, a tribe; specifically a foreign (non-Jewish) one (usually by implication pagan):—Gentile, heathen, nation, people. The purpose of initial discipling or teaching was to then Baptize to affirm that they wanted to be a disciple of Christ. Matt. 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you:         and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen. If there is one baptism for the Jews and another for the Gentiles it MUST be because there are different assemblies or ekklesia-synagogue or school of the Word. Eph 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; Eph 5:26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, Eph. 5:26WEB That he might sanctify and cleanse it         with the washing of water         [INTO] the word,         WEB  In endu denotes either rest or motion within or into a place or thing, group Washing of water into: Enduô assume the person on, enter, enter the contest, endŏ and indŭ 2Tim. 2:2 And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also. 2Tim. 2:3 Thou therefore endure hardness, as a good soldier of Jesus Christ. 2Tim. 2:4 No man that warreth entangleth himself with the affairs of this life; that he may please him who hath chosen him to be a soldier. 2Tim. 2:5 And if a man also strive for masteries, yet is he not crowned, except he strive lawfully. 2Tim. 2:6 The husbandman that laboureth must be first partaker of the fruits. Xen. Cyrop. 8.1.12 If, therefore, those by whom the most numerous and most important affairs of state were to be transacted were not what they ought to be, he thought that his government would be a failure. But if they were all that they ought to be, he believed that everything would succeed. In this conviction, therefore, he took upon himself this charge; and he determined that the same practice of virtue should be his as well.         For he thought that it was not possible for him to incite others         to good and noble deeds, if he were not himself such as he ought to be. Enduo (g1746) en-doo'-o; from 1722 and 1416 (in the sense of sinking into a garment); to invest with clothing (lit. or fig.): - array, clothe (with), endue, have (put) on. for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. Ga.3:27NIV Washing of water into:  Vulgate In the Word. Il.; en paidotribou the school of the training master. 1Cor. 4:15 For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ,         yet have ye not many fathers:         for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel. 1Cor. 4:16 Wherefore I beseech you, be ye followers of me. 1Cor. 4:17 For this cause have I sent unto you Timotheus, who is my beloved son,         and faithful in the Lord, who shall bring you into remembrance         of my ways which be in Christ,         as I teach every where in every church. Eph 5:27 That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish. Peter preached from Joel about this day of judgment of wind and fire. Both Isaiah and Malichi quoted by Mark define water baptism as the BOUNDARY between sin (Egypt) and salvation.  This is HOW Christ decided that we should CALL ON HIS NAME which is more than looking up and saying 'hey, God." Acts 2:21 And it shall come to pass,          that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved. Acts 2:22 Ye men of Israel, hear these words;          Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you          by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you,          as ye yourselves also know: After preaching the FACTS, Peter used the keys to knowledge of salvation in Jerusalem: the great commission would then go to Judea, Samaria and the uttermost parts of the world. The ONE gospel and ONE cross is for PEOPLE because there was never any spiritual distinciton between the Jews and Gentiles.  The promise made to Abraham was NOT to the national Israel under the curse of the Lws. Acts 2:36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly,         that God hath made that same Jesus,         whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ. Acts 2:37 Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart,         and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles,         Men and brethren, what shall we do? Peter might have said: "Nothing, you believe and have repented." He did not. Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them,         Repent, and be baptized every one of you         in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins,         and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. Acts 2:39 For the promise is unto you,         and to your children,         and to all that are afar off,  (Gentiles or all nations.)         even as many as the Lord our God shall call. Baptism is obviously only possible to those who have heard the gospel: it is God's business to decide for those who have not heard the gospel. Joel 2 says that WE also call back (answer 1 Peter 3:21) and confess the NAME:         John 20:31 But these are written,              that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God;              and that believing ye might have life through his name.         The eunuch having read Isaiah wanted to be baptized:         Acts 8:37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest.         And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.         Acts 8:38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still:                 and they went down both into [eis, into) the water,                 both Philip and the eunuch;                 and he baptized him.         Acts 8:39 And when they were come up out of the water,                 the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip,                 that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing.          One of the fruits of A holy spirit.  Full opf grace. The Paul who wrote Romans 10:13 was told how to "call on the name of the Lord" when he risked his life and liberty to go to Jerusalem to fulfil the promise of Jesus Christ the Spirit to show them how spiritual purification could be achieved.  Part of his sermon who caused them to call him vile names and attack him: Acts 22:16 And now why tarriest thou?         arise, and be baptized,         and wash away thy sins,         calling on the name of the Lord. Peter said clearly that BAPTISM SAVES because it is the answer which means a REQUEST for what Christ has invited us to accept. 1Pet. 3:20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. A figure is a "pattern capable of being imitated." 1Pet. 3:21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us         (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh,         but the answer of a good conscience toward God,)         by the resurrection of Jesus Christ: The word "answer" is always used to mean "make a request" or "ask for something." We callon the name of Jesus Christ making the request that He give us A holy spirit or A good conscience. In Acts 2:38 we receive A holy spirit (ours) and the same Peter says that in baptism we REQUEST A good conscience, consciousness or a co-perception without which you cannot be a Disciple (student) 1Pet. 3:22 Who is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God;         angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him.

It was the first time that the christian immersion was ever preached; it was the first time that the gospel, as perfectly developed, was ever announced; it was the first time that the Apostles spake under the last commission; it was the first time that Jesus was proclaimed on earth, after his ascension into heaven, as a "Prince and Saviour to grant reformation and forgiveness of sins;" and it was the first time that the Apostles spake under the full influence of the Holy Spirit, and therefore it was the most appropriate time, to open the meaning of the institution. 

This is in effect the argument used by all intelligent Baptists against those who plead for sprinkling. It is admitted that the first baptism was in a river, that it was literally an immersion, and that no subsequent allusions to the blood of sprinkling can weigh against the clear and fair import of the word or action as first explained. I use their own argument when I say, that we are to expect the full and explicit development of an institution at its first promulgation. If I err, the Baptists have always erred in their reasonings against their Paidobaptist brethren; for this is the strong plea of every Baptist writer, that we must examine the first preaching under the commission to know who was to be baptized, and how the action was to be performed. When they reason from the Epistles and other remote documents, we tell them we are not to learn the literal import of an institution from mere allusions, or oblique hints, or figurative representations, but from the distinct and primary discourses of the Apostles upon the subject. This is reasonable; for when any new custom or institution is introduced, then, if ever, it must be explained. So it was with circumcision, the passover, and the Jewish feasts. They are only once fully explained, and that is on their institution. So was the Lord's Supper at the time of its institution; and so, I argue, was the christian immersion, commanded in the charge given to the Apostles. On this ground I stand, in answering this question; not because we cannot establish our views from even the first Epistle of Peter, as well as from many other passages in the book, but, were there not another, we must contend that the first time an institution is commanded, it must be most fully and literally explained: for that has always been God's time, and right reason says it is the proper time.

But to this reason we might add another, of very considerable weight. This discourse on Pentecost was addressed to "persons out [343] of every nation under heaven." No person ever did, since or before, address such a congregation as that which Peter addressed on this occasion. "Men of every nation" were spoken to; Jews and proselytes indeed they were, but they were born in all nations, and spoke all the tongues of their native countries. Some thirteen or fourteen of the nations are mentioned, not as the whole, but as a specimen of men of every nation under heaven. Now as these persons were all addressed in their own languages, and all taught the same views of immersion, it was of the utmost consequence that, returning back to their homes enriched by the gospel of Jesus, they should carry with them a literal and explicit development of this institution; because, as they understood all the nations whither they resorted, and all the persons with whom they conversed, after their return, must learn the meaning of this institution from them. If Peter told them to be immersed for the remission of their sins, they would tell all nations to be baptized for the remission of their sins; or if Peter told them to be baptized because their sins were pardoned through faith and repentance, then they would tell the same story to all nations under heaven whither they went. Not only, then, because it was the first time the Reign of Jesus was announced and christian immersion introduced, but also because it was spoken to the whole world in convention, and from that people to spread everNhere, it became necessary to speak clearly and unambiguously upon this subject.

Hence we are constrained to understand every other speech on immersion, and every allusion or reference to it, by the Pentecostan address; and if, as our friend Archippus now pleads, there are not two baptisms, one for Jews and one for Gentiles, but only a difference in the style or manner of representing it, then it follows that all differences in the form of address, phraseology, or figure, being necessarily to be explained and understood by the first speech, we have only to inquire what is the fair import of the institution as proclaimed on Pentecost. This will settle the whole controversy, unless there be two baptisms, or a baptism which means one thing to Paul and another to Cornelius; and that we have seen is equal to two baptisms.

The question now is, What is the fair construction, or the literal import of the immersion which Peter preached on Pentecost? Archippus is too candid, too honest, to dissemble here. He admits that remission of sins is promised through or in immersion to the 3000 of all nations under heaven. "I confess," says he above, "that the phraseology used in these cases (the Pentecostan and that of Saul of Tarsus) authorises this belief:"--to this he adds, without explanation, "in a good degree," "and I have no controversy with those who entertain it." But he will have the words used to the Gentile congregation in Cesarea substituted for those on Pentecost, rather than those on Pentecost substituted for those in Cesarea. His "good degree" is a mere salvo, a special exception in favor of his own peculiarity: for he does, not define this, "good degree," nor say aught about it. He, in fact, admits that Peter's words on Pentecost teach immersion for the remission [344] of sins, preceded by faith and reformation. This he does, and will admit. In truth his convictions of this had almost forced him to a new theory, that there is an immersion for Gentiles whose sins are pardoned, and one for the Jews whose sins were not pardoned. This latter opinion he will not now defend; and only attempts to prove that in explaining immersion to Gentiles we should substitute Peter's sermon in Cesarea for that on Pentecost; or, perhaps, that will not suit so well, as there is some ambiguity in the meaning of baptism as proclaimed to the first Gentile audience; but that we should preach justification or pardon through faith alone; and dispose of Peter's words as well as we can, as some bold eastern figure, as some rhetorical license, of such latitude as to give play to the imagination of the Arabian, Persian, and Mesopotamian genius when carried from Jerusalem to their own country.

The question "What shall we do?" proposed by the penitents in Jerusalem, appears to be no better understood by Archippus than by others who are daily quoting it. The persons who proposed this question, with all their circumstances, must be taken into the account before we understand the answer. They were Jews and devout proselytes. They were all acquainted with the law and the prophets. They were all now BELIEVERS in Jesus Christ. THEY HAD FAITH AND REPENTANCE. They only wanted reformation, or to "reform and be immersed." They knew nothing in the law or prophets which reached their case; none of the sacrifices, none of the sources anciently ordained could relieve them: 'What shall we do, with a reference to this Jesus, this new economy, and to ourselves?' "Reform and he immersed, every one of you by the authority of the Lord Jesus, for the remission of your sins," was the oracle of God to them. Now my question to Archippus is, Had all the world been there assembled, and could they all have heard the same discourse, and proposed the same question, would not Peter have given them all the same answer?

The truth appears to be this; There are more fears entertained touching the bearing of this view of christian immersion upon the sects, and upon the "evangelical" views of justification by faith alone, than there is either argument or proof to oppose it. I find no reasoner who has courage to argue the question fairly out, and those who begin to debate it soon lose sight of the proper question, or merge it in some speculation upon grace, faith, regeneration, &c. For our own part we are willing to examine every question, to discuss every topic upon its own merits, and to bow to the authority of the Book. We find no difficulty in understanding the sayings of the Apostles on all those subjects touching grace, faith, repentance, &c. We may, perhaps, yet show that there is nothing more consistent with the teaching of the Apostles concerning justification or righteousness by faith, than immersion for remission of sins.

Indeed, we have yet to meet with the first objection of any real merit against the literal understanding of Peter's command to the inquiring Jews. And as there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek, as "all have sinned and come short of the glory of God," [345] and as the Gentiles were "dead in trespasses and sins," and sold to idolatry, they stood in as much need of forgiveness as the Jews. But in these remarks we have confined ourselves to the main objection which runs through the preceding essay; and as the ground of Archippus' reasoning has been examined, we shall leave these reflections with him until the moon changes again. EDITOR.    
  
No. 9 (September 1831).

1.10.19 555

Home Page


6.02.10

<img src="cgi-bin/Count.cgi?df=piney/counter_Archippus.Remission.Sin.James.Fishback.html.dat">