The proceedings of this council led to the
exclusion of Mr. Backus from the church; though some few of the members seem to
have adhered to him in the darkest hour. The majority, however, with Alden and Washburn
at their head, established a meeting by themselves, which was sustained for a
short time and then died away. On the
18th of November, Mr. Backus sent the following letter:
"To the members of the Church in
Bridgewater and Middleboro', who now profess to stand and act as the church:
"Dear Brethren: Since you expressed, last week, when I was
with you, that you were willing to receive light, if any could communicate it,
concerning this point which is so much controverted among us; viz., of
believers being the only proper subjects of baptism; and as my soul has a
desire that you may be brought to see things as they are, therefore I have
thought it expedient to write to you a few lines upon the matter. 1. One great argument brought to prove that
it is right to baptize infants, is this—that the covenant which believers stand
in now is just the same as that which was given to Abraham, to which
circumcision was a seal. But it seems
strange to me that any can hold it so. For
the covenant, in the seventeenth of Genesis, plainly includes a promise to
Abraham of a numerous posterity, and that kings should come out of him, and
that they should have the land of Canaan for an everlasting possession, as well
as that the Lord would be a God to that people. And circumcision was the seal of the covenant,
which included all the ceremonial law, and the Jewish forms of worship. And there is one prescription expressed
plainly, in first mentioning the time when children should be circumcised;
viz., at eight days old. The reason for
this was, that by the ceremonial law, they were not clean before, as is plainly
expressed, Leviticus 12:3. Now, to say
that baptism seals just the same covenant, is most strange and absurd.
"2. It is commonly said that the
subjects are the same, only the seal is altered. But I never yet saw the person who practised
so. The subjects then were all who would
profess that religion, and their whole households, let them be old or young. A foreigner, or hired servant, was not to be
taken in, but all the males who were property were to be circumcised. Observe here, God says expressly — 'Every
man's servant who is bought with money (let him be as old as he may), when thou
hast circumcised him, then shall he eat the passover.' Now I never saw one yet who practised
according to this in baptism, and I hope I never may. There, the servant, let him be ever so old,
was circumcised on his master's account; and it is plainly expressed that when
they had circumcised him, he should eat the passover. So that, did I believe the subjects of baptism
remained the same, I should not dare to shut off one of the children or
servants of believers from this ordinance or from the Lord's Supper either.
"3. Another argument, which seems
to be of great weight with many serious people, is, that our privileges are not
less now than theirs were then. But in
this, there seems to be much of the spirit of those ancient fathers who came out
of Babylon, who despised the day of small things, and wept when the foundation
of the second temple was laid, because the outward glory of it, when compared
with the first temple, appeared as nothing. But God said,' The glory of the latter house
should exceed the former.' The glory of
the Jewish church stood much in outward things; (as of circumcision, God says
—' My covenant shall be in your flesh.') Now, as to the outward glory, they exceeded
all churches which have existed in gospel times in many things. The prosperity and blessing in temporal
things, which they enjoyed at times, I suppose, went greatly beyond what any
church of Christ has had since he suffered; and the temple of Solomon was
undoubtedly more magnificent than any house of worship on earth. But shall we say, therefore, that our
privileges are less? No, surely. Again, they had three yearly public feasts, at
which all their males were to appear before the Lord; but there is only one
stated ordinance in the New Testament church; viz.: the Lord's Supper. But is it right to say that our privileges are
cut short on that account? Once more,
the gospel ministry as really comes in the place of the priesthood, as baptism
does in that of circumcision; and the priesthood was confined to Aaron and his
descendants. Now, is it good reasoning
to say that gospel ministers have not so great privileges as the priests had,
because they have no right to bring their children into the ministry? I believe no serious person will say so. Not a whit more of reason is there for saying,
that the privileges of believers are now less, because they are not now allowed
to partake of the ordinances of Christ's house until the Lord converts them and
prepares them for it. The truth is,
those things were types and shadows of heavenly things; and we have a more
clear and glorious revelation of divine things; and our children have vastly
greater advantages of being taught in the things of salvation by Jesus Christ. And it highly concerns every saint to use all
gospel means and methods to bring his family as well as others to believe in
Christ; so that they may have a right to all the privileges of the sons of God.
And I wish I could see all those who are
pleading so earnestly for infant baptism more engaged to train up their
children in the ways of God.
"Thus, my brethren, I have hinted
to you some things which were upon my mind concerning these matters. And I desire that you may be as noble as the
Bereans were, and search the Scriptures daily, to see if these things are not
so. And now, as to the line you are
going on in, in admonishing all, as covenant breakers, who hold that none are
the proper subjects of baptism but saints; I verily believe that in this you
are striking against divine truth; though I hope it is ignorantly; and
therefore, though I am not much concerned what you will do to me, yet I must
say, Do yourselves no harm.
So I remain your souls' well-wisher,
Isaac Backus.”
We have found no record of the manner in
which this letter was received or of the effect, if any, which it produced. The
excluded pastor, however, continued his ministry with such as still approved
his course; and after a few weeks it was deemed expedient to call another
council. 1
Lord willing we
shall continue to examine the ministry of Backus in my next post.
Christ, not man, is King!
Dale
1) Alvah Hovey, A Memoir of the Life and Times of the Rev. Isaac Backus, A.M. (Boston, MA: Gould and Lincoln, 1859), p. 102-5.
No comments:
Post a Comment