Backus Defends His Ecclesiology

       In my last post, we saw Isaac Backus had to defend his position on baptism but that wasn’t all this minister had to contend with.  There were also many from the “established” churches who had different views on the qualifications for ministers, for example, and these had great disdain for those they derisively called the “New Lights.”  Backus was not one to back down from any position he found to be entirely supported by Scripture.  In this post we see where he defends his position that the Church of Jesus Christ is comprised of those persons who have been regenerated by the Spirit of God.

       In 1764 he [Backus] published a letter to his former pastor, Mr. Benjamin Lord, of Norwich, who had put in print "some harsh things… against those who have dissented from his sentiments about the ministry, the church, and baptism."  Mr. Lord had declared, for example, that no just cause of withdrawment from the standing order could be produced by the New-Lights.  He had charged "those that imagine the fulness of the Spirit (or singular gifts which they think they possess) doth warrant their assuming the character and entering on the work of ministers of Christ," with coveting to be "above their Master."  And he had joined with six neighboring ministers in saying: "Do not the late separations, and one separation from another, already discover their nature by their fruits? In that some have by this time apostatized even from all religion; while some others are renouncing infant baptism, and going fast to the like dreadful apostasy.  It is hid from them that ‘evil men and seducers wax worse and worse'; it is hid from them, or rather they will not see, that they have fell into the way of Cain, and are in danger of perishing in the gainsaying of Core."

       In reply to these charges, Mr. Backus explained and vindicated his belief, and that of the New-Lights generally, respecting an internal call to preach the gospel.  He then proceeded to show that the right to ordain ministers is vested in the church and not in the clergy alone.  Finally, he defends the doctrine of believers' baptism as scriptural, and repudiates that of infant baptism as unscriptural.  We cite the following recapitulation of his argument:

       "Now, sir, since Christ's forerunner warned the Jews against thinking to come to baptism in Abraham's right, and told them they must bring forth fruits meet for repentance; since Christ himself called little children to come to him, but says not a word of their being brought to baptism before they do come to him; yea, instead of that, he, in the commission, orders that all nations be taught and believe before they are baptized; and since his ministers, in obedience thereto, baptized those that gladly received the Word at Jerusalem, those that believed Philip's preaching in Samaria, and such as heard and believed at Corinth, etc., but there is no account of their baptizing any but such; — and, on the other hand, since God declares that the new covenant is not according to that which he made with Israel when he brought them out of Egypt, and that one special difference is, that all who are in this covenant know him and have his law written in their hearts; and since no custom like circumcising children on their parents' account was to be observed among the believing Gentiles; — I dare not follow the multitude in bringing children to the initiating ordinance of the gospel church on their parents' faith, let there be as great or good men as there will that do it, knowing that I have but one Master in all these things, to whom I must give account.  And I believe his orders are, that none should be admitted into the ministry but "faithful men," or "men full of faith and the Holy Ghost;" and that none ought to be received into the church but real believers, that is, those that give credible evidence of saving faith."  ¹

       Lord willing in my next post we’ll begin to look at Backus’ efforts in defense of religious liberty.

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. 146-7.

Isaac Backus Defends Believer's Baptism

       In my last post, we saw how the 18^th century minister Isaac Backus had struggled with his own questions about the proper application of the ordinance of baptism.  Having resolved the issue in his own mind by his own careful study of the Scriptures, he had come to carry out this truth within the context of his own church.  Not everyone was on his side, however.  Within the same church were others who still believed in infant baptism and this created no little tension.  In fact, after having excluded from fellowship a couple of the more contentious brethren from the church, a council of leaders from three other local congregations was assembled to “review” the matter.  This council ultimately found against Backus and in favor of the excommunicated, however it never offered Backus an opportunity to present his case for believer’s baptism.  Here is Backus’ response to those who differed with him on this ordinance.

       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.