sible to be observed, but has so constituted our nature that a christian parent discharging his duty towards his offspring will find in them that acknowledgment of the doctrine of the Lord, which is the necessary ground of bringing them up in the admonition of the Lord. Nor does this view really trench at all upon the principles, that all are by nature children of wrath, and that Christians are the workmanship of God.-Every principle and tendency in A—'s nature (whether he acknowledges the truth or not) is opposed to that divine truth which I have supposed him to acknowledge, and if he really believe it, it is God that has given the increase to that seed which he employed men to sow. But that seed is his word, and we need not think it so strange that he should give it an increase where he has commanded it to be sown. Some appear to think that we cannot be children of wrath by nature, unless we grow up in a state of unbelief which we can afterwards recollect, so as to remember the time of our conversion. But, in fact, he that is declared to have been filled with the Holy Ghost from his mother's womb, was as much a child of wrath by nature as any who have persisted in their sins. And he must know little of himself who can find no evidence of the diabolical character of his flesh but by a retrospect to his unconverted state. As to difference between the children of believers and unbelievers, there is none, except that most important one, which the providence of God has made in their outward circumstances, and what springs from that. If the child of an heathen were transferred to my absolute care from its infancy, I conceive that I would be called on to bring it up as if it were my own. But we cannot wonder that the scriptures do not extend the precept to a case of such rare occurrence. If it be asked, why I would not have A- taken into the fellowship of the church, I answer simply, because he is not of an age to join with intelligence in all the acts of the church. I can easily conceive a child of four years old believing that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners-that truth dwelling in him, and expanding with a progressive discovery of its glorious import and bearings, and bringing forth fruit in opposition to the flesh, and opposed by it: but to bring that child of four years old into the fellowship of the church, would be but to make a puppet of it, by calling it to concur outwardly in various acts, with the grounds of which it cannot be conceived acquainted, and indeed in various exercises with which its attention cannot be conceived adequate to keep pace. It must grow up under the parental admonition of the Lord, before it passes (if I may so speak) into the high school. Yet previous to this period it may manifest reigning resistance to the word of Christ, and so be to be dealt with according to the import of the precept in Deut. xxi. 18-21. I am well aware it may-for the human heart is capable of the earliest and the greatest wickedness: but I believe it a rare case where the parental duty is faithfully discharged. * * * * * * When you next write give me more explicit instructions about the paper.-Do you think, with the Baptists, that the holiness of the believer's children means only their legitimacy? do you think the first Christians found themselves released from the obligation of that treatment of their children which God had enjoined on them in the scriptures of the Old Testament, or indeed bound to treat them in a way directly contrary? What are B.'s sentiments? My heart is sick. But we have a gracious and mighty Lord, who shall keep us dwelling together in unity. Let us agree to implore this of Him. XIII. FROM THE CHURCH IN D TO THE CHURCH IN C. DEAR BRETHREN,-We received your letter, and had before heard with deep concern of the melancholy division which took place at C--we see in it much cause of mourning and of humiliation before the Lord-but would unite in prayer to him, with hope that he, who maketh men to be of one mind in a house-may graciously interfere to remove the stumbling-block which has been thrown in the way of weak brethren, and the occasion which has been afforded his adversaries to blaspheme. Our answer to your letter has been delayed, by our waiting to give the subject that close and serious discussion which its importance claims. We shall not advert to the mistake concerning our principles under which you wrote, as we understand that mistake has been already removed; and that you are aware that we do not consider children as composing any part of the church, unless they have been proposed and received in the same manner as adults. When parents are enjoined to bring up their children in the nurture (or instruction) and in the admonition of the Lord, we can be at no loss what we are to understand by the instruction of the Lord; and is it not as evident, that the admonition marks the kind of admonition the parents are to employ? Admonition derived from that doctrine of the Lord, in which they are instructing them. We are well aware, at the same time, that this (as every other precept) must be used lawfully; and that, while parents are to instruct their children in the things of God, they are not to forget that it is written again, "That the natural man receiveth not the things of the spirit; neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned;" that it is written in the prophets, "And they shall be all taught of God," and that as many as believe on His name, are born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.—And in respect of that part of the precept, which relates to that admonition of the Lord-when we consider what other scriptures say of admonishing one another (addressed to the called of Jesus Christ, to saints and faithful brethren,) do not suppose that we hold, that the admonition of the Lord can be lawfully used to any child who does not acknowledge the truth. But we find our view of the precept confirmed and illustrated by the repeated and solemn injunction on the same subject, given to the Israel of God, in the Scriptures of the Old Testament—we find it also harmonizing with the nature of the Gospel itself, that binds us to regard with hope, as heirs of salvation, all, whether children or adults, who acknowledge its truth, as long as that acknowledgment of it continues, and unless it is contradicted by avowed sentiments or conduct, inconsistent with the belief of the truth: this hope is not incompatible either with that general uncertainty which arises from inability to search the heart, or in some cases, with anxious solicitude, and jealous apprehension;-but if we refuse to cherish that hope, in the circumstances which we have stated, we conceive that we would refuse to give that honour to the truth of God, which he has put upon it. We entreat you also, brethren, to consider, whether your refusal to treat as disciples of Christ your youngest children, whom you are instructing in the Gospel, and who acknowledge its truth, does not arise from some view of that glorious Gospel, contrary to its simplicity, or from some view of yourselves, contrary to that perfect equality in which you stand with the youngest child, with respect to the blessings of the kingdom of God. May we all be kept in memory of that maxim of his kingdom, that it is composed of such as little children, as utterly unable to advance themselves into it, and keep themselves in it, by any wisdom or power of their own; and that, except we receive his kingdom as little children, we shall not enter therein. And now, brethren, suffer us to beseech you, by the mercies of God, to consider these things, and to receive as a proof of our affectionate concern this admonition, which we would offer you in meekness and fear, and to unite with us in imploring the Father of mercies that he may repair the breach which has been made, and join us together perfectly in one mind, and in one judgment, filling us all with the knowledge of his will, and giving us one heart and one way, for his glory and our good.-We send this to you by two brethren, whose personal intercourse with you we pray the Lord to bless. Signed, in the name of the Church meeting in S S. XIV. TO THE EDITOR OF THE CHRISTIAN ADVOCATE. SIR, 1809. A few days ago, a friend put into my hand the 9th No. of your work for September, 1809, and directed my attention to the article in which you review Mr. Jackson's Pamphlet, and animadvert on a passage extracted from my Essay on the Apostolic Traditions, &c. It is far from my intention to reply to the personalities with which that article abounds. But it contains one misrepresentation of my sentiments so gross, another falsification of fact so extraordinary, and a challenge so confident, that I am led to address a few lines to you on each of these topics: and expect you will give them a place in your publication. 1. You quote the following sentence from my Essay: "They know not," &c. Vol. 1. p. 243, 244.; you then immediately introduce Mr. S. as indignantly replying-" has the King of Zion instituted an office in his kingdom-which that body can and ought to do very well without ?-how dare any treat with lightness and disesteem the order of Christ's house," &c. In this, sir, you represent me as holding that a Christian church can and ought to do very well without Elders; whereas my assertion is, that before they have Elders, they can and ought to do without Elders, every thing which they are bound to do, after they receive that very important gift. The grossness of the misrepresentation is ill concealed by the trick of substituting the words, "doing very well without Elders," for-doing certain things, without having Elders. To you, sir, who are so nice a judge of language, I need scarcely observe, that to do very well without a thing, imports the uselessness or unimportance of the thing. Now, in the essay from which you have quoted that sentence, and in the paragraph immediately preceding-I find I have thus expressed myself" A church destitute of Elders is lacking, &c.”—(vol. 1. p. 243.) This, sir, is not the language of one "who dares to treat with lightness and disesteem" that part of the order of Christ's house. 2. After some of your observations on my education, &c., you add, -“ Hence the incessant changes which mark his conduct and writings.” Here, sir, you state or intimate a fact which I would be far from controverting, were it true; but it is not. Great indeed is the change produced in any sinner, when he receives (what you call) "some glimmerings of the gospel ground of hope." And truly, compared with the intrinsic glory of that gospel, I know not how any believer can intimate that he has more than a glimmering view of it. But waving this: It is now above five years, since I was mercifully convinced of the unlawfulness of my connection with the establishment; and this produced of course a great change in my conduct and writings but since that period, I am not conscious of any change in either, though you speak of the changes in both as incessant. My writings on scriptural subjects since have been, An Address to Believers, &c., An Essay on the Apostolic Traditions, Thoughts on Baptism, and Observations on a Reply to that piece; along with two short Tracts on the subject of the gospel, designed for indiscriminate circulation. I enumerate them, that you may search them all, if you think you can substantiate your assertion. 3. You close your philippic against me with the following words. "We call upon Mr. W. either to prove the thing he affirms, or to retract such daring assertions." I am not at all disposed to retract any of the assertions in that passage so offensive to you; nor would I think myself at all called on to take up the gauntlet you have thrown down, but that you thus afford me a fair opportunity of conveying an antidote, which may benefit some of your readers, through the same vehicle which conveyed the poison. I proceed, then, sir, to prove the thing which I asserted, that churches, while yet without Elders, may and ought to partake of the Lord's Supper, and observe every other ordinance of his house, which they are bound to observe when they have Elders. You happen to have facilitated and shortened the proof for me, by strongly asserting the two principles, from which the conclusion inevitably follows. That there were apostolic churches without Elders, you not only acknowledge, but assert, is "a point that no one ever doubted." Again, in supposed opposition to the idea that two or three disciples may be a church of the living God, you assert what is indeed true beyond controversy, that "It is essential to the idea of a New Testament church that it consist of an assembly of believers, called to the knowledge of the truth, and meeting together in one place, for the worship of the true God. In their worship they must be competent to attend to the institutions of the Gospel; and they must be competent to go through the rules of discipline, which the Lord has instituted in his kingdom." Now, sir, if it be indubitable that there were apostolic churches without Elders, and if it be a conceded principle between us that it is essential to the idea of a New Testament church to be competent to attend to the institutions of the gospel, then churches without Elders are competent to attend to the institutions of the gospel,-to all these institutions—and, among them, to the Lord's Supper. This inference is so necessary and evident, that you must either admit it, or retract one or other of the premises asserted by yourself. Your having happened to assert them, though for a very different purpose, has saved me the trouble of saying a word here to establish them. But, whether you assert or deny them, they are put beyond dispute by the word of God. One or two more brief remarks, and I have done. You mention a principle opposed by Mr. J., and mention it in a way, that shews you mean to support or countenance the principle—namely, that a church cannot scripturally be organized by PRIVATE Christians. I will make the most favourable supposition, that private Christians are opposed -not to the clergy-but to the Elders or office-bearers of a scriptural church. Now, if the principle, even thus explained, were just, there could be no such thing as scripturally organized churches, from the period when such churches first ceased to exist, to the end of the world. |