An Effort at Consistency.
By William Covert
IN the past I have had an extensive acquaintance with a people who taught that the law never was binding upon the Gentiles. Yet they taught baptism for the remission of sins. As they labored exclusively for the Gentiles, it occurred to them that there was a vein of inconsistency running through their theology. Accordingly they met in the year 1867 to reduce the matter to a system, and throw away their inconsistencies. In order that they might have a point to talk to, a stand-point from which to work, they brought forward the following proposition: "Is the unbaptized Gentile a sinner?" It was argued by them that the law was made for the Jew only, and therefore was not binding upon the Gentile; but sin is the transgression of the law, and the Gentiles could not transgress the law when it was not obligatory upon them; therefore, they are not sinners. This worked quite well, so far; but the next point to be settled was with reference to the subject of baptism. If baptism is for the remission of sins, why should they baptize a man who is not a sinner? They discussed this point at length, and arrived at various conclusions—the number of conclusions depending largely upon the number of persons engaged in the interview. Perhaps a plurality decided that Gentiles had no sins imputed to them, but it was necessary to baptize them for the purpose of "adopting them into the family of God." The next point which naturally followed in the investigation, was this: "Is the unbaptized Gentile a subject of judgment?" It was decided that as the law is not binding upon him, he cannot be condemned by it; but as he is not in covenant relation to God, he is not a subject of grace; therefore he is not a subject of either wrath or mercy. It was then asked whether a person who would be baptized and come into covenant relation with God, would certainly be saved. In the investigation of this question it was decided that the chances were against him. Whereupon, a number became disconsolate, and lamented that they had placed themselves in a position where God's wrath would overtake them. The result of this interview was very distracting. Very few could be induced to join their numbers under the influence of such teaching. If they remained outside, they believed God had no jurisdiction over them. They could eat and drink, and enjoy the present life much better than they could to be placed under the restraint of church discipline; and no account would be taken of them with reference to the actions of this life. If they united with the church, they would stand a chance to be lost, and that forever; but they were taught to believe that, if they did not, there would be a chance for them in some one of the future ages, when Satanic influence would not make it as difficult to conform to the requirements of the gospel of that age, as it is to harmonize with the gospel in this age. Some left the church when they saw their system analyzed. Many became infidels; because the logical deductions of their no-law theory only mocked at wisdom, and to be consistent with their theory was to be inconsistent with all reason. The greatest wonder connected with the whole affair, was that so few saw the unscriptural view of their position. The theory of the partial obligation of the law, together with the kindred falsity of its abolition at the cross, is responsible for the production of such a medley as was drawn from this sitting. New London, Ind. WM. COVERT.