Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

and as one that was to come? In a word, if John expressed the act of faith which he required, in the future tense,* it unquestionably respected a future act; and if he described its object under the term xóμevos, he that is to come, he did not immerse in the name of Jesus, which would have been a palpable contradiction.

1

Again, the spiritual import of christian baptism, as asserted by St. Paul, transcends incomparably the measure of religious knowledge possessed during the ministry of John. "Know ye not," is his appeal to christians, "that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ, were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death; that, like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life." We have here an appeal to the conscience of all baptized persons respecting the spiritual signification of that ordinance, the views which it embraced, and the obligations resulting from thence to a holy and heavenly life.

What

is the meaning of the words baptized into his death? Whatever else it may comprehend, it unquestionably means the being baptized into a belief of his death. But at the time that, John was fulfilling his course, this belief was so far from possessing the minds of his converts, that even the apostles were not only ignorant of that event, but impatient of its mention; and, with respect to his resurrection, Rom. vi. 3, 4.

TLOTEVOWOL, Acts xix. 4.

we find these same apostles after the transfiguration, inquiring among themselves "what the rising from the dead could mean ;"* while, from the expectation of the Jews at large, nothing was more abhorrent than the death and crucifixion of their Messiah. While they were thus unacquainted with the principal fact it is designed to exhibit, how could they possibly comprehend the import of christian baptism? In all probability they regarded the consecrated use of water merely as an emblem of purification, of that reformation of manners to which they were summoned; for to such a use of it they had long been accustomed; but for the sublime mysteries of the christian sacrament, connected with events of which they were ignorant, and with truths which were veiled from their eyes, they were utterly unprepared. It is impossible to evade the force of this argument, by distinguishing betwixt the disciples of John and those who were converted to the christian faith at a subsequent period. language of St. Paul precludes the possibility of such a distinction. "As many of us," says he, "as were baptized into Christ Jesus, were baptized into his death;" which is surely equivalent to affirming that whoever were not baptized into his death, were not baptized into Christ. But the disciples of John were not baptized into (the belief of) his death. Therefore they were not baptized into Christ.

* Mark ix. 10.

The

We have already remarked, in a former treatise, that as the ministry of John commenced previously to that of the Messiah, which succeeded his baptism, no rite celebrated at that time is entitled to a place amongst christian sacraments, since they did not commence with the christian dispensation, nor issue from the authority of Christ, as Head of the church. The sacraments properly christian, undoubtedly belong to the kingdom of God; a phrase which is constantly employed in scripture to denote that state of things which is placed under the avowed administration of the Messiah, and which consequently could not precede his personal appearance.

But during his residence on earth, until his resurrection, this kingdom is uniformly represented as future, though near at hand. Even after John's imprisonment, the language which he held respecting that object is the same: "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent ye, and believe the gospel ;"* which is also the precise intelligence he commanded the seventy disciples to proclaim, a little before his decease. He was inaugurated into his office at his baptism, till which period he remained in the obscurity of private life, at the utmost remove from assuming a legislative character.

An attention to the general history of the period to which these transactions refer, will conduct us to the same conclusion.

When we consider the

[blocks in formation]

great popularity attached to the ministry of the forerunner, and the general submission of the Jewish people to his doctrine, it is in the highest degree improbable that of the three thousand who were added by St. Peter to the church on one day, there were none who had been previously his disciples this incredible supposition is reduced to an impossibility, when we recollect, that of the twelve apostles, two are actually affirmed by an evangelist to have been of that number. But as it is universally admitted, that they who were savingly convinced of the truth of christianity after the Pentecost, were baptized on that occasion, what conclusion can be more inevitable, than that the rite administered by the harbinger of our Lord, was essentially distinct from the christian ordinance?

To conclude this branch of the subject; the Acts of the Apostles furnish us with a decisive instance of an apostle's rebaptizing certain disciples of John at Ephesus; but, as we shall have occasion hereafter to examine that incident more fully, in reply to the evasions of the author of the Plea, I shall content myself at present with barely referring to it.

Such are the principal grounds on which we have ventured to assert the fundamental disparity betwixt the baptism of John, and the christian, institute.

We now proceed to notice the manner in which, the author of the Plea for Primitive Communion attempts to evade these arguments.

I. He endeavours to invalidate the assertion that John's commission did not originate in the command of Christ, or that he, on any occasion, ascribes his mission to the Father, in distinction from the Son. The author of Terms of Communion is charged with representing “John as uniformly doing that of which there is no decisive evidence he ever did at all; that is, ascribe his commission to the Father, in distinction from the Son."*

We should have supposed that when the origin of a certain proceeding is constantly assigned to one agent, and no notice is taken of another, there is no impropriety in affirming that the proceeding in question is ascribed to him who is mentioned, in distinction from him who is not. But let the scripture speak for itself, and let the reader judge whether John did, or did not, ascribe his commission to the Father, in distinction from any other person. "He who sent me to baptize," said he, "the same said unto me, He on whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and abiding on him, He it is who shall baptize in the Holy Ghost, and in fire."+ Here the personage speaking distinguishes himself from the Messiah, as clearly as words can distinguish him, for he speaks of Christ in the third person, while he himself is denoted by the first and so uniform is the language of scripture on this subject, that not a syllable is to be found * Plea for Primitive Communion, p. 21. † John i. 33. See the original.

« AnteriorContinuar »