Images de page
PDF
ePub

that these passages refer to the spiritual baptism spoken of in the word of God, 1 Cor. xii, 13, "For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles ;" and we have seen that the "one Spirit" is administered, by pouring, falling upon, &c. The passage may be considered as referring to the mighty energies of the Spirit of God, whereby the believer is regenerated, "crucified with Christ," "planted in the likeness of his death;" and if baptism literally is referred to at all, it is only as the instrumental cause, the initiating rite, by which we enter the church, where by profession we are, and in fact ought to be, "dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ." If our Baptist friends will insist still that the mode of baptism by immersion is referred to, and that the ordinance is intended to represent the burial and resurrection of Christ, I have two questions to ask: 1st. If the rite was intended to represent these two things, how did it come to pass that the disciples were so ignorant of the doctrine of Christ's resurrection up to the eve of his crucifixion, that "they wondered what the rising from the dead should mean ?" 2d. If this ordinance has been instituted to represent the burial and resurrection of Christ, then we ask, Where is the Christian rite that is the emblem of moral purity? Christianity has but two sacraments— baptism and the Lord's supper; the first, emblematical of the "Spirit's" influences, and the second commemorative of the breaking of the

66

body, and the shedding of the blood, of the Son of God. BLOOD and WATER came forth from the pierced side of Jesus, emblematical of atonement and of purity. 'By water we are purified, and pardoned by his blood." "There are three that bear witness in earth; the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree in one,' 1 John v, 8. I consider this text as referring to the Spirit of God, the water of baptism, and the blood of Jesus, all agreeing in one mode of administration; and that is sprinkling or pouring.

[ocr errors]

Mr. B. says, Sermon, p. 27, "Baptism does not necessarily include the idea of water at all. We might baptize with meal, with oil, with honey, with sand; the question is, What action constitutes baptism ?" Query-Could a man be immersed in sand? Sand or meal might be poured or sprinkled on the subject, but the

action," as he calls it, could never be dipping or plunging. The word "baptizo," as it occurs in Mark vii, 4, 5, with regard to the washing of hands, cups, tables, &c., cannot be interpreted as signifying the action of dipping only: for though their hands and cups might have been dipped, yet surely they did not wash or baptize their "brazen vessels," and "tables,” or "couches," by immersion.

We now notice the argument from antiquity. Mr. B. thinks that the practice of the "ancient church" shows the "pattern" of baptism, and he quotes Mosheim and Robinson, Sermon, p. 41, to prove that the pattern was by immersion. That immersion was practised in the second

century, and for some time subsequent, we firmly believe. The Baptist argument on this point runs thus: "The Baptists practise immersion, and so did the ancient church; and, therefore, so did John the Baptist and the apostles." This to them is demonstration. But stop, reader, we must look a little at this argument. The primitive church, in this mode of arguing, is made the connecting link between the New Testament times and our own. Let us now try another argument. In the primitive church, the people were immersed naked, both men and women; therefore John and the apostles immersed people naked; therefore the Baptists ought to immerse people naked. Again: The primitive church gave milk and honey to the baptized, and used unction; so did John the Baptist and the apostles, so ought the Baptists. Again: The primitive church baptized infants, so did John and the apostles, so ought the Baptists. If our friends should object to my insisting on the argument being thus pushed to its consequences, I must contend, if the pattern is to be found in the second century, they must not alter that pattern: for Mr. B. says, Sermon, p. 6, "Unless the plan laid down in the PATTERN is implicitly pursued, the thing required is not performed at all." I will prove by Mr. B.'s witness, (and he will tell the truth in this matter, no doubt, as he is a Baptist,) that the ancients gave the ordinance, the subjects being in a state of nudity. "The primitive Christians baptized naked. There is no ancient historical

fact better authenticated than this."--Robinson's History of Baptism, p. 85. Wall says, "The ancient Christians, when they were baptized by immersion, were all baptized naked; whether they were men, women, or children. They thought it better represented the putting off the old man, and also the nakedness of Christ on the cross. Moreover, as baptism is a washing, they judged that it should be the washing of the body, not of the clothes."-Wall, chap. xv, part 2. So they understood the pattern. If it were necessary, we could produce an abundance of testimony to confirm this point. And

leave it to the intelligent reader to judge, whether they received this pattern "in the mount," or whether it was the offspring of superstition. Religion, like the Saviour, is often placed between two thieves-SUPERSTITION ON the right hand, and ATHEISM on the left. The one makes a puppet of her, sets her out in gaudy attire, and mars her native beauty; the other strips her naked of her vestments, and exposes her to the scorn and contempt of the world. But let these men esteem her as they list, she is nevertheless the fair daughter of the Almighty, the queen of heaven, and beauty of the whole earth. And it is known to all that read and think, that human nature has always been prone to add to the SIMPLE CEREMONIES of Christianity. IMPOSING ordinances are no proof of the genuineness of a religion, under the gospel, where "the true worshippers worship the Father in SPIRIT and in TRUTH."

[ocr errors]

The Baptists very often are found vaunting about the uniformity of their views and practice; they will tell you that they have always rejected "infant baptism," and always practised immersion. If the reader will attend, I will give him a fact or two from a Baptist writer that will prove a small drawback upon these high pretensions. In Benedict's History of the Baptists, vol. i, pp. 150-152, it is said, "The American Mennonites have adopted pouring, instead of immersion, and it is probable that many, and I know not but most, of the European Mennonites have done the same." The reader will bear in mind that these Baptists have been a numerous sect, in the Netherlands, Upper Saxony, Prussia, Russia, Poland, France, &c., &c., and their leader, or founder, Menno, who died in 1561, asserted that "dipping was the only baptism acceptable to God." "The Dutch Baptists," says Benedict, "held to dipping believers at first; they still retain the subjects of the ordinance, but, by a surprising change, some, I know not how many, have departed from the apostolic mode." It is surely very surprising that so many Baptists should depart from the apostolic pattern, if cold bathing is as convenient, pleasant, and healthy as Mr. Broaddus seems to think it. Sermon, p. 40, and Strictures, p. 22, he says, "It often proves beneficial to health," &c. If it could be shown that God has said, All men who are to be baptized must be immersed, then there should be no demurring; and although Mr. B. has again and again begged

« PrécédentContinuer »