Pagina-afbeeldingen
PDF
ePub

performed it, it exhibited, on the one hand, his pre-eminent condescension, and on the other indicated the fact, that he was the Author of their internal purification. This appears to me decisively proved by the declaration of Christ in answer to Peter, who at first not understanding the design of the washing, and thinking it very improper that his Master should perform it for him, said, 'Thou shalt never wash my feet.' Christ then answered him,' If I wash thee not thou hast no part with me' that is, "Unless thou receivest the sanctification from me, of which this washing is a symbol, thou art not my disciple." Peter appears to me plainly to have understood it in the same manner: for, being now acquainted with the real design of Christ, he replied, Lord, not my feet only, but also my hands and my head:' Christ rejoined, He that is washed, needeth not, save to wash his feet; but is clean every whit.' A symbolical washing is perfect, although applied only to the feet; as perfect as if it were also applied to the hands and the head. If this construction be admitted, it must also be admitted that the declaration is general, and extends to every other symbolical washing, and therefore to baptism, unless excluded by some plain exception.

[ocr errors]

7. The same doctrine is taught by God in the thirty-sixth chapter of the Prophet Ezekiel.

Here, speaking of the Israelites, He says, Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean; and I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes.' Whether this is a direct prediction of the ordinance of baptism, as well as of the regeneration symbolically denoted by it, or not, is to the present purpose a matter of indifference. It cannot be denied, that it is symbolical language, in which God thought it proper to denote regeneration, by the affusion of his Spirit upon the soul. But if the language describing the act of sprinkling, was proper symbolical language to denote the act of regenerating, then the act itself of sprinkling, is a proper symbolical act, unless God has made it improper by some plain declaration. The propriety of the act, as a symbol, is evidently the only source of propriety in using the language descriptive of the act, as a symbolical exhibition of that which it denotes: to wit, regeneration.

To these observations may be added, the unsuitableness of

immersion, as an ordinance of public worship, to the circumstances of many nations in the world.

In a nation whose manners are like ours there is, to say the least, a degree of impropriety in this practice which is very unhappy. This, it will be easily seen, is a subject on which I cannot here expatiate. It will be sufficient to say, that, whatever impressions may be made by this practice in countries where bathing is a standing custom, here they are of a very unfortunate nature, and such as are directly opposed to every religious feeling. I speak from fact, and not from opinion; and from facts repeated through a century, and therefore operating, not by their novelty, but by their nature.

At the same time, the health and the lives of those who are baptized are often injured and destroyed. Here also I speak from facts. Both these considerations form, I acknowledge, only a presumptive argument in the present case; for God has an unquestionable right to require us to undergo this exposure, or any other, according to his good pleasure. But the presumption is a very strong one; and to be admitted in its full force, unless the practice contended for is expressed with indubitable clearness.

On the texts alleged by those with whom I am contending, as proofs of baptism by immersion, I shall make but a few observations; because the Discourse has already been long; and particularly because they appear to me to furnish very little support to the side of the question in behalf of which they are alleged. It is said of our Saviour, that after he was baptized, he went up straightway from the water,' avion aо Te udaros, he ascended from the water:' the word avalava signifying to go or come up; to ascend, in whatever manner. This passage appears to be descriptive solely of Christ's ascending the banks of Jordan, after he had received baptism. That this is not the meaning of the phrase cannot be shown, nor rendered probable. The preposition, ano, is erroneously rendered out of' in our translation. Its proper meaning, as every Greek scholar knows, is from; and can be out of,' only by accident: as in Matthew vii. 4, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye. Even here it would be much better rendered, Let me take the mote from thine eye.' If Matthew intended to express Christ's rising out of the water, he has certainly used phraseology of a very peculiar nature.

[ocr errors]

Another passage, often triumphantly alleged for the same purpose, is Acts viii. 38, 39, And they went down both 'nto the water, both Philip, and the eunuch; and he baptized him. —And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip.' To the translation here no reasonable objection can be made. I will therefore not avail myself of what might, however, be justly alleged, to wit, that EIS may with equal propriety signify to, and ex, from. Still I object to the construction of my antagonists, for these

reasons:

(1.) That we as naturally say that they went into the water, of those who went in to the depth of the knees, or even of the ancles, as of those who have plunged themselves.

[ocr errors]

(2.) The declarations here made, are made concerning the eunuch and Philip alike. Of both it is said, that they went down into the water;' if we render the word us, into. Of both also it is said, that when they were come up out of the water;' if we render the word x, out of. what will be the true import of the passage, mode of construing the words in question. And they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch;' that is, they were both plunged. And he baptized him;' that And when they were come

is, Philip plunged the eunuch.

Now let us see according to this

up out of the water,' that is, when they had both been plunged the second time, and risen up from their immersion, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip. In other words, both were plunged twice, and the eunuch the third time.

It is, I presume, unnecessary to comment on this version of the text under consideration. The only remark which I shall make upon it is, that the adoption of such a sense for the two words, avaava and xarabava, by some learned critics, in the face of this construction of this text, is not a little surprising.

(3.) I conclude, as I think with certainty, that these words have no reference to the immersion of either; but are barely descriptive of the fact, that they went down to, or into the water, in which, perhaps, they waded a little distance.

Another text of the same nature is Romans vi. 4. Therefore we are buried with him, by baptism, into death.' The word buried' is here supposed to denote immersion. In the next verse it is said, 'For if we are planted together in the likeness of his death.' My Antagonists are bound to show,

that this figurative expression, which refers to the same thing, does not as strictly signify the mode in which baptism is received, as the word 'buried,' and, if it does, to point out the particular mode of administering baptism, denoted by the word planted.

These are among the texts most frequently alleged by those with whom I am contending. I do not suppose that they are regarded as being of any great importance to the controversy. Their principal strength lies, as I conceive, in their own view, in what they suppose to be the original meaning of the words βαπτίζω, and βαπτω, and these texts are pressed into the service, as auxiliaries. If then their principal support fails, as, if I mistake not, I have shown that it does, these texts will be alleged without success. The general conclusion therefore appears to me to stand on solid ground; to wit, that baptism is in the Scriptures instituted as a symbol of the affusion of the Spirit of God upon the soul in regeneration, and the cleansing of its sins by the blood of Christ; and that the mode, in which it is administered is not in the Scriptures exhibited as a subject of serious importance, and is nowhere declared to be Immersion.

SERMON CLX.

THE MEANS OF GRACE.

EXTRAORDINARY MEANS OF GRACE.

THE LORD'S SUPPER:

ITS NATURE AND DESIGN. THE QUALIFICATIONS OF

COMMUNICANTS.

AND AS THEY DID EAT, JESUS TOOK BREAD AND BLESSED, AND BRAKE IT; AND GAVE TO THEM, AND SAID, TAKE, EAT, THIS IS MY BODY. AND HE TOOK THE CUP, AND WHEN HE HAD GIVEN THANKS, HE GAVE IT TO THEM, AND THEY ALL DRANK OF IT. AND HE SAID UNTO THEM, THIS IS MY BLOOD OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, WHICH IS SHED FOR MANY. AND WHEN THEY HAD SUNG AN HYMN, THEY WENT OUT INTO THE MOUNT OF OLIVES. MARK XIV, 22-25.

HAVING considered at length the nature, intention, and subjects of baptism, and the manner in which it is to be administered; I shall now proceed to examine the other sacramental ordinance of the Christian church, the Lord's Supper. In the progress of this examination, I propose to consider,

I. The nature.

II. The design of this ordinance.

III. The qualifications necessary for attendance upon it.

« VorigeDoorgaan »