Εικόνες σελίδας
PDF
Ηλεκτρ. έκδοση

modern. Any of these topics of argumentation should be considered conclusive, and I cannot see how any man will candidly examine them, and conclude against them, taken together in their accumulative and corroborative force.

***

CHAP. II.

The Mode of Christian Baptism.

LET us now see what is the

of Christian baptism.

proper mode

Here we think, in the first place, it must be admitted on all hands that the water of baptism is not, by any direct power, efficient of spiritual purgation. Of course, it cannot be a matter of moment what its quantity be, only, that it be as much as may be a symbol of the blood of Christ. Even the Brahmins, who impute so much to lotions in the Ganges, consider that it is the holiness of its quality, and not the largeness of its quantity that gives it all its virtue.

All, therefore, must depend upon the divine. appointment. Baptism does not avail to the purifying of the flesh; but as it is the answer of a good conscience, looking to God for a divine blessing upon a divine institution. It must also be admitted, that in the institution of baptism there is no particular direction given respecting the mode thereof. The disciples are commanded to go and baptize; in what way the water was to be exhibited, the Saviour said nothing.

The word (baptize) is one of very indefinite signification. Had the great head of the Church designed that there should be but one mode, it would have no doubt been expressed so that about the mode there could be no doubt. The translators were aware of these facts and so have not translated the word, only given it an English termination, leaving it the same latitude of signification iu our language that it had in the original. It is by some considered a causative verb or word from bapto; by some it is reckoned a diminutive. Baptists do not consider it as a causative word, for they actually dip, and do not, I believe, generally cause the person, or any other to perform the rite for them. It must, therefore, be understood as a diminutive. I do not say this is very conclusive. I rest the force of the plea for effusion upon convenience, decency and expressiveness. In a rude state of society and in warm climates, where perhaps the principal attention to cleanliness is bodily ablutions and immersions, there may be no great inconveniency experienced in this operation. When people are inured not only to bodily hardship, but when their minds also are destitute of any delicate cultivation, there may, in such a state of society, be no sacrifice of bodily or mental feeling. In such a state of society, the sexes are accustomed to see each other in habits and attitudes, which civil society would count rather awkward. This they may do without either painful or licentious feelings. But in the highly cultivated state

of American and British society, certainly every unbiassed mind must feel shocked at seeing the sturdy baptist drag the delicate female into the stream-seize her by the neck and breast, while he trips up her heels in the presence of the gazing crowd. It must require strong feelings of conscience or superstition to reconcile a mind of ordinary delicacy to this mode. If, however, it be commanded, it must be done. We must, in all cases of duty, take up our cross. necessity, however, of making one, and I do not know that in any instance, it is appointed that the members or ministers of Christs flock are to impose these upon each other. They fulfil the law of Christ by bearing one another's burdens. They imitate the corrupt Scribes and Pharisees when they impose onerous loads on Christ's redeemed. It is true offences must come, but woe

There is no

to them by whom they come. It were, better

that a man were cast into the midst of the sea with a millstone at his neck, than that he should offend one of Christ's little ones. When the wicked of the world treat them rudely because of their testimony in behalf of truth, they must, after the example of their divine Master, hold fast, nor love their lives unto the death for his sake. But does this prove that they must put stumbling blocks and rocks of offence in each other's way that they will be doing God service when they put one another to death indiscreetly if not intentionally? The Baptist, however, will say all this avails nothing in the face of scripture

authority which is all in favour of dipping. What is there then in favour of immersion as the exclusive mode of Christian baptism? If the scripture be obviously on that side, then let the reasoning perish that is opposed to revelation. Let every imagination be brought into the obedience of faith. The Baptist pleads for immer sion, 1 On the precise signification of the word. 2 On the practice of John. 3 On the case of Philip and the eunuch. 4. On the phrase, "Buried with him by baptism into death." Upon the first of these arguments we would remark, Does the word baptize in the English or baptizo. in the Greek signify to dip and nothing else? If it does not, there can be nothing certainly learned from the word. If it does, what was the use of making this word, seeing it and its parent, according to baptists mean the same thing:

If baptizo and bapto, baptize and dip signify one and the same thing, why are they not interchangeably used? Try an instance in Matthew iii. 11. "I indeed baptize you with water to repentance; but he that cometh after me, is mightier than I, whose shoes I am unworthy to bear, he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire." Make the word baptize signify nothing but dip, and you may render the passage thus-I indeed dip you with water, but one cometh after me, &c. he shall dip you with the Holy Ghost and with fire. Even a baptist, we presume, perceives the solecism and feels shocked with both the sound and the sense that his own

criticism on the meaning of the word makes. Will they then say that the word baptize always means to dip or immerse, and may always be so translated? The Jews, it is known, had a great many washings, sprinklings, and ceremonial purifications, all of which went by the general name of baptisms. Mark vii. 4. Heb. ix. 10. "And when they come from market, except they wash [are baptized, in the Greek] they eat not. And many other things there be which they have received to hold, as the washing [baptisms] of cups and pots, brazen vessels and tables or couches. Now, it is evident, if they dipped in all their ritual purifications, they must have had very large ewers or vessels. It will be of importance to know something about the size of them. As the shrewd youth remarked, when the very ingenious and rational preacher taught the people that the loaves which fed so many thousands were as large as a certain mountain which he named, "I would not wish," said the arch wag" to doubt the truth of what the minister says, but I would like to know how large the oven was in which the loaves were baked." If then the Jews baptized brass kettles, tables, kc. let us examine how large the vessels were, in which these ritual purifications were performed. Of these, we have an account in the anecdote of the marriage at Cana of Galilee. John 11. This family, we have reason to believe, were as well provided as others and especially at this time. v. 6. "And there were set six water pots of stone, after the Jews' manner of

« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »