« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »
yer has saved his friends from that mortification which they must have felt, had he attempted to prove infant baptism from this scripture. He frankly says, (p. 6,) u The first thing commanded, is to proselyte all na. tions to the Christian religion. The second is to baptize then), and the third and last thing, here enjoined is, to teach them to observe all the ordinances of Christ.”: “ The action is baptizing or immersing in water. The subjects thereof, those persons of every pation, whom the ministers can by their instructions, render disciples, that is, such as do sincerely believe the truth."- Dr. Barroic's works, Vol. 1 p. 518.
"In the primitive church, instruction preceded bap tism, agreeable to the order of Jesus Christ, go teach unto all nations, baptizing them."-Saurin's Sermons, vol. 1, p. 301.
“Because Christ requires teaching before baptism, and will have believers ONLY admitted to baptism, baptism does not seem to be rightly administered except faith precedes."--John Calvin, Harmony of the Evangelists.
" They could not make disciples unless by teaching. By that institution were disciples brought to the faith before they were baptized.”- Limborch's Instatutes, chapt. 67, p. 7.
• Matt. xxviii. 19, Go ye, threfore, &c. This is not like some occasional historical mention of baptism, but is the very commission of Christ to his apostles, and purposely expresseth their several works in their several places and orders. The first work is by teaching to make disciples, which are called by Mark, xvi. 16, be lievers. Their second work is to baptize them; the third work is to teach them all other ihings which are to be learned in the school of Christ. To contemp this order, is to renounce all rules of order ; for where can we expect to find it if not here. I profess my com
science fully satisfied from this text that it is one sort of faith, even saving, that must go before baptism."Batter's Disp. of right to sacraments, pp. 149, 150.
“A limited commission implies a prohibition oť such things as are not contained in it, and positive laws imply their NEGATIVE."— Appendix to Walker's Debate, p. 209.
Therefore, when the Lord commanded his disciples to baptize believers, and the commission ceasing there, it was precisely the same as forbidding them to baptize infants and unbelievers; and Abraham could as well expect to please God by circumcising females, or infants before they were eight days old, as pedobaptists by sprinkling infants before they believe in Christ.
But the question arises, was John's baptism and Christian baptism the same. Pedobaptists have as. serted that they were not, because they know that John uniformly immersed; therefore they try to destroy his baptism altogether, that there may be less scripture to oppose their sprinkling. Thus Mr. Sawyer asserts, p. 2, 3, "The first notice of Christian baptism, and all the notice of it which occurs in the gospel history previous to the crucifixion, is in the following passages : John iii. 22-26: John iv. 1, 2." Now what a shameless statement this is; that Christian baptism, which derived both its existence and name from Jesus Christ, did not exist until administered by the disciples, long after the Lord was baptized. The identity of Christian and John's baptism is evident from Scripture; see Matt. xi. 7-15: Mark i. 1-8: Luke iii. 3–6: Acts i. 21–23: Rom. vi. 4,5: Eph. iv. 3–6: Col. ii. 12; and is conceded by able pedobaptists. "By this he intended to do an honor to John's ministry, and conform himself to what he appointed to his followers."- Dr. Doddridge's Note on Marli o
"In John's preaching and baptizing, there was the beginning of the gospel doctrines and ordinances, and the first fruits of them."-Dr. M. Henry's Comment on Mark i. 1.
"It is certain that the ministry of John was precisely the same as that which was afterward committed to the apostles. The sameness of their doctrine shows their baptism to have been the same. I grant that the baptism which they (the twelve, at Acts xix. 1--7,) had received was the true baptism of John, and the very same with the baptism of Christ; but I deny that they were baptized again."--Calvin's Institutes, book 4, chapt. 15, sec. 7, 8.
“I must say a few words in support of the identity of these baptisms. The baptism of John and the bap tism of Christ were the same in their divine origin ; and the same as it respects the element, and the mode of applying it. In both, the parties baptized did profess their faith in Christ; Acts xix. 4, and also their repentance, Luke iii. 3. The baptism of John was the baptism of the gospel. It was in practice after
the beginning of the gospel.' Mark i. 1. It testified of Christ actually come. The Prophets prophesied, and the ceremonial law was in force until John, Matt. xi. 13. In him they were fulfilled. And in him, of course, the shadows ceased. Hence it is obvious that John's baptism was a New Testament rite. But the baptism of the New Testament" is one,” Eph. iv. 5. Therefore the baptism of John and of Christ are the same. Some critics have conceived that they have discovered proofs of John's disciples having again been baptized. But there is no evidenee of this in the New Testament. In Acts xix. 1-6, the inquiry which St. Paul made of the disciples was not whether they were baptized, but whether they had received the Holy Ghost,' i. e. in his miraculous gifts, since they believed. Water baptism was not the subject of the conference; and, upon hearing their answer that * they had not so much as heard of the outpouring of the Holy Ghost,' Paul laid his hands upon them and the Holy Ghost came upon them. The 5th verse is not a part of the narrative of St. Luke. It is the continuation of St. Paul's address; and what his disciples did. When they,' the disciples of John, 'heard this,' i. e. John's doctrine respecting Christ, they were baptized,' i. e. by John, 'in the name of Christ.' This is the opinion of the ablest critics and fathers of the reformation. Turretine on the indentity of the two baptisms, vol. 3, p. 444. Ber. de Moore, vol. v, pp. 396–402: vol. vi. p. 802; and on the last point see Tur. iii. p. 448. Beza Marnixius, Coccius, &e. J. Mark, Medul. and Comp. in B. D. Moore, vol. v. p. 401, &c., who gives Mark's four arguments against the anabaptism of John's disciples.
Dilemma 1. "If the baptism of John was not the baptism of the New Testament, then our Lord was not baptized-and hence he wanted that toward the New Testament church, which, by circumcision, he had toward the Old Testament church.
2. Hence the argument of St. Paul is evaded, One Lord, one faith, one baptism. Our Lord had not one of the bonds of union and communion said here to exist between each saint and himself. .
3. 'Hence there can be no meaning in our Lord's words when he came to be baptized. If not of the New Testament, it could not be a part of his righteousness to be fulfilled.' See also Dr. Lightfoot, vol. 1, p. 467"-- Dr. Wm. C. Brownlee, work against the religious principles of the Quakers.
Such is the language of the well informed part of the pedobaptist community; and thus clear it is, from reason and revelation, that Christian baptism is the same, whether administered by John the Baptist, Paul the apostle, or a Christian minister of the 19th century. SECTION v.
The baptism of the Apostles. The Acts of the Apostles, written by Luke, is the first book of Baptist church history, and of course, it is needless to look for any intimations of infant baptism here; for “they baptized only the adult or aged, whether Jews or Gentiles, whereof we have instances in Acts ii., viii., X., xvi., and xix.; but as to the baptizing of infants, we have no example. As to the manner of baptizing, it was by dipping or plunging into water, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, according to the allusions contained in Rom. vi. and Col. ii."--Magdeburg Centuriators.
The first account of baptism administered, excepting by John the Baptist, is at John iii. 22–26, and iv. 1, 2. With reference to these passages, Mr. Sawyer says, page 3, that "nothing is said respecting the children of believers, and the omission of any notice of them," &c. The next passage noticed by Mr. Sawyer is Acts ii. 37—40, by which he thinks infant baptism is sustained ; but he has evidently mistaken the sense of the text in the following particulars.
1. He wholly mistakes the meaning of the word children, in the 39th verse; TEXVOLS is a noun derived from the verb tixtw, and is the dative plural of tèxvor. That it does not mean infants, is clear, from the following facts. The Greeks have three words which they use with reference to their posterity, Boegos, (babe) see Luke i. 41, 44, and Luke ii. 12, 16; raidov (child) see Matthew ii. 8, and John xxi. 5; and tèxvov(son or daughter,) the meaning of which can be learned from those texts where it is used. See Matt. x. 21 : XV. 26 : xxi. 28: Mark vii. 27 : x. 24: xiii. 12: Luke i. 17: ii. 48: xv. 31: Acts ii. 39: v. 21 : 2 Cor. vi. 13: Eph. vi. 1: Col. iii. 20 : 1 Thess. ii. 11: Titus i. 6 : 2