Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB
[ocr errors]

and I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them, [i. e. the apos tles and their followers,] that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, &c. Of those that seemed to be somewhat, whatever they were, it maketh no matter to me; God accepteth no man's person; for they who seemed to be somewhat, in conference added nothing to me, but contrariwise,' &c. He afterwards plainly shows to whom he alludes in these expressions; James, Cephas, [or Peter,] and John' were they who seemed to be pillars.' After wards he states that he withstood Peter to his face,' for his blameworthy judaizing. We recommend to such as are disposed to worship saints, and make apostolic practices immutable laws, a careful perusal of this passage in Paul's writings. It will be found that Paul scrupled not to differ in doctrine and practice from those who had been apostles before him.' We need not wonder that he spoke so lightly as we have seen, of that water baptism which those apostles prescribed and administered in the beginning of their apostleship. 5. If it is objected in answer to what has been said, that the apostles baptized with water while under the guidance of the Holy Ghost, we reply, in the first place, though we should admit that the Holy Ghost did actually direct them to baptize with water, we might still assert, that no one can truly follow their example, who baptizes without the special direction of the Holy Ghost. But we deny that there is any evidence that the Holy Ghost did direct them to baptize with water. We cannot ascribe all their actions and views to the influence of the Holy Ghost. For a time they evidently regarded circumcision as a Christian ordinance. Was this a doctrine of the Holy Ghost? They regarded the Jewish nation as alone entitled to the blessings of the gos pel. Were they taught this by the Holy Ghost? Peter so conducted that Paul withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed.' Did he act under the guidance of the Holy Ghost? Manifestly the Jewish practices and views which the apostles had received, not from the Holy Ghost, but from their previous education, must account for many things in their conduct; and what portion of Judaism would be more likely to adhere to them in the beginning of their apostleship, than the baptism of John-the recent introduction and celebrity of which, seemed doubtless to characterize it as a permanent ordinance of the new dispensation? It is said that Philip baptized the eunuch (Acts 8: 38) under the guidance of the Holy Ghost. The only evidence in favor of this assertion, is the fact that Philip was directed by the Holy Ghost to preach Christ to the eunuch. The inference from this is, that he subsequently baptized him by the direction of the Holy Ghost. Ob serve, this is only an inference. It is not said that the Holy Ghost dictated the baptism. On the contrary, it is said that the eunuch said, See, here is water, what doth hinder me to be baptized? The suggestion of water baptism came from the eunuch, and not from the Holy Ghost. When a passage shall be found in the record of God directly ascribing the ministration of water baptism to the direction of the Holy Ghost, we shall be ready to admit that there is some plausibility in the argument for its continuance as a Christian ordinance; but while feeble inferences alone, are the foundation of that argument, we must be permitted to receive the instructions and examples of Christ and Paul, as paramount to the instructions and examples of those

6

[ocr errors]

apostles who, while they seemed to be pillars,' were yet manifestly, to a great extent, under the influence of Jewish habits and doctrines.

[ocr errors]

1 Peter 3: 20, 21. Eight souls were saved by water, [i. e. in Noah's ark;] the like figure whereunto, even baptism, doth also now save us, (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience towards God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead.' It is evident from this passage, that Peter's views of baptism were rectified at the time he wrote his epistles. The baptism of which he here speaks, is expressly declared to be, not that which washes away the filth of the flesh,' i. e. water baptism; but that which purifies the conscience, i. e. the baptism of the Holy Ghost. By giving heed to this explanation, we shall have no difficulty in discerning the connection which he suggests, between baptism and the resurrection of Christ. Water baptism can scarcely be strained by any latitude of fancy, into a type of the resurrection of Christ. John the Baptist, with whom it originated, evidently designed no such allusion. He administered it according to the character uniformly ascribed to it in the New Testament, and in the traditions of the Jews, as an ordinance of initiation—a rite by which its subjects were introduced into a new dispensation. As such, it was properly a type of the baptism of the Holy Ghost, by which believers are introduced into the Christian dispensation. Water baptism stood in the same relation to the baptism of the Holy Ghost, as that in which John the Baptist stood to Christ. That we may understand how the baptism of the Holy Ghost is connected with the resurrection of Christ, it is only necessary that we bear in mind that believers are thereby baptized into Christ, become members of his body, and of course partakers of his resurrection. This is plainly the meaning of Paul in the following passages:- Know ye not 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. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection.' Rom. 6: 3-5. Ye are complete in him, &c., buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him, through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead. Col. 2: 10—12. Paul plainly defines the baptism, of which he thus speaks, in the following passages: 'As the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body, so also is Christ. For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body.' 1 Cor. 12: 12, 13. For as many of us as have been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ.' Gal. 3: 27. Believ ers becoming one with Christ by the baptism of the Holy Ghost, while they remain in the flesh, have fellowship with his death; inasmuch as his incarnation was in the largest sense his death; and at the same time they have fellowship with his resurrection, inasmuch as their head, whose spirit is theirs, has overcome death. He was put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit.' 1 Pet. 3: 18. The connection of baptism with the resurrection of Christ, may be imperfectly illustrated by the following case. In working subterranean mines, it is often necessary to remove water that flows into them,

by means of an engine which alternately raises and lowers large buckets through the shaft which constitutes the entrance of the mine. Such excavations are also oftentimes liable to explosions, by reason of the inflammable gases which infest them. Suppose that a workman in such a mine, is informed by the appearance of his lamp that an explosion is at hand. At the same moment the water-bucket is just about to ascend. Rushing from a fiery and dreadful death, he plunges into the ascending bucket, and is safely raised to the upper world. He is baptized into a resurrection. The primitive church was awaiting the explosion of the fiery vengeance of God, in the judgraent of the prince of this world. Christ came in the flesh, descending into the lower parts of the earth, and ascending above all heavens.' thus became the shaft of communication between the caverns of sin and the heavenly world. 'I am the way.' John 14: 6. His resurrection also became the power by which believers were exalted into heavenly places. 'I am the resurrection.' John 11: 35. His descent into the darkness of this world, was his death. Hence believers, plunging into his blood, were baptized into his death; and having fellowship with him in his victory over death, were bap tized into his resurrection; and when the wrath of God burst upon the man of sin, were found safely reposing with him in the bosom of the Father.

[ocr errors]

He

Peter, in the passage which has suggested these remarks, represents the salvation of Noah and his family in the ark, as a type of the salvation of the primitive church, by baptism into the resurrection of Christ. The flood of water in the type, is a storm of judgment-fire in the antitype. The ark is Christ. The entrance of the ark is baptism into Christ.' As the flood came upon the ark, and it rose above the waters, safely bearing its inmates, till the dry land reappeared, so Christ became a refuge for believers in the midst of the fiery vengeance of God, and by the power of his resurrection, bearing them above the burning billows that rolled over those who, in the day of judgment, were not found in him, gave them a resting place in the kingdom of his glory. With these views, we perceive that Peter very properly represented baptism as a saving ordinance. The like figure whereunto, even baptism, doth now save us.' Without baptism into Christ, by the Holy Ghost,

none can be saved.

Eph. 4: 4, 5.There is one body and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling: one Lord, one faith, one baptism." If water baptism was in Paul's view a Christian ordinance, he has not spoken in this pas sage according to the form of sound doctrine: for he says in 1 Cor. 12: 13, 'By one Spirit are we all baptized into one body;' showing that the baptism of the Holy Ghost was regarded by him as one baptism, of universal necessity; and if water baptism was in his view equally necessary, he should have said, one Lord, one faith, two baptisms.' Observe further, in the two passages we have quoted, he was manifestly treating of the same subject, viz., the unity of the church. In one he speaks expressly of the baptism of the Holy Ghost, as pertaining universally to the church in the other he declares that but one baptism pertains to the church. By thus comparing the two passages, we cannot avoid the inference that he regarded the baptism of the Holy Ghost as the only baptism pertaining to the church.

This view alone accords with his own declaration and practice, and those of Christ, as we have before seen. As he states that only one baptism belongs to Christianity, in determining his meaning, we have only to choose between John's baptism and Christ's. One must be rejected. We know which Christ rejected: Jesus baptized not' [with water.] John 4: 2. We know which Paul himself rejected: Christ sent me not to baptize' [with water.] 1 Cor. 1: 17. The conclusion is unavoidable, that Paul's doctrine of baptisms,' a doctrine which he regarded as one of the elementary instructions of the gos pel, rejected water baptism, and retained only the baptism of the Holy Ghost, as a necessary appurtenance to Christianity.

Thus we have noted or alluded to all the passages of the New Testament which have seemed to us to have any bearing on the 'doctrine of baptisms.' In conclusion, we may balance the evidence we have before us, thus:

Evidence in favor of the baptism of the Holy Ghost, as alone belonging to Christianity:-1, the testimony of John as recorded by all the evangelists; 2, the testimony of Christ; (Acts 1: 5;) 3, the commission which Christ gave his disciples; 4, Christ's example; 5, the testimony of Paul; 6, the example of Paul; 7, the testimony of Peter in his epistle.

Evidence in favor of water baptism:-The example of Peter and his associate apostles in the beginning of their ministry, subtracting the evidence that they were at that time partially the disciples of John the Baptist.

6

With such a balance before us, we cannot but be astonished that any should be found in this day, clinging to the baptism of John; and our astonishment is increased by the fact, that the multitudes who do thus cling to the baptism of John, are generally more earnestly at war with each other respecting the mode of putting away the filth of the flesh,' than with the devil in behalf of that gospel baptism, which gives the answer of a good conscience toward God. We doubt not that immersion was the primitive mode of water baptism. But we still say, that a single immersion in water is no more Christian baptism, than a single sprinkling of water. Even as shadows of the baptism of the Holy Ghost, one is no better than the other; for the baptism of the Holy Ghost is called 'the blood of sprinkling,' (Heb. 12: 24) and was typified by the sprinkling of the blood of the sacrifices under the law. It is also most frequently represented as an effusion. Acts 2: 17, &c. The sacrament of the Lord's supper shadows forth the reception of the Holy Ghost, by the figure of 'drinking. (See also John 7: 37-39.) The truth is, the operation by which believers receive the Holy Ghost is properly represented by any or all of these modes combined. It makes little difference whether a spunge is dipped or sprinkled-whether water is poured on it or overflows it. If it is filled with water, we care little whether it was filled by an operation which is called 'immersion,' or 'effusion,' or 'sprinkling,' or 'drinking.' He that receives Christ by faith, is baptized with the Holy Ghost, is sprinkled with the blood of Jesus, the Spirit is poured out' upon him, and he is made to drink into that one Spirit.' We confess however, the first figure suits our taste better than any other. We love to think of Christian baptism, as AN EVERLASTING IMMERSION IN THE BLOOD OF CHRIST.

§ 61. MARRIAGE.

So long as the following thrilling description of latter-day repentance stands on the record of God, it can never be unimportant to investigate the bearings of the matrimonial connection, on our allegiance to Jesus Christ.

"I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his first-born. In that day shall there be a great mourning in Jerusalem, as the mourning of Hadad-rimmon in the valley of Megiddon. And the land shall mourn, every fam. ily apart; the family of the house of David apart, and their wives apart; the family of the house of Nathan apart, and their wives apart; the family of the house of Levi apart, and their wives apart; the family of Shimei apart, and their wives apart; all the families that remain, every family apart, and their wives apart." Zech. 12: 10-14.

Those conservatives who are ever ready to raise an outcry about 'separating man and wife,' whenever the all-engrossing claims of Jesus Christ are brought to view, are certainly conservative above that which is written.' We think the Shakers even a more rational people. For though they handle the subject of sexual intercourse erroneously, they are certainly not in an error in regard to the importance of the subject. We shall give our general views on this matter, by a few comments on the above passage from Zechariah.

[ocr errors]

We have no doubt that the "mourning' spoken of by the prophet, came to pass (at least in part) on the day of Pentecost, and afterward during the apostolic age, when three thousand Jews in Jerusalem, and multitudes in all the coasts of Israel, looked on their king whom they had crucified,' and mourned for him in bitterness' of soul. But did the primitive believers mourn in the manner described by Zechariah, i. e. 'every family apart, and their wives apart?' In order to answer this question, we will examine the principal witnesses of the New Testament.

I. As the primitive church were followers of Jesus Christ,' we shall put ourselves in the way to ascertain something about their spirit, by looking into his teachings and example. He was never married. He spoke of those who 'made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake,' in a manner that indicated his approval. Matt. 19: 12. He said he came to send a sword' through men's households. Matt. 10: 34-36. He made it a condition of discipleship, that men should 'hate' and 'forsake' their wives among other earthly valuables; (Luke 14: 26;) and when afterwards he promised that those valuables should be restored, with a hundred-fold increase, he omitted mentioning wives in his enumeration. Mark 10: 29, 30. Finally he declared that there would be neither marrying nor giving in marriage,' in the resurrection; i. e. in the world to which his kingdom pertained. And in this last declaration we undoubtedly have a clue to the meaning of his ex

« AnteriorContinuar »