Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

pare ye the way of the Lord," he did not preach himself, but the Christ of God. It was his commission to preach repentance, and to enjoin those who repented to be washed in the baptismal waters, but this was all he could do. "I indeed baptise you with water; but one will come into these waters who will make complete the ordinance, and baptise hereafter with the Holy Ghost and with fire. I can but wash the body; but the Great One, whose advent I am preparing, will wash the soul also, and cleanse it from every stain of sin by the wonderful workings of his grace. It will be his prerogative to add a spiritual reality to what I am doing, and to crown this sign of repentance with the seal of forgiveness, to take away all stain and detriment of sin, and to bring forth his people new-born sons of God."

Now, these are necessary points of view in which to consider the ministry of John the Baptist, that we may perceive the close connexion between it and the more perfect and finished doctrine of the Gospel ; that we may see in it the first appearance of a great evangelical ordinance, which was ratified and hallowed by our Lord himself, and understand that John and Christ were not of a different school, but that our Lord closely connected himself both with the preaching and practices of his acknowledged herald.

With these preliminary observations, let us observe the language of John and Christ at the river Jordan: "Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptised of him. But John forbade him, saying, I have need to be baptised of thee, and comest thou to me? And Jesus answering, said unto him, Suffer it to be so now; for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him." What did our Lord mean when he answered that it was necessary to fulfil all righteousness? It certainly was not the righteousness of observing the institutions of the law, it was not the righteousness of which Moses speaks touching the commandments and statutes, (Deut. vi. 25 ;) it was not one of the ordinances of which the author of the Epistle of the Hebrews speaks, (dikaιwμara, Heb. ix. 1;) it was not a temporary obedience to the Pharisees, as the successors to the chair of Moses, (Matt. xxiii. 2;) but it was something more than this—it was evangelical righteousness, "righteousness" here being taken in the very general sense allowed to it in the Scriptures, as that which is right and holy because God had commanded it, and therefore well-pleasing in his sight for, as our Lord came into the world to be the Lamb of God that should take away the sin of the world, so was it requisite that he should go through the whole course of obedience, from his baptism to his death, which should manifest him to be the sin-bearer of

the spiritual Israel. In this view it was as necessary that Christ should be baptised as that he should be crucified; for the same person who was without spot, and was, nevertheless, made a curse for us when he was hanging on the tree, was also washed in the cleansing laver of baptism, though he knew no sin, and had need of no cleansing for himself, as he himself was Zidkenu, the Lord our righteousness. It was an ordinance of his heavenly Father that he should become one with the church; and as it was resolved that the church of Christ should pass through the waters of baptism, so was it ordered that Christ himself should not, in this point, be separated from his church, but should himself herein submit, as he afterwards commanded his church to submit.

of

We may, therefore, thus paraphrase the words of our Lord: "My God and Father, who has thus sent me to save mankind, has willed that the glad tidings of salvation should be ushered in by the baptism repentance for the remission of sins. This is an ordinance which I, the Son of God, am come to sanctify; and as I am the second Adam, the head and representative of all those who are to be born again to God in the Spirit, I am here that I may descend into those waters which shall be the laver of my church upon earth. Henceforward baptism will be common with me and believers; and they having seen me thus hallow this ordinance, will know that they are indeed planted into my body, and are buried with me in baptism, that with me also they may rise again into newness of life. Remission of sins is hereafter to be clearly known by faith in my blood: these waters represent my death, through which all who are given to me by my Father shall be surely saved. As this, therefore, is a command for the church, I myself will be the first to obey, to manifest myself in all points in obediential agreement with my brethren; and therefore let it be so done-suffer it now; omit all questions about my superiority and Divine greatness, and baptise me as THE SON OF MAN visibly, in the waters of this river, that this righteousness may be fulfilled."

A full consideration of all that was said and done at the baptism of our Lord, of all that proceeded and all that followed in connexion with the subject, will fully justify us in thus interpreting the words which he addressed to John.

And though all this will be abundantly obvious to those who are versed in the Scriptures, and who understand them according as they are written, by taking the sense of the words to be that which they manifestly express; yet the gloss of the mystical school has introduced such darkness into this subject, and has so distorted that which we find written, that, in discussing the doctrine of baptism with a view to res

cue it from mystical perversions, it is requisite to proceed step by step in the argument, and to prove that which to most persons will seem to have been self-evident.

And here, then, when we turn to the masters of the mystical school, what daring words do we find them to have uttered on this ordinance. of our Lord! The Quakers tell us that it is "a mere ceremony, imposed in days of weakness;" "a beggarly element;"" an outward form of darkness;" "a thing to be discarded;"" an act of imagery;"* a species of idolatry;" "a figurative, preparatory, decreasing, and terminating institution;" "weak, inufficient, and unavailing;" "that they who wish to abide in it do give an evidence of human weakness, and are as much in bondage as the Galatians were to circumcision; and that Paul, convinced of the weakness of this symbolical observance, pertinently, and with amazement, inquires, How turn ye to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage ?" &c. &c.

[ocr errors]

Much more of this sort, and far more violent and indecent, might be quoted from the older writers, who are now held up by their successors as pre-eminently spiritual, and in a high degree endued with light from above. But, as a proof that this their doctrine remains substantially the same, though restrained within more comely and sober language, we have only to hearken to J. J. Gurney,† the leader of the modern school, who thus declares the sentiments of his Society:

"It is our belief that we have been led out of the practice of this rite by the Spirit of truth; that we could not recur to it without grieving our heavenly

* This is the language of Job Scott in his book on "the Baptism of Christ,”- -a most portentous production of impudence and reckless daring, and a most striking example of the genius of mysticism, which, with the language of extreme spirituality, not only deals forth unutterable scorn on all those who have not soared to the mystical altitude, but, without scruple, undertakes to give such interpretations of Scripture as nothing but the spirit of wilful untruth would have essayed. Some quotations from this author will be given, which will fully justify these remarks.

In the seventh Number of THE INQUIRER is a very interesting document,-" Comments on certain Texts of Scripture, which are frequently misinterpreted by Friends; by J. J. Gurney;" which exhibits, in a most striking manner, the collisions of the old and the new school. Recent circumstances have compelled the leading Friends to be peculiarly cautious in their statements, and to soften the ancient mysticism of the Society as much as possible. Mr. Gurney has distinguished himself in these efforts; but in the document in question we find that he gives the proper interpretation to 2 Pet. i. 19, "the sure word of prophecy," which he distinctly states refers to the written word only. George Fox, however, taught quite the contrary; for, in one of his raptures at Nottingham, he says, "Now the Lord's power was so mighty upon me, and so strong in me, that I could not hold, but I was made to cry out, and say, Oh no! it is not the Scriptures,' &c. Who then is right,

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

George Fox, or Joseph John Gurney? Which of them speaks by the Spirit of truth? Are we to believe the old or the new school? What are we to do when the trumpet gives an

uncertain sound?

Monitor; and that, in fact, it is not in accordance with the entire spirituality of the Gospel dispensation."-Peculiarities, p. 61.

The words of this declaration are gentle, the meaning of them is as strong as any thing that can be said on the subject; for, if the Spirit of truth has led away Quakers from submission to baptism, and if they could not return to it without grieving the Holy Ghost, and lowering the entire spirituality of the Gospel dispensation, then must they have received a special revelation from heaven on the subject, of which the church catholic of believers knows and accepts as little as it does of the evangelicum æternum of the Franciscans; and then also must it follow that all those Christians who follow the example of our Lord, and, like him, adopt the baptism of water, must be grieving the Holy Spirit, and be walking in darkness, and not knowing whither they are going. But what then? are we to believe that our Lord Jesus Christ, in the very commencement of his ministry, solemnly and with great note, submitted to an extra-canonical rite, nothing thereunto inciting him in the law of Moses, out of which rite his followers were to be led by the Spirit of truth? If this be so, then it has come to that the very pass Spirit of truth which, on the occasion of our Lord's baptism, descended upon him so as to be seen by John the Baptist at least, (John i. 33,) and probably by others who were present, should afterwards be sent with a totally different message, to lead a peculiar sect out of this error, which, in the beginning of our Lord's ministry, had been sanctified by the Son of God, by the descent of the Holy Ghost, and by the voice of the Father, saying, "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." And why, then, we demand with confidence, was there no intimation of the extraordinary revolution which was to take place respecting this rite? and why did neither our Lord himself, nor the voice from heaven, intimate that water-baptism would hereafter be discordant with the entire spirituality of the Gospel dispensation, and that they who practised it would grieve the heavenly Monitor? Why was no warning given, that though the Head of the church was fulfilling righteousness in his baptism, the members of his church would grieve the Holy Spirit by following his example? Why was the church left in this incomprehensible darkness on the subject,—a darkness which will be found to be still more perplexing when we take into consideration the subsequent conduct of our Lord and of his church relating to this great ordinance?

II. Our Lord having been baptised in water, did himself afterwards continue this "unprofitable ceremony," and baptised others; nay, we are told he baptised more than John the Baptist; that is, he presided over and authorised the baptism which his disciples practised, accord

ing to his injunctions, and under his eye; for thus it is written: “After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judea; and there he tarried with them, and baptised."-" When therefore the Lord knew that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptised more disciples than John, (though Jesus himself baptised not, but his disciples,) he left Judea," (John iii. 22; iv. 1-3.) Here then, as yet, there was no intimation given of the unprofitableness of the rite: no light within, and no light without, had dawned upon the church to give "the spiritual" (i. e. Quaker) interpretation of water baptism; but whilst the Bridegroom was with his friends, and presiding over their actions, and ordering their goings, and teaching them his will, and daily preaching the Gospel, he continued the practice of ablution as an ordinance which he approved, as he had already approved of it by having himself submitted to it. Again then we ask, with surprise, why, on this second and long-continued series of opportunities, our Lord did not drop one word in favour of the Quaker interpretation? or why, rather, he thus continued to deceive the church, by countenancing a practice which "was discordant with the entire spirituality of the Gospel?" Did not Christ at that time preach the Gospel? did he not at that time teach the truth? or did he hold back in reserve this great secret, which the Quakers have discovered, leaving it hereafter to be made known, not only by a new, but by a totally opposite revelation? This would seem to be the case; for Job Scott affirms,—

66

.........

.........

As John was under the law, though advanced near to the kingdom, Christ has, in redeeming his people from all ceremonials of the law, also redeemed them from water baptism.".. "Thus he taught the woman of Samaria, at the well, that the true worship was inward, in spirit and in truth, and turned her mind from outward water to the inward."... ... ..." He intended not to baptise others in water himself, doubtless to guard against the force of example.".. "As what a man does by others, he is often called the doer of; so the people then supposing the disciples baptised by Christ's authority and commission, because they were his disciples and followers whom they so baptised, said he baptised; but it is clear enough that he only suffered it, and that in condescension. Nor do I believe it would ever have been so carefully recorded that he himself baptised not, had outward water been any part of his baptism!!!"

Here the audacious gloss of the mystical school is seen in full vigour; for what do we hereby learn, in order to save the doctrine of Quakerism, but that the disciples of Jesus were doing that which was wrong, and calculated to mislead; that the people were deceived by their actions, and supposed, that as they were the acknowledged disciples of Jesus, they must of course be acting under the authority and command of their Master, who, in consequence, seemed to them to be himself a baptiser; that Jesus, knowing the whole process of this mistake,

« AnteriorContinuar »