Page images
PDF
EPUB

proves

they came and were baptized?" &c. &c. Are they all wrong translations? What will the Socinian say to you, if you answer, Yes? Will he not say, "And so is every passage that the Deity of Christ?" And will not the Atheist say, "It's a fable altogether?" Therefore, meditate upon this, before your proud hearts tempt you to longer harbour such a thought, or to again practice such a mockery as infant-sprinkling, and neglect the only apostolic mode!

But, friends, Editors, I must proceed, for I fear I have already exceeded your four-pages-restriction.

"And he baptized him.'

The very meaning of the word baptize, according to the inost learned, such as, Bishop Bossuet; Witsius; Pool (an eminent critic and casuist); Diodati (professor of theology at Geneva); Homer (the Greek poet); Porson (professor of Greek in the University of Cambridge); and (as l'observed in a former part) everybody else that I have ever heard of; is, to dip, to plunge, to immerse. Therefore, as I expect no dissentient, I will not trouble you with any remarks thereon.

"In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost."

It is allowed by many, that this might be rendered into the name of the Father, &c., corresponding with what is said in other parts of the Sacred Word: "Baptized into Christ" (Gal. iii. 27); "So many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death" (Rom. vi. 3); that is to say, emblematically. But as our translation says no more than in the name, &c., I am fully content to have it as it is, being sufficient to set forth the solemnity and grandeur attached to it as originally instituted by the divine Master himself.

Where is there a passage in the whole New Testament that more puzzles the Socinian, in his attempt to disprove the Trinity, than those giving the account of Christ being baptized by John in Jordan? Here is one blessed Person, veiled in humanity, being solemnly plunged in the river; and, coming up out of it, here is another taking to himself a bodily shape like a dove, and resting upon him; and a third speaking from heaven, and saying, "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." And was all this at the sprinkling of an infant? O, no! but at the solemn baptism of Immanuel, as an emblem of the overwhelming sufferings he had to undergo. (Luke xii. 50.) Shall we then trifle with an ordinance instituted by the Lord himself, and so visibly sanctioned by the eternal Trinity? "Shall my pride disdain the deed, That's worthy of my God?"

Finally. What is baptism meant to set forth? If it be, as (Saint) Isidore says it is, that "without it children are in a state of damnation;" or as Dodwell, that "it is by baptism the soul is rendered immortal;" or as (Dr.) Waterland, that “it is alone sufficient to make one a Christian, yea, and to keep him such, even to his life's end;" or as Gee, that "it doth confer on the persons baptized the grace of remission, of adoption, and sanctification;" or as Henry, that "it is designed for our cleansing from the spots and defilements of the flesh;" or as (Bishop) Beveridge, that "if we die without it, we shall be damned for ever;" or as Burkitt, that “it is Christ's ear-mark, by which Christ's sheep are distinguished from the devil's goats;" or as Lewelyn, that "Christ has nothing to do with any man, nor any man with Christ, till he is baptized with water, that all power in heaven and earth is in baptism,—that it unites to God,-cleanses from sin,-yea, makes the person as white and clean from sin as God can make him" (!!!); or as (Saint) Augustin, that "not only persons who are come to the use of reason, but also little children, and infants newlyborn, if they die without baptism, do go into everlasting fire" (poor little dears!!!!); or as was decreed by the Council of Trent, "If any one shall say that baptism is not necessary to salvation, let him be accursed" (!!!!!); or as John Wesley, that" if infants are guilty of original sin, in the ordinary way, they cannot be saved unless this be washed away by baptism" (pious soul!!!!!!); or as the Church of Rome, that "it is an admirable virtue, by which sin, whether contracted by birth from our first parents, or committed of ourselves, is remitted and pardoned" (!!!!!!!); or as the Established Church of England, "Wherein I was made a member of Christ, the child of God, and an inheritor of the kingdom of heaven" (!!!!!!! [7]); or as many other such like blasphemous assertions, then I can understand why infants should be considered proper subjects, and why sprinkling should answer the purpose. But if it be as my Bible says it is, an emblem of a death, a burial, a resurrection-of the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ-of the believer's death unto sin, and his resurrection unto newness of life, and an open giving up, or surrendering, himself to the Lord, to be under his supreme government, and at his solemn, sovereign control, as his only Lord and Lawgiver, having been brought to repentance, confessed his sins, and made to believe and trust in the Lord Jesus for, and as, his salvation; then, I say. away with your infant sprinkling to the mother of harlots, to whom it belongs, and let me at

tend to that only which, according to the word of God, really is an emblem: "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." (Rom. vi. 4.) It is vain to say "the Scriptures are not clear, and therefore our church has judiciously selected sprinkling, or left it optional!" and it is presumptuous to acknowledge that immersion is right and proper, yet to say, that, as it is not essential; and because it is so exposing, you will not attend to it, except it be done privately. (I continue my address to those who know the plague of their hearts.) Can you profess to be followers of Christ, and yet advance such an excuse as this? Are you ashamed to publicly avow your attachment to him by observing his ordinance, because it is exposing? How was He exposed for you? Was he not stripped? was he not mocked? was he not railed upon? was he not jeered at? was he not suspended naked between earth and heaven, as if unworthy of either? was he not crucified, suffering a most barbarous and ignominious death? And all this for you? And can you keep back from that which you believe to be of his appointing, because it is exposing? O, shame upon you, if you can! I should greatly fear you had never tasted the power of his constraining love! But, methinks, whatever may be the answer of the full-headed pharisee, the truly quickened, humbled, broken-hearted child of God is saying, "O no! God forbid that I should call him, Lord, Lord, and do not that which he hath commanded me!

With your permission, Messrs. Editors, I will introduce here a few words upon this subject from a work by our mutual friend Gadsby, called "The Perfect Law of Liberty," lately republished by your printer (page 126):

"When the believer comes to this ordinance in the name of, and by faith in, the Lord Jesus Christ, the language he speaks, by his submission to the ordinance, is, In the presence of God, and all who are here, I profess that I have no hope of immortal happiness, but through the life, sufferings, death, and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ; and I submit to this ordinance as a sign that my whole trust and confidence is in my risen Saviour, and herein I answer a good conscience towards God, by the resurrection of Jesus Christ. (1 Pet. ii. 21.) I do also in this solemn ordinance profess that, through the power of omnipotent grace, aud by virtue of my union to Christ, I am dead to sin, the law, the world, the flesh, and the devil. I am, therefore, buried in baptism to show, in a

figure, that they are not jointly or separately to rule or reign over me, and that they have no just claims upon me, for by the body of Christ I am dead to and free from them. I hereby also profess not to be alone, but I rise from the water as a sign of the resurrection of my dear Lord and Master for my complete justification, and of my resurrection in him, by virtue of my union to him; and that through the power of the Holy Ghost I am risen to newness of life in Christ my Head, and I rejoice to acknowledge him my Lord and Lawgiver, and profess myself to be married to him who is raised from the dead, that I should bring forth fruit unto God. (Rom. vii. 4.) I do hereby also profess that, as sure as this body is raised from the water, so sure I hope, in the resurrection, to rise from the dead in the likeness of Christ; for this vile body shall be changed and fashioned like unto the glorious body of my dear Lord and Saviour, with whom I shall live in immortal glory.' (Rom. vi. 5, 6; Gal. iii. 27.) This appears to me to be the language of this ordinance; and so long as I maintain these views, infant-sprinkling must appear to me nothing less than a high insult offered to Jehovah, in the name of the Holy Three."

Baptism is also an emblem of the glorious baptism of the Holy Ghost. When the believer is "baptized by one Spirit into one body," he is, as it were, solemnly immersed into the love of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, or blessedly and powerfully covered with the love of God, by the power of the Holy Ghost. (Acts ii. 2-4.) It is, therefore, an emblem of the complete washing away of our sins. (Acts xxii. 16.)

Again. I appeal not to the carnal man, nor to the dead professor; but to those who have indeed experienced that the Lord is gracious. Ask your brethren who have been solemnly immersed in the name of their dear Triune God, what were their feelings at the time-ask them if they found it a dead, non-important ceremony. Appeal to their consciences, and ask, whether they did not find the presence of the Lord, cheering their hearts, and bearing testimony that he blessed them in their deed, and giving sweet witness that they were so far following the steps of the dear Redeemer: and contrast the answer they give you with the conduct of the thousands who, having been sprinkled, have been "made members of Christ's body," or "regenerated," or "initiated into the" invisible

How solemnly awful to a spiritual mind, really alive to the honour of God, it must appear to see and hear a minister of Christ, after he has

"visible Church of Christ;" and I need say nothing about the inference.

But I must conclude; and, therefore, only add, that if there be any who, with a good conscience, as in the sight of a heartsearching God, can say that they really do not see the utility or importance of believers' immersion, with them I can bear; but I can extend no charity, no union, to those who have professed once to be blessed under it, and then, for the sake of having a good shop-the filthy Incre-have admitted of a mixed communion, or a no-communion at all. We have two or three precious specimens of this even in our own day; but I cannot help believing, that, if the grace of God be in their hearts, they will, ere they leave time for eternity, be made to acknowledge their duplicity and covetousness.

And here, my dear Editors, I leave the subject, as I hope and trust, in the hands of Him who alone is able to make it really useful to his dear family; and subscribe myself,

Yours sincerely, for the truth's sake,

Manchester, Oct. 5, 1835.

THE GOSPEL FEAST.

THOMAS.

"And in this mountain shall the Lord of hosts make unto all people a feast of fat things, a feast of wines on the lees, of fat things full of marrow, of wines on the lees well refined, and he will destroy in this mountain the face of the covering cast over all people, and the vail that is spread over all nations."-Isa. xxv. 6, 7.

Beloved,-While the eye and ear are assailed with the horrid din of our country feasts, those scenes of dissipation under which both age and youth are corrupted, there can be but one opinion held by the truly-awakened soul of the excellency of the Lord's feast; and the vast difference between the

been faithfully preaching the discriminating truths of God's grace, and insisting upon the necessity of the new birth before the sinner can see the kingdom of God, and describing this new birth to be, as it really is, the work of God the Holy Ghost, and that nothing short of this divine change can give Scriptural proof of real Christianity; I say, how awful it must be to see and hear the same man come down from his pulpit, take a babe into his arms, and, after a little ceremony-sprinkling it, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, solemnly thank God that it hath pleased him to regenerate that child! Is it not enough to confirm an Infidel in his opinion that religion altogether is a mere farce? Either the doctrine in the pulpit, or the service connected with sprinkling the child, must be basely false; and must not every real man of God tremble at one or the other? I think they must. May the Lord awaken them to a deeper regard for the honour and glory of God!

« PreviousContinue »