But we have a still surer word of prophecy.' To set the matter completely at rest, we are fortunately able to produce an

APOSTOLIC DECISION OF THE SABBATH QUESTION.

In the 15th chapter of Acts we are informed that the question whether the external institutions of the Jews are to be regarded as binding on the Gentiles, was distinctly raised in the primitive church, and decided, in full council, after solemn debate by the apostles. Their decision is contained in the following letter:

"The apostles and elders, and brethren, send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch, and Syria, and Cilicia: Forasmuch as we have heard that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law to whom we gave no such commandment: it seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto you, with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, men that have hazarded their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who shall also tell you the same things by mouth. For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us, to lay upon you no greater burthen than these necessary things; that ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well. Acts 15: 23-29.

As we are Gentiles, we may fairly consider this letter as addressed to us; and it comes to us with the authority, not only of the apostles and elders at Jerusalem, but of the Holy Ghost. That it includes in its scope the sabbatical institution, is evident from the fact that it was addressed to persons who had not been educated in the observance of the sabbath, and to whom of course the express exception of that institution (if the apostles had designed that it should be excepted from the decrce of abrogation) would have been quite as necessary, as the exceptions which they actually did make in relation to eating polluted things, and fornication. Gentile believers, to whom the sabbath was at that time an ordinance as new and arbitrary as that of circumcision, could not but understand-and the apostles of course designed they should understand-that it was a part of that 'law' from which the above letter declared them exempt. As Gentiles, then, we are formally discharged, by the highest authority, human and divine, from the obligation to keep the sabbath; and we may well throw back upon modern sabbatarians the charge of trampling on divine commands.' In the face of a solemn manifesto of God and his servants, these Judaizers trouble men with words, subverting their souls, saying, Ye must [sabbatize,] and keep the law: to whom [the apostles and the Holy Ghost] GAVE NO SUCH COMMANDMENT.'

6

6

§ 60. BAPTISM.

PAUL speaks of the doctrine of baptisms' (IIeb. 6: 2) as among the elementary instructions of the gospel-a'first principle,' like repentance, faith, &c., which even babes in Christ might be supposed to understand. Surely then, we may expect, before examination, to find that the word of God furnishes to the sincere inquirer, evidence by which he may easily arrive at satisfactory and certain conclusions concerning a subject which thus stands at the entrance of the Christian's pathway. We propose therefore, in this article, to step aside from the numberless controversies on this subject, which have long rent the visible church-controversies which obviously prove, that one or both of the parties engaged in them, have been ignorant of the first principles of the doctrine of Christ-and examine in simplicity for ourselves, and for the assistance of our readers, the record of God. We shall conduct this examination, by quoting the most important passages in the New Testament, relating to baptism, and adding such remarks as they suggest.

Matt. 3: 10, 11. 'I [John the Baptist] indeed baptize you with water; but he that cometh after me, is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear; he [Christ] shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire.' In each of the other Evangelists, this declaration of John is recorded; (Mark 1: 8, Luke 3: 16, John 1: 26;) and Christ himself repeated it just before his ascension. John truly baptized with water, but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost, not many days hence.' Here then, we have in the beginning of each of the first five books of the New Testament, an explicit statement of the doctrine of baptisms;' the very doctrine, doubtless, to which Paul alluded, in using the plural of the word baptism. The doctrine manifestly is, that water baptism belonged to the ministry of John, and the baptism of the Holy Ghost to that of Christ. These primary statements are so simple and clear, that we cannot wonder that Paul regarded the doctrine of baptisms,' as one of the first principles of the instructions of the gospel; and if on further examination, we find nothing inconsistent with the view they present, we shall have no difficulty in forming our judgment on the subject. It is plain, that all occasion for dispute about the mode of water baptism is removed, unless indeed we consider John the Baptist our spiritual head, instead of Christ. If, in professing to be Christians, we rank ourselves among the followers of Christ, and not of John, we must regard water baptism as an ordinance belonging to a past dispensation; and of course all controversy concerning it as ill-timed foolishness. We are subjects of the dispensation to which the baptism of the Holy Ghost belongs. We receive the substance, of which John's baptism was the shadow; and have no more occasion for dispute about water baptism than about circumcision, or any other ordinance of Judaism.

Matt. 28: 19.Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.' The intent of this direction evidently accords with the doctrine which John and

Christ had before explicitly and repeatedly stated, as we have seen. These words of Christ commissioned his disciples to baptize not with water, for that was John's baptism, but in the name [i. e. with the power] of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost,' which alone was the baptism of Christ. We must suppose that Christ perfectly understood the doctrine of baptisms, the difference between John's baptism and his own, and used this language with that distinction in his mind. If he had intended to perpetuate John's baptism, surely he would have explicitly commissioned his disciples to baptize with water. This he did not do, but on the contrary explicitly commissioned them to baptize in his own name, of course with his baptism, and in the name of the Holy Ghost. The fact that his disciples understood him as directing them to continue the ministration of baptism by water, which they had before practised, (John 4: 2,) by no means militates with this view. They did indeed understand him in this inferior sense, and proceeded on the day of Pentecost, and afterwards, to administer water baptism. But his meaning in this case, as in many others, must not be determined by their understanding, but by his own declarations concerning the same subject in other places. While he was with them in the flesh, they received most of his instructions in a carnal, inferior sense. They knew him not as Lord of that spiritual kingdom, which cometh not with observation; they read his character and instructions, in the letter,' not in the 'spirit.' In allusion to this he said to them, These things have I spoken to you, being yet present with you; but the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.' John 14: 25, 26. With this anticipation, he spoke to them. His personal instructions are therefore to be construed, not according to their immediate understanding of them; but with reference to that subsequent teaching of the Holy Ghost, of which these instructions. were but a text-book. A notable illustration of these remarks occurs in the very verse which has occasioned them, Go ye and teach all nations.' In these words, Christ surely designed to give the disciples an unlimited commission, as also in Acts 1: 8; yet a long time elapsed before they knew the extent of their commission. Nearly ten years after the day of Pentecost, Peter for the first time discovered, by the intervention of a miraculous vision, manifested both to himself and Cornelius, that God had broken down the wall of partition between Jews and Gentiles, and that he was at liberty to 'teach all nations.' We need not wonder then, that they who received the unlimited commission, Go ye and teach all nations,' in a sense which restricted them to the Jewish people, received also the accompanying direction, "Baptizing them in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,' in a sense which led them for a season to continue the water baptism of John. These remarks are equally applicable to the parallel passage in Mark 16: 16, He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved.' The obvious meaning is, he that believeth and is baptized,' not with the water baptism of John, but in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,' the baptism of Christ, shall be saved.'

John 4: 2. Jesus himself baptized not [with water,] but his disciples.' The fact that Jesus did not baptize with water, and John's special notice of it in this passage, accord with, and confirm the view we have presented. Why did not Jesus baptize, if water baptism is a Christian ordinance ?— He insisted upon being baptized himself, with water, at the commencement of his ministry, that he might fulfil all righteousness.' Being made under the law, it was necessary that he should be subject to all the ordinances of the law, and especially to that ordinance which most immediately foretokened his own work. But surely he failed to fulfil one very important part of righteousness, in neglecting to give his followers an example of the ministration of water baptism, if he designed that they should perpetuate it as a Christian ordinance. If a Christian minister should never baptize with water, he might well defend his conduct by appealing to the example of his Master. next quotation will show, that Jesus Christ did not send his apostles to baptize with water; and therefore his example was consistent with his instructions.

Our

1 Cor. 1: 14-17. Ithank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius; lest any should say that I baptized in my own name. And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other. For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel.' The fact that Paul baptized any with water, is easily explained by his own words in the same epistle, 1Cor. 9: 20, &c. :- Unto the Jews I became as a Jew; to them that are under the law, as under the law, &c. I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.' In accordance with this principle of accommodation which he adopted, he not only administered water baptism, but circumcision; (Acts 16: 3;) and we might argue as plausibly for the continuance of circumcision, as of John's baptism, from the example of Paul. He baptized but few of his converts at Corinth, and probably as few elsewhere, and thanked God that he baptized no more. Evidently it was a matter of expediency, not of obligation with him; 'for' says he, Christ sent me, not to baptize, but to preach the gospel;' in other words, Christ sent me not to baptize with water, but with the Holy Ghost; for the gospel is the power of God unto salvation.' Paul was a minister of the Spirit of the living God. 2 Cor. 3: 3, 6. It is plain then, that a minister of the gospel has not only the example of Christ, but of Paul, his chief apostle, in favor of dispensing with the ministration of water baptism, as a Christian ordinance.

6

Acts 2: 38. Then said Peter unto them, Repent, and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ,' &c. We quote this passge as a specimen of many similar passages in the Acts of the apostles, exhibiting the doctrine and practice of the first ministers of Jesus Christ. We need quote no more, for we concede without reluctance all that can be asked for the argument in favor of water baptism, derived from the example of Peter and his associate apostles. Beyond controversy, on the day of Pentecost and afterwards, they baptized with water, in compliance with what they supposed to be the last direction of their Master. Yet we shall be permitted by all, save the worshippers of saints, to question, for reasons already stated, whether the apostles in this early stage of their ministry, rightly understood the direc

tions of their Master. Their doctrine of baptisms was manifestly at variance with the instructions and examples of Christ and Paul, except on the suppo sition that they were yet partially, at least, in the dispensation of John the Baptist. We cannot believe, in view of the truths which we have previously discussed, that as ministers of the gospel of Christ, they prescribed and prac tised water baptism. As ministers of the doctrine and baptism of John, their course was consistent with the instructions of their Master. Yet their example plainly furnishes no argument in favor of water baptism, unless we make John our leader instead of Christ. Many circumstances combine to induce the belief, that they were thus in the first stages of their ministry, in a measure the disciples of John. 1. Their preaching and his were nearly identical. John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying un to the people that they should believe on him that should come after him, that is, on Jesus Christ.' Acts 19: 4. Such also was the preaching of the apostles, on the day of Pentecost and afterwards,-Repent and be baptized,' &c. Repent and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord; and he shall send Jesus Christ unto you,' &c. Acts 3: 19, 20. Faith in a present Savior, is confessedly the foremost doctrine of the gospel of Christ, the gospel which Paul preached; whereas the apostles, like John, preached chiefly repentance, and pointed the people to him that should come after.' 2. As John in his personal ministry was for a season cotemporary with Christ, so we believe the dispensation of which John was the head, was for a season cotemporary with that of which Christ was the head. The doctrine and baptism of John were for a season after the day of Pentecost, blended with the preaching of Christ and the baptism of the Holy Ghost. But we believe also, that as John said with reference to Christ, He must increase, but I must decrease,' so the doctrine and baptism of John, after the day of Pentecost, gradually gave place to the doctrine and baptism of Christ. God seems to have pursued the same order in this case, as in the entire transition from Judaism to Christianity, and in every other change of dispensation; introducing the new dispensation, not by a sudden exchange, but by a gradual process, like the blending of light and darkness in the dawn of the morning. 3. We are expressly informed, (Acts 18: 24, 25,) that long after the day of Pentecost, a man who was mighty in the scriptures,' 'fervent in spirit,' and 'instructed in the way of the Lord,' was yet only a disciple of John. 'A certain Jew, named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man, and mighty in the scriptures, came to Ephesus. This man was instructed in the way of the Lord, and being fervent in the spirit, he spake and taught diligently the things of the Lord, knowing only the baptism of John. By this circumstance we may discover, that the influence of the dispensation of John, was for a season, to some extent, intermingled with that of the Christian dispensa tion. 4. Paul gives us to understand, (Gal. 1 & 2,) that Peter and his associate apostles, were for a long time after the commencement of their minis try, judaizing and contracted in their views of the gospel of Christ. He says, Fourteen years after, [i. e. about twenty years after the day of Pentecost,] I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and took Titus with me also;

6