Page images
PDF
EPUB

nounced by the Sultan against Mehemed Ali, and crown him king of Egypt. A letter contains the following statement of the Egyptian forces in Syria:-The army consists of 80,000 men; among them are 36,000 regular infantry, and 8,000 cavalry; the rest are composed of 23,000 irregular infantry, 7,000 Bedouin horsemen, and 4,000 artillerymen. The war stores found at St. Jean d'Acre are said to be very valuable; it is reported that there were 1,700 pieces of cannon, and a depot of 25,000 cwts. of copper."

The month past has furnished us with nothing of much importance to chronicle from Asia, Africa, and Southern America. But we feel ourselves constrained to notice, before we conclude our view of publick affairs, the answer returned by President Jackson to a Memorial, addressed to him by the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions, in behalf of the missionaries of that Board, imprisoned in the State of Georgia. It is our fixed purpose, as it has been our uniform practice hitherto, not to meddle with any subject merely of a political character, which may be discussed in our country. But we have never hesitated, and we never intend to hesitate, if a subject directly involving the interests of morality and religion is treated by our publick functionaries-no matter how elevated their station-in such a manner as to injure or disserve those interests, to remark upon what they say or do, with all the freedom which a freeman enjoys-always guided and controlled by the principles and spirit of the gospel. The Board of Commissioners, it appears, prayed the President to execute the judgment of the Supreme Court, and rescue the missionaries from the Georgia Penitentiary. This is the statement we have seen, extracted from the paper bearing the title of the Protestant; and we are unable to say whether it is correct or not. If correct, we remark, that we are aware it is denied by the friends of President Jackson, that he has any right to interfere in that concern, till a return shall be made to the Supreme Court, of the inexecution of their decree, and that this has not yet taken place. Now, if this opinion is well founded, as we doubt not the President believes it is, it would surely have been easy, and we think dignified as well as courteous, so to have replied to the memorialists; and with such a reply, we say for ourselves, that if not satisfied, we should have been silent. But it seems to us that the whole answer of the President is a gratuitons reflection on the Board; and that the conclusion is a severe and undeserved censure of missionaries and missionary operations in general. He says, "I do not wish to comment upon the causes of the imprisonment of the missionaries alluded to in the Memorial; but I cannot refrain from observing, that here, as in most other countries, they are by their injudicious zeal (to give it no harsher name,) too apt to make themselves obnoxious to those among whom they are located." We think it undeniable that the clear meaning of this sentence is, that in this country, and in most other countries, the injudicious zeal of Christian missionaries has rendered them justly ob noxious, either to popular resentment, or to governmental restraint, or to both; and that even more than this might be said with truth. We ask, is this a correct statement? If it is, all the missionary operations of the present day, in every part of the world, with few exceptions, have been, and still are, conducted in a very exceptionable and improper manner. And is this the sentence pronounced on the missionary cause as now managed, by the chief magistrate of the United States! We confess it has filled us with astonishment and regret. Still, however, the question returns, and it is a most solemn question-is the sentence just and true? We fearlessly declare it as our opinion, that it is not-that it is un unmerited denunciation. We have been familiar with this subject for more than thirty years; and although we pretend not to say, that there have not been individual acts of indiscretion in missionaries-they must indeed have been more than mortal, if among so many and in a series of years, there had been no indiscretion-yet we affirm, and think we can incontestably prove, that in general, missionary operations have been conducted, and missionaries themselves have acted, with an exemplary prudence and discretion. It always has happened, from the time of Christ and his apostles, and it always will happen till the millennial age, that the preaching of the gospel with fidelity, whatever be the discretion with which it is accompanied, will be offensive to vicious men, and if they be armed with power, it will produce persecution. But in regard to the missions of the day in which we live, although they have been opposed and decried for a time, in the East Indies, in the Sandwich islands, in Africa, in Demerara, and in the West Indies, yet on a fair investiga tion, the missionaries have been justified, not only by publick sentiment, but (with the exception of autocratick Russia) by civil authority. By the constitutional and constituted organ of our own beloved country-the Supreme Court of the United Statesthe Georgia missionaries have been justified; and it is with both grief and surprise that we read their condemnation by President Jackson, in the reply on which we hare felt it our sacred duty, as a Christian advocate, thus freely to remark.

THE

CHRISTIAN ADVOCATE.

OCTOBER, 1832.

Keligious Communications.

LECTURES ON THE SHORTER CATECHISM OF THE WESTMINSTER ASSEMBLY OF DIVINES-ADDRESSED TO YOUTH.

LECTURE LXXI.

We now resume the consideration of the answer to the 94th question of our Catechism, namely, "Baptism is a sacrament wherein the washing with water in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, doth signify and seal our engrafting into Christ, and partaking of the benefits of the covenant of grace, and our engagement to be the Lord's."

In appointing baptism to be the introductory ordinance of the visible Christian church, our Lord wisely adopted a rite, with the formal part of which the primitive Jewish believers were already familiar. The Mosaick dispensation itself abounded in ceremonial purifications, by the application of water; to which, indeed, unauthorized tradition had made burdensome additions, that our Saviour disregarded and condemned. It appears, moreover, that when gentile proselytes were received into the Jewish church, they were not only circumcised, but washed or baptized with water-the former by divine direction, the latter without it; yet, as strikingly sigCh. Adv.-VOL. X.

nificative of their being cleansed from their former idolatrous pollutions. The forerunner of our blessed Lord was called the Baptist, or Baptizer,* because it was a part of his commission to administer the baptism of repentance for sin, to those who received his doctrine and professed to be waiting for the appearance of the Messiah.

When our Lord therefore, after his resurrection and immediately before his ascension into heaven, commissioned his apostles, and through them the ministers of the gospel "to the end of the world," to administer baptism to believers of "all nations"-for till now it had been confined to the Jewshe needed only to declare the nature and design of the institution, since the mode of its administration was already fully known.

Theologians have been divided, as to the proper, answer to the inquiry, whether John's baptism was the same as Christian baptism; that is, the same as that which our Lord commanded his disciples to administer, after his resurrection. In the beginning of the nineteenth chapter of the Acts of the Apostles, we have this record,

[ocr errors][merged small]

" And it came to pass, that while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts, came to Ephesus; and finding certain disciples,

"2 He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost. "3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.

"4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, That they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.

66 5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

"6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied."

Those who maintain that John's baptism and Christian baptism did not differ in any thing material, insist that the fifth verse in this quotation, is to be considered as affirming that those who had received John's baptism did, by the mere hearing and believing the statement of the Apostle Paul, become "baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus." This I confess has always appeared to me a forced and unnatural construction of a plain passage of sacred Scripture.* I must

In the criticism on the original of the sacred text, on which is founded the opinion of Beza, L. Infant, and other learned men, who favour the construction which I oppose, much reliance is placed on the correspondence, which they affirm is always observed, between the Greek particles, per, in the 4th verse, and in the 5th verse: this, it is affirmed, proves satisfactorily, that these two verses are to be considered as the continued lancontinued language of Paul. But the investigations of Griesback have led him to reject the particle μs altogether, and to expel it from the sacred text, as plainly a spurious addition. If this be a just decision, as it

also say, with Dr. Doddridge, that "I think it evident beyond all dispute, that the baptism of John and of Christ, were in their own nature quite different; and that it is plain, in fact, that when persons were converted to Christianity, they were baptized of course, without inquiring whether they had, or had not, received the baptism of John, which we know vast multitudes did, (Matt. iii. 5, 6.) who probably afterwards received Christian baptism. Compare Acts ii. 38-41; iv. 4; vi. 7." The comment of Scott on the 5th and 6th verses of the above quotation, seems to me so candid, judicious, and satisfactory, that I shall close what I have to offer on this point -one which is important though not essential-with quoting it at large.

"When, &c.-Several learned criticks, of different sentiments concerning baptism, have argued that these are the words [in the 5th verse,] of Paul, showing the disciples, that when John baptized those who heard his doctrine, he virtually baptized them in the name of Jesus; and not the words of the historian relating the baptism of these persons, subsequent to the apostle's instruction of them. Some of those who first contended for this interpretation, did it out of zeal against such as they called Re-baptizers, lest they should adduce this example in support of their practice. But by maintaining the baptism of John and the baptism of Christ to be entirely the same, they have furnished their opponents with a far more plausible argument, than that which they wanted to wrest from them. however that may be, I cannot think that any impartial man, who never heard of these controversies, would, either from reading

But,

probably is, the main support of Beza's opinion is at once entirely subverted. Paul's language is confined to the 4th verse; in the 5th the historian speaks.

the original, or our translation, put this construction on the words. If John could in any sense be said to baptize his disciples in the name of the Lord Jesus, Jesus himself must have been baptized virtually in his own name. Even St. Paul's question, Unto what then were ye baptized?' implies a distinction between different kinds of baptism; and shows that he concluded that they had not received Christian baptism, having never heard of the Holy Spirit, in whose name Christians were baptized. This is visible even in the words of St. Paul here, John said to those that came to his baptism iva Tows, not that they did, but that they should, believe in him that was coming after him; now they were not to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, till they did actually believe in him, which they who had received John's baptism were so far from doing, that they were 66 musing whether John himself were not the Christ." (Whitby.) After Christ's ascension no inquiry was made, that we read of, whether the converts had been baptized by John, or no: and if but one of the three thousand, who were baptized on the day of Pentecost, had been John's disciple, (and probably numbers were such,) the baptism of John and that of Jesus must have been distinct ordinances. The difference between that introductory institution to the Christian dispensation, and the initiatory external seal of that dispensation, has been already considered, (Notes, Matt. iii.) Some have indeed said, that if John's baptism and Christ's were different, our Lord had no communion with the New Testament in baptism, as he had with the Old Testament Church in circumcision. But he was made under the law to fulfil its righteousness, as our Surety; and must therefore, both on that account and as our example, obey every command, and at

tend on every institution of God then in force: but there was not the same reason for his joining in the ordinances of the Gospel, which he appointed merely as our Lord and King. Doubtless he ate the passover with his disciples, yet it does not appear that he partook of the eucharist: (Luke, xxii. 17-20;) it is not probable that he did; neither can it be supposed, that he was' baptized into the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,' which seems essential to Christian baptism. I apprehend therefore that these persons, being further instructed by Paul, were admitted into the Church by baptism; previously to the communication of the Holy Spirit to them, by the imposition of the apostle's hands."

Water, the element employed in baptism, is, in its nature, emblematical of the spiritual objects and benefits referred to in this sacred ordinance. Water is so abundant, that the freedom of its use, by all who need it, is proverbial; and its cleansing or purify ing qualities are confessedly preeminent. Thus, the great salvation of Christ is freely offered to all who desire to embrace it; and in its application, the soul is purified from all its moral defilement. By the blood of Christ, the soul of the believer is cleansed from the guilt of sin, and by the powerful influences of his Holy Spirit, the stain or pollution of sin is gradually, and at length entirely, removed; and both these inestimable spiritual benefits are significantly shadowed forth by the washing of water in baptism.

According to the answer of the Catechism now under consideration, baptism is to be administered "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost;" and as this is in accordance with the express and particular command of Christ himself, it must be held as essential to the

validity of the ordinance, that these very words of the original institution be used in every instance of its administration. The Greek preposition, es (eis), which, in the common version of our bible is, in this place, rendered in, properly denotes into, and is so rendered in many other pas sages of the New Testament. Christians are therefore baptized "into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost;" and I have met with nothing more satisfactory, in explanation of the important and solemn import of this sacred formula of Christian baptism, than that which is given by Scott, in the following passage of his commentary:-"The Apostles and preachers of the gospel were ordered to baptize those who embraced the gospel, into the name (not names) of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. This is a most irrefragable proof of the doctrine of the Trinity; that is, of the Deity of the Son, and of the distinct personality and Deity of the Holy Spirit; for it would be absurd to suppose that a mere man or creature, or a mere modus, or quality of God, should be joined with the Father, in the one name, into which all Christians are baptized. To be baptized into the name of any one, implies a professed dependence on him, and devoted subjection to him: to be baptized, therefore, into the "name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost," implies a professed dependance on these three divine Persons, jointly and equally, and a devoting of ourselves to them as worshippers and servants. This is proper and obvious, upon the supposition of the mysterious unity of three coequal persons in the unity of the Godhead; but not to be accounted for on any other principles. Christianity is the religion of a sinner, who relies for salvation from wrath and sin, on the mercy of the Father, through the

person and atonement of the incar nate Son, and by the sanctification of the Holy Spirit; and who, in consequence, gives up himself to be the worshipper and servant of the triune JEHOVAH, in all his ordinances and commandments; that according to the ancient and excellent Doxology, "Glory may be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost; as it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be."

The answer before us farther states, that baptism "doth signify and seal our engrafting into Christ, and partaking of the benefits of the covenant of grace, and our engagement to be the Lord's."

1. It signifies and seals our engrafting into Christ. It has been justly remarked, that baptism does not constitute a visible sub ject, but only recognsies one already existing; it does not introduce an individual into the covenant of grace, but it signifies that he is already there. It seals a covenant already formed, and which, indeed, would not admit of a seal, if it were not previously made, and prepared for sealing. Abraham had the righteousness of faith," before he was circumcised; Cornelius "feared God and was accepted of him," before he was baptized; and every adult candidate for baptism ought to give credible evidence of being born of God, before he is admitted to the ordinance. The infant seed of professing Christians, in virtue of their parent's faith and standing, are born members of the visible church, and are considered as partakers of those benefits of the covenant of grace which belong to the offspring of believers, before they are baptized: and hence it appears, that when professing Christians have not had a proper opportunity to offer their children in baptism, and they die without it, no fear or regret should be indulged by their parents. Their children were born within the co

« PreviousContinue »