Page images
PDF
EPUB

CHAPTER III.

Christian Baptism shown to have been instituted by Christ during his life and personal ministry.

SOME time after John had entered upon his ministry, and had baptized many to repentance, our Lord Jesus Christ publickly entered upon his; and to do honour to John as his forerunner, and set an example of ready submission to all the appointments of God, though he was without sin, he came forward, and was baptized of him in the river of Jordan; and was then and there publickly and solemnly declared, not only by John himself, who was raised up and inspired for that purpose; but by the visible descent of the Holy Ghost, and an audible voice from the Father in heaven, to be the Son of God, and the Saviour of mankind.

Whereupon, after being forty days tempted of the devil, he commenced his publick ministry, and instituted a baptism of his own. It was not only his province to baptize with the Holy Ghost and with fire, but he introduced a baptism with water, as a badge of discipleship, and a significant emblem of the baptism of the Holy Spirit.

And in this practice, instituted during his own life and ministry, we find the origin of Christian baptism. It did not commence with the ministry of John, as many have maintained: nor was it delayed till after the resurrection of Christ, as many others have maintained: but it commenced during his own life and personal ministry. It is strange that this important point has been so generally overlooked.

Tracing the publick history of our Lord, especially as it is related by the evangelist John, we find that he first collected several disciples at the river of Jordan, near the place where he had been baptized. Then, he departed with them into Gallilee, where he performed the miracle of turning water into wine at a wedding, and "manifested his glory ;" and where he gained some accession to the number of his disciples. From thence, after a short time, he went up to Jerusalem, where he held the memorable conference with Nicodemus, and said,

"Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."

Leaving the city of Jerusalem, he came into the country of Judea, where we are informed that "he tarried and baptized." This is the first express mention which is made of his having introduced baptism; though it is probable that the disciples which he had previously made were baptized. The record of this fact is in John iii. 22. "After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judea, and there he tarried with them and baptized." Here, then, we have unequivocal testimony of the fact that Jesus, soon after he entered upon his publick ministry, practised baptism. Intimations of this fact are given before, particularly in what he said to Nicodemus, and by his having collected a band of disciples. So that he probably commenced baptizing immediately upon his beginning to make disciples. But the fact of his having baptized, is not expressly asserted till now. Whatever may be thought of his previous practice, he certainly administered baptism, or caused it to be administered, at the time and place here alluded to. Mention of this fact is again made in verses 25 and 26 of this chapter. Then there arose a question among some of John's disciples and the Jews, about purifying; and they came to John and said unto him, Rabbi, he that was with thee beyond Jordan, to whom thou bearest witness, the same baptizeth, and all men come to him." There is another express mention of this fact, chap. iv. 1, 2, 3. "When, therefore, the Lord knew how the pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John, (though Jesus baptized not himself, but his disciples,) he left Judea, and departed again into Gallilee."

Here, therefore, there are three express passages in support of the fact that Jesus, during his life and personal ministry on earth, and at, or near the commencement of his publick course, did introduce and practise, to a very considerable extent, the ordinance of baptism. And from the last of the three, we have the very information which we should naturally expect in such a case, respecting the subjects to whom it was applied. They were disciples, and them only The people were first made disciples, and then baptized. Mark the words, for they are highly emphatical and instructive: "Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John He did not first baptize them, and then make disciples of them; but he made disciples of them first, and then baptized them. There is no mention made of parents, who, after being baptized themselves, brought their children to baptism likewise, nor any encouragement given for them to do so. There is an admirable simplicity and plainness.

in the narrative, informing us who were baptized, viz. those who first became the disciples of Christ. Infants are not included in the record, nor is there the least intimation that they were baptized, or were ever intended to be.

But, if Christ had intended this ordinance for them, he surely would have mentioned them as proper subjects, and the sacred and impartial historian would have inserted the fact that they were baptized.

It is exceedingly evident that the baptism performed by Christ during his publick ministry, like that of his predecessor, was adult believers' baptism only. And I believe it is conceded that it was such on all hands.

If, then, it shall appear that it was Christian baptism itselfthe very same ordinance that was to be continued in the church, this will afford strong and convincing proof that infants ought not to be baptized.

Many, I know, deny that it was Christian baptism, and labour, in that way, to avoid the argument which it furnishes for believers' baptism only.

But when the subject is impartially examined, it will be evident that it was no other than Christian baptism, the very same that is contained in the last apostolick commission. For it was a baptism which Christ himself instituted. And if it were not properly Christian, or New Testament baptism, then he must have introduced two distinct baptisms--one before, and the other after his death. But where is the proof of any such thing? Or what is there any where said that implies it? There is evidently no proof that he appointed two distinct baptisms in the order contained in the final commission to baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. For aught that appears, this might have been the same form in which baptism was previously administered. The perfect silence of the scriptures is not sufficient proof that it was not.

But even if the name of the Trinity was not called in the baptism performed during our Lord's life, this will not materially affect the sameness of this, and the baptism used subsequently; so long as the disciples, or converts, were baptized in the name of Christ, or by his authority; seeing he is very God as well as man, and had all power in heaven and in earth committed unto him. The difference in the form of administration, (allowing such difference to have existed,) did not, under the circumstances of the case, make the baptisms distinct. Again; if it be said they were distinct because the seal of the Abrahamick covenant was not changed from circumcision to baptism, till the death and resurrection of Christ-I would

reply, that there is no evidence that the seal of that covenant was ever changed from circumcision to baptism. The notion that baptism is a substitute for circumcision is a gross mistake, which I trust I shall fully show before I have done.

If it be further said, that these baptisms must have been distinct, because the ceremonial law was not disannulled till the death of Christ; and, therefore, the New Testament dispensation, to which Christian baptism belongs, did not commence till after that event, and of course, that this ordinance could not have been introduced before: I would reply, that the premises do not warrant the conclusion. The ceremonial law was, indeed, obligatory till the death of Christ. But the new covenant, or New Testament, might notwithstanding, have been previously introduced, and in successful operation, as well as the Abrahamick, which was undeniably in operation, during the whole time that the ceremonial law was obligatory. Besides, gospel baptism might as well be appointed before the death of Christ as the Lord's Supper.

Moreover, neither circumcision nor baptism belonged to the eeremonial law. The former was not of Moses, but of the fathers; and the latter was of Christ, the New Testament lawgiver.

It is evident, also, that two or more dispensations of the covenant of grace may exist, and be in operation at the same time, without any interference, or confusion.

And further, it is capable of the clearest proof, that the New Testament dispensation did commence during our Lord's life and personal ministry.

So that this objection to the baptisms in question being the same, is unfounded.

If it could be conclusively shown that any who were baptized by Christ, or by his order, during his life, were baptized again after his death, this would be an argument of some force that they were distinct baptisms. But it cannot. There is no account, or any intimation, that any of the disciples made and baptized before his death, were re-baptized after it. It is evident, therefore, that the baptism instituted in his life-time, was the same as the one practised after his death and resurrection.

In addition to the above reasons, I would remark that the institution of the other New Testament ordinance, viz. the Lord's Supper, and the admission of the twelve to it, before his death, plainly imply that New Testament baptism was also in use prior to that event. If it were not, the disciples ate of the supper before they received gospel baptism; and before they

« PreviousContinue »