Sivut kuvina
PDF
ePub

they had not assembled for baptism, they had made no provision for being immersed. Had they been, therefore, it must have been with much inconvenience. This circumstance, together with the impossibility of the apostles immersing so many in so short a time, renders it almost certain that they were not immersed. But there was sufficient time for the twelve to have sprinkled them: for this they needed no outward preparation, and for this a sufficiency of water was at hand. Is it not highly presumptive, then, that they were sprinkled. Immersionists will say, No; sprinkling a little water in the face is not being buried is not going down into Jordan. But such ridicule cannot invalidate this evidence. Though the ignorant and superstitious may not appreciate it, all who are not governed more by their creed than their Bibles must feel its force.

66

(3.) Again: that the apostles sometimes baptized by sprinkling is highly presumptive from the circumstances attending the baptism of Cornelius and his house. They heard the words of Peter, and “the Holy Ghost," says St. Luke," fell on them; and the gift of the Holy Ghost was poured out upon them, and they magnified God." Then spake Peter, in the language of the text, " Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? And he commanded them to be baptized." Though this account is very circumstantial, not one word is said about their leaving the place where they were, and going to a river. Neither did Peter intimate that this was essential to their baptism, but the reverse. "Can any man forbid water ?" These words he addressed to those of the circumcision-the Jews. And what could he have meant but this: Are any of you so prejudiced against these Gentiles, as not to furnish, or, as to forbid that water be brought," that these should not be baptized?" If this was not his meaning, to say the least, he was very unfortunate in his phraseology, since his language cannot be construed to mean any thing else, without unpardonable perversion.

(4.) The baptism of the jailer and his house is equally decisive. It is said of him by inspiration, that " he took them (Paul and Silas,) the same hour of the night-(midnight,)-and washed their stripes, and was baptized and all his straightway." Now, is it probable, that he left the jail at this hour of the night, at the hazard of his life, to go in pursuit of water to be immersed in? To settle this, imagine to yourselves that you see the converted jailer at midnight, while all nature sits shrouded in darkness, sallying forth from the shattered prison, amid flying doors and severed chains, under the high responsibilities of his office; and that you see him taking his family-his wife, children, and servants-from the shelter and protection of his mansion, to wander through the half-desolated city, whose inhabitants, terrified and amazed, are flying in confusion for refuge; and fancy that you see them nearing the pond or river of their destination, followed by the scrupulous apostles, who refused to leave the prison by other hands than those which incarcerated them, and going down into the water, that you see them immersed; and then follow them in their meandering return to the tumult of the prison; and say, Is it at all probable that they were immersed? Some immersionists, aware of the folly of supposing they left the prison, have created a font or tank in it, for the health and comfort of the prisoners, which of course afforded

exuberant convenience for immersion! But, with the same creative energy, and with equal propriety, might they create a coach and six for their comfort! Necessity, however, is the mother of invention; and it is not at all extraordinary that this very difficult passage for them has elicited such a development of their imaginative genius. Tank! there was none. History, together with common sense and common usage, laughs the idea to scorn. The presumption—the very strong presumption, supported by all the evidence there is on either side of the question, which is equally conclusive with any other the Bible furnishes on the mode of baptism, is, therefore, that they were sprinkled.

(5.) The baptism of Paul affords further evidence of sprinkling, as the apostolic usage. When the scales had fallen from his eyes, he "received sight forthwith, and arose and was baptized." Had Paul been in the neighborhood of Jordan or Enon, this would have been referred to as a glorious demonstration of immersion; but as he was in the house of Judas, the advocates of immersion pass his case over by simply saying, that nothing is said about the mode. This, however, is not satisfactory.

If nothing is said about the mode here, neither is any thing said about the mode of Christ's baptism, or the baptism of the eunuch. The cases in this respect are parallel. Were Christ and the eunuch by Jordan, or some other water? Paul was in the house. Did their going down to, or into the water, prove that they were immersed? Paul's not going out of the house proves, then, that he was sprinkled. Is it possible that Judas had a font in his house? It is equally so that the water, down to which Christ and the eunuch went, was not sufficient for immersion; and if it were, they might not have been immersed, as has been sufficiently shown. If, then, those cases prove exclusive immersion, this and other similar ones prove exclusive sprinkling. The least, therefore, that even the immersionist can grant for this passage is, that it renders sprinkling highly presumptive. Having thus considered the subject as I proposed, I shall conclude with two inferences. And,

1. I infer, that for Christian ministers to adopt and practise one mode of baptism exclusively, is an impeachment of the wisdom of God, and an infraction of religious rights. The infinite God, governed by infinite intelligence, has seen fit in his wisdom, as we have proved, to leave the mode undefined. His language to his ministers is, "Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature, baptizing," (not dipping, pouring, or sprinkling them, but 'baptizing,' that is, washing them with water,) "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." The name is specific, and so is the element to be used; but the mode is indefinite: from which we learn, that it is not essential to the validity of the ordinance.

But this exclusive system, with a sanctified audacity, repulsive to Christian modesty in the extreme, says peremptorily that the mode is essential-that immersion is the only mode; and boasting, with popery, of infallibility, it looks down with scorning contempt upon its less confident neighbors, and self-complacently smiles at the solemn ordinance, otherwise administered.

It is also an infraction of religious rights. God has made it the

duty of all Christians to be baptized. Accordingly he has commis. sioned his ministers to baptize them; and it is no less their duty than to preach the gospel. But this system prohibits it, and says to certain classes of God's children, you shall not be baptized. As for instance, those who are on beds of sickness and death, and those who live in exceedingly frigid countries, cases in which immersion would prove instant death. For its refusal to baptize them by sprinkling reduces them to the painful alternative of committing suicide, or going to the judgment unbaptized! thus contravening the economy of God, and becoming wise above what is written, do men bind burdens upon God's people, not only grievous, but fatal to be borne. The fact, that others will baptize such persons, agreeably to their own wishes, is no apology for those ministers who refuse. They shut them away from the ordinances of God's house, and send them unblest to the judgment seat, to stand up the undying witnesses of their unfaithfulness. O what a responsibility do they assume! How can they answer in that great day!

Since, therefore, baptism is the answering of a good conscience, not of the baptizers, but the baptized; and since God has left the mode undefined, and consequently submitted it to every candidate to adopt that most congenial with his own enlightened convictions, it becomes the duty of the minister, the servant of the church, to baptize them as they may prefer, though it subject himself to the vilest contempt.

2. I infer, that making the mode of baptism the condition of church fellowship and communion is contrary to Scripture, and degrading to the principles of Christian union. That this is done by a very large class of immersionists needs no proof. I refer to close communionists. We may be as pious as St. John; we may commune with God from day to day, and have fellowship with his Son, Jesus Christ; but, if we have not been immersed, they spurn us from the table of the Lord, and virtually say, "Stand by, for I am holier than thou." And no apology is satisfactory. We may urge our serious conviction of the validity of sprinkling; we may urge physical debility, which, in the judgment of medical men, would render immersion fatal, or any thing else, however rational; but all is to no.purpose. It is enough for them to know that we have not been immersed; and with this knowledge they drive us from their communion, as though we were thieves and robbers. And at the same time, ridiculous as it may be, sit down at the table of the Lord with persons whose piety they have every reason to doubt themselves!

Now, were it certain that baptism is absolutely a prerequisite of communion, (which is doubted by many, and for the best reasons,) neither Scripture, reason, philosophy, nor common sense, requires that we should be immersed. We are only required to be baptized. The Bible says nothing about immersion, first or last. Making it, therefore, the condition of Christian communion is to "make the word of God of none effect," by human tradition! It is degrading also to the principles of religious union. These are high and holy. They are love to God and good-will to men: the loving God with all our heart, and our neighbor as ourselves. They are the fruits of the Spirit, love, joy, peace, long-suffering, gentleness, meekness, patience, &c. Principles, high as heaven-pure as the gospel of Christ. But this contracted

system, however much it may respect these principles, makes them subordinate to a disagreeable, watery, and sometimes very indecent ceremony for all these avail nothing for us in this case, whereas immersion introduces us to the heavenly delights of Christian fellowship. Thus, the greater submits to the less-the Creator to the creature!

In conclusion, brethren, allow me to inquire, what further evidence we need? Can it be that a system which gives birth and succor to such principles and practices is of divine original? That the members of Christ are to be united to each other by such a bond? That the fundamental principles of our holy religion are as nothing in competition with a mere rite? No, never! The ties by which Christianity unites its votaries are ethereal. Common to angels and to men, they are designed to harmonize the universe of soul in allegiance to God, in one holy brotherhood, and assimilate that brotherhood to the throne of Heaven. They are deep laid in the moral system beyond the control of locality, physical debility, or clerical caprice. Thus they associate in one family men of all grades, of all nations, tongues, and languages under heaven-men of all parties and opinions, powers and conditions-with a firmness of affection which is not easily shaken. How sublime the plan! How admirably adapted to the broken and shattered state of the moral world! Connected by these ties, we are bound to give each other the hand of fraternal regard, though we may be disconnected in every thing else. Away then with the system which questions their competency as a bond of union, and imposes upon us its own shibboleth! May it die and be forgotten, that its shame may no longer stain the holy escutcheons of Christianity; and may the time hasten when Christians shall be one in communion, as they are one in CHRIST!

REVIEW.

For the Methodist Magazine and Quarterly Review.

REVIEW OF THE DIFFICULTIES OF ARMINIAN METHODISM.

BY REV. S. COMFORT.

The Difficulties of Arminian Methodism, embracing strictures on the writings of
Wesley, Drs. Clarke, Fisk, Bangs, and others, in a series of letters, addressed
to the Rev..
By WM. ANNAN.

THE above is the title of a work which recently fell into our hands, purporting to be a third edition revised and enlarged from the second; printed in Pittsburgh, Pa., in 1838.

In running over the list of recommendations, we found the names of the Rev. Dr. Alexander, of Princeton, N. J., and the Rev. G. W. Musgrave, of Baltimore; gentlemen known to us only by character, but for whom we have ever cherished sentiments of the highest esteem and the warmest friendship, both on account of their distinguished talents and their reputation for deep piety and profound erudition. Finding the names of gentlemen thus distinguished among the endorsers for the author, and the work sent out into the world with their sanction, we were led to examine the table of contents with the

greater interest and attention. The work consists of eight letters, addressed to the Rev. as in the title page. On further examining the body of the work,-to which we were led more by the promptings of mere curiosity than by any other motive, we were constrained to admit that this is among the rare productions of the present age; and, to say the least, it does not want a high degree of novelty to recommend it, not only in view of the matter of the work itself, but also in respect to the author's style, argument, and mode of illustration. In proposing a brief review, let us here apprize the reader that it is not our design to follow the writer in every turn and crevice, into which, judging from the spirit and style of the work, he seems to have been led, in many instances, more from the predominant influence of a sort of petulent captiousness, than from a lofty principle of Christian liberality and candor. Besides, this would be to descend lower than we can obtain the consent of either our judgment or selfrespect to go; though no lower than the writer has seen fit to place himself.

But there are some points of Methodist doctrine on which the writer has descanted with great freedom and boldness-doctrines which we have long held as most sacred, and which, unless we are quite mistaken in the meaning and use of the term fundamental, when applied to the truths of the gospel, must come in for a claim to that class as they constitute some of those principles which are essential to the Christian system. To these features of the work we shall principally direct the reader's attention. Some parts of the organization, economy, usages, and discipline of the Methodist Episcopal Church have received an assumed construction and a forced application, which are no less unauthorized than strange and erroneous. These we shall not attempt to review.

In letter No. I., which contains the introduction to the work, Mr. Annan labors to show, that, in setting up the banners of controversy, he is acting purely on the defensive; and, therefore, for the part he may act, and for the ground he shall occupy in the contest, he claims from his reader not only full justification, but a liberal share of sympathy for the sufferings which the denomination, in whose behalf he comes forth as the devoted champion, has received from the asper. sions, misrepresentations of her doctrines, and the misquotations of her authors, by ministers and writers of the M. E. Church. But, as we have not the authorities referred to, we shall leave these and other kindred questions to be decided by others who are better prepared than ourselves to determine the facts in the case.

Letter II. is on original sin. Here Mr. A. finds his first "difficulty" in Arminian Methodism, arising from "the vague, confused, and contradictory statements made upon this subject." After quoting the seventh article of religion in the Methodist Discipline, he holds the following language:

"The corruption of nature, taught in this article, by which man is inclined to evil, and that continually, is manifestly the fountain whence flows all actual sin, the root of all bitterness, an evil of fearful magnitude- -a curse of tremendous extent. Who then is the guilty author of this dread calamity, by which corruption, and misery, and death are handed down from generation to generation! Is it the infant or

« EdellinenJatka »