Sivut kuvina
PDF
ePub

Christ, when he pronounced the law in question, between the spiritual and substantial worship thus enjoined on his own followers, and that which was customary among the ancient Samaritans and Jews. The two systems of worship are described as completely distinct; the one was about to die away, the other to be established. The old worship consisted principally in the performance of typical rites. The new worship was of a precisely opposite character. The ordinance was to cease; the shadow was to be discontinued; the substance was to be enjoyed; and, in the total disuse of ancient ceremonial ordinances, communion was now to take place between the Father and the souls of his people, only through the mediation of Jesus Christ, and under the saving influences of the Spirit of Truth. On the supposition, therefore, that the ceremonies of water-baptism and the Eucharist are truly of Christian origin, yet, being shadows and types, and nothing more, they perfectly resemble the ordinances of the Jewish law, and plainly appertain to the principle of the Old Covenant. But, further—on a fair examination of the history of these ceremonies, we find, that they not only appertain to the principle of the Old Covenant, but, were practices observed on that principle by the Jews themselves, before the introduction of the Christian revelation. Thus, then, it appears, that they actually formed a part of the ritual system of Judaism itself; and, since it is, on all hands, allowed that the whole of that ritual system, although observed for many years after the death of Jesus by most of his immediate disciples, is nevertheless null and void under the Christian dispensation, we appear to be brought to a sound conclusion, that, in connexion with the worship of Christians, the ceremonies in question are rightly disused.

That, in this view of the subject, there is much of

reasonableness, and of consistency with the leading characteristicks of Christianity, will scarcely be denied by any persons who entertain a just view of the spirituality of true religion. But, on the other hand, it is pleaded, that the New Testament contains certain passages, in which the practice of these rites is not only justified, but enforced; and which, in fact, render such practice obligatory upon all the followers of Christ.

In order to form a sound judgment, whether this notion is correct or erroneous, it will be necessary for us to enter into a somewhat detailed examination of the passages in question, and of several others in which baptism and the dominical supper are either alluded to, or directly mentioned. Previously, however, to entering on such an examination, I may venture upon one general observation; namely, that if, on philological principles, any such passages are found fairly to admit of either a literal or a spiritual interpretation, -and if it be allowed (as I think it must be, for the general reasons already stated), that the latter is far more in harmony than the former with the admitted character of the Christian dispensation; in such case, we are justified, by the soundest laws of biblical criticism, in adopting the spiritual, and in dropping the literal, interpretation.

I shall commence with Baptism.

The first passage to be considered, in reference to this subject, is that in which the apostle John has described our Lord's conversation with Nicodemus, on the doctrine of regeneration. "Verily, verily, I say unto thee," said our Saviour, "except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." Verily, verily, I say unto thee, except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God;" John iii, 3-5. I cannot deny that, when our Lord thus spake of being born of water, his

66

[ocr errors]

words contained an allusion to the practice of waterbaptism. It has been already remarked, that the doctrine on which he thus insisted, in a spiritual sense, and respecting which the ignorance of Nicodemus, that master in Israel, was adverted to in so pointed a manner, was one which, in its merely external bearings, was perfectly familiar to the Jews. The proselyte, who had forsaken heathenism, and adopted the Jewish religion, was considered as one new-born; and of this new birth his baptism in water appears to have been the appointed sign. The new birth of the true Christian-that indispensable preparation for his entrance into the kingdom-is therefore fitly illustrated by the circumstances of the baptized proselyte. But, though it is sufficiently evident that our Lord alluded, in this passage, to the Jewish rite of baptism on conversion, it appears to be equally clear that he made that allusion in a merely figurative and spiritual sense. Those who would prove, that to "be born of water" in this passage literally signifies to be outwardly baptized, defeat their own purposes by proving too much. If the possibility of an entrance into the kingdom of heaven, which a multitude of moral sins does not preclude, is precluded by the infraction of a merely positive precept, and by the omission of a rite, in itself absolutely indifferent, it may almost be asserted that the system of Christianity is overturned, and that the Gospel falls to the ground. To impose on an obscure and ambiguous expression a sense which thus contradicts so many general declarations made by the sacred writers, and which is directly opposed to the fundamental doctrines of the New Testament, is obviously very inconsistent with the laws of a just and comprehensive criticism. Nothing, one would think, but absolute necessity, would compel any reasonable critic to the adoption of such an alternative.

But, in point of fact, the expressions thus employed by Jesus are capable of being otherwise interpreted with the greatest propriety. Numerous passages might be adduced, from both the Old and New Testaments, in which the carnal washings or baptisms of the Jews are alluded to in a merely spiritual sense, and in which, more particularly, we find the grace of the Spirit that sacred influence given to men for their conversion and sanctification-described under the obvious figure of "water;" see Ps. li, 2. 7; Isa. i, 16; Jer. iv, 14; Ezek. xxxvi, 25; John iv, 10; vii, 38; I Cor. vi, 11; Eph. v, 26. According, therefore, to this known scriptural phraseology, "to be born of water" may be properly understood as signifying to be converted, cleansed, and introduced to a newness of life, by the Spirit of God. Such is the interpretation of these words, which is adopted not only by Friends, but by various pious writers and commentators on Scripture, who have no connexion with that Society; see Soott, A. Clarke, Gill, &c. This interpretation is by no means precluded by the addition" and of the Spirit;" for our Lord's words may here be understood, not as relating to two things, but as representing one thing, first by means of a figure, and afterwards without that figure. Such a mode of expression is not unusual in the sacred writings. Just in the same manner the apostle Paul describes his own converts, first as "washed" and immediately afterwards as "sanctified" by the Spirit of God, I Cor. vi, 11; and when John the Baptist declared that Jesus, who was coming after him, should "baptize with the Holy Ghost and with fire," he probably employed both those terms to represent one internal and purifying influence.

That spiritual interpretation of our Lord's expressions which, on critical principles, is thus plainly admissible, is moreover confirmed by the immediate context.

E

Jesus says to Nicodemus, (according to the common English version) "Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God;" and again he says,

66

Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." It is, I think, obvious that the latter of these sayings is nothing more than an explanatory repetition of the former, and that, in point of meaning, they are to be regarded as equivalent. Now, it appears, from the comparison of the other passages in the writings of this apostle, in which the same adverb is used, that the term rendered born again, although denoting that birth which was in fact a second one, ought rather to be rendered "born from above;" see chap. iii, 31; xix, 11. 23; comp. Matt. xxvii, 51; Mark xv, 38; James i, 17; iii, 15. 17. So Schleusner in lex. It follows, therefore, that to be "born from above" and "to be born of water and the Spirit" are expressions which have the same meaning. But "to be born from above" can surely signify nothing less than to undergo that true regeneration—that real change of heart, which is indeed "from above," because it is effected only by the Spirit and power of the Almighty. Again, after speaking of this heavenly birth "of water and the spirit," our Lord immediately drops his figurative allusion to baptism, and contrasts the moral change, of which alone he is speaking, with the birth of the flesh, "That which is born of the flesh, is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit, is spirit;" ver. 6.

When the apostle Paul described the Corinthian Christians as persons who were "washed," "sanctified," and "justified, in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of God," I Cor. vi, 11; and when, on another occasion, he made mention of the whole church as sanctified and cleansed "with the washing of water by the word," Eph. v, 26; he probably derived his

« EdellinenJatka »