Sidor som bilder
PDF
ePub

form all that the law required of us: John x. 18.

To prove that, as our sponsor, he hath actually obeyed and suffered according to the demands of law, a few texts of Scripture will be sufficient. Christ was a Savior of God's providing, "he called him in righteousness, sanctified him, and sent him into the world to redeem it. God exalted him to be a Savior, to give repentance and forgiveness of sins: He came not to destroy, but to fulfil the law. He always did those things that pleased the Father. He was the end of the law for righteousness. He was faithful to him that appointed him, not merely as a servant like Moses, but as a Son in his own house." These texts are sufficient to show the design of Christ's mission, and his faithfulness to God in holy obedi. ence to the law.

Still, however, satisfaction was to be given for the violation of the law, by the first Adam, before the perfect obedience of Christ could redound unto justification of life. The penalty incurred by man must be paid, before any obedienee can be admitted by the law, in plea of justification. Hence Christ is said to "give his life a ransom for many, to give his life for the life of the world, to lay down his life for the sheep, to bear our sins in his own body, to be made a curse for us, to be our atonement for sin, to be our Passover, slain (in the purpose of God) from the foundation of the world."

The apostle informs us, that the express purpose of this atonement and sacrifice for sin, was, "that by means of death, for the

*

redemption of the transgressions that were under the first Testa. ment, they that are called might receive the promise of an eternal inheritance." A second covenant promising the inheritance on a footing of grace, could not be introduced, until the first was removed by the payment of the penalty of its violation. Then, and not till then, the way would be clear for God to have mercy on whom he would, consistent with his declaration, In the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. Thus, a door of mercy was opened by the removal of the first covenant; so said the apostle, Heb. x. 6. "Where fore when he cometh into the world, he saith, sacrifice and of. fering thou wouldest not, but a body thou hast prepared me: In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure: Then said I, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second."

Thus it appears that Christ, as our sponsor, has suffered the penalty incurred by the first Adam, and obtained our discharge from the demands of the law, as a covenant of life, and, by a holy life and active obedi ence to the law, as a rule of life, hath attained to the righteousness thereof, and so, stands completely justified before God. This is evident from his resurrection. For had he been held by the power of death, his obedience and death

This Testament or Mosaic Dispensation, was a school-master to bring us unto Christ, by teaching the utter inefficacy of all human means to atone for the violation of the first covenant, or any sin of remedy, the atoning blood of Christ, as the soul, and so, to direct us to the gospel the only efficacious sacrifice for sin

would have been of no benefit to us. A dead Savior could not help us. As death was the penalty of disobedience, and the last enemy to be destroyed, so it was necessary that he should conquer death, and destroy him that had the power of it, and thus obtain our discharge from the curse, and lay a foundation for the redemption of our bodies from death and the grave. This was a point to which, no created being could attain; but Jesus Christ, as God-Man, had pow. er to take his life again, and in so doing he overcome the curse, and gave us a demonstrative proof that he had finished the work God had given him to do;

that he had saved them who were

lost. Accordingly we read, that "He was delivered for our of fences, and raised again for our justification." JOB.

(To be continued.)

ON THE WORDS USED AT THE ORDINANCE OF BAPTISM.

So far as my information extends, it is a common thing, throughout the christian world, for ministers when they perform the rite of baptism, to repeat the

words of our Savior to his disciples, recorded in Matthew xxviii. 19. Having been frequently called to perform the duty of baptizing, I have been led to exercise my thoughts upon the words, to which I have just referred, and shall now communicate to you the result of my re. flections. If you think they are agreeable to truth and sound criticism, and may be useful to others, you are at liberty to publish them in your useful Miscellany.

The usual language of ministers
VOL. II. New Series.

is according to the tenor of our present translation; "I baptize thee, in the name, of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." According to the received usage of our language, this implies only that baptism is administered, by the command, by the permission, or by the authority, of the Trinity. This was most probably the apprehen. sion of our English translators. The Syriac and Latin interpre ters of the New Testament have adopted the same idea. They have rendered εις το ονομα, by w, and in nomine.

Though the idea conveyed by this translation is true; that is, though it is true, that baptism is administered by the order and authority of the Trinity, yet, I apprehend, the common version falls far short of expressing all that was intended by the inspired writer of the original Greek.

The rules of sound criticism require, that we should investigate, whether the Greek preposition, as (which is rendered in, in the verse under consideration, when joined with the word BaTTIZOVTES) is, or can be so rendered in other passages of the New Testament, where it is con nected with other derivatives from the verb ẞTTIZW.

[ocr errors]

The question is not, whether

may never signify in, in the New Testament. This is un. doubtedly the case in many instances. But a preposition, it is well known, may when its con. nexion is peculiar, bear a differ. ent signification from its general and appropriate meaning. The general signification of ε is into, unto, to. Now if the writers of the New Testament use it in this

C

sense, when connected with BanTilw, or its derivatives, in every case, except Matt. xxviii. 19, and others exactly similar, then we shall have good reason to suppose that it ought there to be translated, agreeably to this sense. The following passages may assist, in satisfying the mind as to this point.

Matt. iii. 3. “I indeed baptize you, with water, unto (EIC) repentance." Mark i. 3. “John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance (E1) for, margin unto, the remis

sion of sins."

To translate is by in here, as is done Matt. xxviii. 19, would divest the passages of any tolera. ble meaning.

Acts xix. 3. "And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, (15) unto John's baptism." Rom. vi. 3. "Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized (c) into Jesus Christ, were baptized (s) into his death?" Gal. iii. 27. "For as many of of you as have been baptized (E) into Christ have put on

Christ."

1 Cor. x. 2. "And

were all baptized (81) unto

Moses."

If in these cases we follow the translation of Matt. xxviii. 19, we shall find serious difficulty, in making the passages bear the appearance of propriety. For how can we say 66 Baptized in John's baptism? In Christ? In his death? In Moses?"

If then, as is clear from these places, the word baptize is used in many cases, with εις where this preposition cannot be trans. lated by in, without destroying

the sense, why should a variation be made, in the verse under consideration, from the general con. struction in the New Testament? And especially, as no advantage is gained, to clear up the sense of the sacred writer, by substituting in for into?

From a view of these instances, I am persuaded that the transla. tion of Beza, and many others since his time, of the passage under consideration ("baptize them into the name, &c.) is more agreeable to the original, to the usage of the New Testament, and to the sense of the sacred writers, than our English trans. lation.

If I have reasoned on principles of criticism, which are just, the conclusion is, that it would be more correct for ministers to baptize into the name of the Trinity, than in their name. This conclusion may perhaps be strengthened, by considering the meaning and propriety of baptizing into the name of the Trinity.

[ocr errors]

In order to come at these, let us take the instances, which have been already adduced.

"To be baptized (εıç) into, or for the remission of sins," must mean, as it appears to my mind, and design, that the remission of to be baptized, with this hope sins may be obtained: and that the subject of such baptism may be counted as a convert to the

Christian faith. It implies a hope in the breast of such an individual, that he has obtained

true remission of his sins. So

"baptism (e) into repentance" implies that the subject of it has truly repented; it is a sign or seal fies that he is in a state of repentof repentance to him; it signi

ance.

"Baptism (c) into, or anto John, implies, that such as were baptized professed their belief in what was spoken by John; and looked for the promised Messiah. In other words, they became the disciples of John, believing what he taught and obeying what he commanded. So when Paul says, the saints "are baptized (e) into Christ," what can be his meaning, but that they profess Christ, as the true Messiah, declare themselves to be his disciples, and express their desires and hopes to be made partakers of the blessings, which

he bestows?

In like manner, when the apostle says, that saints are "baptized (es) into the death of Christ," does not this signify that they profess their belief in his death and resurrection, and a hope or desire that they may have communion with these, or share in the blessings which they have purchased?

One more instance yet remains. "And were all baptized (1) into or unto Moses." This dif ficult passage has been the cause of great perplexity among many able commentators, and called forth many elaborate philological disquisitions. The learned Vorstius has endeavored to solve the difficulty, by laboring to shew, that as is here used as a Hebraism, and may signify the same thing as dia, since the He. brew prefix is translated by brew prefix is translated by both these particles. He would render it "baptized by Moses." But the acute and able Vitringa has given an exposition, which is more satisfactory to my mind. He refers to Exod. xiv. 31, where

it is said, that the Israelites, seeing the great work which the Lord had done upon the Egyptians, "believed the Lord and his servant Moses ;" or, as the original Hebrew is, "believed in the

Lord and in his servant Moses." "That is" says this learned commentator, "they were fully persuaded that and that Moses was the faithful God was present in their camp, servant of God, whom he had sent to deliver their nation. Besides they placed their confidence in God, and in Moses his servant, lieve) would not be deserted in who (they now had reason to be. any exigencies however great. Now, because God had led the Israelites through the Red Sea, that they might place confidence in Moses, the apostle says, they were baptized into Moses. That is,

they were baptized, in the cloud and in the sea, that they might trust in Moses, as a faithful servant of God; might after. wards adhere to him in all their

subsequent calamities; and might acknowledge him as a lawful conductor and commander, rais. ed up for this purpose by divine power. To conclude, in simple terms, they were baptized that that they might believe in Moses; for baptism follows belief, and we are rightly said to be baptized into him, in whom we believe."

It will be seen that the exposition of this illustrious commentator, is in unison with the analogy of faith, as already considered in other cases. If a happy and consistent sense can be put upon any phrase, by follow. ing this analogy, it is safe and proper to follow it.

We might now proceed to ap.

ply this analogy to the principal

subject, under consideration, but one difficulty must be first removed. Our phrase is not exactly like the others. The Scriptures speak of "baptizing into Christ-into John-and into Moses" simply, without any redundant words. But in the case before us it is, "baptize into the nume of the Father, &c." Is name" a redundant word, after the Hebrew manner, here; or is it a significant word, which could not be omitted without materially changing the sense of the passage?

66

I am inclined to believe that name is a mere pleonasm, for the following reasons.

In Rom. vi. 8, and Gal. iii. 16, the apostle speaks of being "baptized into Christ." In Acts viii. 16, the sacred historian, speaking of certain disciples, says "they had been baptized (E) into the name of the Lord Jesus." The two expressions appear to be the same. In the same manner "to call on the name of the Lord," is the same as to call on the Lord; to "believe on the name of Christ," is the same as to "believe in Christ." Many other instances might be easily produced. But such Hebraisms may be found by every observing reader.

The learned Vitringa has shewn, from Maimonides, that the Jewish writers, when they speak of baptizing a gentile, in order that he might be a proselyte, or a slave, or a freed man, express it by "baptizing unto the name of a proselyte, or a slave, or a freed man," as the case may be. This affords additional proof, that " name," in the case before us, is a Hebraism, and a redundancy.

The way is now open to explain the meaning of "baptiz. ing into the name of the Father, &c." It is manifesting and pro fessing our communion with the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. It is to glorify the Trinity-to profess that we belong to them as their property; to acknowl. edge them as our God, and the proper object of divine worship. It is to acknowledge the Father as our Father; the Son as our Redeemer; and the Holy Spirit as the distributor of his gifts. It is putting the name of the true God upon us, and making us as his, and denoting our willingness to receive him as our God, and our desires to be acknowledged as his people.

Thus it appears, that to baptize "in the name of the Father, &c." falls far short of expressing all, which is designated by baptizing "into the name, &c." The former denotes, according to common custom, and the usage of the sacred writers, baptizing by the order or authority of the Trinity: but the latter, according to analogy in other cases, implies what has just been expressed.

The only objection to the foregoing criticisms, which now occurs to my mind, arises from Acts x. 48, and ii. 38, where baptism is spoken of, Ti and ɛv "in the name of the Lord.” But these I understand to mean simply, by the order and authority of the Lord, and not as parallel with the cases which I have been considering.

It gives me satisfaction to find that the learned Vitringa has defended, in a very able manner, the opinions, which I have now advanced. I acknowledge my

« FöregåendeFortsätt »