a thus saith the Lord," which will indubitably settle the ques tion. But this cannot be done, as I shall hereafter show. Instead of there being any thing elsewhere in the New Testament in favour of infant baptism, the construction which I have given of the commission is confirmed by the previous history of baptism, during the ministry of John, his predecessor; and during his own publick ministry; and by the subsequent history of this ordinance during the ministry of the apostles. CHAPTER II. The Baptism of John shown to be distinct from Christian Baptism, and only preparatory to it; yet that it reflects light upon the present question as it was applied to believers only. It is abundantly manifest that the introductory baptism of John was limited to adult professors of repentance and faith in the coming Messiah. I do not recollect ever to have heard of one, who seriously maintained that John baptized infants. It appears to be universally conceded, that he baptized only such as became his disciples by professing the repentance which he preached, and declaring their belief that the long-expected Messiah was about to make his appearance among them. He came to "make ready a people prepared for the Lord;" to announce his approach; and to be the inspired and honoured instrument of pointing him out to the people. Therefore, although there are good reasons for believing that his baptism was not Christian baptism itself; but merely an introductory rite, which commenced, and ended, with him; yet as an example of adult baptism merely, it reflects light upon the present question. The practice of making an open and publick distinction among the members of the Jewish Church, and of admitting select individuals from among those who were capable of being taught to a sacred and divinely appointed rite and that with an express view of making "ready a people for the Lord," commenced with him; and this was known to the apostles, and would naturally have a bearing upon the subject of Christian baptism. It was an indication that this also belonged to select individuals, and was designed to make, or distinguish those who were called out of the world to be the acknowledged people of Christ. His baptism being confined to adults who professed repentance, not only served to lead the way to the ready understanding and reception of believers' baptism as instituted by Christ; but it occasioned an additional necessity for the express mention of infants, if he had intended the ordinance should be applied to them. While the baptism of John, however, manifestly favours the doctrine now advocated, as above stated; the following reasons will show that it was distinct from the baptism instituted by Christ. 1. It is evident that the kingdom of heaven had not actually come when John commenced his ministry and baptism; but what he said and did was merely preparatory thereto. Therefore, his baptism could not have been Christian baptism itself. 2. John "baptized the people unto repentance, saying that they should believe on him that should come after him." And although this was Jesus, as the event proved, he did not, in general, direct them to his very person. His commission had nearly expired before he pointed out Jesus as the Messiah whom they had been taught to expect. Therefore, to baptize them upon a belief that the Messiah was coming, and to baptize them upon a belief that Jesus was the very person, were manifestly different things. Many of the Jews believed that the Messiah was speedily coming, who rejected the claims of Jesus of Nazareth. And this might have been the case with some of John's disciples. Doubtless, those of them that were real converts, acknowledged Jesus when they came to know his claims, because their hearts were previously prepared therefor by divine grace. But it is probable that many of his disciples were not true converts, although they professed repentance; and these, like other impenitent Jews, probably did not acknowledge Jesus to be the Messiah whom they had been expecting. Their being the disciples of John, evidently did not, as a matter of course, make them the disciples of Jesus Christ. Hence, the baptism of the former was distinct from that of the latter, and merely introductory to it. 3. That these baptisms were distinct, is manifest from the fact that some of John's disciples were re-baptized as the disciples of Christ. Of this we have an account in the xix chap. of Acts, verses 1-5. "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, he said unto them, have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said, we have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost. And he said unto them, unto what, then, were ye baptized? And they said, unto John's baptism. Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people that they should believe on him that should come after him, i. e. on Christ Jesus. When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus." Various attempts have been made to show that these disciples were not re-baptized. But the word itself plainly shows that they were; and this would not have been necessary, nor consistent, if John's baptism and Christ's had been the same. These considerations appear to me sufficient to show that John's baptism was not Christian baptism; but merely introductory thereto yet in the ways before mentioned, it reflectsed light upon the present question. |