Imágenes de página

that is seriously inquiring after truth, without any scruple or hesitation, in what manner it was performed. In verse 36 we are told, that they came unto a certain water, where the Eunuch defiring baptism, and Philip agreeing to it, after he had made a confession of his faith, it is said, verse 38. that they went down both into the water ; they first came to it, and then went into it; which leaves that observation without any real foundation, which supposes that their going down into the water signifies no more than the descent which led to the river, for they were come thither before, as appears from verse 36. where a phrase is made use of different from this in verse 38. Now though I had observed to our author, that it was not 10, but into the water they went, to which he has not thought fic to reply; yet he ftill produces his impertinent instance of going down to the sea in ships; which is all that can be obtained from him, to set aside the force of this evidence; which, how weak and ridiculous it is, will easily appear to every judicious reader.

Now if persons will but diligently consider those plain instances of baptism, ia an humble and hearty search after truth, they will find that they amount to lictle less than a full demonstration that it was performed in those early cimes of John, Christ, and his apostles, by an immersion or plunging of the whole body under water, as has been fully acknowledged by many great and excellent divines. But now let us consider Mr M's demonstrative proofs for pouring or sprinkling water in baptism, produced by him, p. 14.

He says, “pouring water in baptism, is a true representation of the donation “ of the Spirit; being, according to God's word, instituted for that end.” But the word of God no where expresses, or gives the least intimation, that baptism was instituted for any such end; it is true, the donation of the Spiric is sometimes called a baptism, and so are the sufferings of Christ; but do we make use of such mediums as these to prove the representation of them to be the end of this ordinance ? though it would with equal strength conclude the one as the other : Besides, he might as well argue, that the end of baptism is to represent the passage of the Israelites through the Red sea, because that is called a Baptism also. Buc how does pouring of water in baptism, according to the practice of our modern Pædobaptists, represent the donation of the Spirit, when they only let fall a few drops of water upon the face ? But the Spirit's grace is expressed by pouring floods of water upon his people in Ifaiab xliv. 3. one of the texts referred to by our author. Though I have acknowledged, and still do, that the ordinary donation of the Spirit is somecimes expressed by pouring, and sometimes by sprinkling, yet that it was the extraordinary one which the disciples received on the day of Pentecost, that is particularly called the baptism of the Spirit and of fire,

by ? Ifai. xliv. 3. Ezek, xxxvi. 25. Matt, iij. 11. 1 Cor. xii. 13.


by Jobn and Christ. Now says Mr M. p. 17. if this was by pouring, then you are undone : perhaps not. But what does he think will undo us? why the prophecy of Joel, cited in Aits ii. 16, 17. I will pour out of my spirit upon all flesh. To which I reply, that though this extraordinary instance of the Spirit's grace is expressed, as well as the more ordinary ones are, by pouring, under the Old Testament-dispensation, in allusion to those frequent libations, or drinkofferings, which were then used; yet it need not seem strange, that when this prophecy was nearer accomplishing, and there was a greater display of divine grace, that another word should be used which more largely expressed the abundance of it : It is no wonder that it should be more abundant in the exhibi. tion than in the prophecy ; besides this text, and all others in the Old Testament, which express the Spirit's grace in this, or any other form of language whatever, can never be looked upon as sufficient proofs of the manner in which a New-Testament-ordinance is to be administered, which was never instituted with a view to represent it.

2. He says, it, that is, “pouring water in baptism, exactly answers to John's

baptism : he said that be baptized with water b." But it seems, according to him in p. 15. that the phrase of baprizing with water, regards the strength of the administrator's arms, wherewith he performs, and not the mode of baptizing; so that he can pretty easily tell us wherein and wherewith a person may be plunged, though he still says plunging with water is an expression without sense; but he cannot yet inform us how a man can be plunged in it, without being plunged with it. I urged that in all the evangelists the words are er udtett, “in “ water,” excepting Luke iii. 16. where the preposition is omitted, which has occasioned some to think it redundant in the other Evangelists, which I observe no ways hurts our sense and reading of the words ;. now. he wonders that this should make for our reading, or be of any use to us ;. when all that I observe is, that it does not make against us; if it does, let him make it appear. Jobn baptized in water, persons were baptized by him in the river Jordan, and not. with it.

3. Another demonstrative proof of " pouring water in baptism, is, that it is “ exactly agreeable to the signification of the word, as the Lord gives it to us « in the New Testament." Which place I shall more fully consider hereafter, and make it appear, that it is there to be understood in the sense of dipping or plunging.

4. His last proof is, “ that it directly answers the promise of what Christ “ should do, Isaiah liii. 15. So skall be sprinkle many nations ;” to this text he. says, p. 43. the commission in Matthew xxviii. 19. refers, which if it does,

[ocr errors][ocr errors]

though Lake iii, 16.

er Cor, X. 2:

though I cannot see it can without a very large stretch, it must be only in that part of it which concerns the teaching of the Gentiles by the ministry of the apostles, and not that which respects the baptizing of them; for the word here rendered Sprinkle, is 7237 ray expressive of Speaking, as Kimchi on the place observes; and the meaning is, that Christ shall speak to the Gentiles in the ministry of the gospel by the apostles, with so much power, majesty, and autho rity, that Kings themselves shall put their mouths at him; that is, iball filently submit to the scepter of his grace, and to the doctrines of his gospel; for that which had not been told them, fball they fee; and that which they had not beard, Jhall they consider. Moreover, who, in the world, could ever imagine, that the ordinance of water baptism, with the mode of its administration, should be intended here? a man inust have his imagination prodigioully heated indeed, and his mind captivated with a mere jingle of words, that can look upon such proofs as these, fetche out of the Old Testament, as demonstrative ones of the true mode of baptizing under the New. Thus we have had a taste, as he calls it, of his demonstrations of pouring or sprinkling water in baptism.


с нА Р.
A vindication of Erasmus, and of his version of Acts x. 47.


HE author of the debate in p. 22. urges the impropriety of Peter's speech

in Cornelius's house, when he talked of forbidding water in baptism, if plunging was the right mode of its administration ; to which I replied, that if there was any impropriety in the text, it was not to be charged, either upon words or sense of the holy Ghost, but upon our translation ; and urged, that the word water should be put in construction with the word to be baptized, and not with the word forbid, and the whole text be rendered thus, Can any man forbid that these pould be baptized in water, which have received the holy Gbojt as well as we? and produced the testimony of Erasmus to confirm ic. Now let us attend to Mr M’s animadversions upon it. And,

1. Within the compass of four or five lines, he tells two palpable and notorious untruths; for first, he affirms that I say that the words in Arts X. 47. are not good sense, when it is he that insinuates an impropriety in Peter's manner of speaking, supposing plunging to be the mode of baptisin ; what I say, is, that

if there is any impropriety in it, it is not to be charged upon the words or « sense of the holy Ghost, but upon our translation ;” and yet he would have it, that I assert that the words are not good sense ; where do I say so? It is true, I think the words are better rendered according to Erasmus's version; and, for


[ocr errors][ocr errors]

what I can yet fee to the contrary, I shall abide by it. Again, he says, that I think there is something wancing in the original. With what face can he say so? Or have I attempted a supplement to any part of it? How unfair is this ? Yet this is the man that complains of rank injustice, wresting of words and wracking of sentences in polemical writings. He says, he fears God; I hope he does; but he has given but very little evidence of it, in his management of this controversy.

2. He next falls foul upon Erasmus, calling him old Erasmus; and represents him as disapproved of by the learned; when almost every body knows how much the learned world owes to that great man, and what deference is always paid to him ; but why old Erasmus, and great Beza ? Not that I would go about to diminish the praife ofJBeza, yet I cannot but be of opinion, that to set Erasmus upon a level with him, in respect of learning, can be no lessening of him ; but it seems to me, that the reason of those different epithets which Mr M. has given to those excellent men, is only because the version of the one removes the foundation of his impertinent cavil, and the note of the other, as he imagines, secures it to him,

3. He proceeds, in the next place, to find fault with my translation of Erasmus's version; but if he had had that candour which he would have the world believe he News in the management of this controversy, he would have easily overlooked this, which he thinks is so much blame-worthy; especially when he could not but observe, that in the very fame page, this text is rendered according to the transposition of Erasmus, without the negative particle, which hurts the fense : so that he might ealily have perceived that this did not arise from a want of knowledge. in transacing, but from an inadvertency in writing.

4. As to what Beza says of this trajection, that it is dura ac plane infolens ; I shall only say cum pace tanti viri, that the trajections in scripture, which he himself approves of, for which see his notes on John viii, 25. and Asts i. 2. are not more easy or more usual.

5. The sense of the text requires such a transposition of the words ; for the meaning is not, as if Peter thought that any person would go about to hinder them of water convenient for the administration of the ordinance of baptifm ; for such a sense of the words would be trilling and jejune, and yet this our verfion seems to incline to; but that there might be some who would be displeased with, and to their utmost oppose, the baptizing of those Gentiles. Hence Peter says, Who can forbid that these fould be baptized in water? Therefore, and what will further confirm this sense and reading of the words, he commands them in the next verse to be baptized : he does not order water to be brought unto them, but that they be baptized in the name of the Lord. To all which,

6. Might 6. Might be added, that this transposition of the words has not its confirma. tion only from the authority, judgment and learning of Erasmus, which is not inconsiderable, but also from others; for, as Cornelius à Lapide has observed, both the Tigurine version, and that of Pagnine's, read the words the same way: so that however Erasmus may be disapproved of by the learned, as our author asferis, yet it seems this version is regarded by them.

[blocks in formation]

The end of the institution of the ordinance of Baptifn, considered.


S the ordinance of water-baptism derives its authority from Christ, so it

was instituted by him for some end or other, which may make for his own glory, as well as for the comfort, edification, and increase of faith in his people; and what that end is, we fhall now inquire.

Mr M. p. 33. says, “the manifeft end of it is a representation of the dona« tion of the Spirit to us in the new covenant : As for the former of these proofs, I need only fay, that an Old-Testament-text can never be a proof or evidence of what is the end of the institution of a New-Teftament-ordinance: Besides, if it could be thought to have any reference to the affair of Baptism, it would only regard the mode, and not the end of this ordinance, for which he has cited it already, and to what purpose has been also shown. As for the two latter texts here produced by him, they only inform us, that the Spirit's grace is called a Baptism, and so are the sufferings of Christ, Luke xii. 50. the representation of which he will not own to be the end of baptism, though every body will see that this may be as strongly concluded from hence, as what he conrends for ; besides, the martyrdom of the saints is called a Baptism, Matt. xx. 23. as also the passage of the Israelites through the Red sea, 1 Cor. x. 2. yet no body ever thought that the design of baptism was to represent either of these. Now these are what he calls the plain proofs of the manifest end of baptism, without any force upon scripture. What sort of readers does Mr M. expect to have, that will be imposed upon by such proofs as these? But there are manifest proofs which fully discover to us, that the end of this ordinance is to represent the sufferings, death, burial, and resurrection of Christ Jesus.

Christ has particularly instituted two ordinances, Baptism and the Lord'sSupper, to be observed by his people; and the end of the one is no less evident than that of the other. It is said of the Lord's-Supper, As often as ye eat ibis bread, and drink this cup, ye do jew the Lord's death till be come". It is also


· Ilai xliv. 3. Matt. iii. 11. Cor. xii 13.

di Cor. xi. 26.

« AnteriorContinuar »