Page images
PDF
EPUB

fire was intended, as material water. But the premise in the 17th and 18th verses shows what was the omission. In my NAME shall they cast out demons, [not devils] &c. And this idea perfectly corresponds with the characteristics of spiritual baptism, which is in demonstration of the Spirit, and of power. power. This is the baptism administered through the instrumentality of Paul, in the passage already quoted from the Acts, and is, I am well persuaded, the only baptism belonging to the gospel dispensation. That it is thus to be understood is made plain by 1 Cor. 1: 14, and onward, written seven years after the passage in Acts, giving information of the baptism of about twelve men by Paul. If these men were baptized in water, and at one time, the memory of Paul must have been very treacherous, while writing to the Corinthians that he had baptized but Crispus, Gaius, and the household of Stephanus.

Having seen that water baptism was a peculiar dispensation committed to John as the last and greatest of the prophets-that it was near, but not in, the gospel kingdom--that it gradually receded as the baptism of the Spirit approached-that Jesus neither practised it, nor at any time commanded it-that Paul gave his voice against it-and that no form of words can amalgamate the two distinct, dissimilar, and unconnected baptisms into one baptism,---perhaps a further examination of the subject may be thought superfluous. Such, however, is not my impression. Of the correctness of this decision, let others determine.

It does certainly seem astonishing, that in full view of the texts already cited, and a vast number of others, some men will yet adhere to these "divers washings and carnal ordinances," which can neither cleanse from filthiness of spirit, nor make the comers thereto perfect as pertaining to the conscience---but it is still

more preposterously absurd, that the very substance of Christian baptism has been changed into a form of words, without having the power thereof. In [into] the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit-is not once used as a formulary in the New Testament, for the consecration of water baptism. This assertion may surprise you and others who have heard so much said of positive ordinances and unchangeable institutions---but a careful examination of the written word will convince you, that the truth of the declaration exceeds its novelty.

Finding that the subject has already occupied more space than was at first intended, I will now turn your attention to some passages which exhibit the distinctive features of Christian baptism, as contradistinguished from the dispensation of types and shadows, both in its manner and power.

Rom. 6: 3 and onward. "Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ, were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death; [not in water] that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life," "Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin." What is to be understood by being baptized into his death, and planted together in the likeness of his death, is learned by the following: "For in that he died, he died to sin once; but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God. Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed to sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.”

The same idea is also conveyed in 1 Pet. 3: where, in speaking of Christ as being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit-and referring to the eight souls saved in the ark, he says:-"The

LIKE FIGURE whereunto baptism doth also now save us, [N. B.] (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience towards God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ." Can water baptism do this?

Paul, speaking of circumcision, Rom. 2: 28, says: "He is not a Jew which is one outwardly, neither is that circumcision which is outward in the flesh; but he is a Jew which is one inwardly, and circumcision is that of the heart, in the Spirit, and not in the letter, whose praise is not of men, but of God." That circumcision and the dispensation of John were both to cease at the introduction of that more glorious dispensation to which they both pointed. Am I justified in this conclusion? Read and judge for yourself.

This epistle might be protracted to a much greater length, and illustrated by a multitude of scripture testimonies-but I forbear. That you may receive the baptism of that Spirit which leadeth into all truth, is the sincere wish of

Yours in the gospel,

JULIUS.

LETTER 7.

Dear Sir,-My intention has been, to close, as nearly as possible, every subject in the Letter in which it has commenced: a few remarks, however, connected with the last, have necessarily been reserved for the present number.

When John says, "And I knew him not; but that he should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water;" I think the fair import of the language is, I am come baptising with water, as

the precursor of him who shall baptize, not with my baptism, but with the baptism of the spirit, even Fire -the Prince of Peace, the promised Messiah. John preached as before noticed-The kingdom of heaven is at hand; signifying that it was then near, even at the very doors. But where would be the propriety of saying, that it was at hand, if it has already come? But the grammatical construction of the sentence renders the fact evident, that the object of John, as before stated, was to point out to Israel, him of whom the prophets had long prophesied, the Messenger of the covenant. Therefore, for this reason-what reason? One of two must be the reason, as only two statements are made; viz. either on account of John's ignorance of his person, or for the purpose of pointing him out, as the Lamb of God, who was to take away the sin of the world. That his ignorance of the person of Jesus, should be the reason of furnishing John with a special commission, is too ridiculously absurd to merit a serious argument. That the purpose was, as already stated, remains the only rational method of obtaining any information as to the intention of the language. This must then be satisfactory. How he was thus manifested to Israel, is evident from the descent of the Spirit, and from John's testimony to those whom he immersed, to whom he declared that they should believe on him who was to come after him, that is, on Jesus Christ. Viewing the subject in this light, we see a good reason for the emphasis which John employs in speaking of water baptism, and the distinction which he endeavoured to keep up between his baptism of water, and the baptism of his successor, which was a spiritual ordinance.

I shall now claim the privilege of remarking briefly on the testimony of Jesus respecting John. "For I say unto you, among those that are born of women there is not a greater prophet than John the Baptist;

but he that is least in the kingdom of God, is greater than he." The kingdom of God, as here used, will be considered as the gospel kingdom. You will not readily contend, that the greatest of prophets was spoken of as an outcast from the kingdom of glory, most surely. The point must be granted, that Christ here spoke of the gospel dispensation on earth. The conclusion then is, that if the least in this kingdom were greater than this prophet, John was not in the dispensation of which we have spoken. But, in carefully noting the phraseology, another consideration may claim a moment's attention.-I have no wish to spiritualize every sentence of scripture, but shall for the present remark merely, that in the figurative language of scripture, women and children are used to denote weakness.-Thus, in Isa. 3: 4, 12, the prophet says--" And I will give children to be their princes, and babes shall rule over them. As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Viewed in this light, is it unreasonable to presume, that Christ referred to John as belonging to that dispensation which was soon to be dissolved for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof? This, you will perceive, is merely brought as a corollary----the evidence is perfect without it.

While noticing Mark 16: 17, in the previous letter, I have put demons, rather than the term devils, because daimonia, not diabolos, is the word used in the original; and I am sustained by the highest authority in saying, that "All the diseased, whom the Lord healed, are said to have been oppressed by the devil." Devil, Satan, and Demon, are terms used to denote an adversary: thus Paul speaks of himself as having a thorn in the flesh, an angel-adversary, to buffet him, or as it is rendered in the common version, a messen

« PreviousContinue »