Part 15

5thly. The fifth argument, is taken from those numerous passages of scripture, where baptismal water in the name of Christ, or no doubt, in the name of the SACRED THREE, is said to be used. There are in the New Testament, we readily own, several instances, in which the baptism of the holy ghost is mentioned; all of which, one excepted, mean his _miraculous influence._ And it is to be carefully remembered that when the words _baptize_ and _baptism_ denote either the sanctifying grace, or miraculous gifts of the spirit, they are used not in their natural or literal, but in a figurative and metaphorical sense. These instances I will carefully recite. Once _baptism_ is used by Christ to represent his sufferings, especially on the Cross; Luke xii. 40, and Mat. xx. 22. There are but three, or at most four instances where _baptism_ and _baptize_ mean evidently or necessarily the sanctifying grace or miraculous powers of the holy ghost. Matt. iii. 11, compared with Mark, i. 8, compared with Luke, iii. 16, compared with Acts, i. 5, and xi. 16. These texts all refer to one and the same thing. And most evidently intend the _miraculous gifts_ of the holy ghost. Christ's _baptizing with the holy Ghost and with fire_ necessarily means his giving _the miraculous powers_ of his spirit, as is fully proved by comparing Acts, i. 5, with the first sixteen verses of the second chapter. In these passages, in the Evangelists, there is a pointed and marked distinction between John's _baptizing with_ water, and Christ's _baptizing with_ the holy ghost, of giving the _miraculous powers_ thereof. They are entirely different. But Christ's _baptizing_ with the holy Ghost and with fire, does not mean the sanctifying grace, but the _extraordinary gifts_ of the holy Ghost, as now proved from Acts i. 5, and ii. 1-16. Christ's baptizing with the holy Ghost and with fire, or imparting the miraculous powers thereof, is essentially different from John's baptism; but it neither proves, nor disproves the ordinance of _baptizing by water_ as a _standing_ ordinance, to be continued in his church, to the end of the world. It hath no reference to such a thing, more or less. What kind of logic must that man have who reasons thus; Christ's _baptizing_ with the holy Ghost is altogether different from John's _baptism_ of water unto repentance, and therefore he never intended to have any ordinance of _water-baptism_ in his dispensation of religion, or in the Gospel-church? A man who can suppose this to be just reasoning, or any kind of reasoning, must be disordered in his mental capacities. There is but _one_ instance, where being _baptized_ by the spirit can mean being regenerated by his divine influence. And that is 1 Cor. xii. 13. In describing christian graces and exercises, allusions to baptism by water are many times made, which is an argument in favour of it, and not against it, as will be illustrated, in its proper place. The word translated _baptize_ with its derivatives, in the Old Testament, is the common word used for _applications of water,_ in some form, to the subject. In the New-Testament the words, _baptism_ and _baptize,_ with their derivatives, or compounds, borrowed and brought down from the Old Testament, are used about sixty times; and must necessarily mean the application of water, in some way, to the subject, except in the four instances and their parallel places, now recited. I have endeavoured from the original to make the selection with diligence and care. We know that the first, original, and natural signification of the word, _baptism_ or _baptize_ is, as well as we do know, or can know the sense of any word, in any language. And that the _first, plain, original_ signification of the word, _baptize,_ and its derivatives, is the _application of water,_ in some form, to the subject, all the learned know:--and to them I appeal, as the only proper judges, in this case: though unlearned men may see how it is used, in the New-Testament, to their full satisfaction in the sequel. Whenever the word is applied to denote either the _sufferings_ of Christ, or the _sanctifying grace,_ or the _extraordinary and miraculous powers_ of the holy Ghost, I affirm from scripture, it is used in a figurative and metaphorical sense. To reject the plain common meaning of a word, in nearly fifty instances out of sixty, and to insist on the metaphorical sense, for the sake of expunging from Christianity, a PLAIN ORDINANCE, is having recourse to a strange expedient to establish a point.--And whether it be not a gross perversion of scripture, and contrary to all the rules of a fair and candid construction, is left for all to judge, who have eyes to see, or ears to hear.--We will now attend to those texts, numerous indeed, which directly or impliedly speak of baptism by water, as a _standing ordinance_ in the spiritual religion of Jesus Christ, according to Apostolic practice. Rom. vi. 4. _We are buried with him by baptism._ Ephe. iv. 5. _One baptism._ Col. ii. 12. _Buried with him in baptism._ Heb. vi. 2. _Doctrine of Baptisms._ 1. Pet. iii. 21. _Baptism doth now save us._ Acts. ii. 38. _Be baptized every one of you._ EVERY ONE OF YOU. 41 verse, _They that gladly received his word were baptized._ viii. 12. _They were baptized both men and women._ NO DISTINCTION OF SEX AS IN CIRCUMCISION. 13 verse, _Simon believed and was baptized._ 16 verse, _Only they were baptized in the name of Jesus._ 36 verse, _Here is water, what doth hinder me to be baptized?_ 38 verse, _And he baptized him._ ix. 8. _Saul received sight, and arose and was baptized._ x. 47. _Can any forbid that these should not be baptized?_ 48 verse, _Peter commanded them to be baptized._ COMMANDED. xvi. 15. _Lydia was baptized and her household._ 33 verse, _The Jailor was baptized, he and ALL HIS straitway._ xviii. 8. _Many of the Corinthians believed, and were baptized._ xix. 5. _And when they heard this, they were baptized._ xxii. 16. _Arise and be baptized, and wash away thy sins._ Rom. vi. 8. _Were baptized into Jesus._ 1. Cor. i. 16. _I baptized the household of Stephanas._ x. 2. _And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud._ xv. 29. _Else what shall they do, that are baptized for the dead?_ Gal. iii. 27. _As many as have been baptized._ These are some of the principal places in the New-Testament, where _baptism_ and _baptize_ are used: and they all, mean the ORDINANCE of water baptism, or allude to the use of it, as a _standing ordinance._ How numerous are these texts, more so than any one, at first view, would have imagined. How unhappy is our Lot, if against all these, and plain are the most of them, as words can be, we are to believe Jesus Christ never intended to have the sacrament of water-baptism administered, as a _standing_ ordinance, in his Church! So considerable a portion of the New-Testament occupied in giving us a plain account of this sacrament deserves notice. Could reason wish for more? With a beautiful display of divine wisdom, in so fully and so particularly stating the matter, as if, on purpose, to cut off all the cavils and objections of gainsayers--as if, on purpose, to prevent any from DENYING, REJECTING, or EXPLAINING away the Ordinance.--It seems utterly unaccountable how a denial of it, can consist with a serious belief that the scriptures are from God, or the only rule of Christian faith and practice.

DISCOURSE X.

Baptism by water not a piece of Superstition, but appointed by Jesus Christ.

MATTHEW xxviii.--and this part of the 19 verse.

_Baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Ghost._

I proceed, in this discourse, to lay before the audience a plain account, from scripture, of the Sacrament of Baptism as an ordinance to be observed, in Christ's Church, or the Gospel-kingdom, to the end of the world. This, it will be acknowledged, is a very important and interesting subject. For if there be no such sacrament too long have we, and the christian world, of the various Communions, practised upon it. If there be, we ought to see the scripture-proof of it, and observe it, as we are directed. If it be a human invention or tradition, only a piece of superstition, the sooner the discovery is made the better.--

We finished the former discourse, in taking a concise survey of the numerous texts, which speak of the administration of baptism as an ordinance, in Christ's house, the Church of the living God; or which allude to it, as an established Apostolic practice.--

6th. During our Lord's personal Ministry, which lasted as is generally supposed about three years and an half, his own chosen disciples, the twelve, administered water-baptism to all who embraced, or professed to embrace him, as the promised Messiah. It appears to have been the common practice of initiating them into his kingdom by _baptizing_ them with water, as the appointed token or visible sign of their being his professed followers. We must necessarily conclude that our blessed Saviour ordered his disciples, during his public Ministry, to administer baptism by water to his professed followers, and gave them the _form_ of words to be used. And that there was likewise a complete uniformity in their practice, we must necessarily conclude; because we never, in any of the four Gospels of _Matthew, Mark, Luke,_ and _John,_ find that our Lord reproved them for _baptizing_ converts to his Religion, as the _introduction,_ or intimated to them, in the remotest manner, his disapprobation: or spoke any where against _baptism_ as administered by his harbinger, John the baptist, as if it were a _piece of superstition_--or an empty form: but he received it himself, which is at least a presumptive argument, that _water-baptism_ was to be _an ordinance_ in his religion; for John came to prepare the way of the Lord, in all respects, and to dispose people in their minds, to receive the Christian System; but if there were to be no christian baptism, how could John's _baptizing_ unto repentance be from heaven or a preparation for the introduction of the Gospel-System? If Jesus Christ designed to have no such ordinance, to be a _standing_ ordinance, in his Church, to the end of the world, we should have had, we rationally suppose, some _direct_ or _implied_ hint at least of his dislike of _baptizing_ with water. For when he gave his eleven disciples, and virtually, in them, all his true Ministers, the commission in the text, _go teach all nations, baptizing them, in the name of the Father--and of the Son, and of the holy Ghost,_ they could not understand him, but as _instituting_ and _appointing_ the ordinance of water-baptism. As they had been universally, during his public Ministry, in the practice of it, if he had intended to have the practise discontinued, he would have told them so:--he would have forbid them to continue it, and told them it was an _idle ceremony_--a _perfectly useless_ and _insignificant rite_--no _better_ than old _Jewish fables_--and _wholly unbecoming_ the nature of his own spiritual religion. But there is not a word of this. On the other hand he, in the most solemn manner possible, commanded them _to go and BAPTIZE all that should_ embrace his religion, professedly, throughout the world. And after being _endowed with power from on high,_ on the day of Pentecost, or _baptized with the holy Ghost,_ that is, invested with his miraculous gifts, they continued to dispense the ordinance of water-baptism, as they had done before. As they gathered and organized Churches over the world, and preached Christ and him crucified, they dispensed _water-baptism_ to all their converts, not one excepted, that we hear of, or know of: and so careful were they about this matter that they even baptized some of John's disciples over again. In the progress of their labours, they gathered an immense number of churches in Asia, in Europe, in Africa, in all parts of the then known world. And they were uniform in their practice. All the churches were formed doubtless upon the _same_ model. They did not practise baptism in some instances, or omit it in others. They administered it to all, as the _standing introductory_ ordinance. They did this, as long as it pleased the great head of the church to employ them in his work. They had with them, when they did thus practise, the _promised comforter_: That holy spirit who was to assist them--to inspire them--to secure them from all error in doctrine or discipline--to lead them into _all truth_: to be an INFALLIBLE guide to them. All these are facts. And all, who believe the holy scriptures, cannot help knowing them to be facts. I appeal to them as facts. I have proved them to be facts, in the large number of texts cited under the last argument. With an irresistible evidence, then, doth it appear, that water-baptism was the _stated_ universal practice of the Apostles. The union of the Apostles, in the practice, will be particularly noticed and enlarged upon, under another head of proof.--Now, what can be said against baptism by water, as an _appointment_ of Jesus Christ, and not a piece of superstition? Is any truth--is any duty--is any point of christianity more substantially proved, more clearly revealed?--So plain is this matter that it cannot, one would imagine, be contested. However to get rid of the argument and of the ordinance, it is said the Apostles, it is true, _did practise it_; but did administer it in ignorance--as uninformed and erring men--in weakness, and condescension to the wicked humours of their hearers:--but all along told them it was unnecessary and unprofitable--no Gospel-ordinance--but weak and beggarly elements--rudiments of the world--an abrogated rite--an abolished institution--old things that must pass away.--Strange indeed! Alas, did the Apostles practise this ordinance in ignorance, and to gratify prejudice in their converts? They acted, then, very wickedly. For they have herein set an EXAMPLE to all the christian world, in every age, and land. For all the various communions have followed their practice, for more than Seventeen centuries, though differing about the modes and circumstances of it. If, then, we be in an error, we have been led into it by Christ and his Apostles, by following them in administering _baptism_ as _an ordinance,_ in his spiritual religion. For his kingdom is not of this world, it is a spiritual and heavenly kingdom. Are we not safer in following the Apostles, as inspired guides, in doctrine, and worship, and ordinances, than in listening to such as tell us THEY were weak and ignorant men?--But be pleased, to consider a moment, my hearers,----Who can believe that, under the _baptism_ of the holy Ghost, his _miraculous inspiring_ influence, the Apostles would have practised water-baptism universally, if it had not been the mind and will of Jesus Christ, that there should be such an ordinance, in his religion?

7thly. It may tend to corroborate the proof that there is such an ordinance to be observed in the church of God, that it was the common received opinion, in the times of John the baptist, that the promised Messiah, the great Saviour of Man, would practise _baptism by water_ in his ministry and kingdom. The people objected against John's baptism, because he declared that he was not the Christ, John i. 25. _Why_ BAPTIZEST _thou, if thou be not the Christ?_ This question most obviously and clearly implies that it was expected that Christ, the promised Messiah, would have _baptism by water, statedly_ practised, in his kingdom or dispensation. _Why_ BAPTIZETH _thou, if thou be not the Christ?_ As many as if they had said, you take too much upon you, in your baptizing: you assume one of the offices of the Messiah. We expect he will have _baptism,_ in his kingdom, as an initiation, or introductory ordinance, representing our need of renovation.--The Jews might be mistaken in their ideas of the expected Messiah, in this, as in other respects.--What is now mentioned is only to show what the common expectation was. And that common belief must have had something to be grounded upon.--

8thly. Another consideration of no inconsiderable importance to prove, that baptism by water, was to be a _stated_ ordinance, in the New-Testament-dispensation, is taken from those passages of scripture, which do not directly, but impliedly assert, or allude to water-baptism, as a _stated_ ordinance or practice, in the Apostolic and primitive Church. Titus iii. 15. _Not by works of righteousness, which we have done, but according to his mercy, he saved us by the washing of regeneration and renewing of the holy Ghost._ Paul is here guilty of a needless repetition, or else he intends two different things, by the _washing of regeneration_ and _renewing of the holy Ghost._ By the first, most Commentators and learned men, suppose he must intend baptism by water as a sign of the renewing of the holy Ghost. The original word translated _washing of regeneration_ is the laver of regeneration--alluding to the laver or vessel to wash in, in the Jewish tabernacle and temple. We must be _baptized,_ then, as well as _renewed._ The Apostle here speaks, indeed, most honourably of baptism, if he intend it, at all, as doubtless he doth.--Ephe. v. 26. _That he might sanctify it,_ that is, the Church, _having cleansed it by the washing of water, by the word._ Christian baptism is generally supposed to be alluded to, in this passage, as one thing implied in being _cleansed,_ in being regular and proper members of Christ's Church. Romans, vi. 4. _We are buried with him by baptism._ How absurd would such an expression be, if there were no ordinance of baptism _statedly_ administered!--It would be unintelligible to the Christians at Rome. What does the beloved Apostle mean? they would naturally say: We know of no such ordinance as baptism. He must have forgotten himself, or he would not speak of our being buried with Christ in _baptism._--We have a similar allusion to the ordinance of _baptism_ in Col. ii. 12. _Buried with him,_ that is Christ, _in baptism._ If Christ would have no baptism, as a _stated_ ordinance, how improper all such allusions to it. This scripture applies to all Christians, in all ages and parts of the world, who have the Gospel. But what instruction doth it contain in such allusions, if there be no ordinance of baptism?--More texts of this kind might be easily added, but these are enough as a specimen. If not of themselves a sufficient proof of the point before us, still they confirm the other arguments already adduced.--

9thly. It may, with much force be added here, as a convincing and satisfactory proof of the Institution of _baptism by water,_ as a _standing_ ordinance, in the Gospel dispensation, that the Apostles were _unanimous_ in the administration of it, as an _appointment_ of their Lord and Master. They absolutely knew his mind and will. They were with him so long, that it is impossible that they should be ignorant of his will. When he told them to _baptize,_ they perfectly knew what he meant. They ALL practised baptism as a divine appointment. They baptised all their converts, without one exception, that we find on sacred record. Their command was, _be baptized EVERY ONE of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of Sins; and ye shall receive the gift of the holy Ghost._ These were about three thousand, being all pricked to the heart by Peter's Sermon, on the day of Pentecost. Now _when they heard this they were pricked in their hearts,_ or convinced of Sin and savingly wrought upon, no doubt. _And they said unto Peter and the rest of the Apostles, for they were all together, the Eleven,_ see Chap. ii. 1. _Men and brethren, what shall we do?--Then Peter said unto them, repent and be baptized EVERY ONE OF YOU._ This is a command from all the Apostles; for Peter spake in the name of the rest. They were all of one opinion on the subject; and this was but a _few days_ after they received the commission to _baptize_ all that should believe--_go teach all nations, baptizing them._ They never differed about the necessity of baptism. But were perfectly united in their practice. No one of them ever made any objection to the need of the ordinance, because Christ's Religion was a spiritual Religion. Nay, they positively commanded their converts to receive the ordinance. Acts x. 48. _And he COMMANDED them to be baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus,_ using, beyond all reasonable doubt, the very form of words prescribed in the original institution. Here were both Jews and Gentiles, and one as well as the other, were COMMANDED to be baptized. Now is it possible for any candid person, exercising his reason and reflecting powers, and not determined to support, at all events, a pre-conceived opinion, to suppose all the Apostles, in all parts of the world, among Jews and Gentiles, in all the Churches gathered by them, would unitedly, without one scruple, or one objector or objection, go into the practice of baptizing with water, if not an institution of their Lord, designed to be perpetuated, in his Gospel-kingdom, to the end of the world?--The Gentile converts, who were thousands of miles from Jerusalem and Judea, and where there were no Jews, were baptized, as well as Jewish converts. There could be no reason drawn from condescension or indulgence to prejudices, in their case, whatever there might be, in the case of Jewish converts.--

The arguments in support of the divine rite of baptism, as a Gospel-ordinance, would admit of much more illustration and enlargement--but I pursue the point no further, trusting that the attentive and reflecting hearer hath received full and entire satisfaction from the proofs already offered.

After contemplating the scripture-proofs of the ordinance of baptism, as a standing ordinance in the religion of Jesus Christ, it may not be a mere waste of time, to consider, in a concise manner, what hath been objected against it. PLAINLY as it is INSTITUTED, it has nevertheless been denied.--This, together with the Lord's Supper, hath been classed with the old abrogated Jewish rites and ceremonies, and exploded with them as wholly unworthy the regards of christians, and disgraceful to the spiritual nature of Christ's religion. The texts of scripture, which inform us of the abolition of Jewish rites--meats and drinks--or carnal ordinances, have been applied to the Gospel-ordinances. The argument is this, the Apostles tell us no Jewish ordinances are binding on us, but are all abrogated, therefore there are no christian ordinances binding on us. This all must see, who can exercise any reason, is no argument at all. And no man who uses it, can believe it to be any argument. The passages of scripture which declare the abolition of the Jewish ordinances are Col. ii. 14, to the 23 verse--Rom. xiv. 1, to the 17 verse. And in several other places the same thing is affirmed. These places refer ONLY to the Jewish rites and ordinances, and the abolition of them. Any one may see this, who will attend to them. To apply them to the christian ordinance of baptism and the Lord's Supper, is not only unfair and unjust, but a horrible perversion of scripture. It cannot be done ignorantly; for any one who can read, and who is capable of perverting such passages, must know better.----

Again:--The abuses of the ordinance of baptism, and the disputes about it, are alledged as valid objections against there being any such ordinance to be observed in the Gospel-kingdom. We lament that it ever hath been abused or perverted: and that there have been so many controversies about its nature, and the subject and mode. But this is no kind of argument against its being a _divine ordinance._ For can a truth--a duty--or a doctrine of religion be named, which hath not been _denied,_ or _perverted,_ or _abused?_----