Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

quite evangelical. If then it be proved that Philip immersed the eunuch of Ethiopia, it ought to have considerable weight as authority in settling the controversy about the mode of Christian baptism. It must also be observed that there is something peculiar in the case. In ordinary cases, it is plain that the administration of this sacrament should be public, and accompanied with the preaching of the word. "Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every ereature ; he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved." We generally expect a plurality of auditors when we preach. Here however, we have the traveller and the preacher without any other human company. The Spirit, however, directed Philip to join himself to this chariot. It is not very likely that they had any convenience of baptising except by approaching some water.

There is another thing also here to be observed; that it is a dry desert where they were travelling between Jerusalem and Gaza. It appears that this prime minister and master of the treasury for Candace, queen of the Ethiopians, was a proselyte of the Jewish religion. It is likely that he had been up at Jerusalem upon some religious business, attending perhaps some of the periodical festivities. The agitated state of Jewish affairs might very probably affect his mind and produce concern. At any rate, he was deeply exercised in his mind, while he read and studied the scriptures. The passage of holy writ, which particularly engaged his attention, was the 3d chap

ter of Isaiah, and about it he was extremely anxious to know, whether the prophet spake of himself, or of some other man. A mere knowledge of grammar could not decide his question, for, although it was all in the third person, "He was led as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep be-fore her shearers is dumb, so he opened not his mouth." Yet, so common was it, for men who wrote commentaries and histories, to speak of themselves, in the third person, that this alone could not settle the difficulty. Philip, however, in an opportune season arrived, and preached to him Jesus the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world. The eunuch with enlightened eyes saw the truth of the passage and its fulfilment in the remarkable events of recent occurHe believed. While they travelled with minds strongly attent on such a mighty and interesting subject, they came to a certain water, that seems to have run across the road. This suggested, at once, to the eunuch, the propriety of having his body sealed with the rite of baptism. Very probably he would be the more solicitous for this, because in the same connection and but a little before the verses he was reading when Philip joined his chariot, it is said of the same character on whom his.faith was now fixed, "He shall sprinkle many nations; the kings shall shut their mouths at him, for that which had not been told them shall they see, and that which they had not heard shall they consider." He was a great man in the court of Candace, felt himself the sub

rence.

ject of part of this story, and desired to share also of the rest. He had seen and considered great things which were before hid. When he saw the water, then he asked Philip, What doth hinder me to be baptised? And Philip said, if thou believest with all thine heart thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. Let the reader keep all these circumstances in his mind and ask, What is it in the passage that proves immersion? The Anabaptist will say, He went into the water. Well, does this prove that he went under the water? If it does, then it is said, as expressly, that Philip went into the water, i. e. as the Anabaptist explains the phrase, under the water. "And they went down both of them into the water [under the water, according to the Baptist comment] both Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him." Now let the reader ask the plunger, How did Philip baptize the eunuch, when they were both under the water, before the rite of baptism was performed? It will here obviously appear that the passage proves rather too much for the Anabaptist, upon his own plan of construing it. Our opponents will be now ready to say, that common sense teaches that there was no necessity of Philip's going under the water. So we think also; but it is upon the meaning of words and verbal criticism that we are now reasoning, and if the proof of the eunuch's immersion be good upon the phrase went into the water and come up out of the water, it must also be goodì

upon the part of Philip: So the Baptists in order to be consistent with their own criticism must accompany their proselytes under the water, and administer the ordinance the best way they can in the regions of the deep.

However, we do not wish to insist longer upon verbal criticism. If he renounces that plea and appeals to common sense, I have no objections provided it be not the common sense of party prejudice. Common sense too, must judge upon facts and must remember that baptism is different from going into the water according to the scripture, must remember that there is no mention made of a bridge or a ferry to cross this water, that the place is a dry desert between Jerusalem and Gaza, where there is no lake nor river, but that they came to a certain water; that there is no mention made of changing garments, but that as soon as the simple and easy gospel rite was administered, the Spirit carried away the baptizer, and the baptized went on his way rejoicing. Now, I confess, if unprejudiced common sense say, there is here clear evidence of immersion, rather than of any other way of baptizing, I cannot see it.

It must also appear evident, that if any portion of scripture can be found, which will favour the method of immersion in Christian baptism, it must be this. The Baptists themselves insist so much upon it as to shew that they think so too, and it is evident that if you take their own comment, it will prove too much even for them. If

you reason upon all the circumstances of the narrative, if it be not demonstrably evident, that sprinkling was the mode, it is far more probable that it was sprinkling than immersion.

The 4th objection is taken from Col. ii. 12.

It is evident from this passage that baptism is come in the room of circumcision. All the Churches, as might naturally be expected, were harrassed at that time with Judaizing teachers. These were incapable of resisting the external evidence of the gospel facts, and yet were also incapable of perceiving the spiritual signification of gospel rites. They were envious of Apostolic popularity, and afraid of Jewish or Gentile persecution. In order, then, to reconcile their convictions and policy, their views and ways, they taught a kind of corrupt system, and blended Jewish and Christian rites; they preached the gospel through envy, and, through pride or fear of persecution, taught Christians that they must be circumcised and keep the law of Moses.

The Apostle teaches the Colossians that there was no need of receiving circumcision; for, in so doing, they became debtors to the whole ritual law. He shews them particularly here that they were circumcised virtually and really by being baptized. They had no need to complain that they were destitute of right rules, or suitable religious rites. All that was moral or spiritual in ancient prescription is certainly retained. For says he "Ye are complete in him who is the head of all principality and power. In whom al

« AnteriorContinuar »