« AnteriorContinuar »
ble attempt I am about to make of the explanation of the real meaning of St. Paul in these words be deemed worthy of your acceptance, I will trouble you inore largely, in an extersive view of some of the more peculiar tenets of the sect now under consideration, as I have by me much matter for such
As to St. Paul's words now in question, they are as palpable as the sun at noon-day; they are these : " I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius, (mark the following versé, which, though absolutely necessary to coraplete the sentence, I in vain endeavoured to discover in the quotations of the above candid authors ;)
should say, I have baptized in mine own name. Nothing can be plainer than the cause of the Apostle's exclamation.
Baptism in the name of Christ should have made such Christ's disciples; but we find there were contentions amongst those whom St. Paul addresses; and they said, “I am of Paul-I am of Cephas- I am of Apollos and I of Christ." “ Is Christ divided ? (exclaims the Apostle), was Paul crucified for you? and were you baptised in the name of Paul ?" Well might St. Paul cry out," he thanked God he baptized none of them, but Crispuş and. Gaius ; lest they should (perverting the intention of such an holy institution) say, he had arrogated to himself the honour of baptizing in his own Name.”. Now Crispus and Gaius were good, devout men, as we find Acts xviii. 8. Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, believed in the Lord, with all his house; and many of the Corinthians fearing, believed, and were baptised. Also we find, Romans xvi. 23, “Gaius (St. Paul, speaking of bim, saith), mine host, and of the whole church, saluteth you.” So here we see clearly established, that St. Paul rejoiced, not because he had baptized so few in NUMBER, but that he only had baptized sound and worthy members, such as Crispus and Gaius. He adds, “ I baptized also the household of Stephanus,” of whom we read, xvi. 15, of his Epistle to the Corinthians, “ Ye know the house of Stephanus, that it is the first fruits of Achaia, and that they have addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints.” St. Paul is endeavouring to free bis conscience from the recollection of having baptized any unworthy persons (any of them“ [of you,"] who were contentious, and who, by their ill conduct, would have disgraced the religion they had been baptized in,) and
gladly enumerates such pious Christians as he names in his epistle. The recollection of THEIR BAPTISM was a pleasure to him; and well it might: bis labours were so well bestowed, such good fruits followed. We read in the sequel, that St. Paul very naturally, after having mentioned so few he had baptized, adds, “that Christ sent me, not to baptize, but to preach the Gospel.” But here is nothing to forbid the use of baptism : because St. Paul, by his superior call to the ministry, was so eminently endowed to "preach the Gospel," and convert nations, to make a due preparation for baptism, which when happily effected, the mere, outward rite would be performed by some one less qualified than be was, with the astonishing gifts of the Holy Ghost ;---because his time and talents were so peculiarly precious in the exercise of the Gospel ministry, that he could not stay at all times to perform the ceremony of baptism (a ceremony it became him, and every one, to enforce and undergo, “that all righteousness might thereby be fulfilled"); are we to conclude he meant to forbid or discoun: tenance its use? Nothing of such a nature is, by any means, warranted by the passage in question. When St. Paul thanks God“ he had baptized none but good men," he certainly thanked God he had baplized them: but he is“ glad” to have "not” baptized such as were unfit to receive this holy sacrament. For why? Not (as the Quakers force their construction) that baptism is a matter of no importance, or was a thing which was better omniited; but lost they should say, “ he had baptized in his own name;. Jest they whom he had baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, should say, he had baptized in the name of Paul.” And can we wonder at such rejoicing in the mind of the holy Apostle? Would he not have rejoiced fourfold could he have said, “ He thanked God he had baptized them all, as well as Gaius and Crispus. Let any one candidly peruse the different passages, and answer this question in the negative, if he can!
I could bring a whole host of facts from scripture of the divine institution and command of baptism ; but I will only add one at this time, promising to continue the subject, and many others, particularly the “ Lord's Supper," should I have encouragement by seeing this have a place in your very excellent Magazine.
The society of Quakers rest their defence for the disuse of water baptisın, very strongly on the words of our
Saviour to his disciples : “ John truly baptized you with water ; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.” Acts, i. 15. Likewise they quote the same language from the mouth of John :' but are we, for a moment, to conclude, that because Christ had the superior power of baptizing with the Holy Ghost, which John had not, therefore baptizing with water was to be discontinued ? Our Saviour and John clearly allude to the superior power and efficacy of the baptism of the former, but by no means intend to supersede the baptism of the latter. John describes the grand and sublime effect of Christ's baptism with the Holy Ghost; this baptism was not in his power. He that was to come, was mightier than he, and was to be endued with in uch greater authority. John could minister the baptism with water only; the blessed gift of the Holy Ghost belonging to Christ the Messiah. And thus, when Christ himself addresses hiş disciples in the words I have transcribed, he intends merely to convey the idea I have mentioned, of his superior power and efficacy to John. Now were there any doubt remaining of such being the intention of our blessed Lord, I have only to shew that my explanation exactly accords with that of our Saviour's immediate follower and disciple, Peter; and whoever will attentively and impartially examine the part I am about to bring forward, 'must be convinced, unless wilfully blind to conviction, that baptism with the Holy Ghosi, and with water, are intirely distinct, and as such are spoken of in the scriptures. I wish to premise, we must all agree, Christ's immediate followers must have clearly understood his meaning and intention when he addressed them as I have already shewn. Now we find Peter calling for water, elementary water, to baptize even such as hud received the Holy Ghost ; for “ thus," thought he, no doubt,
“it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. We read in the Acts of the Apostles, that “ as Peter Was preaching before Cornelius and“ his kinsmen and near friends,
s while he yet spake, the Holy Ghost fell on all them wbich heard the word, and they spake with tongues, anul magnified God.” “ Then an swered Peter, Can any man forbid WATER, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost, as well as we? "' « And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the
Lord.” Now we find from l'eter's own relation of his thus preaching before Corne
Vol. XI. Churchm. Mug. August, 1806. P lius,
lius, that “the Holy Ghost, which fell on them as on the apostles at the beginning," was the effect alluded to of Christ's superior power and efficacy, as conveying his word to his disciples; for, (continues Peter) " then remeinbered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John, indeed, baptized with water, but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.” So then, those who heard Peter preach, were completely endued with the baptism of the Holy Ghost, as spoken of by our Saviour; and yet we find Peter baptized even such with water; proving, beyond all power of contradiction, that baptism of the Holy Ghost does not supersede that of water. I here take my leave for the present, as I am lothe to take up more room in your publication than the present will occupy; but repeat, that should you be inclined to encourage me, I will, from time to time, trouble you on this and other subjects, intimately connected with the present. I close this letter on baptism in the words of the great and learned Bishop Taylor, who, speaking of baptism, says, “No tradition is more universal, no not of scripture itself; no words are plainer, no, not the ten commandments; and if any suspicion can be superinduced by any jealous or less discerning person, it will need no other refutation but to turn his eyes to those lights, by which himself sees scripture to be the word of God, and the ten commandments to be the declarațion of his will."
I am yours, &c.
SCRUTATOR. 19th April, 1805.
AN ERRONEOUS READING CORRECTED.
TO THE EDITOR OF THE ORTHODOX CHURCHMAN's
discourse, preached at the primary visitation of the present archdeacon of Essex, by Mr. Cowe, I must beg
leave, through the medium of your useful publication, to suggest to the worthy author, that I think he has adopted an erroneous reading of the text, 1 Tim. iv. 16, “ Take heed unto thyself, and unto thy doctrine.” It should be the doctrine. Thus it stands in the black letier folio of 1611 (being the first edition of our present version); in the Roman letter, 4to. of 1619; again in the black letter folio of 1617. All these from the correct press of Robert Barker. And it should be observed, that this is perfectly agreeable to the word in the original in dodacransa. Bishop Horsley, in a charge delivered to the diocese of Rochester, in the year 1800, p. 29, 30, &c. fully maintains this to be the true meaning; and has enuinerated in a note; many different editions of the bia ble, in which the true and the correct reading is found; and informs us, that since the year 1756, the true reading seems to have maintained its ground: and after this period the text is correctly given in all the Oxford bibles (except a small svo of Wright and Gill, in 1770). I am also pleased to find, that this reading is followed in a most elegant edition of the bible, ornamented with engravings, by J. Fittler, and printed by T. Bensley, 1795,
The learned prelate above-mentioned expresses hiinself in his charge thus forcibly on the subject : “ Take heed unto the, not thy doctrine. As if the apostle studio, ously avoided the form of expression which might seem to imply, that even St. Timothy had any doctrine to deliver of his own. He is enjoined to take heed to the doctrine, i. e. to the doctrine delivered by the inspired apostles, and by the authority of the church com initted to St. . Timothy. ' And this (says the learned bishop, speaking to the clergy,) must be your rule. You must stick close to the doctrine, to the form of sound words delivered to the saints."
Thus it appears, that the change of a single letter, e for y,
in the reading of the text, gives a wrong sense to the passage, and very different from the original Greek.
Surely then in a discourse preached before the clergy of Middlesex, dedicated to them, and printed at their request, the true reading of the text should have been carefully observed. It is most expedient that the preachers of God's word should be attentive to the editions of the bible, and the correctness of the copies they use,