On this page

• Text (1)

  Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.

  • 

    Untitled Article

• Transcript

  • Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.

    Additionally, when viewing full transcripts, extracted text may not be in the same order as the original document.

    Untitled Article

    course with Nicodfcmus , ( John Hi . 5 , ) which took place at the time of the first passover , an early period of our Lord ' s ministry , being on his first visit to Jerusalem ; and , immediately after , we are told , ( John iii . 22 , ) Jesus

    and his disciples came into the land of Judea , and there he tarried with them and baptized . " There is no-, thing against the supposition that the Apostles may have received the rite from Christ himself , for there is no

    authority for the Reviewer ' s assertion that Christ never baptized . Here I complain of misrepresentation . Let us attend to what is said on this subject in John iv . 1—3 , the only passage that I know of relating to it : " When , therefore , the Lord knew that the

    Pharisees had heard that he made and baptized more disciples than John ( though Jesus himself baptized not , but his disciples ) he left Judea , and went again into Galilee . " The word never is not here found , and all that can be fairly deduced from the passage is , I think , that Jesus did not usually

    baptize , but left the performance of the rite , on the new converts , to his chief disciples , that is , the apostles . Whether these last received baptism from Christ himself or not , is not material . The Reviewer lays an undue stress upon this question . If Christ authorized them to administer

    the rite to others , it is sufficient to make it a Christian institution . Another instance of misrepresentation occurs , I conceive , when the Reviewer observes , that " the Apostle Paul baptized occasionally , as he

    did some other acts , not so much in conformity to his own judgment as in submission to the prejudice of weak brethren / ' This appears to me , as I doubt not it will to many of your readers , a very extraordinary and unsupported assertion , and on what it is

    grounded I cannot imagine . Certainly there is nothing to support it in the passage ( 1 Cor . i . 12—17 ) to which the Reviewer immediately after refers . The Apostle is there lamenting the divisions in the church of Corinth , where different parties had assumed the names of different

    leaders . " ¦ Now this 1 say , forasmuch as every one of you saith I am of Paul , and I of Apollos , and I of Cephas Cor Peter ) , and I of Christ , Is Christ divided i Was Paul crucified for you ?

    Untitled Article

    Or were ye b * ptS # e € tofty'the nscne ^ Paul ? " Implying I con ^^ oith&t they weTe all baptized into th& ^ akie of Christ . The Aftestle p * 6 c £ &k "I thank God that tftapti ' ^ ^ of you but Grtapus aad { %£ & > ) e $ t any should say I baptized in ^ w own name . But I baptized also the

    household of Stephanus : besides I know not that I baptised any ml 4 r . For Christ sent me not to baptise but to preach the Gospel / ' Oiy as the editors of the Improved V ^ on hare it , " rather to preach the Gos - pel , " * having added the word rattier by way of explanation . The fair

    meaning appears to me to be , that the Apostle was employed in the more important office of making converts , and that he had left the performance of the rite of baptism elmfly to others , his companions and

    assistants , in imitation probably of his Master Jesus . At any rate , the notion that Paul complied with the rite in submission to the prejudice of weak brethren has nothing to justify it in this passage , nor , so far as I know , in any oiher part of the New Testament . It seems to me , indeed ,

    to be a mere gratuitous assumption of your Reviewer . The Apostle does , indeed , rejoice that he had practised so few baptisms—but why ? Because he disapproved of the rite I No

    such thing- ; bat lest any should say that he had baptized into his own name , lest any should pretend he had set up a new church of -which not Christ but Paul was the head .

    And it is , perhaps , not very improbable that the Apostle may have beta charged by some of the more bigoted of the Jewish Christians with such a design which he here disclaims

    On the whole I conceive no . aigiancut against baptism can be . dravvajrom this passage , although your Reviewer and other Anti-baptists consider it a

    Untitled Article

    ? 32 On the Perpetuity of Baptism .

    Untitled Article

    * Mr . Belsham , in his Translation and Commentary of the Epistles of WPaul , renders this passage ( 1 Cor . i . i'J exactly the same in sense , thoug h a little varied iu expression ; and subjoi ^ iu a note , that liishow Pearce says , t "

    writers of the Old and New Tcstaw ^ almost every where , agreeably to t u ^ Hebrew idiom , express a pretere ^ given to one tiling before another , . an affirmation of the thing prefer ™ a negation of the contrary .

• Citation
  • Monthly Repository (1806-1838) and Unitarian Chronicle (1832-1833), Dec. 2, 1826, page 732, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/mruc/issues/vm2-ncseproduct2555/page/32/