Page images
PDF
EPUB
[ocr errors]

out altering the sense. In the Acts of the Apostles, we read,—“ baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.”—rjii. 16, and xix. 5. But in several places in the Epistles, the pleonasm is omitted, and we read, baptized into Jesus Christ'

baptized into his death'-baptized into Christ.' - Rom. vi. 3; Gal. iii. 27. Thus it is obvious, that to be baptized in the name of Christ, is the same as to be baptized into Christ.

The preposition Eis, which is translated in,' is variously rendered in passages where the construction in the Greek is the same.

It is translated in,' into,' and 'unto.' Το be baptized into a person or thing, is the same as to be baptized to or unto a person or thing.

Now if we omit the redundant word name, as St. Paul has very properly done in several places in his Epistles, and render the preposition to, or unto, as it is in 1 Cor. x. 2, the whole passage may be thus translated.

"Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit.”

But how is this passage made to favor the doctrine of the Trinity? It is done by assuming what never has been, and never can be, proved.

1. It is taken for granted, that because the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, are connected together in the commission to baptize, each of them must be God. But if this assumption be admitted, it will prove too much. will prove that each, of other persons and objects connected with God in a religious act, is God. For the illustration, see page 59.

2. It is taken for granted that baptism is a rite of such a character, that, to be baptized “to” or "unto”

a person or object, or " in the name" of a person or object, necessarily implies that such a person or object is God. But if this assumption be admitted, it will prove too much. It

will prove that Moses is God, and that the death of Christ is God. For the ancient Israelites “ were all baptized unto Meses in a cloud and in the sea.” All that were baptized unto Jesus Christ, weře baptized unto his death.See 1 Cor. x. 2, Rom. vi. 3. See also 1 Cor. i. 13.

To be baptized to or unto a person or object, or in the name of a person or object, evidently implies, not that such a person or object is an object of worship, but a subject of faith. Moses, and the death of Christ, were not objects of worship, but subjects of faith. In this sense we are io understand the commission under consideration. Persons baptized according to this commission, did not thereby profess to worship, but to believe in, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. In this sense it is understood by many Trinitarian critics. Archbishop Tillotson calls baptizing persons in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, “baptizing them into the Christian faith."-Vol. VI. p. 141. So Dr. Whitby, in his Paraphrase--"Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name (or, into the belief of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,"

It does not appear that the Apostles understood the commission as a formula to be used in the administration of baptism. There is no proof that they ever used it as such. On the contrary, we read of their baptizing unto Christ, and in the name of Christ. They probably considered baptizing unto Christ, or in the name of Christ, equivalent to haptizing in the name of the Father, Son, and Spirit; that is, baptizing unto a belief of the Christian religion, To profess Christianity, was to name the name of Christ. They that were baptized unto Christ put on Christ, or took his name, and were called Christians--thereby conforming to the true spirit of the commission. Father, Son, and Spirit, were mentioned in the commission, because they

were the most important objects which the gospel presented to the faith of the disciples. The gospel originated with the Father, was revealed through the Son, and confirmed by the miraculous influences of the Spirit. To be baptized to Christ, was to profess faith in the gospel, the most im. portant doctrines of which relate to the Father, Son, and Spirit. Hence, when the eunuch was baptized, he expressed his faith by saying, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.By this confession he avowed his belief in all that Jesus taught-consequently in every doctrine relative to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

3. It is taken for granted that three persons, each of whom is God, are but one God. This assumption is as in. capable of proof as the following. Three persons, each of whom is man, are but one man. Without assuming what cannot be proved, the Apostolic Commission offers no ar. gument for the doctrine of the Trinity.

The last passage on the list, is St. Paul's benediction at the conclusion of his second Epistle to the Corinthians.

• The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit, be with you all."

1. To press this text into an argument for the Trinity, it is taken for granted, that, because Jesus Christ, God, and the Holy Spirit, are mentioned together, each one of them must be the only true God. But the absurdity of this assumption has already been shown.

2. It is taken for granted that the words are a prayer, equally addressed to God, to Christ, and the Holy Spiritconsequently each one must be the only true God. This is incapable of proof. The words were not addressed to God, to Christ, or the Spirit; but to the Corinthians. Consequently they are not a prayer, but a pious and devout wish, that the Corinthians might enjoy the favor of Christ, the

love of God, and the communion of the Spirit. If Paul prayed to Christ and the Spirit, in this benediction, he prayed to himself in his benediction at the conclusion of his first Epistle to the Corinthians, thus-" The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you; my love be with you

all in Christ Jesus.” Here we find " the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ," and the love of Paul, coupled together in the same manner. If the grace of Christ, the love of God, and the communion of the Spirit, being thus joined together, prove Christ and the Spirit to be God, the grace of Christ and the love of Paul being thus joined together, proves Paul to be God. This pious and devout wish of the Apostle was doubtless accompanied with a silent petition, addressed, not to Christ and the Spirit, but “ unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,” to whom he says, (Eph. iii. 14) " I bow my knees;" though his prayer related both to Christ and the Spirit.

Instead of favoring the doctrine of the Trinity, this passage bears strongly against it. Three objects are distinctly mentioned-God, Christ, and the Spirit. If Christ and the Spirit were persons in the Trinity, the distinct mention of them would be superfluous, they being included in God. But as one of the objects mentioned is called “God,” it follows that neither of the other two can be God; for we know that “there is none other God but one." If the three objects were the three persons in the Trinity, why iş the name "God” given to one of them only?

That the third object mentioned in this passage, called " the Holy Spirit,” is not God, nor a person, is certain from its being joined with the word “communion.” A wish that the Corinthians might enjoy the communion of a person in the Trinity, or the communion of God, would be both senseless and impious. It would imply that that person is divided, or that God is divided. The Apostle pro.

perly speaks of "the communion of the blocd of Christ," and " the communion of the body of Christ;" because his blood was shed or poured out, and his body was broken, that is, divided. One may have communion with a person, by a participation of what they mutually enjoy or suffer ; but the communion of a person, is an idea incompatible with common sense. As the communion of the sufferings of Christ, means a participation in his sufferings, so the communion of the Spirit means a participation in the gifts, and graces, and influences of the Spirit.

See Vindication, &c. by Yates, p. 163–66. Norton's Statement of Reasons, p. 152-54.

On the subject of Section X1. see Wright's Examination of the supposed Scripture proof of the doctrine of the Trinity, &c. Vindication, &c. by Yates, Part III. Ch. II, Kindade's Bible Doctrine, Part II. Ch. III. and IV.

« PreviousContinue »