Page images
PDF
EPUB

Paul proceed in administering the latter to such as had already received the former. As I am aware that some have attempted to deny so plain a fact, I shall beg leave to quote the whole passage, which, I am persuaded, will leave no doubt on the mind of the impartial reader:-"It came to pass while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul passing through the upper coasts, came to Ephesus, and finding certain disciples, said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? but they replied we have not even heard that there is an Holy Ghost. He said unto them, into what then were ye baptized? they said into John's baptism. Paul replied, John indeed baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him who was to come, that is on Jesus Christ. And when they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus; and when Paul had laid his hands upon them the Holy Ghost came upon them, and they spake with tongues and prophesied." I am conscious that there are not wanting some who pretend that the fifth verse* is to be interpreted as the language of St. Paul, affirming that at the command

*"When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus."-Acts xix. 5.

of John, the people were baptized in the name of Jesus. But not to repeat what has already been advanced to shew that is contrary to fact (for who, I might ask, were the people, who at his instigation were baptizéd in that name, or what traces are in the evangelical history of such a practice, during the period of his ministry?) not to insist further on this, it is obvious that this interpretation of the passage contradicts itself: for if John told the people that they were to believe on him who was to come, this was equivalent to declaring that he had not yet manifested himself; while the baptizing in his name as an existing individual, would have been to affirm the contrary. Besides we must remark, that the persons on whom St. Paul is asserted to have laid his hands were unquestionably the identical persons who are affirmed in the preceding verse to have been baptized; for there is no other antecedent, so that if the meaning of the passage be what some contend for, the sacred historian must be supposed to assert that he laid his hands, not on the twelve disciples at Ephesus, but on John's converts in general, that the Holy Ghost came upon them, and that they spake with tongues and prophesied, which is ineffably absurd.

Either this must be supposed or the words

which in their original structure are most closely combined, must be conceived to consist of two parts, the first relating to John's converts in general, the second to the twelve disciples at Ephesus; and the relative pronoun expressive of the latter description of persons, instead of being conjoined to the preceding clause, must be referred to an antecedent, removed at the distance of three verses. In the whole compass of theological controversy, it would be difficult to assign a stronger instance of the force of prejudice in obscuring a plain matter of fact; nor is it easy to conjecture what could be the temptation to do such violence to the language of scripture, and to every principle of sober criticism, unless it were the horror which certain divines have conceived, against every thing which bore the shadow of countenancing anabaptistical error. The ancient commentators appear to have felt no such apprehensions, but to have followed without scruple the natural import of the passage.*

* The intelligent reader will not be displeased to see the opinion of St. Austin on this point. It is almost unnecessary to say that it is decisively in our favour; nor does it appear that any of the Fathers entertained a doubt on the subject. In consulting the opinion of those who contended that such as were reclaimed from heresy ought to be rebaptized, he

6. Independently of this decisive fact, whoever considers the extreme popularity of John, and the multitude of all descriptions who flocked to his

represents them as arguing, that if the converts of John required to be rebaptized, much more those who were converted from herésy. Since they who had the baptism of John were commanded by Paul to be baptized, not having the baptism of Christ, why do you extol the merit of John, and reprobate the misery of heretics. "I concede to you," says St. Austin, "the misery of heretics: but heretics give the baptism of Christ, which John did not give."

The comment of Chrysostom, on the passage under consideration, is equally decisive. "He (Paul) did not say to them that the baptism of John was nothing, but that it was incomplete; nor does he say this simply, or without having a further purpose in view, but that he might teach and persuade them to be baptized in the name of Jesus, which they were, and received the Holy Ghost, by the laying on of Paul's hands." In the course of his exposition, he solves the difficulty attending the supposition of disciples at Ephesus, a place so remote from Judæa, having received baptism from John. "Perhaps," says he, "they were then on a journey, and went out, and were baptized." But even when they were baptized, they knew not Jesus. Nor does he ask them, do ye believe on Jesus, but have ye received the Holy Ghost? He knew that they had not received it, but is desirous of speaking to them, that on learning that they were destitute of it, they might be induced to seek it. A little afterwards he adds, "Well did he (Paul) denominate the baptism of John, the baptism of repentance, and not of remission; instructing and persuading them that it was desti

baptism, will find it difficult to believe, that there were not many in the same situation with these twelve disciples. The annunciation of the speedy appearance of their Messiah was the most welcome of all intelligence to the Jewish people, and did not fail for a time to produce prodigious effects.

The reader is requested to notice the terms employed to describe the effects of John's ministry, and compare them with the language of the historian, in depicting the most prosperous state of the church. "Then went out to him Jerusalem, and all Judæa, and all the coast around about Jordan, and were baptized in Jordan, confessing their sins." Where is such language employed to represent the success of the Apostles? Their con

tute of that advantage: but the effect of that which was given afterwards, was remission."-Homily in loco, Vol. 4. Etone-I am aware that very learned men have doubted the authenticity of Chrysostom's Commentary on the Acts, on account of the supposed inferiority of it to his other expository works. But without having recourse to so violent a supposition, its inferiority, should it be admitted, may be easily accounted for by the negligence, ignorance, or inattention of his amanuensis; supposing (which is not improbable) that his discourses were taken from his lips. From the time he was sixty years of age, he permitted his discourses to be taken down in short-hand, just as he delivered them.-Euseb. Lib. 6, c. 26.

« PreviousContinue »