|
 We
present the third in a series of quotes from “Christ’s
Commission to His Apostles,” by Archibald McLean; first
published in 1786. In this portion note especially his reasoning
on how to establish authority —”precepts and examples” and
their uses.
******************
“The
subjects of baptism are signified in the commission by the word,
them —– “baptizing them.” Not every individual in
the nations; but only such as they should previously teach with
effect, or make disciples by teaching. The word (autous) them,
in the original, is masculine, and does not agree with (panta ta
ethne) all nations, which is neuter; but refers to (mathetas)
disciples, which is included in the verb (matheteusate) to teach
or disciple. This is clear from the parallel place in Mark,
which restricts baptism to him that believeth… It is plain,
therefore, that none are commanded to be baptized but such as
are first taught or made disciples and profess to believe the
gospel.
But
what puts this beyond all possibility of doubt, is the uniform
practice of the inspired apostles in executing this commission,
who never baptized any until once they had made them disciples
by teaching. (Acts 2:41; 10:44-48; 15:9; 8:12, 35-38; 16:13-15,
40; 16:32-34; 18:8.... (We must omit the discussion of each case
of N.T. baptism, for want of space. rft) These are all the
instances of baptism, in consequence of our Lord’s commission,
which are expressly recorded in the scriptures; and we see it
was administered
|
|
to none but professed disciples ....
Whether, therefore, we consider the plain words of the
commission itself, or the uniform practice of the inspired
apostles in executing it, it is evident to a demonstration, that
baptism does not belong to professed infidels, ignorant persons,
or mere infants, but only to professed believers of the
gospel....
The
Pedobaptists in general confess that there is neither express
precept nor indisputable example in the word of God for the
baptism of infants; yet they think it may be established by
analogy and inference. But it should be carefully remembered
that baptism is not like natural or moral duties, which are
founded in, and may be inferred from the nature and relation of
things. It is a positive institution, which depends entirely
upon the will of the Institutor, both as to its nature and all
its circumstances; and it becomes our duty merely by the
revelation of that will, either in express precept, or in such
clear and approved precedents as necessarily infer that such a
precept was originally given. If neither of these can be
produced for the baptism of infants, all argumentation on the
subject is vain; for a positive institution can never be made
out by mere reasoning. Further, if the commission restricts
baptism to professed believers, and if it was administered only
to such, as has been shown, then every argument for the baptism
of infants must be false, because infants fall not under that
description; and this as clearly forbids their baptism, as their
inability to examine themselves, or discern the Lord’s body,
prohibits their admission to the Lord’s supper.”
[Previous
Article] [Next
Article]
|
