CHRIST A BAPTIST
By C. A. Jenkens
Published
in the
Our Saviour’s
teaching and example harmonize with the denominational tenets of no people save
those of the Baptists; and it is not exceeding the bonds of sober fact to say
that Christ’s statement of doctrine, tested by Romish
or Pedobaptist standards, must be considered heresy.
It is, moreover, within the province of sober fact to assert, reversing the
proposition, that Romish or
Pedobaptist standards, tested by Christ’s statement of doctrine,
must in turn be pronounced heresy. The student of ecclesiastical history knows
but too well that the noble army of Baptist martyrs endured persecution and
exile, or else suffered, when the will of their enemies so decreed, the
barbarities of fire and sword for believing and practising
what our Lord clearly taught. Was Christ, then, a Baptist? If He is to be
numbered with the people He chose, and to be identified with the doctrines He
taught, an affirmative answer must be given. Ponder the eloquence of facts. He
founded a
ready to enter upon His public work. This is Baptist
doctrine. Baptism indicates the beginning of a new life, the consecration of
the soul to God, and should not be ad-ministered until the candidate proposes
to devote him-self to the divine service. Christ still further showed that the
baptism of infants never occurred to Him, when He said, “Suffer the little
children to come unto me, and forbid them not;” for the disciples, having not
the slightest conception of such a rite, had rebuked the parents of the
children; and yet, the Saviour did not take advantage
of this, the best opportunity of His life, to inculcate the ordinance
which Pedobaptists base on these words. The diligent
reader of the passage will note that these children were not brought to Christ to
be baptized, but “that he should touch them;” that not a word is recorded,
but He “put his hands upon them and blessed them;” that they were brought to Jesus,
who never baptized any one, and who, in this case, did all that was done,
blessed the babes and sent them away unbaptized. See
Mark 10:13-16. It cannot be controverted, then, that
Jesus never made mention of infant baptism, nor ever said or did anything from
which it might be inferred; but on the contrary, He excluded it from His church
with peculiar emphasis by the very nature of the church itself as a regenerated
body.
2. That Christ was
immersed is admitted by all the best ecclesiastical authorities. No first-class
late lexicon or encyclopedia will defend any other act as the primi-tive practice; and no living author whose reputation
for scholarship is well established, will deny that the Greek word for baptism
primarily means immersion. The testimony of scholars of every land, every
denomination, and of every tongue, is unambiguous and overwhelming that Jesus
never instituted or sanctioned as an ordinance in His church either pouring or
sprinkling. Those persons who think that the rite may
be changed on the ground that it is non-essential, receive no support from the Saviour, since it was his first public act. It was, indeed,
His significant inauguration to His redemptive office and the keynote of His
splendid ministry. Previous to His baptism, He preached no sermon, spoke no
parable, wrought no miracle, saved no soul; but after receiving that ordinance,
He healed the sick, raised the dead, preached the
gospel, founded the church, saved the lost, redeemed the
world. Furthermore, whenever our Lord used the word it was fraught with most
wonderful meaning. For instance, when He said, “He that believeth, and is
baptized, shall be saved,” He associated baptism with faith and salvation; and
surely no man, no church, has a right to separate the ordinance from this holy
company. Faith and baptism are placed side by side in the Scriptural economy,
and had they never been divorced by the rude hand of man, the monstrous
doctrine of baptismal regeneration would never have cursed Christendom. He
made, however, baptism the potent symbol of His tremendous and overwhelming
agonies as He suffered and died to ransom the world, saying, “I have a baptism
to be baptized with.” To suppose that sprinkling or pouring could represent the
divine plunge into the sea of darkness, is to belittle
the atonement, and to mock the heavenly sufferer. It is noticeable that our Saviour’s last thoughts were occupied with baptism as one
of the great features of His kingdom; so that, just before His ascension to
glory,
Christ A Baptist by C. A.
Jenkens - Page 2
He commanded His disciples
to “teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the
Son, and of the Holy
Ghost.” Here we have the only act ever required to be done in the
name of the Trinity—baptism. It is also true that the only occasion on which
the Trinity ever appeared sensibly to men was at Christ’s baptism. With so
august a prestige, we dare not, at the peril of our fidelity to the great Head
of the church, tamper with an ordinance that has been given to men with the
full weight of His kingly authority.
3. The Saviour Himself received baptism before He instituted the Supper,
and never by precept or example did He authorize what is commonly known as open
communion; for, all of His followers being of the same faith and belonging
to the same organization, such a thing would have been impossible; and further,
had His commands been obeyed, no discussion on this subject would have arisen.
When our Lord instituted the Supper, He took special pains not to give a general
invitation to all
Christians, of whom there were quite a number in Jerusalem at the
Passover, besides the Apostles; but in an upper room, spread His table in the
presence of His disciples only, all of whom there is every reason to believe
had been baptized. Thus no unbaptized person sat at
the Lord’s table when the Lord Himself presided; and
we need not feel called upon to be more liberal than He. The law of the
ordinance is given in the Saviour’s touching command,
“This do in remembrance of me.” The Supper evidently was not designed to
express our fellowship with one another, but fellowship with Christ; nay more,
it was intended to commemorate the sufferings and death of our Redeemer, as the
elements them-selves clearly demonstrate, but in nowise to show our affection
to our fellow Christians. Fellowship with one another at the Lord’s table is
entirely subordinate and incidental, while the supreme purpose of the ordinance
is, by communion with the divine Sufferer, to “shew
the Lord’s death till he come.”
4. Christ declared
that none but regenerated persons should become members of His church when He
said to Nicodemus, “Except a man be born again, he can-not see the
(What Made Me A Baptist, pp. 7-12, 1901 edition).