Transcribed from the 1850 Seeleys edition by David Price, email
ccx074@pglaf.org
BAPTISM
ACCORDING TO SCRIPTURE.
* * * * *
BY E. H. HOARE, A.M.
VICAR OF BARKBY, LEICESTERSHIRE.
* * * * *
JESUS “SAID UNTO HIM, WHAT IS WRITTEN IN THE LAW? HOW READEST
THOU?”—LUKE X. 26.
* * * * *
SECOND EDITION.
* * * * *
Seeleys.
FLEET STREET, AND HANOVER STREET.
LONDON: MDCCCL.
* * * * *
ADVERTISEMENT.
AT a Clerical Meeting in the country this Question was lately proposed
for discussion;—“What may be deduced _from Holy Scripture_ concerning
Baptism, as a Sacrament of the Christian Church?”
In order to arrive at a satisfactory conclusion, it appeared to one of
the members present to be necessary, that _every passage of Scripture
bearing upon the subject_ should be considered, and its true meaning
sought; and that care should of course be taken, that no text be so
expounded as to make it repugnant to another. This course was
consequently pursued by him. Each passage was examined in succession;
and though the inquiry extended much beyond his expectation, and was not
carried through without pains, yet the interest of the research more than
compensated for the labour of it.
The subject being of great importance, and more especially at the present
time, it was thought that the cause of truth would be served by the
publication of what had been written; and a request was made to that
effect. In the hope, and with the earnest desire and prayer, that such
may be the result, the writer has consented to its publication: and as
the Church, to which it is his privilege to belong, has declared
concerning Holy Scripture, “that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may
be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man that it should be
believed as an Article of the faith,” (Art. vi.)—he feels himself fully
justified, as a Minister of the Church, in having endeavoured simply to
ascertain the sense of Scripture, in the several texts which have come
before him.
_January_, 1850.
ON BAPTISM,
_&c. &c._
IT is thought by some, that baptism, or the washing of the person or
clothes, as a religious ceremony, commenced immediately after the deluge.
St. Peter certainly speaks of baptism in connection with that great
event: (1 Ep. iii. 20, 21,)—“While the ark was a preparing, wherein few,
that is, eight souls were saved by water: the like figure whereunto, even
baptism, doth also now save us.” But, however this might be, we read of
it at an early period. The first instance on record in Scripture of this
washing as a preparation for God’s service, is probably that which is
found in Genesis xxxv. 2. God had said unto Jacob, “Arise, go up to
Bethel, and dwell there, and make thee an altar unto God that appeared
unto thee when thou fleddest from the face of Esau thy brother. Then
Jacob said unto his household, and to all that were with him, Put away
the strange gods that are among you, _and be clean_, _and change your
garments_; and let us arise, and go up to Bethel, and I will make there
an altar unto God, who answered me in the day of my distress.” The
direction—“Be clean,” taken in connection with the change of their
garments, did probably, among other things, mean the washing of
themselves with water, as an emblem of the putting away of sin. Dr.
Lightfoot understands by it Jacob’s admission of the proselytes of
Shechem and Syria into his religion by baptism; because circumcision was
become odious to them. The cloud which God spread over the Israelites
for a covering, (Ps. cv. 39,) when they came out of Egypt, and their safe
passage through the waters of the Red Sea, appear to have had reference
to the same subject; for the Apostle Paul, in 1 Cor. x. 1, 2, thus
writes;—“Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how
that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the
sea; and were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea.” Now
if they were “baptized unto Moses,” (which baptism represented and
confirmed their obligation to follow Moses as their leader, and to obey
the instructions and laws which he should give them,) much more were they
baptized and bound unto God: or rather, they were baptized and bound unto
Moses, as the minister of God and the medium of communication between God
and the people.
When the Israelites had entered the wilderness and had come to Mount
Sinai, where God intended to give them His covenant, He “said unto Moses,
Go unto the people, and sanctify them to-day and to-morrow, and let them
wash their clothes, and be ready against the third day; for the third day
the Lord will come down, in the sight of all the people, upon Mount
Sinai.” (Ex. xix. 10.) And thus Maimonides, a great authority in the
Jewish Law, says, that ‘Israel was admitted into covenant with God in
three ways:—by circumcision, by baptism, (alluding to this command, “Let
them wash their clothes,”) and by sacrifice.’ When any of the heathen
became proselytes to the Jewish religion, and sought admission into the
Jewish church, it is said that the males were circumcised and
baptized,—the females were baptized,—and the children generally baptized
with the parents. And on the subject of the baptism of heathen children,
Maimonides again says, that ‘if an Israelite should find a Gentile
infant, and baptize him in the name of a proselyte, behold, he is a
proselyte.’
By the precepts relating to ceremonial pollutions, the Jews were rendered
incapable of appearing before God in the tabernacle or temple, till they
were cleansed either by bathing or sprinkling. In the Nineteenth Chapter
of the Book of Numbers the subject is particularly dwelt upon. When any
one was ceremonially unclean, it was enjoined, (v. 19,) that a “clean
person should sprinkle upon the unclean” (of the water of separation
before spoken of) “on the third day, and on the seventh day; and on the
seventh day he” (the unclean) was to “purify himself, and wash his
clothes and bathe himself in water,” and then he was to be “clean at
even. But,” as it is added in the next verse, “the man that shall be
unclean, and shall not purify himself, _that soul shall be cut off from
among the congregation_, because he hath defiled the Sanctuary of the
Lord: the water of separation hath not been sprinkled upon him; he is
unclean.”
When Moses received directions from the Lord concerning the consecration
of Aaron and his sons, he was commanded (as we read in Ex. xxix. 4,) to
“bring them unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, and wash
them with water;” and then to put the Priestly garments upon them. In
short, by the law almost all things were purged by water, as well as by
blood;—the one having as distinct and definite a signification as the
other. And so familiar and forcible was this figure of water among the
Jews, that many of the prophecies and promises relating to the Messiah
and the spiritual blessings to be enjoyed in the times of the gospel were
couched under it and conveyed by it. By Isaiah it is said of Him, “So
shall He _sprinkle_ many nations.” (lii. 15.) And by the prophet Ezekiel
the Lord saith,—“Then will I _sprinkle clean water_ upon you, and ye
shall be clean: from all your filthiness and from all your idols will I
cleanse you. A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I
put within you. And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to
walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments and do them.” (xxxvi.
25–27.)
With this continued reference to water in connection with spiritual
things, before their eyes, the Jews were doubtless prepared for its still
farther use. Accordingly, when John appeared as the forerunner of the
Messiah, and baptized with water all who were disposed to become his
disciples, no surprise was expressed at his doing it. He was asked
indeed by the Priests and Levites why he baptized, when they understood
him as denying himself to be any one of those whom they expected to be
sent by God. “If thou be not that Christ, nor Elias, neither that
prophet, why baptizest thou?” (John i. 25.) But this only shews that
they regarded baptism as a natural evidence of a divine mission. Of
John’s baptism we are told by himself, that it was a baptism unto
repentance. “I indeed,” said he, “baptize you with water unto
repentance.” (Matt. iii. 11.) And thus, all who were baptized of him
“confessed their sins;”—confession being a necessary part of repentance.
They also asked of him instruction as to their conduct in future: and to
the different classes of his disciples he gave appropriate exhortations.
In the account of John’s baptism in Acts xix. 4., it is added, that he
“said unto the people, that they should believe on Him which should come
after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.” Thus baptism was administered by
John _substantially_ upon the same principle which afterwards governed
the Christian Church; namely, upon a profession (taken to be sincere) of
repentance and the faith of the gospel. For though the baptism of John
was connected with a preparatory dispensation, it was of an evangelical
and very practical character. He exposed the folly of trusting to
outward advantages;—taught men their need of a Saviour;—and declared that
nothing would satisfy God, and be accepted of Him, but the bringing forth
of good fruit. “Every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn
down and cast into the fire.” (Matt. iii. 10.)
When speaking of himself and of his baptism, John was naturally led to
speak of Him, to whom he came to bear witness: and he said that He also
would baptize, and in a manner to which he (John) could make no
pretension. “I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance; but He
that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to
bear: He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and fire.” (Matt. iii.
11.) Various expositions have been given of these latter expressions.
That they refer (among other meanings) to the outpouring of the Holy
Ghost on the day of Pentecost, which was accompanied with “cloven tongues
like as of fire,” sitting upon each of the Apostles, and by which they
were enabled to speak in languages they had never learned,—and to the
gift of divers kinds of tongues on other occasions, as in the case of
Cornelius and his company,—is evident from what is said upon the subject
in Acts i. 5. and xi. 15, 16. “For John truly baptized with water; but
ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.” “And as I
(Peter) began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the
beginning. Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that He said,
John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy
Ghost.” But the expressions, “with the Holy Ghost and fire,” have
probably a still more extensive signification. No element is more subtle
and powerful than fire: changing whatever it comes in contact with into
its own nature. Thus fire (like water and wind, both of which are also
made emblems of the Holy Spirit,) will represent the efficacy of Divine
grace; its enlightening, purifying, refining and inflaming power; and so
it forms a striking and happy contrast to that destroying fire, spoken of
in the former and the following verses. And hereby would be fulfilled
the prophecies of Isaiah and Malachi:—“When the Lord shall have washed
away the filth of the daughters of Zion, and shall have purged the blood
of Jerusalem from the midst thereof by the Spirit of judgment _and by the
Spirit of burning_.” (Is. iv. 4.) “And the Lord, whom ye seek, shall
suddenly come to His temple: He is _like a refiner’s fire_, and like
fuller’s soap. And He shall sit as a refiner and purifier of silver: and
He shall purify the sons of Levi, and purge them as gold and silver, that
they may offer unto the Lord an offering in righteousness.” (Mal. iii.
1–3.) Or, the baptism of fire, if taken in connection with the context,
would signify the desolating judgments of God upon the hardened Jews: or
it might represent the afflictions which Christ’s true followers were to
suffer. To these He referred, when He said to the two sons of Zebedee,
“With the baptism that I am baptized withal shall ye be baptized.” (Mark
x. 39.)
To the baptism of John, Jesus Himself submitted. The reason He gave to
John for this was, “Thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness:”
(Matt, iii. 15.) hereby inculcating the duty of attention to whatever God
hath commanded; and intimating His solemn entrance upon His Priestly
Office, according to the directions which God gave to Moses concerning
the washing of Aaron and his sons with water, as already referred to.
(Ex. xxix. 4.) Occasion was also hereby afforded for the fulfilment of
the sign given to John for the discovery of the Messiah: “Upon whom thou
shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining upon Him, the same is He
which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.” And John “saw, and bare record
that this was the Son of God.” (John i. 33, 34.)
After His own baptism by John, and His choice of the twelve Apostles,
Jesus also baptized those who became His disciples. But _the fact
itself_ is all that is recorded. Water was evidently used; but we are
not told any thing of the time when He began to baptize, nor of the
description of persons baptized, nor of the mode and form of His baptism,
nor of what followed after it. We are simply informed in John iii. 22.,
as a part of the gospel-narrative, that “Jesus and His disciples came
into the land of Judea, and there He tarried with them and baptized.”
And the only farther mention of the subject is in reference to a report,
“that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John,” and that Jesus
Himself did not administer the Ordinance in person, but that His
disciples (meaning probably the twelve) baptized for Him. (John iv. 1,
2.) This is all that the Scripture says upon the subject. _Why_ the
Lord did not baptize with His own hands, we are not informed. It could
not have been lest any should say that He had baptized in His own name;
for men came to His baptism avowedly _as His disciples_. But _for
obvious reasons_ He chose to employ Himself in preaching, and the twelve
in baptizing those whom He had taught: as He afterwards sent St. Paul
“not to baptize, but to preach the gospel.” (1 Cor. i. 15.) He would
also wish to prevent _the preference_ which would doubtless have been
given to _His own_ administration of the Ordinance.
Of the baptism of the twelve disciples themselves we have no account. As
the baptism of John was so general, it is probable that they, or the
greater number of them, had partaken of it. Andrew, Simon Peter’s
brother, undoubtedly had. He was one of the two of John’s disciples who
heard him say of Jesus, “Behold the Lamb of God!” and who was afterwards
one of the twelve. It probably was the case with others of them also.
But nothing is said respecting them. Tertullian observes, that with
regard to them,—(the twelve)—“the peculiar privilege of the first
accession to discipleship, and of the individual familiarity to which
they were admitted with Him, had power to confer on them _the compendium_
of baptism;” the sum and substance of it.
No other mention is made of baptism by the Evangelists, until we come to
the Commission which the Lord gave to His Apostles after His resurrection
from the dead, except in one passage, which occurs in the report of His
memorable conversation with Nicodemus, the Jewish ruler, contained in the
Third Chapter of the Gospel according to St. John. Nicodemus having come
to Jesus with the avowed desire to be instructed by Him, as “a teacher
come from God,” “Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say
unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.”
(v. 3.) Nicodemus expresses his surprise at this saying, and asks, “How
can a man be born when he is old?”—evidently shewing that he did not at
all comprehend its meaning. Upon which the Lord repeats the
asseveration, with some addition to it: “Jesus answered, Verily, verily,
I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he
cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” (v. 5.) In this instance, as in
every other, our endeavour shall be, to ascertain what the words of
Scripture do really and simply mean. If there had been no intention on
the part of Christ to make baptism with water an Ordinance of His Church
or Kingdom upon earth, the expressions, “born of water and of the
Spirit,” might still have been used by Him with great propriety; as John
the Baptist had previously used the words, “He shall baptize you _with
the Holy Ghost and fire_:” water being, as well as fire, an appropriate
and beautiful emblem of the Holy Spirit. If the “cloven tongues like as
of fire,” had _not_ rested upon the Apostles on the day of Pentecost, the
words of the Baptist, just referred to, had yet been strikingly
applicable to the operations of the Holy Ghost; and the figure would have
lost none of its force and fitness. Water too, in like manner, might
have been connected by Christ with the mention of the Spirit, because of
the similarity between their effects. But inasmuch as Christ Himself had
been baptized, and was about to continue baptism in His Church, (not only
during His personal Ministry upon earth, but when, after His return to
Heaven, His gospel should be preached among all nations,) and as John’s
baptism had been so general, and had drawn so much attention to the
subject,—it is reasonable to conclude, that when Jesus spake to Nicodemus
of a man’s being “born of water,” He meant his being baptized; and it is
probable that Nicodemus, who knew well that baptism had been already used
in the admission of proselytes into the Jewish Church, at once so
understood His words. For, if not _altogether figurative_, some specific
act must have been meant; and what could this be, but baptism? No
explanation, therefore, was given to Nicodemus of the terms, “born of
water,” because none was needed. Having begun, in v. 3, to speak of _a
__birth_, the Lord Jesus continues the same idea, and applies it to the
other subject which He wished to introduce, namely, baptism. And this is
not the only instance of the use of such phraseology: for, when arguing
with the Sadducees about the raising of the dead, He says of the just,
that they are “_the children of God_;”—and then, carrying on the idea, He
calls them, “_the children of the resurrection_.” (Luke xx. 36.) To be
“born of water,” then, is to be baptized with water; and this, together
with being “born of the Spirit,” Christ declares to be necessary to an
entrance into “the kingdom of God.” By “the Kingdom of God” is here
meant the Visible Church of Christ upon earth; the members of which are
therein prepared for the state of eternal glory in Heaven. This shows us
of what characters Christ designed His Visible Church to consist; namely,
of those who are born of the Spirit, and baptized with water. And thus
the true Church of Christ may well be described as ‘_A Congregation of
faithful men_, in the which the pure word of God is preached, and the
Sacraments be duly ministered according to Christ’s Ordinance.’ (Article
XIX. of the Church of England.) Christ would have His Church a Visible
Body, that it might be “The Pillar and Ground of the truth;”—to maintain
the truth and to hold it forth to the world. As there had been before
His coming, so it was meet that there should continue to be, an
associated and authorized Body of God’s Worshippers and Witnesses, to
which additions might from time to time be made of “such as should be
saved,” (Acts ii. 47.), and by which Christ’s religion might be spread
abroad and propagated. Into this Body ‘faithful men,’ or those who are
“born again,” are incorporated by baptism. And it is of this spiritual
kingdom, which “is not of this world,” that Christ speaks in the verse we
are now considering. The Kingdom of God, or the Kingdom of Heaven, has
sometimes in Scripture a more extensive signification, and includes both
good and bad,—the true Israel and those “which say they are Jews and are
not.” Since man cannot know the heart of his fellow-man, he must accept
his profession, where it is not contradicted by plain and palpable
evidence: and hence it comes to pass, that ‘in the Visible Church the
evil will be mingled with the good.’ (Article XXVI.) But Christ, the
Great Head of the Church, does not acknowledge the evil as belonging to
Him, or as having any right to a place in His Church or kingdom. Where
has He ever prescribed or demanded or allowed _a merely external
profession and service_? What did He say to those who were satisfied
with this? “_Ye hypocrites_, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying,
This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth and honoureth me with
their lips, but their heart is far from me!” (Matt. xv. 7, 8.) And if
this spiritual service, this service of the heart, was required of _the
Jews_, and evidently symbolized by their distinguishing Ordinance of
circumcision, and if _they_ were branded by the Lord as “hypocrites” who
did not pay it,—no wonder that it should be designed and required by the
Gospel! Otherwise, Christ would be the minister of hypocrisy, formality,
and sin! But He Himself has told us, that He soweth _good seed_ only in
His field; and that it is His enemy who sows _the tares_. (Matt. xiii.
37, 38.) The wicked and such as be void of a lively faith, and all who
“have a form of godliness but denying the power thereof,” are considered
as _intruders_ into the Church of Christ, and as such will be dealt with
by Him at the last. This was God’s complaint of His Church of
old:—“Among my people are found wicked men!” (Jer. v. 26.) And He
remonstrates with such characters for professing that they knew Him,
while their conduct was inconsistent with their profession. “Unto the
wicked God saith, What hast thou to do that thou shouldest take my
covenant in thy mouth?” (Ps. l. 16.) And the Lord Jesus saith the same
to such like persons. “Why call ye me Lord, Lord, and do not the things
which I say?” (Luke vi. 46.) “Friend, how camest thou in hither, not
having a wedding garment?” (Matt, xxii. 12.) And He declares that in the
last day He “will profess unto them, I never knew you.” (Matt, vii. 23.)
He calls them “goats,” not “sheep;” though while on earth they find
admittance into His fold. (Matt. xxv. 33.) Of such is _not_ the kingdom
of God. The Kingdom of God, or ‘the Visible Church of Christ, is _a
Congregation of faithful men_.’ Now, to enter into this kingdom, or,
which is the same thing, to be an ostensible member of this spiritual
Society, a man must be “born of water and of the Spirit.” No one can be
a _real_ and _recognised_ member of Christ’s Church on earth, except he
be baptized and born of the Spirit. The necessity of being “born of the
Spirit” in order to our becoming the subjects of Christ’s kingdom is
shown by Him in what immediately follows. “That which is born of the
flesh is flesh:”—(v. 6.) that which proceeds from and is produced by
carnal and corrupt nature is carnal and corrupt also. Hence the
necessity of a great and thorough change. “Ye _must_ be _born again_.”
(v. 7.) Of this change the Holy Spirit is—to keep up the idea introduced
by Christ—the Parent or Father. And as that which generates, generates
its like, so “that which is born of the Spirit is spirit:” in other
words,—the abstract being here used by Christ for the concrete, (and by
its use He more strongly expresses the reality of what might justly be
called _a birth_ and the communication of _an entirely new nature_,)—he
that partakes of this birth of the Spirit is thereby made a spiritual
man, whereas before he was a carnal and corrupt man. And since Christ
came (as we have seen) to set up a spiritual kingdom, (for “the kingdom
of God is righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost;”) (Rom.
xiv. 17,) none can _really_ belong to this kingdom, except spiritual
persons. And to this agrees what the Lord said on another occasion;
“Verily I say unto you, whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as
a little child, _he shall not enter therein_.” (Mark x. 15.) And if not
real members of His Kingdom on earth, we shall certainly not enter into
His Kingdom of glory. But to be _recognised_ as well as _real_ members
of His Church, or subjects of His kingdom, we must be “born of water,” or
baptized. This is Christ’s appointed Ordinance. He ordained the use of
it in His Church, while He was present with His disciples, and He
subsequently enjoined the same in the case of all who should believe His
gospel. Baptism with water, therefore, is not to be omitted, wherever it
may be had. And, surely, the reason which Jesus Himself gave to John for
seeking this Ordinance, ought to influence those who desire to be
numbered among His friends and followers: “Thus it becometh us to fulfil
all righteousness!”
But while these two things, baptism and the birth of the Spirit, are
declared by Christ to be necessary to a certain end,—namely, an entrance
into the Kingdom of God, or Visible Church of Christ upon earth,—there is
not the slightest intimation given by Him that they are _necessarily_
connected with each other. Not a word is said by Him from which we can
deduce this. Two things are often required for a definite purpose;—two
witnesses, for instance, to prove a fact;—an invitation and a
wedding-garment to entitle any one to be a guest at a marriage-feast;—but
these may be quite independent of one another. It cannot be pretended
that _one thing only_ is spoken of by Christ. The birth of the Spirit is
twice mentioned by itself, and once in connection with baptism by water.
Baptism, then, and the birth of Spirit are clearly not identical,—not one
and the same thing. And _their necessary connection_ is neither here,
nor any where else in Scripture, asserted. It is a statement, not
supported by a tittle of evidence; but, on the other hand, contradicted
by express testimonies of Scripture, and by very general experience. The
putting of these two things together in one sentence is surely no proof
of their necessary connection. Had the two been necessarily
connected,—had baptism been the appointed channel for the conveyance of
the Spirit, Christ would undoubtedly have said so. Or rather, it would
have been sufficient for Him to have said, “Except a man _be baptized_,
he cannot enter into the kingdom of God;” and He certainly would not have
omitted the mention of baptism, as He did omit it, in His first solemn
asseveration to Nicodemus. The necessity of _the birth of the Spirit_
was evidently what Jesus wished to enforce upon His inquirer. This
therefore was the _first_ thing spoken of by Him. In His second address
He introduces water-baptism; as this would serve to make the spiritual
subject clearer, and because He would show that baptism was henceforth to
be the token of the Covenant: but how Nicodemus was to conclude from the
manner in which it was mentioned, that water was to be the means of
communicating the new birth, or that the two things were always to be
found together, it is not easy to imagine. Especially as in the very
same address he was told, that, in giving the new birth, the Holy Spirit
acts as “the wind _blowing where it listeth_.” Now baptism must always
be administered _at a specific time_; but is this the case with the
blowing of the wind? Did Christ then use an inappropriate metaphor? He
plainly tells Nicodemus, that as “a master of Israel” he ought to have
understood what He was speaking of. But what is there in the Old
Testament from which Nicodemus could have learned the necessary
connection of the new birth with any outward Ordinance? Was the
circumcision of the heart always connected with the circumcision of the
flesh? Had not the Lord, in the time of Moses, bidden the people of
Israel to “circumcise the foreskin of their hearts”? (Deut. x. 16.) And
had He not said of them by Jeremiah, “All the house of Israel are
uncircumcised in the heart”? (ix. 26.) _This_ was the doctrine to which
Nicodemus had been accustomed:—_the necessity_ of both the outward and
the inward circumcision, but _not_ their necessary connection with each
other. So likewise with the new birth and baptism.
And as Scripture is, and must be, consistent with Scripture, let the
latter part of Christ’s address to Nicodemus be compared with His
subsequent directions concerning baptism, and compared also with the
writings of His Apostles, and it will be seen, that _faith in Him_, which
He so frequently mentions as leading to salvation, _is that with which
the birth of the Spirit is connected_, and that _this faith is invariably
required before the administration of the Ordinance to any_. How then
can baptism with water convey the birth of the Spirit, unless Christ and
His Apostles be at issue with each other, and the order of things, which
He Himself appointed in His Church, be inverted? St. John expressly
declares in his Gospel, (i. 12, 13.) that “as many as received Him,
(Jesus Christ) to them _gave He power to become the sons of God_, even
_to them that believe on His name_; which were born, not of blood, nor of
the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.” And in his
First Epistle, (v. 1.) “_Whosoever believeth_ that Jesus is the Christ
_is born of God_.” And the order which Christ intended for the
administration of baptism by His Apostles was thus laid down for
them;—“He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.” And they acted
accordingly. No statement was ever more capable of proof than this, that
the birth of the Spirit may be without baptism, and baptism without the
birth of the Spirit. Can any doubt, that the penitent thief on the cross
was “born of the Spirit,” who yet was not baptized? Can any venture to
affirm, that Simon Magus, though baptized, was “born of the Spirit”? Did
not Peter tell him, that he “had neither part nor lot in the matter, for
his heart was not right in the sight of God”? Man must not put asunder
what God hath joined together; but neither must he of his own authority
join together what God hath left asunder. We cannot be in manifested
communion with the Church of Christ, if we wilfully neglect the Ordinance
which He appointed for His disciples; but we may be baptized, or “born of
water” and so be in professed communion with His Church, as Simon Magus
was, and yet be, like him, void of a lively faith and the inspiration of
Christ’s Spirit. As it has been well observed upon this subject; ‘It
would violate the principles of common sense and confound all specific
modes of instruction, to call that _a birth_ at which nothing was born,
and that person _new-born_ whose moral principles had received no
change.’ {20} The notion of an initial act—of the communication of
something in baptism, which may never be perceived, and never produce any
holy fruit,—has no sanction from Sacred Scripture. Our Lord here says
nothing like it. He speaks of _a second birth_,—_a new existence_,—and
that of a spiritual nature. “_That which is born of the Spirit is
spirit_” (v. 6.) The language is the same as that which describes a
man’s own entrance into this world of life and activity. And His
Apostles, when writing of this spiritual birth, always ascribe to it
perceptible and powerful effects. “We know,” writes St. John, (1 Ep. v.
18,) “that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten
of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not.” And
again, (v. 4,) “Whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world.” And
again, (iii. 10,) “_In this_ the children of God _are manifest_, and the
children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God.”
But if the birth of the Spirit, by which men are made the children of
God, necessarily accompany baptism, they may be at one and the same time
the children of God and the children of the devil! They may be the
children of God, as being born of His Spirit in baptism, and they may be
“manifested” to be the children of the devil by committing sin; for
thousands who have been baptized never show the least spiritual
disposition, but live and die under the dominion of iniquity! But it is
said, ‘The Spirit was given to them, and they lost it:—they were God’s
children, but they ceased to be such.’ Can _that_, with a shadow of
reason, be said to have been _lost_, of the possession of which there
never was the slightest evidence? Can _that_, with any propriety, be
said to _cease_, which, if the statement of the Apostle is to be the
standard of judgment, never began? “In this,” says St. John, “the
children of God _are manifest_.” Of thousands who have been baptized it
may be asked, when were they _manifested_ to be the children of God? And
the answer of truth must be, _Never_. They _never_ did
righteousness:—they _always_ committed sin. They were never therefore
“born of God:”—they never partook of the birth of the Spirit. “They went
out from us,” St. John says again of some who had been nominal members of
the Christian Church, “they went out from us, but they were not of us;
for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us.”
(1 Ep. ii. 19.) The only _seminal_ principle of grace which the
Scripture recognizes, is that, which this same Apostle speaks of; (iii.
9.) “Whosoever is born of God _doth not commit sin_, _for his seed
remaineth in him_; _and he cannot sin_, _because he is born of God_.”
This is in perfect harmony with Christ’s words to Nicodemus;—“The wind
bloweth where it listeth, and _thou hearest the sound thereof_:” thou
knowest that it is blowing by the effects which it produces: “_so_ is
every one who is born of the Spirit.” (v. 8.) But to believe that “the
wind bloweth,” when a leaf is not shaken, nor the slightest murmur in the
air heard, is so contradictory to the evidence of the senses, that after
this we might believe anything. Transubstantiation itself need not be
rejected by us. Why not believe a _material_ as well as a _moral_
change, if the exercise of the understanding and of the senses is to be
excluded? Nay, transubstantiation has a greater show of
Scripture-authority in its favour. Christ _did say_ of the bread and
wine, “This is my Body;” “This is my Blood:” but He never said, “Every
one who is born of water is born also of the Holy Spirit.” The uniform
tenor of His teaching was, that men’s profession and principles and
privileges should be tried by their practical effects. “By their fruits
ye shall know them.” (Matt. vii. 20.) And as transubstantiation might as
well be believed, as that every baptized person is necessarily “born of
the Spirit,” so, to claim the power of absolutely setting God on work to
new-create the soul in baptism, is little short of the presumption of the
Church of Rome, which asserts the power of her priests to turn the bread
and wine in the Sacrament of the Supper into Christ’s real Body and
Blood! It would _not_ then be true, (as declared in John i. 13,) that
“the sons of God we born, _not of the will of man_;” for baptism is
administered _at the will of man_;—whensoever and to whomsoever he
pleases.
The next thing to be noticed in Scripture in connection with this
subject, is _the Charge or Commission_ which the Lord Jesus gave to His
Apostles after His resurrection from the dead and before His ascension
into Heaven. In Matt, xxviii. 19., we find the Lord saying to the
Eleven, “Go ye therefore and teach all nations;”—or, as it is in the
margin, “make disciples of all nations;”—“baptizing them in the name of
the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; teaching them to
observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.” In Mark xvi. 15,
16., the Commission to the Eleven is thus given; “And He said unto them,
Go ye into all the world and preach the Gospel to every creature. He
that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not
shall be damned.” Now in both these passages the same course is
prescribed, which had been previously adopted by Christ Himself and by
His forerunner, John the Baptist. They (Christ and John) first made
disciples; and then baptized them, in token of their being disciples.
And the Apostles were to do the same. They were first to preach the
gospel, and then, when any believed it,—or, as God only knoweth the
hearts, (for the discerning of spirits was not possessed by _all_ who
preached the gospel, and does not appear to have been exercised in
ordinary ministrations,) when any professed to believe it, without giving
cause for a suspicion of insincerity, they were to baptize them; and when
the profession was sincere, the promise of salvation was _assured_ unto
them. And according to these directions the Apostles and other preachers
of the gospel acted. The Jews had hitherto been the peculiar people and
Church of God. But this state of things was to last no longer. The
gospel was certainly to be _first_ preached to the Jews, but not to be
confined to them. It was to be preached “to every creature.”—All nations
were to hear the glad tidings of salvation by Jesus Christ, and to be
called to “the obedience of faith.” “Repentance and remission of sins
were to be preached in Christ’s name among all nations.” _The teaching_,
then, which preceded baptism, and by which disciples were made to Christ,
was _the preaching of the gospel_. (Of this we have a direct proof in
Acts xiv. 21. “And when they (Paul and Barnabas) _had preached the
gospel to that city and had taught many_;”—or, as the latter word
properly signifies, “had brought many to the faith of Christ and made
them His disciples.”) And when the gospel was believed, the Sacrament of
baptism was to be administered, and then farther instruction to be given
in all things which Christ willed that His disciples should do. For thus
continuing baptism as the outward and visible token of believing upon
Him, the Lord Jesus gave no reason. The Ordinance, in fact, spake for
itself. The design of Christ’s death being to “redeem from all iniquity,
and to purify unto Himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works,”
what outward rite could more suitably be enjoined upon those who became
His disciples, than the washing with pure water? As we have seen
already, every proselyte to the Jews’ religion from among the heathen was
washed, or baptized, as well as circumcised. In founding the New
Testament Church, which was to consist of some of all nations on equal
terms with the Jews, the Lord lays aside the distinguishing Ordinance of
the Old Testament Church,—circumcision,—and retains that which was _its
appendage_ in the case of Gentile converts, namely, baptism. And how
delightfully consonant with the character of the New Dispensation was
this proceeding! Instead of the painful and bloody rite of circumcision,
water only is used;—pleasant and refreshing; and moreover, still more
significant: for while circumcision conveyed only the _negative_ idea of
the putting away of sin, baptism includes both the removal of uncleanness
and the production of its opposite state of purity. In the Commission,
then, which the Lord gave to His Apostles, we notice these two
things:—first, the universal proclamation to be made of the gospel; and
secondly, the limitation of baptism to those who should believe it. No
mention is made of the manner in which baptism was to be administered,
(of _the form of words_ we shall speak presently) nor is there any
distinction of country, condition, sex or age. Every one who should be
willing to give in his name to Christ and to be saved by Him, was to
partake of the rite of baptism. And this seems the proper place for the
remark, that as the use of water was thus made common to both
Dispensations, and as no new directions were given, the Apostles would
naturally be led to pursue the course which had previously prevailed with
respect to the baptism of proselytes to the Jews’ religion. These
proselytes had been worshippers of idols, and were therefore to be washed
or baptized, in token of their putting away of their idolatry and its
accompanying impurities. Proselytes to Christ—from all but the Jewish
people—would be of the same description. Circumcision was to cease, and
baptism with water alone to be retained, and to be applied alike to Jews
and Gentiles. Why then should not the same course be pursued as
heretofore? If the children of proselytes had been for the most part
baptized with their parents, why should not the same be continued?—The
children of believing Jews had received circumcision when eight days old,
as the token of the Covenant. Why should the children of those Jews who
believed in Christ,—in whom that very Covenant was confirmed, of which
circumcision was the token,—why should the children of these believing
Jews not have the token of the Covenant, as well as the children of their
believing forefathers? The Covenant is one and the same. “The Lord said
to Abraham, I will establish my Covenant between me and thee and thy seed
after thee, in their generations, for an everlasting Covenant, to be a
God unto thee and to thy seed after thee. And I will give unto thee, and
to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, for an
everlasting possession.” (Gen. xvii. 7, 8.) These promises were made to
Abraham, as “the father of all them that should believe.” The first
thing here promised is, that “the Lord would be a God unto Abraham and
his seed.” {27} And do not the words of Christ, when He commanded His
Apostles to baptize those who should become His disciples, _convey the
same idea_?—“baptizing them in, or into the name of the Father, and of
the Son, and of the Holy Ghost”? What is this but a declaration, that
the Triune Jehovah should be their God? The other part of the promise
is, that “Canaan” should be their “everlasting possession.” This by St.
Paul is called a “promise, that he should be the heir of the
world:”—which chiefly meant, that he and his true seed should inherit
Heaven. And does not St. Paul _decide the question_ as to the
continuance of Abraham’s Covenant by asserting, that believers in Christ
are heirs of Heaven _in virtue of this very promise made to Abraham_?
“If ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to
the promise.” (Gal. iii. 29.) The Covenant being thus the same, were
children not to be brought into the blessings and the bond of it, _simply
because the token of it was changed_? If (as it has been often observed
on this subject) the Lord had been pleased to continue the original token
of the Covenant made with Abraham, and had commanded His Apostles and
Ministers to circumcise, in the place of baptizing, all who should
embrace His gospel, would they not have continued the practice of the
Jewish Church, and have circumcised the children of all believing
parents? How much rather then, when He saith, Wash; simply baptize with
water;—it is my will, that this mild but significant element and emblem
be henceforth exclusively used in my Church! And having been hitherto
used in the admission of Gentile proselytes into the Jewish Church, it
forms a connection with the Covenant made with Abraham, _more manifest_
than any new Ordinance could possibly have done. Therefore there was no
need of any directions respecting the baptism of infants, as this would
naturally follow upon the continuance of the Abrahamic Covenant. Nay,
after all that had taken place, if Christ had not intended that the
children of believers should partake of this Sacrament, as well as the
parents, a prohibition to this effect would have been needed. But
nothing of the kind was given. On the contrary, (to pass on for a moment
to another portion of Scripture,) the very first day on which the
Apostles began to execute the Commission which Christ had given them,
Peter said to those who expressed a desire to become Christ’s disciples,
“_The promise is unto you and to your children_.” (Acts ii. 39.) This
certainly did not look like an intention of excluding children from
sharing with their parents in the Ordinances of the Church of God!
It has been stated, that some farther notice would be taken of _the form
of words_ to be used in the administration of baptism. Whether the Lord
Jesus meant, that the precise form, “In the name of the Father, and of
the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,” should invariably be employed, may admit
of a question. Baptized persons were doubtless dedicated to the service
of the glorious and blessed Trinity. They were baptized _into_ the name
of the Triune God. But it cannot be certainly proved, that the Lord
Jesus intended that these very words should be used on each occasion.
And it is remarkable, that in the subsequent account of instances of
baptism in The Acts of the Apostles, it is called “being baptized in the
name of the Lord Jesus.” Irenæus observes, that this might be the
putting of a part for the whole, and that so it would be generally
understood. The safest course has, however, been taken in the Christian
Church by the retention of _the precise form_ found in the Commission
given by Christ to His Apostles; and no objection can be justly brought
against it.
This is all that is found in The Gospels, _directly_ applicable to the
Sacrament of Baptism.