overlooked in connection with the subject of the administration of
baptism to children;—though baptism itself is not mentioned in it. St.
Matthew, St. Mark, and St. Luke, relate the bringing of little children
or infants, or both, either by their parents or others interested for
them, to Christ, “that He should put His hands on them and pray for
them.” The disciples, unwilling probably that their Master should be
troubled with such an application, “rebuked those who brought them: but
when Jesus saw it, He was much displeased” with the disciples, “and said
unto them, Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them
not; for of such is the kingdom of God. Verily I say unto you, Whosoever
shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not
enter therein. And He took them up in His arms, put His hands upon them,
and blessed them.” (Mark x. 13–16.) What doubtless increased Christ’s
displeasure at the conduct of His disciples was their evident
forgetfulness of what had passed a short time before; when, a dispute
having arisen among them who should be the greatest, He set a child in
the midst of them and proposed him as a pattern of humility, unto which
He declared all the subjects of His kingdom must be conformed. With
respect to the children thus brought to Christ, He only acted in His
usual benevolent manner, when He complied with the request made of Him
concerning them. He was asked to “put His hands on them and to
pray,”—that is, for a blessing to rest upon them. This therefore He did.
The word “blessed”—He “blessed them”—is the same with that used by
Himself in His sermon on the Mount: “bless them that curse you:”—the
meaning of which is, ‘Pray that blessings may come upon those who call
down curses upon you.’ And when Jesus blessed the children which were
brought to Him, He commended them by prayer to the compassion and favour
of His heavenly Father. This is all that we can legitimately conclude
from what is here said. Jesus manifested the same kindness of heart
towards the rich young ruler, mentioned immediately afterwards; when
“beholding him, He loved him;” though this object of His love went away
from Him, and there is every reason to fear that his riches proved the
cause of his ruin. The same disposition of benevolence which led the
Lord Jesus to pray for the children that were brought to Him, led Him
also to pray for His murderers; for while hanging on the cross, He cried,
“Father, forgive them.” But, were all that were engaged in putting Him
to death really forgiven? Did not many of them continue in impenitence
and unbelief? Undoubtedly they did. It is impossible, therefore, to
conclude _absolutely_ that even these children which were brought to
Christ were _eternally saved_, whatever _hope_ and charitable opinion may
be entertained on the subject. But He farther said respecting them,—“Of
such is the kingdom of God.” What then did He mean by this declaration?
It is to be observed, that this was said by Jesus of these children, _not
after_ they had been brought to Him and blessed by Him, but _before_ they
were so brought, and _as the reason why they should be brought to Him_:
“For of such is the kingdom of God.” Now it is evident that Christ does
not say this of children as they are _by nature_. He Himself had before
described the heart of man, that is, the nature of man, as full of all
evil. (See Mark vii. 26.) And though these children might have been
circumcised, yet _this_ does not appear to have been contemplated by
Christ when He spake of them: and we know from what St. Paul says, as
well as from other Scriptures, that the outward circumcision was by no
means always accompanied with the circumcision of the heart. Nor does
there appear to have been anything _peculiar_ in this case, to which
Christ’s observations were confined. If so, _we_ should have nothing
whatever to do with it. It seems to be of children, _as children_, that
He here speaks;—not of _children brought to Him_, (as already noticed)
but of _children in general_: “Of such is the kingdom of God.” These
words, _strictly taken_, would intimate, that they were in the kingdom of
God already; for He does not say this of them _after_ that they had been
blessed by Him, but He says it of them _before_. It was not, therefore,
_His reception of them_ which caused Him to speak thus concerning them.
The true view of the subject seems to be this;—that, while the whole
transaction wears a kind and gracious aspect toward man’s helpless
offspring, Jesus had special regard in it to _the dispositions found in
children_;—for by reason of infantile weakness corruption is then unable
to manifest itself, and all appears to be gentleness and
loveliness;—pride and malice and such like evils being necessarily
absent, and humility and lowliness and dependance and such like tempers
being by the same necessity present. So that it was with regard to
_these_, rather than to _the subjects of them_, that Jesus said, “Of such
is the kingdom of God.” This view harmonizes exactly with what He said
in immediate connection with the words we are considering: “Verily, I say
unto you, whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as _a little
child_, he shall not enter therein.” The great object of the Lord
evidently was, to set forth children, both as to what is _not_ seen in
them, and what _is_ found in their meek, passive, harmless, submissive,
and dependant state, as the pattern for His disciples’ imitation;—as, in
fact, the exhibition of what must be found in every one, who would be a
real subject of His kingdom. And that it was of _the age of infancy or
childhood_, and not of the persons of the children themselves, that
Christ was here speaking, is confirmed by a reference to the circumstance
already mentioned, which is related by St. Matthew, in the beginning of
the eighteenth Chapter, and which had occurred not long before the
bringing of the children to Him. “The disciples came unto Jesus, saying,
Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven? And Jesus called a little
child unto Him, and set him in the midst of them, and said, Verily, I say
unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as _little children_, ye
shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. Whosoever therefore shall
humble himself as this little child,”—that is, so as to be as this little
child is,—“the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven.” Now it cannot
be supposed, that this child was selected by Christ as having any
peculiar excellency in him. _Any child_ would doubtless have served His
purpose:—the child of a Gentile as well as of a Jew. Neither _the
nature_ of the child, nor _the state of the child’s soul in the sight of
God_, had any thing to do with the use which the Lord here makes of him.
It was _the state of childhood_ that Christ evidently had respect unto,
and this He makes the model of His disciples. Just as David had
said,—“My soul is even as _a weaned child_;” and as St. Paul afterwards
wrote to the Corinthians,—“In malice be ye _children_.” And if farther
evidence that this was Christ’s meaning be needed, it is found in the
transition which He, as it were, insensibly makes from the “little
children” to “believers in Him;” “_those little ones_,” (the word used by
Him being changed,) “_those little ones_,” He calls them, “_which believe
in me_;”—evidently referring to such as regard themselves to be the
meanest and most humble of His disciples. With respect to children
themselves, personally considered, the words of Christ seem only to
convey a general expression of good will toward them,—to be understood
and applied in conformity with other declarations of the Inspired Word.
As to the bearing of this whole passage upon _baptism_, it is impossible
to prove by it the connection of the new birth with baptism, or indeed
anything about baptism at all;—except that it affords great encouragement
to godly parents to bring their children to this Ordinance, and in it to
present and dedicate them to the Lord their God. If we attempt to force
the application of the passage, it may be turned against ourselves, and
used as an argument for doing without the baptism of children altogether:
for Christ does not say anything about the baptism of the children
brought to Him, although baptism was then in use among His disciples.
His silence respecting it is no valid argument against it; but it
prevents the possibility of proving anything _absolutely_ as to the
effect of baptism from this occurrence. In truth, the circumstances of
the cases must be analogous, before _any_ application can fairly be made
of it. Children must not be brought in gross ignorance and utter
carelessness to be baptized, that they may receive their name from a
minister, or for some other merely temporal object, without any regard to
Christ or His grace, and this be said to correspond with what was done
for the children in the history before us. This is to profane Christ’s
Sacrament; and shall the profanation of it be attended with a blessing?
No wonder that baptized children show no benefit from their baptism, when
it has really not been a bringing of them to Christ at all:—Christ having
never been thought of from first to last. If an appeal be made to the
supposed efficacy of _the Ordinance itself_, then this passage has
nothing to do with the subject. Other Scriptures must be resorted to,
wherein reference _is_ made to baptism. From what was done and said on
this occasion, believing parents, anxious for the salvation of their
children, may draw much encouragement to bring them to Christ in baptism,
and to pray and hope for a blessing, in connection with the subsequent
use of means for their spiritual good: and they who act thus, comply much
more with His mind and spirit, than those who withhold their children
from the Ordinance. But no absolute and unconditional benefit in baptism
can by any fair process of reasoning be deduced from it.
* * * * *
We proceed, then, to examine the passages in ‘The Acts of the Apostles,’
which relate to the subject of Baptism; and we shall there see the
directions which Christ gave them concerning it carried into effect.
No sooner had the Apostles begun to execute their important Commission by
preaching the gospel on the day of Pentecost, than God gave testimony to
their word by convincing many of sin, especially of the sin of
“crucifying the Lord of glory;” and they “said unto Peter and to the rest
of the Apostles,” (as we read in Acts ii. 37,) “Men and brethren, what
shall we do?” To this Peter answered, “Repent, and be baptized every one
of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye
shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you
and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the
Lord our God shall call.” In this exhortation, the principle enjoined by
Christ upon the Apostles is found. Repentance and faith are first
required. For the expressions, “Be baptized _in the name of Jesus
Christ_,” do certainly mean, “Make an open profession of your believing
in Jesus Christ, by being baptized in His name.” That this is their
meaning there can be no doubt, when we consider what is said immediately
afterwards: (v. 41.) “Then _they that gladly received his word_” (and how
is the word received but by faith? See 1 Thess. ii. 13,) “were baptized;
and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.
And they continued stedfastly in the Apostles’ doctrine and fellowship,
and in breaking of bread and in prayers.” Here, then, things were as
Christ intended them to be. They who were convinced of sin ask what they
shall do—that is, to be saved. They are told to repent, and openly to
confess Christ—that is, that they believed in Him as the Saviour—by being
baptized. And they are assured, that upon doing _these things_—(the
whole exhortation being taken together) they should receive “remission of
their sins” and “the gift of the Holy Ghost.” They gladly received the
word preached to them; and they were then baptized; and while their
baptism was a public profession of repentance and faith on their part, it
would doubtless be a means of grace to them, and a seal and pledge on
God’s part of the forgiveness of their sins and of His good-will and
favour towards them. And this was the right and legitimate use of the
Ordinance.
The next instance recorded in The Acts of the Apostles is that of the
people of Samaria, to whom Philip went and preached Christ, (viii. 5.)
They had for a long time been bewitched with the sorceries of a certain
man, called Simon; but, it is added, “when they believed Philip,
preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus
Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.” The same order is seen
here, as at Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost. They first _believe_, and
then _are baptized_. But now a very different case presents itself to
us. Simon, the sorcerer himself, is said also to have believed and been
baptized, and to have “continued with Philip,” (having of course ceased
from his sorceries) “and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which
were done” by him. Some think, that by pretending to be Philip’s
disciple Simon hoped to be able to do the same; for that his opinion of
Philip was, that he was but a more skilful sorcerer than himself. It
appears that the Holy Ghost—by which the extraordinary gifts of the
Spirit, the ability to speak divers languages and such like, are
undoubtedly meant,—had not fallen upon any of the people of Samaria at
their baptism, but was reserved to be bestowed in answer to the prayers
of the Apostles and by the imposition of their hands. For “when the
Apostles at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God,
they sent unto them Peter and John: who, when they were come down, prayed
for them that they might receive the Holy Ghost: then laid they their
hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.” (v. 14, 15.) The
effect of this gift must have been immediately perceptible by others; for
it led to that bold and blasphemous offer of money by Simon to the
Apostles, which betrayed the hypocrisy, and pride, and wickedness of his
heart. “When Simon saw, that through laying on of the Apostles’ hands
the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money, saying, Give me also
this power, that on whomsoever I lay hands, he may receive the Holy
Ghost.” (v. 18, 19.) Peter’s indignant reply to him proves, that, though
he had been baptized, he was in heart a sorcerer still. “The dog had
turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed, to her
wallowing in the mire.” (2 Peter ii. 22.) No change whatever had taken
place in his character. And no change seems to have taken place in him
afterwards; if we may judge from what he said to the Apostles. For when
Peter denounced the just judgment of God against him, and declared that
he “had neither part nor lot in the matter,” there was no sign of real
penitence in his expressions. He deprecated the judgment indeed, and
asked the Apostles to pray for him that it might not come upon him.
“Pray ye to the Lord for me, that none of these things which ye have
spoken come upon me.” (v, 24.) But even Pharaoh went farther than this.
He said to Moses and Aaron, “Intreat the Lord, that He may take away this
death from me;” but he also added, “I have sinned:” “I am wicked:”—a
confession, which Simon never made; for it is to be feared that the
conviction of it he never felt. And his case incontestably proves, that
professions and Ordinances avail nothing, unless the “heart” be also
“right in the sight of God.”
In this same Chapter we have an account of the baptism of the Ethiopian
Eunuch. As far as his knowledge reached, this interesting person was a
sincere and devout worshipper of the true God: but, as in the case of
Cornelius afterwards, it was necessary that he should be brought to the
clear and full knowledge of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Philip therefore
is sent to instruct him, and is gladly received by him as his teacher.
Philip, taking as his text the place of Scripture which he found the
Eunuch reading, “preached unto him Jesus.” And his word was mixed with
faith in him that heard it. And coming to a certain water, the Eunuch,
having learned what was the rite of initiation which Christ had
appointed, was anxious to take this opportunity of being openly received
into the number of His disciples; and he therefore asked Philip, “What
doth hinder me to be baptized?” Our Authorized Version has a reply from
Philip and a confession of faith by the Eunuch, which are not found in
many very ancient Manuscripts. Beza says of this verse, “God forbid I
should think it ought to be expunged, since it contains such a confession
of faith, as was in the Apostolic ages required of adults, in order to
their being admitted to baptism.” But whether it be genuine or not, is
of no material consequence. Christ had confined baptism to believers, in
His instructions to His Apostles; and this verse only repeats the
limitation. “If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayst” be
baptized. And as for the confession of faith attributed to the Eunuch,
it is plain that he was prepared and willing to make it. “I believe that
Jesus Christ is the Son of God.” Both he and Philip then went down into
the water, and Philip baptized him. In what manner, we are not told; nor
do even the expressions, “into the water,” decide whether it was by
immersion or the pouring or sprinkling of some of the water on his
person. If the mode of administration had been essential to the validity
of the Sacrament, no doubt it would have been mentioned. But neither
here nor any where else is this the case. The Eunuch, then, having thus
received the grace of the Covenant and the seal of the Covenant,
confirmed too by the sign of Philip’s miraculous removal from him,—“went
on his way rejoicing.” (v. 39.)
In the next Chapter, the ninth, we have an account of the conversion and
baptism of Saul of Tarsus. The Lord Jesus appeared to him as he went to
Damascus to persecute the disciples which might be found there: and Saul,
having fallen to the ground and being told that that same Jesus whom he
persecuted stood before him, exclaimed with all humility and entire
submission, “Lord, what wilt thou have me to do?” One of the most
astonishing instances of a sudden change of mind on record! The Lord
then bade Saul “arise” from the earth, in order that he might hear what
more He had to say to him. And well might Saul be overwhelmed by the
communication which the Lord Jesus proceeds to make to him! In the
account given in this ninth Chapter, it is briefly stated that the Lord
commanded him to “go into the city,” (Damascus) and that “it should be
told him what he must do.” This no doubt was a part of His
communication. But by a reference to the account of this transaction
given by himself before Agrippa, as recorded in the xxvith Chapter of
this Book, it appears that the Lord made known to Saul _at that very
time_ much of His mind and will concerning him; and that He said to him,
“I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a Minister and
a Witness both of these things which thou hast seen, and of those things
in the which I will appear unto thee; delivering thee from the people and
from the Gentiles, unto whom now I send thee, to open their eyes, and to
turn them from darkness to light and from the power of Satan unto God,
that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them
which are sanctified by faith that is in me.” (v. 16–18) After this,
Saul went into Damascus, and was three days without sight or food.
Ananias was then sent to him by the Lord Jesus; and having put his hands
upon him that he might receive his sight, and having repeated to him the
Commission which Jesus had in person given to him, said, (as we read in
the account of this event given in the xxiind Chapter,) “And now why
tarriest thou? Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling
on the name of the Lord.” And he “arose, and was baptized.” This
address of Ananias to Saul, taken by itself, would seem to connect the
forgiveness or putting away of sin with the act of baptism. But were not
Saul’s sins forgiven before his baptism? And did he not know that they
were forgiven? Suppose a subject to have a very mistaken view of his
Sovereign’s title to the crown, and an ignorant but very fervid zeal for
some other. Suppose him not to have taken due pains to correct his
error, and to be at the same time under the influence of much
high-mindedness and self-confidence. He takes up arms against his
Prince, and for a season is very successful in his efforts. But suddenly
he finds himself in his power:—and at the same time his eyes are
opened;—and he is convinced of the mistake which he had made, and of the
delusion under which he had been acting. He now casts himself at his
Sovereign’s feet, and professes his willingness to be at his absolute
disposal for the future. Suppose the generous Monarch to reply;—‘I know
that thou wast engaged in a blind and unequal contest with me: (“it is
hard for thee to kick against the pricks:”) but I am come to tell thee,
that I have appointed thee my Ambassador Extraordinary and
Plenipotentiary, and am about to send thee forth to a distant kingdom,
there to transact for me some difficult and important business, in which
my honour and interest and the interest of my subjects are greatly
concerned: (“For I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee
a Minister and a Witness of these things which thou hast seen:”) I will
from time to time communicate most confidentially with thee: (“and of
those things in the which I will appear unto thee:”) all my authority and
power shall be put forth for thy personal preservation: (“delivering thee
from the people and from the Gentiles, unto whom now I send thee:”) and
nothing shall be wanting on my part to make thine Ambassage successful.’
(“to open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light and from
the power of Satan unto God, &c.”) Would this subject, after such a
communication and commission,—delivered too by his Prince in person—have
any doubt on his mind respecting the pardon of his rebellion? He might
for a few days retire into secret, to reflect on his case;—to consider
the evil of his own conduct, and the noble and generous manner in which
he had been treated, when he might justly have been dealt with in a very
different way. But his preferment of necessity involved his pardon and
his full and complete establishment in his Sovereign’s favour. How could
he, in the very nature of things, execute the Commission given to him, if
he were to be put to death for his treason? Nevertheless, it might be
very expedient, that a public manifestation should be made to the kingdom
of this change in the state of things: for the Prince’s visit to his
subject was in secret, though not the least suspicion could attach to the
truth and sincerity of it. A public Ceremony might, therefore, take
place, at which his own change of mind and his Sovereign’s pardon might
be proclaimed, and his sealed Commission delivered into his hands:—but
this, however important, would follow the previous interview as a matter
of course. What has thus been _supposed_ was more than fulfilled in the
case of Saul of Tarsus: for no communication among men could equal the
condescension and grace of the Lord Jesus towards him and the confidence
which He reposed in him. And the manner in which Ananias spake to Saul
of his baptism seems to convey the last-mentioned idea; namely, that,
however necessary, it was to take place as a matter of course. “_And now
why tarriest thou_? _Arise_, _and be baptized_, _and wash away thy
sins_, _calling on the name of the Lord_.” This washing away of his sins
in baptism was a mystical or emblematical washing. It was a public
manifestation of his penitence and his pardon. It was on his part an
open avowal of submission to Christ; and on the part of the Lord Jesus
Christ it was an equally open avowal of the acceptance of his submission,
and a seal of his sonship and security. Hereby his faith would be
confirmed, and his grace increased by virtue of “calling on the name of
the Lord.” But how could this confirmation and increase take place,
unless faith and grace had been possessed by him previously?
The baptism of Cornelius and his company, recorded in Chapter x., is the
next instance we meet with in Scripture of the administration of this
Sacrament of the Christian Church. This case is remarkable as being the
first-fruits of the Gentiles unto Christ. Peter—to whom Christ had given
“the keys of the kingdom of Heaven,” (Matt. xvi. 19,) that is, the high
privilege of opening the door of faith both to the Jews and to the
Gentiles,—was sent by God to preach the gospel to this Roman Centurion.
His objections, as a Jew, to go unto one of another nation having been
removed by a vision, Peter went to the house of Cornelius, where he found
him and his kinsmen and near friends assembled together to receive and to
hear him. He faithfully preached Christ unto them: and while he spake
those important words, “To Him give all the prophets witness, that,
through His name, whosoever believeth in Him shall receive remission of
sins,” “the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.” Under the
influence of the Spirit they “spake with tongues, and magnified God.
Then answered Peter, Can any man forbid water, that these should not be
baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? And he
commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord.” (43–47.) In the
case of the people of Samaria, the Holy Ghost was not given when they
were baptized, but _some time after_;—when the Apostles Peter and John,
came down from Jerusalem and laid their hands upon them. In the case of
Cornelius and his friends, the same Holy Spirit was given before their
baptism, and while Peter was preaching the gospel to them. Thus it was
not always _at_ the administration of the Ordinance that the Holy Ghost
was given. And though the immediate effect of this gift of the Spirit
was manifested in the power to speak with tongues and to prophesy, yet it
also enabled and disposed them to “magnify God:” thereby showing, that
His ordinary sanctifying operations were included. Well then might
Cornelius and they who were with him receive the outward and visible sign
of baptism by water, since they had already received the thing signified
by it!