worthy of particular attention. They occurred at Philippi, in Macedonia;
to which country St. Paul and his company had been called by a vision to
preach the gospel there. The first of these is the case of a woman named
Lydia. In the 13th and 14th verses the sacred historian writes; “And on
the Sabbath we went out of the city by a river side, where prayer was
wont to be made; and we spake unto the women which resorted thither. And
a certain woman, named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of
Thyatira, which worshipped God, heard us: whose heart the Lord opened,
that she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul.” In
consequence of the opening of her heart by the Lord, she heard to her
soul’s profit. She received the gospel which Paul preached. We are then
told concerning her, that “she was baptized, and her household.” And her
faith brought forth fruit: for she immediately invited the Apostle and
those who were with him, to come and abide at her house; and she would
not take a denial. They therefore abode with her many days. Another
case then occurred, which served to show why they had been called to
preach the gospel in Macedonia. Paul and Silas having been thrown into
prison for casting a spirit of divination out of a certain damsel, the
Lord sent a great earthquake at midnight, which opened the doors of the
prison, and awoke the jailor; who, fearing that the prisoners had fled,
drew his sword and was about to kill himself; when Paul assured him that
they were all there. Upon this, “he sprang in, and fell down before Paul
and Silas, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” Paul and Silas
immediately preached the gospel to him, saying, “Believe on the Lord
Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.” They then at
greater length “spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were
in his house.” The same success attended the word, as in the case of
Lydia. And his faith, like her’s, wrought by love; for he immediately
began to show all the attention in his power to Paul and Silas. And as
Lydia was baptized, and her household, so it is said that the jailor “was
baptized, he and all his, straightway.” Now it is evident, that in the
baptizing of the two principal persons in this history, Lydia and the
jailor, the same course was pursued by the Apostle as in all the other
instances which have been considered. They first believed in the Lord
Jesus Christ, and then they were baptized. But a new feature presents
itself on both these occasions; that is, the baptizing of their
households. And hence has been drawn a very common argument in favour of
the baptizing of children; as it has been thought _probable_ that
children formed a part of these households. Beside these cases, there
are only two other, in which the house or family is spoken of in the New
Testament in connection with the head of the house,—the house of Crispus
and the house of Stephanas; and though it is taking them out of their
order, it may be well to notice them also here. Let us consider first
the case of the jailor. It is said that “he was baptized, and all
his,”—that is, “all his house;” to whom, as well as to himself, Paul and
Silas had “spoken the word of the Lord.” But if we are told that _they
were baptized_, we are also told that _they believed_. In the 34th verse
we read, that the jailor “rejoiced, believing in God with all his house.”
In order to force this case to support Infant-baptism, an attempt is
sometimes made to change the construction of the sentence, _thus_; “He,
believing in God, rejoiced with all his house.” This makes very little
difference in the meaning. For if his house were capable of rejoicing
with him, they must have been of a sufficient age to understand _why_
they rejoiced: and as his faith in Christ was the cause of _his_ joy, it
must have been also the cause of _theirs_; and if they could rejoice in
_his_ faith, why might they not have had faith _of their own_ to rejoice
in? But the Greek will not admit of the above construction. The adverb
translated “with all his house” must be referred to the participle
“believing,” which in the Original follows it; and these words express
the reason of his joy, which was, his own faith and the faith of his
family. Beza gives _this_ as the sense of the latter part of the 34th
verse; “He,” that is, the jailor, “rejoiced because that with the whole
of his house he had believed in God.” {50} _As believers_, therefore,—of
whomsoever his “house” consisted—they were entitled to baptism _on their
own account_, and thus they stood precisely in the same situation with
himself. And _no inference_ can _hence_ be drawn respecting
Infant-baptism. Of Crispus, the chief ruler of the Synagogue at Corinth,
mentioned in the xviiith Chapter, it is at once said that he “believed on
the Lord with all his house;” and though their baptism is not
particularly spoken of, it would of course take place with the baptism of
the other believing Corinthians. From St. Paul’s First Epistle to the
Corinthians we learn that he himself baptized Crispus;—no mention being
made of his household: but as we are informed that they were _believers_,
they would certainly be baptized, like the household of the Philippian
jailor. This case, therefore, does not apply to the subject of
Infant-baptism. Neither does the baptizing of the house of Stephanas.
St. Paul tells the Corinthians, in the beginning of his First Epistle,
that he baptized this house: but what does he say of them at the close of
the Epistle? “Ye know,” he says, “the house of Stephanas, that it is
_the first fruits of Achaia_, _and that they have addicted themselves to
the ministry of the saints_:” (xvi. 15.)—a description this, of _personal
religion_; and proving that they were _all_ capable of meeting the
requirements of baptism _in their own persons_. The only remaining case
in which a household is said to have been baptized, is that of Lydia at
Philippi. Now it seems evident from her history that she had no husband.
The house is twice called _her house_; and _the household_ is called
_hers_ also. And the invitation to Paul and his company is given _by
herself and in her own name_. “Come into _my house_, and abide there.”
(v. 15.) This language could never have been used of her and by her, if
she had had a husband. Nor does it appear at all likely, that she was a
widow with children; for, from the particularity with which her
circumstances are related, there is every probability that, had this been
the case, some intimation would have been given of it. We have not only
_her name_ mentioned, but _the place_ she came from or still belonged to,
and _the business_ which she followed: but no allusion whatever to any
family. She could not have been a person in a low condition of life, or
she would not have been able to receive and entertain in her house for
many days the Apostle and those who were with him. She would therefore
have “household servants,” and probably persons to assist her in her
business as “a seller of purple.” But the whole tenor of her history is
against the supposition, that there were in her house _any who could not
answer for themselves_. It appears, then, from the consideration of the
cases in which the baptizing of households is mentioned in Scripture,
that no argument whatever can be deduced from them on the subject of
Infant-baptism. A reference to them, therefore, only gives an advantage
to the opponents of the practice:—an argument which will not bear close
examination being always worse than none.
The xviiith Chapter of this Book of The Acts of the Apostles contains the
account of Crispus and his house just referred to. It is also simply,
though very strikingly, said of many others of the Corinthians, that they
“heard,”—they “believed,”—and they “were baptized.” (v. 8.) Faith came
by hearing; and baptism, according to the institution of Christ, followed
faith.
There only remains, in this Book of The Acts of the Apostles, another
instance of baptism to be noticed; and this occurred at Ephesus. It is
related in the beginning of the nineteenth Chapter. “Paul came to
Ephesus, and finding certain disciples, he said unto them, have ye
received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We
have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.” We are
reminded here of that passage in the Seventh Chapter of St. John, (v.
39.) where the Evangelist, referring to some words of the Lord Jesus,
says, “This spake He of the Spirit, which they that believe on Him
should”—that is, afterwards—“receive;”—adding, “for the Holy Ghost was
not yet given, because that Jesus was not yet glorified.” The literal
translation of the latter part of this text is, “for the Holy Ghost was
not yet:”—from which it would appear, that at that time there was no Holy
Ghost; and therefore that the ignorance of His existence, of which the
disciples at Ephesus seem to speak, was not so much to be wondered at.
But the solution of the difficulty is probably the same in both cases.
When St. John says, “For the Holy Ghost was not yet, because that Jesus
was not yet glorified,” his meaning is made plain by the very proper
introduction into our translation of the word “given;”—“for the Holy
Ghost was not yet given.” This evidently refers to the extraordinary and
abundant pouring out of the Holy Spirit, which was reserved until Jesus
had ascended up on high, and (according to the prophecy in the lxviiith
Psalm) had “received gifts for men;” and when He received them, He shed
them forth, first upon His Apostles on the day of Pentecost, and
afterwards upon multitudes of believers, generally by the laying on of
their hands. But the disciples at Ephesus had not heard of these things.
They had had no communication with any Christian Church or people; and
thus, though they had been baptized with the baptism of John, as they
tell the Apostle Paul in answer to his next question, “Unto what then
were ye baptized?”—and _must_ therefore have heard of the existence of
the Holy Ghost, yet they had not heard of His having been given; and they
express their ignorance in language very like to that which the
Evangelist uses, when he is describing the period before the gift of the
Spirit on the day of Pentecost. This seems a reasonable account of the
matter. And if the same course had been pursued in the translation of
both texts, the likeness between them would have been very evident. In
the passage in St. John the explanatory word “given” is introduced. In
the Chapter before us, not only is this or any such word omitted, but the
word “any” is added,—“_any_ Holy Ghost,” without a word in the Original
to justify it. The literal rendering would be; “We have not even heard
whether the Holy Ghost is.” Now if the word “given,” or “come,” were
added, as in St. John, the two passages would exactly correspond:—“The
Holy Ghost was not yet given:”—“We have not even heard whether the Holy
Ghost is given.” These persons had probably not been long at Ephesus,
but might have been (as Dr. Whitby suggests) “travelling into other parts
of the world, where the gospel had not yet been planted.” But a question
has arisen, whether what is said in the fifth verse relates to _them_, or
whether it is not a continuation of St. Paul’s description of John’s
baptism, begun in the verse before. “When they heard this, they were
baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.” The objection to the
application of this to the twelve disciples found at Ephesus is, that it
involves a repetition of the Ordinance of baptism. But though John’s
baptism and the Christian Sacrament were administered _substantially_
upon the same principles, there was a sufficient difference between them
to warrant the baptizing again, in the name of the Sacred Trinity, of
those who might already have partaken of John’s baptism. The baptism of
John was connected with an intermediate, or, at most, an introductory
dispensation. It was, what the Apostle says of the tabernacle,—“for the
time then present.” But after that Christ had appointed baptism “in the
name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,” as the door
of entrance into His Church for believers, there was no reason why such
as had been baptized with John’s baptism should not be admitted to
Christ’s Ordinance also, if occasion seemed to require it. And indeed
St. Paul’s question, “Unto what then were ye baptized?” seems to
recognize a distinction of baptisms. But no argument whatever can be
founded upon this case for the repetition of baptism _under the same
Dispensation_. To suppose that the words in the 5th verse are a
continuation of St. Paul’s description of John’s baptism, would be
inconsistent with the natural course of the narrative; and to say that
John “baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus,” would be to speak of his
baptism as it is no where else spoken of. Beside, the persons on whom
St. Paul laid his hands, as stated in the 6th verse, were the disciples
found at Ephesus, and not the people in general who were baptized by
John. So that it appears that what is said in the 5th verse relates to
these disciples. Their knowledge was very limited; but they had the
characteristic dispositions of disciples,—humility and teachableness; and
thus, when they were farther instructed by St. Paul in the things
concerning the Lord Jesus Christ, they, no doubt with the greatest
willingness, were baptized in His name. And then as in the case of
Samaria, “when the Apostle had laid his hands upon them,” (but not
before,) “the Holy Ghost came on them, and they spake with tongues and
prophesied.”
This is all that is said on the subject of baptism, as a Sacrament of the
Christian Church, in the Scripture-history of The Acts of the Apostles.
* * * * *
We come, then, to The Epistles.
The first passage we meet with on our subject is in the sixth Chapter of
the Epistle to the Romans. St. Paul, the writer of this Epistle, had
been dwelling, in the former Chapters, upon the great gospel-doctrine of
salvation by grace through faith. He had declared, that “a man is
justified by faith without the deeds of the law;” (iii. 28,) that in this
way Abraham was justified; (iv. 3,) and that in this way every one else
must be justified: (iv. 24,) and in the latter part of the fifth Chapter
he had spoken strongly of God’s grace much more abounding where man’s sin
abounded. The Apostle, then in the beginning of the sixth Chapter
anticipates an abuse which might be made of this doctrine, and corrects
it. “What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin,” in order “that
grace may abound? God forbid!” Abhorred be the thought! And he
proceeds to reason upon this; and to show, not only its _incongruity_,
but (in a sense which other Scriptures allow) its _impossibility_:—“How
shall _we_ that _are dead_ to sin, _live_ any longer therein?” And then
he brings in the subject of their baptism. “Know ye not, that so many of
us as were baptized into Jesus Christ, were baptized into His death?
Therefore we are buried with Him by baptism into death; that like as
Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we
also should walk in newness of life.” (v. 3, 4.) After what we have seen
already of baptism, as administered by the Apostles and others, we can be
at no loss to perceive the meaning of St. Paul’s expression, “baptized
into Christ.” According to His own command, all who believed in Him were
baptized; and this act or Ordinance was their open avowal of faith in
Him,—their public and palpable engrafting and incorporation into Him and
His Church,—and their solemn dedication and consecration to the love,
worship, and service of God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. {57}
Their baptism into Christ, consequent upon, and declarative of, their
faith in Him, publicly and manifestly bound them unto Him;—to strict and
spiritual conformity with Him. And thus the Apostle goes on to remind
those who had been “baptized into Christ,”—for the Epistle was addressed
to those at Rome who were “beloved of God and called to be saints,” and
whose “faith was spoken of throughout the whole world,” (i. 7, 8,)—that
they were “baptized into His death;” that is, into conformity to His
death; that in virtue of His dying for their sins, and after the pattern
of this His death, and by motives and considerations drawn from His
death, they should die to all sin and be delivered from the reigning
power of it. ‘The faithful,’ observes Beza on this expression, ‘are said
to be baptized into the death of Christ, that through His death sin may
die and be abolished in them.’ And to carry this conformity still
farther, St. Paul adds, “Therefore we are buried with Him by baptism into
death.” For as Christ’s burial was a manifestation of the reality of His
death, so ought it to be also with them respecting sin. It was likewise
an introduction to, and preparation for, His glorious resurrection. And
thus the Apostle proceeds with his exhortation;—“that like as Christ was
raised from the dead by the glory (the glorious power) of the Father,
even so we also (we who are baptized into Him) should walk in newness of
life.” And in the following verses—indeed to the end of the Chapter—St.
Paul presses the Roman Christians to devotedness to God’s service, in
language the most forcible which could have been made use of. Here then
we see what baptism is, in the case of real believers: and it is of such
alone that the Apostle here speaks. The obligations which result from it
to righteousness and holiness are of the strongest possible description.
And these obligations have their influence upon the faithful; though that
influence is capable of a continued increase. How different is this from
a service which is “outward” only “in the flesh!”
The expressions, “buried with Christ by baptism” and “walking in newness
of life” “after the pattern of His resurrection,” seem to imply, that the
method of baptizing was by immersion, or plunging the whole body under
water, from which it would come forth as by a kind of resurrection. That
baptism _has been_ thus administered, and _may be_ thus administered, is
freely admitted. But this is _no proof_ that such was the unvarying
method, and certainly _no precept_ that it shall always be administered
in this way. It may, however, with much reason be argued, that the
expressions, “baptized into His death,”—“buried with Him,”—and “walking
in newness of life” like unto His resurrection,—were not used by the
Apostle with any reference to _the mode of administration_, but to _the
events spoken of_; namely, Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection.
Christians are said to have been “circumcised in Christ,” and to be
“crucified with Him,” without any outward corresponding actions. But if
an argument for _immersion_ may be drawn from this passage, an argument
for _affusion_, or the pouring of water upon the person, may with greater
force be drawn from the manner in which the Holy Ghost descended upon
Christ Himself at His baptism, and upon the Apostles on the day of
Pentecost, and subsequently upon others who were baptized, and from the
language used to describe it. When Peter preached to Cornelius, it is
said, “The Holy Ghost _fell on_ all them that heard the word:” and again,
“On the Gentiles also _was poured out_ the gift of the Holy Ghost.” This
is expressly called by St. Peter, their being “baptized with the Holy
Ghost.” (Acts xi. 15, 16.) An argument might also be drawn for the
practice of _sprinkling_, not only from the striking similarity between
baptism and the water of separation which was to be sprinkled upon the
unclean, (Numb. xix. 19.,) but from the connection between the water of
baptism and the blood of Christ, of which, as well as of the Holy Spirit,
this water is an emblem, and which is called “the blood of sprinkling”
from the method of its application to the heart. From all these things,
and from the absence of any specific directions on the subject, it is
reasonable to conclude, that baptism may be rightly administered in each
of the _three_ ways which have been mentioned. And it is too much like
an undue magnifying of _the sign_, when it is attempted to make it in all
respects answerable to the thing signified by it.
This is the only passage _directly_ relating to baptism in the Epistle to
the Romans.
But there is a statement of the Apostle in the eleventh Chapter, which
not only confirms what has been already said of the continuance of the
Covenant with Abraham under the Christian Dispensation, but which also
bears strongly upon the subject of the right of the children of believing
parents to the token of the Covenant, together with their parents. The
passage particularly referred to is the 24th verse of the eleventh
Chapter. “For if thou wert cut out of the olive-tree which is wild by
nature, and wert grafted contrary to nature into a good olive-tree, how
much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be grafted into
_their own olive-tree_!” The Apostle is here comparing the admission of
the Gentiles into the Church of God, to the cutting off of branches from
a wild olive and the grafting of them into a good olive; the good olive
being the ancient church, planted, as it were, in the person of believing
Abraham. ‘In the view of St. Paul, the establishment of the Christian
Church was no dissolution of the Jewish Church. It is the same Society
still;—the same Body Corporate. Some of its rules and regulations,
indeed, have been altered: a disfranchisement of many of its old members
has taken place, and new ones have been admitted: but the same
Church,—the same Chartered Company,—which existed _before the Law and
under the Law_, exists to this present hour under the Gospel
Dispensation. It is still Abraham’s family. He is “the father of all
them that believe.” “If ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and
heirs according to the promise.” {61} When, therefore, any of the Jews
“abide not in unbelief,” and are received into the Church of Christ, it
is but “the grafting of the natural branches into _their own
olive-tree_.” They are restored to the privileges which their fathers
enjoyed, and are made members of the Church of God. But are their
children to be left behind? Are they to be left out of the Covenant?
And is this, might a converted Israelite justly ask,—Is this to be
restored to our fathers’ privileges? “Circumcision was not of the law,
but of the fathers.” _That_ is taken away; and what have we in its
place, if baptism, which is now the token of the covenant, be withheld
from our children? If circumcision was our children’s birthright before,
how can they be deprived of it, and have nothing given them in the stead
thereof, and yet the privileges possessed by our fathers not be lessened?
This is _not_ to be “grafted into _our own olive-tree_”!
In the first Chapter of his first Epistle to the Corinthians, St. Paul
speaks of baptism; but as it is principally with a reference to himself,
it is scarcely necessary to notice it in our present
consideration,—except for the statement he is led to make of the great
object of his mission; which was “_not_ to baptize, but to preach the
gospel:” the latter being the far more important and difficult work;
necessary as it was that converts to Christ should be baptized.
Divisions had arisen among the Corinthians: “one saying, I am of
Paul,”—that is, I prefer Paul before all other Ministers, and others of
them preferring others. This state of things caused the Apostle great
distress, and he anxiously endeavours to correct it. He indignantly asks
them, whether he (or any other Minister) had been “crucified for them,”
or whether they had been “baptized _in his name_.” This shows that
baptism implies an entire dedication to him, in whose name it is
administered. The Apostle then tells them, that he was very thankful it
had been so ordered that he had baptized very few of them
himself;—adding, as the cause of this, “for Christ sent me not to
baptize,”—_that_ might be done by others,—“but”—He sent me—“to preach the
gospel.” The Apostle here cannot intend to put any slight upon Christ’s
Ordinance of baptism, as is evident from what he has just said of it,
“_Were ye baptized in the name of Paul_?”—but he intends to show, that it
might be administered by persons of inferior station and gifts in the
Church. And this is manifest from the very nature of the service.