Part 2

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.