Part 3

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.

But there is a circumstance recorded in three of them, which cannot be 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.