Part 5

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.

In the viith Chapter of this Epistle and the 14th verse there is a text, in which (as with respect to the children brought to Christ that He should touch them) baptism is not mentioned, and yet it has so decided a bearing upon the subject, that we cannot but carefully notice it. St. Paul is speaking of the case of married persons, when one party believed, while the other believed not. This he says is not a sufficient reason for their separation: at least the separation should not be made by the one that believed. And to satisfy the mind of the believing “brother or sister” that the children did not suffer, he says,—“For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by (or in) the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by (or in) the husband; _else were your children unclean_, _but now are they holy_.” It is with the latter part of this verse that we have to do. The Apostle here declares that children, which have one believing parent, are on equal terms or in the same condition with children, both of whose parents are believers; and thus they are said to be not “_unclean_” but “_holy_.” Now, can there be a doubt, that the Apostle uses these epithets “unclean” and “holy,” in the same sense in which they were used in reference to the distinction between the Jews and the Gentiles? The latter were called “unclean,” because of their idolatries and other abominations; the former were called “holy,” because of their connection and Covenant with God. When the Apostle Peter was sent to preach the gospel to Cornelius, he applied this word “unclean” to all who were not Jews. “Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew, to keep company or come unto _one of another nation_; but God hath showed me that I should not call any man common or _unclean_.” And the people of Israel are repeatedly called “holy to the Lord,” because of the Lord’s choice of them and Covenant with them. “Thou art _a holy people_ unto the Lord thy God,” was the language in which Moses addressed them. (Deut, vii. 6). And in this description their children were included: for God’s Covenant with Israel embraced them also; and thus every man-child, when eight days old, was to receive circumcision, which was the token of the Covenant. From these things we may learn the meaning of the Apostle in the passage under consideration. The _uncleanness_ of the Gentiles was a barrier against their participating in the Ordinances of the Jewish Church. The _holiness_ of Israel was their title to those Ordinances; and this too in the case of their children. Surely, then, when the Apostle says to believing Christian parents, “Your children are _holy_,” he must mean that they are entitled to the Ordinances of the Church of Christ! It seems impossible, if St. Paul’s language has any meaning, to avoid _this_ conclusion,—that _the children of the faithful_, _as soon as they are born_, _have a Covenant-holiness_, _and so a right and title to baptism_, _which is now the token of the Covenant_. Their holiness, that is, their being in covenant with God, does not date from their _baptism_, but from their _birth_. {65} To every believing parent God may be supposed to say, as He said to Abraham, “I will establish my Covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.” Much profit ariseth from this connection, if it be made a right use of. Baptism, like circumcision, verily profiteth, if the baptized child keep the law—the requisition which God makes of faith and obedience; but if he be a breaker of the law, his baptism is made no baptism at all; as circumcision was in such a case made uncircumcision. (See Rom. ii. 25.) And let it be farther observed from this text, that it is of _real believers_ and their children that the Apostle speaks when he says,—“Now are your children _holy_.” Hence it appears, that the faith of the parents is the foundation of any children’s claim to baptism. “_Unclean_” is the description which is given of all others.

The only other passage in this Epistle in which baptism is referred to, as a Christian Sacrament, is the 13th verse of the xiith Chapter:—“For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.” St. Paul may here allude to baptism in the former part of the verse, and to the cup in the Lord’s Supper in the latter part of it. But whatever he may _allude to_, what he _asserts_ is this;—that it was the baptism of the Holy Spirit which made them real members of Christ’s mystical body. The baptism of water was the sign of this; but the sign would have profited them little, if they had not received also the thing signified. The same may be said of the cup in the Lord’s Supper. It is for the nourishment of those who are real members of the Church of Christ by the baptism of the Spirit: in fact, it cannot possibly nourish any other. The essential unity of all baptized believers, and yet the diversity of Offices and gifts belonging to the several constituent parts or members of Christ’s Church, seems to be what the Apostle is here inculcating upon the Corinthians; and this with the special design to show them the inconsistency and the evil of their emulations and divisions. He aimed at curing them of their unseemly strife, by reminding them that one and the same Holy Spirit had made them all “members of one body,” but had set those members in their several and suitable places; so that each should be content with the place assigned him; and without aspiring to something which had not been given him, or envying those who might be in a higher or a supposed more honourable state, should use what he had for the common good,—for the strengthening and well-being of the whole: “_that there should be_,” as he says in the 25th verse, “_no schism in the body_, _but that the members should have the same care one for another_.”