With Numerous Testimonies from Acknowledged Authorities, selected chiefly from "Christian Baptism as Testified by Paedobaptists," by D. Wallace (London: Houlston & Wright); "Baptism, What it is, and what for?" by S.J. Chew (Birmingham: The Author, Gerrard Street); and "Treatise on the Mode and Subjects of Baptism," by J.B. Lindsay (Dundee: Park, Sinclair, & Co.), to which pamphlets (sixpence each) the reader is referred for additional concurrent testimonies.
The increasing interest which this subject now commands is a manifest token of extended inquiry after Bible truth, and of deepening piety on the part of those who profess regard to the word of God. It cannot but indicate a lamentably low state of religious feeling, when a prominent and divine command is passed over as more worthy of neglect than observance. To manifest such neglect is to supply very direct evidence against one's own piety: a truly devout man will ever evince his fear of God by a tender regard to the keeping of his commands.
This question is essentially a Biblical one: the Bible must determine it. All parties observe baptism, or something standing for it, because an ordinance so named is in the Bible. By the Bible, therefore, we ought and must determine what is right and wrong respecting the will of God in this particular. We can learn his will nowhere else. But inasmuch as many rely more on expositions of Scripture than on the word of God itself, our purpose in this tract is to give not only passages of Scripture where the ordinance is spoken of, but quotations from leading men of all parties in the question. It will be seen from the quotations submitted, that we contend for no more than what the chief men of all parties admit to be the truth. We adopt this course, not because it is the best in itself, but merely because it is advisable in the circumstances. If the people had sufficient confidence in the word of God just to take it as it reads, there could be no need for this appeal to expositors, &c. But since the Saviour, to convince the men of his time, appealed to the testimony of John, seeing all acknowledged him to be a prophet - and in doing so, said he did it, not that he needed testimony from men, but that they might be saved - so we, in this controversy, appeal to men, not because the Scriptures do not themselves determine it, but that the people may be persuaded.
2
Even in regard to the meaning of the word baptize, though not an English term., being transferred, not translated, we imagine the simple English reader, with only his English New Testament to guide him, need have little difficulty in discovering its meaning. Still it is quite the proper course, when the meaning of a word is in question, to take the definitions of competent scholars. Doing this in the present case, the reader is left without a single shadow of doubt. But while the right act depends on the proper definition of the word which specifies the thing to be done, there is more to be considered than the mere act of baptism - there is the act, but there are also the subjects and the doctrine. There are three questions - first, What is the act called baptism? second, Who are the parties to be baptized? and third, What is the meaning of the ordinance? We purpose supplying an answer to all these questions. The subject were not complete without this. We might know the act, but if we did not know the subjects, the act would be liable to misapplication. We might know both the act and subjects; but if we did not understand the meaning, we should fail in having those ideas of the ordinance with which its divine author has invested it. Only when we have all three questions duly answered can we be said to have a Scriptural understanding of the matter.
We do not speak of the mode of baptism. Mode is not the right word, there is no dispute as to mode. When the Church of England service prescribes that if the child may well endure it, the administrator "shall dip it in the water discreetly and warily," it points out two things - act and mode. The act, or thing done, is expressed by the word dip while the mode or manner of doing the thing is denoted by the words "discreetly and warily." Now, in regard to the mode of observing this or any other ordinance, there is and can be no dispute, since all will agree with the above instruction, that the thing to be done ought to be done discreetly and warily, or, in Paul's words, decently and orderly. But when we inquire what is the act or thing prescribed by the Saviour which we call baptism, another question than that of mode is before us; and to speak of it as simply one of manner, is to confound things that differ, and to lead rather to obscurity than distinctness.
The Lord Jesus prescribed a certain act. What is it? Is it dipping, or pouring, or sprinkling? If the Saviour prescribed dipping or immersion, and the person is not dipped or immersed, then undeniably, he has not undergone the Lord's prescription. If the command be to dip, it neither is to pour nor to sprinkle. If a mother were to enjoin the nurse to take the children to the sea and bathe them, not any amount of words as to mode would satisfy the mother that her command
3
had been obeyed if only a little water had been poured or sprinkled on the faces of her children. Nurse might reason learnedly or ignorantly as she liked, the answer would be the same - You have not done what I bade you. So here the Saviour prescribed a definite act. The word baptizo in the Greek is as definite as the word dip in English; and so it follows, and ever must, that if the thing prescribed by the word is not done, the person has not been baptized, the command has not been obeyed. Evasion, not obedience, is all that the doing of anything else can ever effect.
The utmost importance must therefore attach to the meaning of the word which prescribes this divine ordinance. That it means to dip or immerse, and neither to pour nor sprinkle, may be learned, as we have already hinted, by any simple reader of the New Testament. Let him turn to Matthew 3:6, and read that the confessors were "baptized in Jordan," and it will very readily occur to him that they were neither sprinkled nor poured in the river. So of other passages, he will find that to read pour or sprinkle for baptize will not make sense. We can say that persons were immersed or dipped, but not that they were poured or sprinkled. We pour or sprinkle liquids or powders, not persons. Then, again, in Matthew 3:16, he finds that "Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water" - a testimony sufficient in itself to settle the question. A like proof he will discover in Acts 8:38, where it is said "They went down into the water, both Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him." Besides, John 3:23 would occur to him, where we read that "John was baptizing in Enon, near to Salim, because there was much water there." Then Paul's words in Rom. 6:4, and Colos. 2:12, would strike his attention, "Buried by baptism," and he would naturally conclude that burial or covering is true only of immersion.
Referring to the lexicons, we observe that they all give dip or immerse as the meaning of the word, while not one of them gives pour or sprinkle - two quite different acts - they specify by two entirely different Greek words. Bagster's "Analytical Greek Lexicon to the New Testament" may be taken as a sample, and it reads - "Baptizo; to dip, immerse, to cleanse or purify by washing, to administer the rite of baptism, to baptize; boptisma, immersion, baptism, ordinance of baptism." With this the following, and indeed all others, agree:- Bass, Bretschneider, Dunbar, Donnegan, Green, Greenfield, Grove, Jones, Laing, Liddle and Scott, Malcom, Morel, Parkhurst, Pasor, Robinson, Robertson, Sandford, Scapula, Schrevelius, Schleusner, Stokius, Wright. So also the Encyclopaedias Britannica, Edinburgh, Ecclesiastica, London, and Penny.
Besides the lexicons, a principal text-book in the colleges is "Calvin's Institutes," and there he says - "The word baptize signifies to immerse, and the rite of immersion was observed by the ancient Church."
4
Beza, the Reformer and translator, says, on Mark 7:4 - "Christ commanded us to be baptized, by which word it is certain immersion is signified."
Bossuet, an eminent French writer, says - "To baptize signifies to plunge, as is granted by all the world."
Dr George Campbell, Principal of Marischal College, Aberdeen, says - "The primitive signification of baptisma is immersion; of baptizein, to immerse, to plunge, to overwhelm."
Dr Chalmers, in his Institutes of Theology, says - "Baptism signifies generally an immersion, of whatever kind, and done on whatever occasion. But when this name was employed to designate the great initiatory rite of the Christian religion, and more especially when the habit was firmly established of speaking of this rite as ho baptisma (the baptism), this term, however wide and various the application of it may have previously been, never suggested the idea of any other dipping than that which took place at the ministration of this sacrament."
Moses Stuart, in his Biblical Repository, 1833, says - "Bapto, baptizo, mean to dip, to plunge, or immerse into a liquid. ALL LEXICOGRAPHERS AND CRITICS OF ANY NOTE ARE AGREED IN THIS."
Dr Halley, of the English Independents, says on Bap., p. 275 - "We believe that baptizo is to make one thing be in another, by dipping, by immersion, by burying, by covering, by superfusion, or by whatever mode effected, provided it be in immediate contact."
Macknight says, on Rom. 6:4 - "Christ submitted to be baptized; that is buried under the water."
Besides such affirmative testimonies as the above, we find negative statements excluding any other act than immersion as the meaning of the word baptism. As examples of this, we note that Beza says - ·" To be baptized in water signifies no other than to be immersed in water."
Dr Campbell says - "The word baptizein, both in sacred authors and classical, signifies to dip, to plunge, to immerse. Baptizo is never employed in the sense of raino I sprinkle, in any use, sacred or classical."
Dr M'Crie, on Baptism, says - "We do not hold that the word baptize signifies to pour or sprinkle. This was never our opinion." Why then pour or sprinkle?
In addition to such testimonies as respect the meaning of the word merely, we have others which prove that the apostolic practice was in universal accordance with the signification of the word. The writings of those called the Fathers show as plainly as the language of Scripture that immersion was the practice of the early Church.
Barnabas, the companion of Paul, says in the epistle generally ascribed to him - "Blessed are they who, putting their trust in the cross, descend into the water." And again - We go down into the water full of sin and pollution, but come up
5
again bringing forth fruit, having in our hearts the fear and hope that is in Jesus."
Hermas, regarded as the person referred to in Rom. 16:14, referring to Baptism, says, in his work entitled "Pastor" - "Water, into which men descend under an obligation to death, but ascend out of it, being appointed to life."
Justin Martyr, who wrote about A.D. 140, says in his Apology for the Christians - "We bring those who believe to some place whore there is water, and they are baptized in the same way in which we were baptized, for they are washed in the water."
Theophilus, A.D. 180, says - "As we are by baptism buried in water, so Christ was buried in the earth."
Tertullian, writing about A.D. 200, says - "A man (when baptized) is let down into water, and while a few words are said is immersed."
Hippolytus, A.D. 230, says - "After the declaration of the catechumen, he was immersed into water."
Basil, about A.D. 330, says - ·"How can we be placed in a condition of likeness to his death? By being buried with him in baptism. How are we to go down with him into the grave? By imitating the burial of Christ in baptism, for the bodies of the baptized are in a sense buried in water."
Cyril of Jerusalem, A.D. 348, says - "As he who is plunged in the waters and baptized, is encompassed by the water on all sides, so they that are baptized by the Spirit are also covered all over."
Gregory Nazianzen, writing about A.D. 370, says - "We are buried with Christ by baptism, that we may also rise with him; we descend with him, that we may be also lifted up with him; we ascend with him, that we may be also glorified with him."
Ambrose, A.D. 374, says - "Thou wast asked, 'Dost thou believe, &c.' Thou saidst, 'I do believe,' and thou wast immersed, that is, wast buried."
Chrysostom, A.D. 398, says - "To be baptized (and plunged) and then to emerge, or rise again, is a symbol of our descent into the grave, and our ascent out of it, and therefore Paul calls it a burial."
Augustine, 420, says - "After you professed your belief three times did we submerge your heads in the sacred fountain."
From the Fathers we come to the Reformers and more modern witnesses.
Luther says, Op. 1, 336 - "Baptism is a Greek word, and may be translated immersion, as when we immerse something in water that it may be wholly covered. And although it is almost wholly abolished, for they do not dip the whole children, but only pour a little water on them, they ought, nevertheless, to be wholly immersed, and then immediately drawn out, for that the etymology of the word seems to demand."
Calvin, on Acts 8:38, says - "We see from this instance
6
what was the baptismal rite among the ancients, for they plunged the whole body in water. Now it is the custom for the minister to sprinkle only the body or head." And to account for the change, he says - "The Church did, since the beginning, grant unto herself the liberty to change the ordinances somewhat." This is certainly very amusing: for what does a thief do when he uses undue freedom with what is not his own, but "grant unto himself the liberty!"
Casaubon says - "The manner of baptizing was to plunge or dip them into the water, as even the word baptizein itself plainly enough shows."
Joseph Mede, on Tit. 3:5 - "There was no such thing as sprinkling or rhantism in the apostles' days, nor for many ages after."
Professor Salmasius, of Leyden, says - "Baptism is immersion, and was administered in ancient times according to the force and meaning of the word. Now it is only rhantism or sprinkling, not immersion or dipping." We may note here that rhantism is the Greek word for sprinkling, and is rendered accordingly in Heb. 9:13,19; 12:24.
Vicecomes, of Malan, says - "I will refute that false notion that baptism was administered in the primitive Church by pouring or sprinkling."
Venema says - "It is without controversy that baptism in the primitive Church was administered by immersion into water, and not by sprinkling."
Jer. Taylor says - "The custom of the early churches was not sprinkling, but immersion."
Then, again, we have further testimonies of a more strictly historical character, which furnish the clearest information as to when, where, and how the change from immersion to sprinkling was brought about. Thus the Encyclopaedia Ecclesiastica says - "It is evident that during the first ages of the Church, and for many ages afterwards, the practice of immersion prevailed, and it seems indeed never to be departed from except when it was administered to a person at the point of death, or upon the bed of sickness."
Professor Stuart, in Bib. Repr., page 662, asks - "In what manner, then, did the Churches of Christ from a very early period, to say the least, understand the word baptizo in the New Testament? Plainly they construed it as meaning immersion. They sometimes went so far as to forbid any other method of administering the ordinance, cases of necessity and mercy alone excepted."
Dr Wall, of the Church of England, says, in his History of Baptism - "Sprinkling for the common use of baptizing was really introduced into France first, and then into other Popish countries in times of Popery; and accordingly, all those countries in which the usurped power of the Pope is or has been formerly owned have left off dipping. And though the English received not this custom till after the decay of Popery, yet
7
they have since received it from such neighbouring nations as had begun in the time of the Pope's power. But all other Christians in the world who never owned the Pope's usurped power, do and ever did dip."
The Edinburgh Encyclopaedia says - "In the time of the apostles the form of baptism was very simple. The person to be baptized was dipped in a river or vessel with the words which Christ had ordered." "It was not till 1311 that the Legislature in a council held at Ravenna declared immersion or sprinkling to be indifferent." "In this country (Scotland), however, sprinkling was never practised in ordinary cases before the Reformation. From Scotland, it made its way into England in the reign of Elizabeth, but was not authorised by the Established Church. In the Assembly of Divines held at Westminster in 1643, it was keenly debated whether immersion or sprinkling should be adopted; twenty-five voted for sprinkling, and twenty-four voted for immersion, and even that small majority was obtained at the earnest request of Dr Lightfoot, who had acquired great influence in the Assembly." The Doctor's own casting vote made the twenty-fifth; but for this, the British Churches would, in all probability, have retained immersion to this day.
Whitby, on Rom. 6:4, says - "It being so expressly declared here, and Col. 2:12, that we are buried with Christ in baptism by being buried under water, and the argument to oblige us to a conformity to his death by dying to sin being taken hence, and this immersion bring religiously observed by all Christians for thirteen centuries, and approved by our Church, and the change of it into sprinkling even without any allowance from the author of this institution, or any license from any council of the Church, being that which the Romanist still urges to justify his refusal of the cup to the laity, it were to be wished that this custom might be again of general use." Here this dignitary of the Church of England confesses that the unscriptural practice of sprinkling by Protestants is urged by the Papist as a reason for his equally unsanctioned usages. It was gotten from Rome, and Rome may therefore found an argument upon it with Protestants.
The Greeks surely know their own language best, and the, Greek or Eastern Church ever has, as at present, practised immersion. Bunsen, in Hippolytus, vol. 3, p. 203, says - "In the East, people adhered to immersion. The Western Church, which evidently commenced her career under the guidance of Rome, abolished immersion, and introduced Sprinkling in its stead."
The Encyclopaedia Britannica says - "The Greek Church differs from the Romish as to the rite of baptism, chiefly in performing it by immersion"
Alex. de Stourdza, a Greek writer, says - "The Western Church has done violence both to the word and idea in practising baptism by aspersion, the very idea of which is a ludicrous
8
contradiction. In truth, the word baptizo has but one signification. It signifies literally and perpetually to immerse. Baptism and immersion are identical; and to say baptism by aspersion is the same as to say immersion by aspersion, or any other contradiction in terms."
And the Bishop of the Cyclades, in his Orthodox Doctrine, speaking of sprinkling, asks - "Where has the Pope taken the practice from? Where has the Western Church seen it adopted, that she declares it to be right? Has she learned it from the baptism of the Lord? Let Jordan bear witness, and first proclaim the immersions and the emersions."
With such instruction as the lexicons and other text-books supply, it is evident that theological students cannot well be ignorant of the meaning and use of the word as above shown, however much their teaching and practice, when they come to be ministers, would imply to the contrary. Those of them who have no reputation as scholars to maintain, only exhibit their ignorance by affirming the opposite of what their own doctors allow; and their conduct cannot be better censured than in the words of Principal Campbell, when, in his Lectures on Pulpit Eloquence, he says - "I have heard a disputant, in defiance of etymology and use, maintain that the word rendered in the New Testament baptize means more properly to sprinkle than to plunge, and, in defiance of all antiquity, that the former was the earliest and most general practice in baptizing. One who argues in this manner never fails with persons of knowledge to betray the cause he would defend; and though, with respect to the vulgar, bold assertions generally succeed as well as argument, and sometimes better, yet a candid mind will always disdain to take the help of falsehood in the support of truth."
We may well therefore conclude this chapter in the words of Moses Stuart on Baptism, p. 359, where, after quoting the Fathers, he says - "But enough. It is, as Augusti says, a thing made out, namely, the ancient practice of immersion. So, indeed, all the writers who have thoroughly investigated this subject conclude. I know of no one usage of ancient times which seems to be more certainly and clearly made out. I cannot see how it is possible for any candid man who examines the subject to deny this."
As to the subjects of baptism, Scripture is altogether too plain to be mistaken. Mark 16:16, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved;" Acts 2:38, "Repent and be baptized ... Then they that gladly received his word were baptized;" - 8:12, "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;" - 8:36, "Behold water, what doth hinder me to be baptized? and
9
Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him;" - 10:47-8, "Who can forbid water, that these should not be baptized, who have received the Holy Spirit as well as we? and he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord;" - 16:32-34, "And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house; and he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straight-way. And when he had brought them into his house, he set meat before them, and rejoiced, believing in God with all his house;" - 18:8 "And Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his house; and many of the Corinthians hearing, believed, and were baptized." Alike in the law of baptism, and in the examples of apostolic action, under the Saviour's law, the ordinance is restricted to the believing, repentant person.
Nor is there any exception to this in all the book. The baptism of four households is recorded, but there is no mention of babes in them; on the contrary, the language descriptive of them shows that they consisted only of persons capable of hearing, believing, and obeying. The persons present with Cornelius are said to have been all present to hear all things God had commanded - while Peter spoke they all heard - God purified their hearts by faith - the Holy Spirit fell on them as Peter was speaking, so that they spoke in foreign tongues, and magnified God. Lydia's house is spoken of as the brethren, while she is not so much as said to have had a husband, much less to have had infant children. The jailor had the word spoken to him, and to all in his house, and he rejoiced, believing in God with all his house. While the house of Stephanas is recorded to have addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints.
From the citations following, the reader will observe that these two points are made out - first, that the baptism of which the New Testament speaks is that of believers; and second, that infant baptism is alike foreign and opposed to the Scriptures.
Calvin says - "Because Christ requires teaching before baptizing, and will have believers only admitted to baptism, baptism does not seem to be rightly administered except faith precede."
Luther says - "It cannot be proved by the Sacred Scriptures that infant baptism was instituted by Christ, or begun by the first Christians after the apostles."
Bossuet says - "Jesus Christ has said 'teach and baptize,' and again, 'he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.' But the Church, solely by the authority of tradition and custom, has so interpreted these words that the instruction and faith which Christ had joined with baptism might be separated from it in case of infants."
10
Bishop Barnet, in Exposition of the Articles, says - "There is no express precept or rule given in the New Testament for the baptism of infants."
Dr Barlow, of Oxford, says - "I do believe and know that there is neither precept nor example in Scripture for paedo-baptism."
Boston, in his Works, p. 384, says - "There is no example of baptism recorded in the Scriptures where any were baptized but such as appeared to have a saving interest in Christ."
Baxter, in Disputation of Right to the Sacraments, says - "I conclude, that all examples of baptism in Scripture do mention only the administration of it to the professors of saving faith; and the precepts give us no other direction. And I provoke Mr Blake as far as it is seemly for me to do, to name ONE precept or example for baptizing any other, and make it good if he can." There have been many so provoked since the days of worthy Richard Baxter, and so many more must be, till the "one precept or example" be produced, or the innovation be surrendered.
Neander, in History of Planting, says - "It is certain that Christ did not ordain infant baptism. We cannot prove that the apostles ordained infant baptism from those places where the baptism of a whole family is mentioned, as in Acts 16:33; 1 Cor. 1:16. We can draw no such conclusion, because the inquiry is still to be made, whether there were any children in these families of such an age that they were not capable of any intelligent reception of Christianity, for this is the only point on which the case turns."
Dr Wardlaw, in Letters to Rev. H. M'Neile, says, on Mark 16:15 - "Here the commission embraces all the world - every creature: and nothing can well be clearer than that all nations in the one passage (Matt. 28:19) is of the same meaning with all the world in the other; and it no more follows from the one that they were to baptize nations collectively, than from the other that they were to baptize the world collectively. On the contrary, we have the distributive sense of both expressions decidedly fixed by the Saviour himself. While he gives the universal commission, he limits the baptism to the individuals who should believe, just as he limits the salvation. No such thing is contemplated by him who gives the commission, as either the baptism of nations or the baptism of all mankind. The commission is universal, the anticipated results personal. The preaching is to all for the purpose of making disciples: those disciples were to consist of the individuals of all nations who should believe: and to them - that is, to such as make a credible profession of the faith - the baptism was to be restricted."
Dr Stark, in History of Baptism, p. 10, says - "There is not a single example to be found in the New Testament where infants were baptized. In household baptisms there was always reference to the Gospel's having been received. The New Testament presents just as good ground for infant communion."
11
Professor Hofling, of Erlangen, says, in Sacrament of Baptism, 1, 99 - "Truly an historical proof of infant baptism cannot be cited from the Holy Scriptures."
Professor Lange, on Infant Baptism, p. 101, says - "All attempts to make out infant baptism from the New Testament fail. It is totally opposed to the spirit of the apostolic age, and to the fundamental principles of the New Testament."
Schleiermacher, in Christian Theology, p. 383, says - "All traces of infant baptism which one will find in the New Testament must first be put into it."
Olshausen, on Matt. 28:16,20, says - "Pedobaptism is not apostolic for certain." And on Acts 16:15 - "There is altogether wanting any conclusive proof-passage for the baptism of children in the age of the apostles."
Coleridge, in Aids to Reflection, p. 322, says - "The texts appealed to as commanding or authorizing infant baptism are all without exception made to bear a sense neither designed nor deducible; and likewise (historically considered) there exists no sufficient positive evidence that the baptism of infants was instituted by the apostles in the practice of the apostolic age." A serious consideration this, that passages are "made to bear a sense neither designed nor deducible." Yet, who has not heard this in the pulpit discourses to which he has listened? Who has not felt ashamed of the shifts of argument and winds of doctrine that are resorted to in order to make a passage on circumcision, or blessing of children, or conjugal holiness, do duty for one on baptism!
The North British Review (a principal Free Church organ), for August 1852, says, at p. 388 - "Scripture knows nothing of the baptism of infants. There is absolutely not a single trace of it to be found in the New Testament." "Baptism appears in the New Testament avowedly as the rite whereby converts were incorporated into the Christian society." "The language of Scripture regarding baptism implies the spiritual act of faith in the recipients." "Inextricable confusion has been the inevitable consequence, when language used of adults, of persons possessed of intelligence, and capable of spiritual acts, was gratuitously applied to unconscious infants; and it cannot be a matter for wonder that a totally new conception of the ordinance should have been created by such a perversion. Strong enough, surely.
The Protestant Discussion, p. 443, between Dr Cumming of London, and Mr French the Romish barrister, reports the latter as asking the Doctor - "In what book is to be found one word relative to the baptism of infants? 'If thou believest with all thine heart,' says Scripture, 'thou mayest be baptized.' What was the answer? 'I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.' Now, I ask, unless tradition come to the rescue of my learned friend, by what refining ingenuity will he call upon the Bible to protect him in baptizing infants who cannot answer I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God? See ye
12
not, my friends, that my antagonist in argument is in practice in actual hostility with the very book which he holds up as the fountain of all his tenets, as the rule of all his actions!"
It being thus evident that infant baptism is a human tradition, we proceed to show when and how it arose. Though immersion continued the general practice till the fourteenth century, there was a long previous departure from the law of Christ in the substitution of babes for believers, as the subjects of the ordinance. Infant baptism is much older than infant sprinkling. Old, however, as infant baptism is, it fails in that which alone can render it justifiable or proper as a religious ordinance, namely, the requirement or authorization of God. It is not in Scripture. In vain is the word of God appealed to for its support. It matters nothing, therefore, however far back in history it can be traced. Even though mention of it were found much earlier than is the case, it would still be a human invention taking the place of a divine appointment. Paul wrote to the Thessalonian disciples that even in his time the iniquitous apostacy was already in secret operation, waiting only the removal of hindrance to its development. So that it is nothing in favour of a non-scriptural practice that it had a very early origin.
But paedo-baptism had not so early an origin as some suppose. It had no existence before the middle of the second century. From the quotations from the Fathers, given at pages 4,5, it abundantly appears, that while immersion was the act, believers were the subjects of it. Their language, like that of Scripture, is applicable only to the immersion of believers. Barnabas, as already quoted, pronounces those ·happy, who, putting their trust in the cross, descend into the water," and speaks of them as having "in their hearts the fear and hope that is in Jesus." The words of Justin Martyr are - "We bring those who believe to some place where there is water," &c. Hippolytus says - "The catechumen was baptized after his declaration." Ambrose puts it - "Thou saidst I do believe, and wast immersed." Jerome says - "They first teach all the nations, then when they are taught they baptize them with water, for it cannot be that the body should receive the sacrament of baptism, unless the soul has before received the true faith." Augustine has it - "After you professed your belief did we submerge," &c. And Bede the historian, writing in the eighth century, says - "Men were first to be instructed into the knowledge of the truth, then to be baptized as Christ hath taught, because without faith it is impossible to please God." All these testimonies point out the subjects as clearly as the act.
Semisch, in Life and Times of Justin Martyr, says, 2, 334 - "Whenever Justin refers to baptizing, adults appear as the objects to whom the sacred rite is administered. Of an infant baptism he knows nothing. The traces of it, which some persons believe they have detected in his writings, are groundless fancies artificially produced."
But the words of Tertullian indicate plainly the first beginnings of that change which, from the baptism of intelligent confessors of the faith, terminated in that of mere unconscious babes. The baptism of minors - children from six to ten years of age - led the way; and in respect to this growing practice Tertullian argues thus - "The Lord indeed says, Do not hinder them from coming to me; let them come therefore, when they grow up; let them come when they learn; let them come when they are taught to what they come; let them be made Christians when they can know Christ."
While Tertullian is the first of the Fathers who mentions paedo, that is, child baptism, Cyprian is the first to argue for infant baptism. Cyprian was born about A.D. 200, converted in 246, and wrote between 248 and 258. He and his colleagues were the first who publicly sanctioned the baptism of infants. But though infant baptism began thus about A.D. 250, and spread rapidly, from that time it was not at all universal till the fifth century. All testimony concurs in proving this. The following examples are decisive:-
Neander, in his Church History, vol. 1, p. 432, says - "Tertullian appears as a zealous opponent of infant baptism, a proof that the practice had not yet come to be regarded as an apostolic institution, for otherwise he would hardly have ventured to express himself so strongly against it." "When the notion of a magical influence, a charm connected with the Sacraments, continually gained ground, the theory was finally evolved of the unconditional necessity of infant baptism. About the middle of the third century this theory was generally admitted in the North African Church." "But if the necessity of infant baptism was acknowledged in theory, it was still far from being uniformly recognised in practice. Nor was it always from the purest motives that men were induced to put off their baptism."
Bunsen in his Hippolytus and his Age, says in vol. 3 - "Paedobaptism in the more modern sense, meaning thereby baptism of new-born infants, with the vicarious promises of parents or other sponsors, was utterly unknown in the early Christian Church, not only down to the end of the second century, but indeed to the middle of the third." Again - "Tertullianµs opposition is to the baptism of young grown children; he does not say one word about new-born infants; neither does Origen, when his words are accurately weighed." Again - "The Church instituted paedobaptism in the sense of children from six to ten years of age." "The baptism of new-born infants grew out of that of children advancing towards the age of boyhood." "Cyprian being the first Father who, impelled by a fanatical enthusiasm, and assisted by a bad interpretation of the Old Testament, established infant baptism as a principle."
Kitto's Journal of Sacred Literature for Jan. 1853, in noticing Bunsen's work, says - "Baptism of children had only begun to be practised in some countries, being defended in the time
14
of Tertullian and Hippolytus as an innovation, but infant baptism was not known." "Infant baptism was introduced by Cyprian and his African contemporaries, at the close of the third century."
Dr Barlow says - "Nor is there any just evidence for it, for above two hundred years after Christ. Tertullian condemns it as an unwarrantable custom."
Salmasius says - "In the two first centuries no one was baptized except, being instructed in the faith, and acquainted with the doctrine of Christ, he was able to profess himself a believer, because of the words, He that believeth and is baptized."
Curcellaeus says - "The baptism of infants in the first two centuries after Christ was altogether unknown; but in the third and fourth was allowed by some few. In the fifth and following ages it was generally received."
Giesler, in Church History, 2 47, says - "The baptism of infants did not become universal till the time of Augustine." That is in the fifth century.
Bazil, who died in 375, addresses his unbaptized hearers thus - "Do you demur and loiter and put it off, when you have been from a child catechised in the word? Are you not yet acquainted with the truth? Having been always learning it, are you not yet come to a knowledge of it?" Respecting this passage, Dr Wall says - "I thought it to be the strongest evidence against the general practice of baptism in those times of any that is to be found in all antiquity; for it plainly supposes that a considerable part of Bazil's auditors at that time were such as had been from their childhood instructed in the Christian religion, and consequently, in all probability born of Christian parents, and yet not baptized."
Jeremy Taylor, in his Dissuasives from Popery, says - "St Ambrose, St Hierom, and St Austin, were born of Christian parents, and yet they were not baptized till the full age of man and more."
Bunsen says, in Hippolytus 2, 105 - "The Reformation accepted paedobaptism, although its leaders were more or less aware that it was neither Scriptural nor apostolic." The quotations from Luther, Calvin, and Beza prove this.
The Encyclopaedia Metropolitan says - "The ancient British Church did not practise the immersion of minors." Augustine the monk was sent by Pope Gregory, in 596, to convert the people to the Catholic faith, he proposed three things, the adoption of which was necessary to have his favour and protection. the second was, "That ye give christendome to children." Pity 'twas done. the only remedy is now to renounce the christendome of the Pope for the baptism of Christ.
Dr Lange, in History of Protestantism, says pp. 34, 35 - "Would the Protestant Church fulfil and attain to its final destiny, the baptism of infants must of necessity be abolished. It has sunk down to a mere formality, without any religious meaning for the child, and stands in contradiction to the fundamental
15
doctrines of the Reformers, on the advantage and use of the sacraments. It cannot on any point of view be justified by the Holy Scriptures."
All divine appointments are significant; each has its purpose. Baptism is no mere meaningless ceremony; it has its doctrine or meaning as expressly stated in Scripture as the appointment itself. It is not a commandment without but with promise. It is associated with faith; it is also connected with salvation. Like faith, repentance, confession, and invocation, it is a means to an end; and the end it has in view is that to which these all tend - salvation. The words of Mark 16:16, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved;" those of Acts 2:38, "Repent and be baptised every one of you on the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins;" those of Acts 22:16, "Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord," and other kindred Scriptures, show as plainly as words can that this ordinance, in connection with these other Gospel requirements, is an appointed means to the enjoyment of salvation, of the remission of sins, and of the washing away of sin. They cannot be so explained as to make the reception of these ineffable blessings of the Gospel in no way dependent on baptism. The clauses which enforce baptism may indeed, as is sometimes done with more zeal than piety, be thrown out, but this is not interpreting, but violating Scripture. The question is not, Can we get quit of them? but, What do they mean? Now, we submit that they just mean this - that the man or woman believing the Gospel and being baptized is saved - the person repenting and being baptized on the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins is forgiven - the penitent, like Saul, arising and being baptized, calling on the name of the Lord, has his sins washed away. To deny this, is to deny the Saviour's word and promise. The fact is before us, that those who in the primitive age so obeyed the Gospel were saved, knew they were, and were acknowledged as such.
No doubt questions may be raised which it were impossible and improper to answer. If one says, Cannot I be saved without being baptized? the proper reply would seem to be, We have no answer in Scripture to such a question. We have no reason to suppose that those on Pentecost who did not gladly receive the Apostle's word were saved, or that they could be saved otherwise than as the three thousand were. If it be said that there are passages where salvation is attributed to faith, while baptism is not mentioned, the answer is at hand. The non-mention in a passage of a divine requirement does not imply its exclusion. There are passages where faith is not mentioned; Acts 2:38, 22:16, are examples; but no one will say that it is excluded. There are passages in which no
16
requirements are mentioned; but we cannot infer from this that there are no terms of salvation. If it be urged that to make baptism a condition of salvation is to do dishonour to the Gospel, or the grace of God, or the blood of Christ, the reply is, It is not we but the Gospel itself which places baptism between faith and salvation; and as to dishonouring the grace of God, it seems to us that it rather displays alike the grace and wisdom of God to have appointed a simple ordinance to which the candidate for salvation coming, trusting in the Saviour and in his word, should have God's own assurance of forgiveness and safety. If it were not "baptism into Christ," and thus, as Paul reminds the Galatian disciples, "the putting on of Christ," the perfect harmony which exists between these undoubtedly strong statements of Scripture on baptism, and others which so distinctly ascribe the cleansing of sin to the blood of Christ, would not be so apparent. But when it is understood that the baptism of which such language is employed is the coming of the believer to the Saviour, the giving of himself to Christ, his turning to the Lord, to be his and to be found "in him," then the language of Ananias to Saul appears neither too strong, nor in any respect contradictory of John's statement, when he says "If we walk in the light, we have fellowship with God, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin."
Besides all this, we must not forget that it has been God's manner all along to appoint what we call a positive institution, on submission to which, not only is the fidelity of man proved, but by which also he is entitled to the blessing of God. Of this nature was the prohibitory command to our first parents - their standing before God, their life hinged upon obedience to the command, "Thou shalt not eat of the tree of knowledge of. good and evil." So, likewise, when in the purposes of his mercy God chose Abraham and his descendants to be to him a chosen nation, he not only instituted circumcision, but did so with this sanction, that he who was not circumcised would be cut off from his people. Of like tenor was the command to the Syrian general, "Go, wash seven times in the Jordan, and thou shalt be clean." It might be quite true what he said, that there were better waters in Damascus; but it was the command of God, not the water, that gave efficacy to the action. And coming to New Testament times, we find the same principle evinced in the teaching of the Saviour. Not only did his harbinger preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins (Mark 1:4), but the Lord told the people unhesitatingly that those of them and the publicans who heard John justified God, being baptized with the baptism of John, while the pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel of God against themselves, not being baptized of him (Luke 7:29-30). The principle is simply that expressed by the Lord Jesus when he averred that man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. God in his
17
sovereign good pleasure and wisdom may appoint anything as a means to an end, and whatever he appoints becomes what he appointed it to be. It is thus in no respect derogatory to his grace or wisdom that in the matter of a sinner's acquittal from guilt the sovereign Saviour should have appointed that ordinance in which the believer acknowledges his authority as one in the series of means to the enjoyment of that salvation which is in Christ Jesus. But it is, and ever must be, a contemning of the authority of the Lord Messiah to call in question or to refuse submission to his appointment in this respect provided. It is as the Saviour states it, the "rejection of the counsel of God against oneself."
So long as we insist only upon the language of Scripture respecting this ordinance, it cannot justly be said that we "make too much of baptism." That it is possible to put it out of place, that it has been put out of place, doctrinally as well as practically, there is abundant proof. But the remedy is not to be found in making less of it than the Scriptures make. Our position is simply this - We accept all that Scripture affirms upon it. For doing this, we may expect the charge of making too much of it from those who make less of it, as well as from those who make nothing of it.
We confess that we are not prepared to make so much of it as the majority of Protestant confessors do. All who affirm of baptism alone what the Scriptures ascribe to baptism connected with faith, repentance, confession, and invocation, inevitably make more of it than is or can be true. For an ordinance like baptism - one which follows upon a confession of faith and repentance - to have ascribed to it, apart from these prerequisites, what Scripture affirms only, in view of its association with these concomitants, is certainly to exalt it into a position in which its truth and value and significancy are altogether lost.
The Westminster Confession says - "Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible church, but also to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, of his ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration, of remission of sins, and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life." Though we could take no exception to this definition, still to say this of subjects that have not faith, and cannot have it, is to affirm what is positively untrue. It is said baptism is a sacrament, but how can a sacrament, that is an oath, be administered to a babe? It is said to be "the admission of the party baptized into the visible Church." But this again is incorrect as respects babes, for they are not admitted into the Church; they take no part in it, and can take none. It is said to be to the party "a sign and seal" - a sign is that which signifies, and a seal that which settles; but the things which follow are not in any case signified and settled to the babe. Scripture neither
18
calls baptism a sign nor seal; but passing this, it is not and cannot be to the babe a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, of his ingrafting into Christ, of his regeneration, of the remission of his sins, or of his giving up to God through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life! Not one of these items is true as respects the babe; if spared to the years of responsibility, it, like all others, comes under the great and unexceptional law, "Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God."
Strong as the language of the Fathers is, it has the important qualification of being applied to persons who professed their trust in the Saviour. When Barnabas says, "Blessed are they who, putting their trust in the Cross, descend into the water," he shows by the words we have italicised not only that there was trust, but that it was rightly reposed, namely, in the Saviour, the appointer of the ordinance, and not in the ordinance itself. So also when he says, "We go down into the water full of sin and pollution, but come up again bringing forth fruit, having in our hearts the fear and hope that is in Jesus." Those last words bring out his meaning; they so qualify his words as to render it unfair in any one to say that he trusted to the water to save him; yet it is plain as possible that he associates the sinner's salvation with submission to the Saviour in this ordinance.
Hermes speaks not less strongly when he says - "Before man receives the name of the Son of God he is ordained to death, but when he receives that seal he is freed from death and delivered unto life." The name of the Son of God is that (according to the view he gives of the ordinance) to which he ascribes the freeing from death and delivering to life. That in this name there is salvation all allow; but it is not less certain from Scripture that this name is by authority of its owner so connected with baptism that it is in it that it is invoked, assumed, called upon, or received - hence the word to "christen;" but better still, the Apostle's phrase. "As many as have been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ." Christian baptism is baptism "into the name" (Mat. 28:19; Acts 8:16).
It betrays an utter ignorance of the question to suppose that the Reformed or Protestant Churches have held less of baptism, or that they have regarded it as a non-essential. The Westminster Confession indicates the reverse; and in doing this it is not alone. The Augsburg Confession, drawn up by Melancthon, says - "Concerning baptism, it is necessary to salvation." The Cologne Liturgy, drawn up by Bucer and Melancthon, says - "Through baptism we determine certainly that we are acceptable unto God, and joined unto him with an everlasting covenant of grace." The Nicene Creed says - "We believe in one baptism for the remission of sins."
The Reformers in their individual statements are no less definite. Says Luther, on the Galatians - "This is diligently to be noted, because of the fond and fantastical spirits who go
19
about to deface the majesty of baptism, and speak wickedly of it. Paul contrariwise commendeth it and setteth it forth with honourable titles (Gal. 3:27; Tit. 3:5). As if he said, ye are carried out of the law into a new birth, which is wrought in baptism." There are still some such fond and fantastical spirits abroad.
Calvin, in his Works, vol. 8, p. 285, says - "For we also admit the necessary use of baptism; that it is not lawful for any one to omit it through neglect or contempt ... We also maintain it to be God's ordinary instrument to wash and renew us, and, moreover, to communicate salvation to us." Here Calvin speaks of it as not merely one instrumentality among others, but as "God's ordinary instrument to wash and renew and communicate salvation," showing plainly that he could not regard the unbaptized as saved.
And we are not to suppose that such strong views are confined to those who had but recently left the Church of Rome. The most learned commentators and ministers of all parties - Episcopalian, Presbyterian, Methodist, and Congregationalist - have affirmed quite as much, of which the following are examples:- Alford, in his Greek Testament, says, on John 3:5. - "There can be no doubt, on any honest interpretation of the words, that gennethenai ex hudatos refers to the token or outward sign of baptism." On Titus 3:5 - "By means of the laver, not washing, as E.v. (see the Lexx), but always a vessel or pool, in which washing takes place ... Observe, there is here no figure: the words are literal: baptism is taken as in all its completion - the outward visible sign, accompanied by the inward spiritual grace; and as thus, complete, it not only represents, but is, the new birth."
Barnes, on 1 Peter 3:21, says - "Baptism may be said to save us, not as the meritorious cause, but as the indispensable condition of salvation." In these words, Barnes, whose commentaries are used by so many Sunday-school teachers, says more than we are inclined to indorse. He not only says it is the condition, but the indispensable condition of salvation. We regard it as a condition, not the condition, much less do we say it is indispensable: for plainly, if the author of it see fit to dispense with it, he has both the right and will; and in the case of any not having opportunity to obey, through sickness, death, or otherwise, he will mercifully observe his own rule, to whom little is given of them will the less be required.
Richard Baxter, in Works, vol. 5, p. 361 - "To the adult, that truly made the baptismal covenant and never apostatised from it, all the grace that God giveth them through their lives, is His fulfilling of His promises made to them and sealed by baptism, and a fruit of their baptism. But to hypocrites and apostates it is otherwise, as is before explained."
Bengel, on Ephes. 5:26 - "Water and the bath are the vehicle; but the word is a nobler instrumental cause. By the bath of water by the word. A remarkable testimony for baptism."
20
Benson, on Peter 3:21 - "Baptism, I say, when it is accompanied by that inward purity, saveth us."
Bloomfield, in Greek Testament, on John 3:5 - "As the mere natural or animal life depends upon flesh and blood, so does the spiritual life depend upon the baptism by water and the Spirit."
Brown of Haddington - "It is called baptism for forgiveness and washing away of sin, as it solemnly represents and seals the remission of all their sins to such as receive it in faith."
Burkitt, on Acts 22:16 - "Sacraments are not empty insignificant signs; but God, by his grace and blessing, renders his own ordinances effectual for those great ends for which his wisdom has appointed them. Be baptized and wash away thy sins."
Bumet, in Exposition of the Thirty-nine Articles, p. 380 - "Baptism is a federal admission into Christianity, in which, on God's part, all the blessings of the Gospel are made over to the baptized, and on the other hand, the person baptized takes on him, by a solemn profession and vow, to observe and adhere to the whole Christian religion."
Adam Clarke, on John 3:5 - "Baptism by water into the Christian faith, was necessary to every Jew and Gentile that entered into the kingdom of the Messiah."
Ingram Cobbin, in Evangelical Synopsis, on Acts 2:38 - "For the remission of sins. That ye may receive the pardon of all your sins, through faith in His atoning blood, which ye so lately shed."
Doddridge, on Acts 22:16 - "Nor did God ordinarily give any particular person any public and visible token of pardon, till he submitted to baptism."
Duvell, in Commentary on the Acts, p. 58 - "Sacred immersion has been instituted by Christ, like a certain signet, diploma, or patent, by which he confirms the remission and utter defacing of their sins to all those who seek to him with an unfeigned faith."
Dwight, in Works, vol. 1, p. 184 - "He who understands the authority of this institution, and refuses to obey it, will never enter either into the visible or invisible kingdom of God."
Jonathan Edwards, in Works, vol. 7, p. 155 - "Baptism ... that which is spoken of in Scripture as ordinarily requisite to menµs salvation."
Hackett, on Acts 22:16 - "'And wash away thy sins.' This clause states a result of the baptism, in language derived from the nature of that ordinance. It answers to eis aphesin amartion in 2:38, i.e., submit to the rite in order to be forgiven."
Halley, on the Sacraments, says - "Peter said: 'Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins (eis ephesin amartion)' - Acts 2:38. The syntax is here, if possible, more decided. Not only does the preposition eis refer to the future and prospective relation of the remission of sins, but it does so with the same dependence on
21
baptism as on repentance. The signification of eis must correspond in its relation to both words: 'repent' and 'be baptized.' In what sense does the Apostle use the preposition, when he says, 'Repent for the remission of sins?' The remission of sins is obviously represented not as preceding repentance, but as subsequent to it. The preposition has its meaning clearly defined by its relation to the word 'repent.' Used only once, it cannot have two interpretations thrust upon it. It must connect the remission of sins with both words - 'repent' and 'be baptized,' by one and the same relation. If it be 'repent for the remission of sins,' it must also be 'be baptized for the remission of sins.' Let those who deny this, say by what canon of syntax they can construe the passage so as to obtain the interpretation - Repent for the remission of sins, and be baptized after this remission."
Matthew Henry, on Acts 22:16 - "The great Gospel privilege, which by baptism we have sealed to us, is the remission of sins."
Hooker - "God will have it embraced, not only as a sign or token of what we receive, but also as an instrument or means whereby we receive grace ... If Christ himself, which giveth salvation, do require baptism, it is not for us that look for salvation to sound and examine Him whether unbaptized men may be saved, but seriously to do that which is required; and religiously to fear the danger which may grow by the want thereof."
Knapp, in Christian Theology - "As any one, on being formally admitted as a citizen of a town, in talking the oath of citizenship, and in going through the other rites of initiation, receives the confident assurance that he has now a title to all the rights and privileges of citizenship; so it is with the Christian in baptism."
Leighton, on Peter 3:21 - "The end of baptism is to save us. This is the great common end of all the ordinances of God; that one high mark they all aim at. They are then, in a word, neither empty signs to them that believe, nor effectual causes of grace to them that believe not."
Macknight, on Titus 3:5 - "He saved us Jews from the miserable and wicked state in which we were living, not on account of any works of righteousness which we had done under the law to merit such a deliverance, but in prosecution of his own merciful purpose, which he accomplished through the bath of regeneration, and the renewing of the Holy Ghost."
Pearson, in Exposition of the Creed, art. 9 - "It cannot be doubted but all persons who did perform all things necessary to the receiving the ordinance of baptism, did also receive the benefit of the ordinance, which is remission of sins - Mark 1:4; Acts 2:38. In vain doth doubting and fluctuating Socinus endeavour to evacuate the evidence of this Scripture; attributing the remission either to repentance without consideration of baptism, or else to the public profession of faith made in baptism."
22
Scott on Acts 22:16 - "An outward sign of the washing away of his sins, and the seal to him, and to all true believers, of that blessing."
Principal Tulloch, writing in the November (1861) number of Good Words on "Alexandria and its Christian School," says - ·Of the first teacher of this school - Pantaenus - we, unfortunately, know little save the name. But he lives in his pupil and successor, Clemens, who is its most distinct, and in some respects its most interesting representative. Clemens is peculiarly the Christian philosopher and doctor of Alexandria ... It deserves to be noticed how entirely moral is the character of Clemens' teaching as to mere special doctrines. The sacraments with him are not ritual but moral acts. Baptism, preceded by instruction and faith, is the new birth of the soul. He hesitates not to call it regeneration, because the later notions which have been mixed up with the rite, as applied to infants, did not occur to his mind. As the deliberate act of the adult catechumen, who had long been preparing himself for solemn initiation into the Church, it was, in the highest sense, a new birth - a transition in which all old things of heathenism passed away, and all things became new."
Waterland, in Works, vol. 7, pp. 239, 240 - "Present remission is ordinarily conferred in the sacrament of baptism, where there is no obstacle on the part of the recipient ... I shall only add here, that if a king were to send out his general letters of pardon for all submissive offenders, who, after renewing their bonds of allegiance, would come and take out their pardon, in certain form, it would be no objection to the validity of their pardon, as conveyed by such form, that the submitting to it was but part of the condition, and not the whole, so long as it presupposes everything besides."
Richard Watson, on 1 Peter 3:21 - "It is thus that we see how St Peter preserves the correspondence between the act of Noah, in preparing the ark, as an act of faith by which he was justified, and the act of submitting to Christian baptism, which is also obviously an act of faith in order to the remission of sins, or the obtaining of a good conscience before God ... However a particular word may be disposed of, the whole passage can only be consistently taken to teach us that baptism is the outward sign of our entrance into God's covenant of mercy; and that when it is an act of true faith, it becomes an instrument of salvation."
Watts, in Works, vol. 2, p. 40 - "The water of baptism came to have a cleansing and sanctifying virtue from the foresight and eternal mercy of God, who appointed Jesus Christ to be slain for a sacrifice; which is also intimated, Heb. 10:22:- 'Let us draw near with a true heart, in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed (i.e. in baptism) with pure water."
John Wesley, on Acts 22:16 - "Baptism administered to real penitents, is both a means and seal of pardon. Nor did
23
God ordinarily in the primitive church bestow this on any, unless through this means."
Whitby, on Acts 2:38 - "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of (your) sins (which by this baptism will be washed away, 22:16), and (then) ye (also) shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost."
George Whitfield, on John 3:5 - "Does not this verse urge the absolute necessity of water baptism? Yes, when it may be had. But how God will deal with persons unbaptized, we cannot tell."
And even the Baptists, who, though holding the truth as to act and subjects, have been too fearful to accept all that the Apostles have written as to the doctrine of baptism, are not without those who have spoken out in sufficiently distinct terms. Thus Dr Gill says in his Body of Divinity:- "John's baptism, and so the Apostles', was upon repentance for the remission of sins: Mark 1:4; Acts 2:38: not that either repentance or baptism procures the pardon of sin; that is only obtained by the blood of Christ; but baptism is a means of leading to the blood of Christ." And in his Commentary, on Gal. 3:27 - "They are not merely baptized in his name, and by his authority, and according to his command, and unto his doctrine, and a profession of him; but into a participation of the blessings of grace which are in him."
Andrew Fuller says - "Sin is washed away in baptism, in the same sense as Christ's flesh is eaten, and his blood drank, in the Lord's Supper; the sign, when rightly used, leads to the thing signified."
Robert Hall, in Works, vol. 2, p. 286, says - "I embrace without hesitation the affirmative side, and assert that in the apostolic age baptism was necessary to salvation."
M'Lean, on Acts 2:38, and 22:16, has written - "To be baptized for the remission or washing away of sins, plainly imports that in baptism the remission of sins is represented as really conferred upon the believer."
And on the same passages, William Jones, author of the Biblical Cyclopaedia, has said - "This kind of language must appear very extravagant to many in the present day, who regard baptism as a mere external ceremony, but that only proves how much many professed Christians of the present day have lost sight of the original import of the ordinance."
Baptist Noel, on Baptism, says - "The Spirit imparts new life, and baptism manifests it, and both complete the new birth. As a child first lives and then comes into the world, and thus is born - his entrance into the world not giving life, but manifesting it - so the child of God receives life and then is baptized, and thus is new born."
And finally, in the words of J.H. Hinton - "May I respectfully ask the Paedobaptist who reads this volume (Episcopalian, Presbyterian, Congregationalist, or Methodist), whether he has not been kept in ignorance of these facts? Whether
24
the clergy who withhold those facts from their flocks, do not take upon themselves an undue and dangerous responsibility? Whether he will have independence enough to take every adequate means to ascertain if these statements can be denied? And, finally, if they cannot be, whether he will dare to remain unbaptized, and therefore in a state of disobedience to the King of Kings?"
From the testimonies foregoing, the conclusion we have to urge is necessarily a practical one. If the reader believes in the Lord Jesus Christ as the Son of God and the Saviour of men - that he has been ordained the judge of the living and the dead - and that he himself, though a son, learned obedience by the things which he suffered, and thus perfected, has become "the Author of eternal salvation to all those who obey him," he must see in this appointment of the Saviour a call to loyal and immediate action. Nothing can absolve him from the duty and privilege of being "immersed into Christ;" supposing, of course, that he has not been baptized since he believed. There is no alternative. Till he thus submits, he rebels. "He," said Jesus, "who is not with me is against me." There is no neutral ground; no middle course. Loyalty to the Saviour demands a hearty and an unreserved surrender.
It is no answer to say, that many of these great and good men who have admitted so much still continued unbaptized. Let us imitate their virtues, not their inconsistencies. If they have, to their own condemnation, admitted the truth to consist in that which they neglected, not in that which they did, let us learn wisdom by their folly, remembering what is written, "Happy is he who condemneth not himself in that which he alloweth;" and again, "If ye know these things, happy are ye if ye do them."
Nor is disobedience justified by the argument that the Saviour is so gracious that he will pass over neglect of this requirement, for unless he has said he will, we have no right to suppose he shall. Besides this, no grateful believing spirit can urge such an argument. Such a one will piously dread putting his Lord and Saviour to the proof, for it is written, "Thou shall not tempt the Lord thy God." It is impossible that the heart purified by faith should propose to continue in sin that grace may abound. He who has indeed tasted that the Lord is gracious, will show the obedience of love rather than of law. He will never think of saying, "I will neglect this if I can be saved without obeying," but he will most readily say, "Since my Saviour commands, I will obey whatever my obedience may cost."