Questions on Chapter 11.

3. They are seals. As circumcision was the divinely-appointed seal of the covenant of redemption as given to Abraham, so “Baptism” and the “Supper” are seals under the gospel of the same covenant. By giving us these seals, God confirms unto us visibly the promise of his saving mercy. By receiving them, we enter upon the most solemn obligations of fidelity and obedience to God. Thus these sacraments, while we attach to them no superstitious idea of efficacy as a charm, or of directly imparting a spiritual benefit through a physical agency, yet are they a most influential means of grace. They tend to increase and confirm our faith, to quicken our spiritual powers, to encourage our hopes, and to renew and strengthen our obligations to love and to serve God.

QUESTIONS ON CHAPTER 11.

QUESTION 1. What are the Christian sacraments as enumerated by the Roman Catholics?

2. Which of these are destitute of Bible authority?

3. What are the Christian sacraments as set forth in Scripture?

4. What is the Greek word for sacrament, and what is its import?

5. What is the Roman Catholic view as to the nature and efficacy of sacraments?

6. What is the view of Socinians, Arians, Universalists, etc.?

7. What is the orthodox view on the subject?

CHAPTER 12. — CHRISTIAN BAPTISM — ITS NATURE,

OBLIGATION, DESIGN, AND EFFICACY.

CHRISTIAN BAPTISM is a subject upon which, for centuries past, there has, perhaps, been a greater amount of polemic strife than upon any other theological question. Upon this arena master combatants oft and again have fiercely met, and plied their utmost skill and strength, and left the field with the question no nearer being settled than when they began. Judging from the past, we may reasonably despair of perfect harmony, of sentiment in the Church on this trite and much-mooted theme till the second coming of Christ. In the present stage of this controversy we can scarcely hope to present any thing substantially new; nor shall we aim at any thing farther than a clear and condensed view of the leading and most important arguments necessary to sustain what we consider the correct and scriptural statement of the doctrine.

I. The first question in connection With this theme naturally presenting itself for our consideration is this: What is the NATURE of Christian baptism?

As this is admitted to be what is termed a positive institute, it is clear that we are dependent entirely upon the divine record for our information. The term baptism is from the Greek baptizw, which is a derivative of baptw. This word, according to the lexicographers, means “to dip, to plunge into water, to wash, to dye,” etc. It is, however, very clear that the etymology of the word can furnish us no information as to the nature or design of the ordinance. Upon this point, whatever we may conclude as to the mode and subjects of baptism, no light can be shed by the etymological discussion; and we may also add that, in the question now before us, we have nothing whatever to do with the mode or subjects of baptism. Those matters must be held in abeyance for after consideration. As to the nature and design of baptism, we must rely solely on the history of the subject and the statements concerning it, as recorded in the Bible. It is admitted that our Saviour ingrafted the sacrament of the “Lord’s-supper” on the Jewish Passover; and it may be affirmed that “Baptism,” the other Christian sacrament, had its origin in a similar way — being substituted for “circumcision.” The institution of Christian baptism unquestionably was set up and established in the great commission given to the apostles by the Saviour after his resurrection: “Go ye therefore, and teach 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; and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world.” Matthew 28:19, 20. Here we date the divine origin of baptism as a standing, obligatory, and perpetual ordinance of the Christian Church. Here is the great charter from which the Christian ministry in all ages derive their divine authority for the administration of this ordinance. But notwithstanding this ordinance, as a permanent Christian institute, was here established, it is clear that baptism did not then for the first time take its existence in the Church. Though our Saviour here gave it a new, specific designation, it was no new institution hitherto unheard of: he does not refer to it as such, but speaks of it as some thing with which the disciples were already acquainted. Under the direction of our Lord, they had already been practicing a baptism probably but little different from that of John, with which the whole Jewish nation were familiar.

1. That baptism was practiced among the Jews long before the time of John, and probably from the commencement of the Mosaic economy, we have good evidence for believing.

St. Paul speaks of “divers washings” (baptismoiv, baptisms) as existing among the Jews (Hebrews 9:10). And Maimonides testifies that “in all ages, when a heathen was willing to enter into the covenant of Israel, and gather himself under the wings of the majesty of God, and take upon himself the yoke of the law, he must be first circumcised, and secondly, baptized, and thirdly, bring a sacrifice; or, if the party were a woman, then she must be first baptized, and secondly, bring a sacrifice.” He adds: “At this present time, when (the temple being destroyed) there is no sacrificing, a stranger must be first circumcised, and secondly, baptized.” From Epictetus we have the following testimony (he is blaming those who assume the profession of philosophy without acting up to it): “Why do you call yourself a Stoic? Why do you deceive the multitude? Why do you pretend to be a Greek when you are a Jew, a Syrian, an Egyptian? And when you see any one wavering, we are wont to say, This is not a Jew, but acts one; but when he assumes the sentiments of one who has been baptized and circumcised, then he both really is and is called a Jew. Thus we, falsifying our profession, are Jews in name, but in reality something else.”

This ancient Jewish baptism of proselytes, concerning the existence of which there can be no rational doubt, seems to have been an act of initiation, or of transfer from paganism to Judaism. As the Jew, when from any cause he had become ceremonially unclean, was excommunicated or cut off from the privileges of the Church till he had performed the washings, or baptisms, prescribed by the law, so the Gentile, on being publicly admitted into the Church, was also required to submit to a washing, or baptism, to signify his being purified from the pollutions of his former religion. All we can learn, therefore, as to the nature and design of this proselyte baptism is, that it was a public act of initiation, signifying purification. As to the various “washings,” or baptisms, among the Jews themselves, they all denoted that ceremonial purification from defilement which the law described.

2. The “baptism of John” next demands a brief notice. This baptism, till recently, has been generally held by immersionists as identical with, or as really the commencement of, the Christian baptism; but this preposterous view seems to be now pretty generally abandoned by the more intelligent Baptists, and especially has it been renounced by Alexander Campbell, one of the most learned immersionists of the age. Yet as this absurd notion is still firmly grounded in the prejudice of many, it merits some attention. That “John’s baptism” was not the Christian baptism is manifest from several considerations.

(1) The distinctive appellation given it in Scripture shows that it was not the Christian baptism. It is called “John’s baptism.” How absurd would it be to speak of “Peter’s baptism,” “Paul’s baptism,” or “Apollos’s baptism!” Yet if “John’s baptism” were identical with the Christian baptism, such expressions would be no more absurd than to speak of “John’s baptism.”

(2) The difference in the formula used in the Christian baptism and that of John clearly evinces that the two baptisms were not identical. The formula of the Christian baptism runs thus: “In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost;” or, as it is sometimes more briefly expressed, “In the name of the Lord Jesus.” John evidently did not, nor could he, use language of any such import.

(3) The character of John’s dispensation renders it impossible that his baptism could have been the same as the Christian. John was the forerunner of Christ, and his dispensation was but preparatory to that of the gospel. This appears from the words of John himself. In speaking of Christ he says: “He must increase, but I must decrease” — that is, my dispensation must quickly pass away, like unto “the voice of one crying in the wilderness,” that quickly dies upon the ear, but his “kingdom” shall increase more and more, “for he must reign till he hath put all enemies under his feet.” Again, Jesus says: “Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding, he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.” The “kingdom of heaven” here evidently means the gospel Church, and he that is least in that Church can only be said to be greater than John, because of the fact that he lives in the enjoyment of the superior blessings of the gospel dispensation, while the dispensation of John was inferior and only preparatory.

(4) That “John’s baptism” could not be the Christian baptism, is evident from the fact that it had passed away before Christianity was introduced. John began to preach and baptize six months before our Saviour entered upon his public ministry. Hence, if John’s was the Christian baptism, it would follow that this initiatory rite was not instituted by Christ himself, but by his forerunner, at least six months previous to the existence of Christianity. Into what absurdities does error impel her votaries!

(5) The condition and requirements of “John’s baptism” are so different from those of the Christian baptism, that the two could not have been identical. John simply demanded of the people repentance, saying: “Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance” (Matthew 3:8); or, as St. Paul expresses it, “John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people that they should believe on him which should come after him.” But in the Christian baptism there is not only required repentance, but also faith — not in a Messiah to come, but in a Saviour who has already come, and suffered, and died for our sins, and risen again for our justification; for St. Paul says: “Know ye not that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ, were baptized into his death?” And when the eunuch demanded baptism, the reply of Philip was: “If thou believest with all thy heart, thou mayest.” Here we see that in Christian baptism there is required not only faith in Christ as a manifested Saviour, but a faith realizing and introducing the subject of it into the enjoyment of the full benefits of his sacrificial death in the remission of sin and the renewing of the soul by the influence of the Holy Spirit. John did not even baptize in the name of Christ. How, then, could his be the Christian baptism?

(6) Again, the example of the apostles in re-baptizing John’s disciples when they were converted to Christianity, is the most direct proof that the two baptisms were not the same. (See Acts 19:1-5.) We know that an effort has been made by some who hold to “John’s baptism” as a Christian institute, to construe this passage in such manner that it shall not teach the re-baptism of John’s disciples; but we consider the passage so plain, that the effort to escape its force by any other than the obvious construction that records the re-baptism of John’s disciples, is too manifestly strained to be dictated by any thing but prejudice; therefore we deem it unworthy of a reply. Although we conclude, for the reasons given, that the baptism of John was not identical with the permanent Christian baptism instituted by Christ, yet it was divinely sanctioned, and served the purpose for which it was intended. It bore the same relation to the Christian baptism that John’s ministry did to that of the apostles when they went forth in the discharge of their great commission after having been “endued with power from on high.” As to its nature and design, all we can learn is, that it served as a badge of profession, or as an initiatory rite into John’s dispensation, implying that its recipient made a public confession of his sins, and a profession of repentance, and of faith in a Messiah soon to appear. With John’s disciples, baptism was an application of water, used as an emblem of the moral purification preparatory for that reception of the Messiah which repentance implied, and a profession of faith in the doctrines of John’s dispensation.

The baptism which Christ commanded his disciples to perform during his personal ministry, and previous to his crucifixion, however it may have differed in character from that of John’s, was not the same baptism which was afterward appointed under the perfected gospel system, and which was to be perpetuated “alway, even unto the end of the world.” The baptism connected with Christ’s personal ministry bore the same relation to the Christian baptism that his personal teachings, while he was (as Paul declares, Romans 15:8) “a minister of the circumcision,” bore to the gospel in its complete development after the Pentecostal baptism had been conferred. Christ’s personal ministry, previous to Pentecost, and also that of his disciples, were only preparatory to the full development of the gospel kingdom. The mission was, then, not to the Gentiles, but to the Jews. Jesus “came unto his own;” that is, the Jews. And he said, “I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” (Matthew 15:24.) The mission of the apostles was, then, “not into the way of the Gentiles,” or “into any city of the Samaritans,” but “unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”

This baptism was, nevertheless, a badge of profession; for it designated its subjects as “disciples” of Jesus, and believers in him as a “teacher come from God.” It differed from the Christian baptism, first, because it was not “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost;” secondly, because it did not recognize in its profession of faith a crucified and risen Messiah. It was no more identical with the Christian baptism instituted in the great apostolic commission, than was that of John. A person baptized with the faith required, either in John’s baptism or that of Christ’s apostles, previous to the grand commission given after Christ’s resurrection, could not be thereby admitted into communion in any genuine Christian Church in the world. Such a baptism and such a faith would rather indicate a Jew than a Christian.

II. We now proceed to examine the OBLIGATION OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM in the proper sense of that term.

Christian baptism is an ordinance of universal and perpetual obligation. By this we mean that it is the duty of all who would become Christians to be baptized, and that this obligation was not a temporary requirement, but is to be perpetuated in the Church “alway, even unto the end of the world.” We know of no denomination, “professing and calling themselves Christians,” who have denied the perpetuity of this ordinance in the Christian Church, except the Quakers. It is, however, admitted that some among the Socinians, Unitarians, and other classes of sectaries of loose principles and heterodox creed, have lightly esteemed water baptism, contemplating it as possessing no sacramental character, but being mainly an external mark of distinction between Pagans and Christians; useful at the introduction of the gospel in Pagan countries, but not necessary as a perpetual ordinance of the Church. It has been well said that “extremes beget extremes;” and, perhaps, the early tendency in the Church to magnify the importance of external rites, and attach a superstitious and unscriptural efficacy to mere forms and ceremonies, has tended to drive some to the opposite extreme of esteeming them too lightly. Indeed, the error, in this respect, of the Mystics, Quakers, Socinians, and all others who have repudiated or undervalued water baptism or other external rites, is but an outbirth from the opposite and more dangerous theories concerning sacramental salvation, water regeneration, etc.

That water baptism is an institution of perpetual obligation in the Church, is a clear deduction from the language of the great apostolic commission: “Go ye therefore, and teach 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; and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world.” (Matthew 28:19, 20.) Or as it is recorded by St. Mark: “Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.” (Mark 16:15, 16.)

From the terms of this commission it is settled beyond dispute —

1. That it is to extend universally over the world — “all nations” — “all the world” — “every creature.” This language admits of no restriction to the commencement of the dispensation, or to the introduction of the gospel in a Pagan country.

2. The perpetuity of the institution of baptism is here unquestionably established: “Alway, even unto the end of the world.” This phrase, as well as the language recorded by St. Mark — “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved” — can only be rationally interpreted as teaching the perpetuity of the commission, and the performance of water baptism as one of its abiding functions. Other scriptures, to the same effect, might be quoted; but it is sufficient to add that in all the Bible, whether we refer to those predictions of the prophets concerning the gospel dispensation in which water baptism is evidently referred to, or to the teachings of Christ, or to the writings and administration of his inspired apostles, there is not the slightest intimation that this ordinance was ever to be discontinued. To set aside the obligation of water baptism (though the error might be less pernicious), would be equally as destitute of authority from Scripture, as to discard the requirement of repentance or of faith.

It may be proper, however, before we dismiss this point, to inquire upon what ground the attempt has been made to disprove the perpetuity of this ordinance.

In addition to mere reasoning from general principles, based upon the admitted fact of the spirituality of the gospel dispensation, as contrasted with the ceremonial character of that of Moses, express Scripture authority has been invoked to disprove the perpetual obligation of water baptism. On this subject some have founded an argument on the words of John: “I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance, but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost.” Here John shows his inferiority to the Messiah, from the fact that he (John) baptized only “with water,” but Christ would “baptize with the Holy Ghost.” But how gratuitous and preposterous is it to infer that because the Saviour baptized “with the Holy Ghost,” therefore he could not authorize baptism “with water”! But how monstrous must this inference appear, when it is remembered that it so flatly contradicts the plain history of the facts! for on the very day of Pentecost, when the baptism of the Holy Ghost was first poured out, “three thousand” were also baptized with water. And again, when, under the preaching of Peter, the baptism of the Holy Ghost fell on the first Gentile converts in the house of Cornelius, so far from this baptism superseding that of water, the apostle infers the propriety of the one from the fact of the other. His language is, “Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?” Indeed, we may say that to discard water baptism as a mere temporary appendage, and not a permanent institution of the gospel, is not to be guided by the New Testament, but to proceed in direct opposition to its history. Hence, we conclude that while the gospel shall continue to be preached in. the world, and the organization of the Christian Church shall be preserved, water baptism, “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,” will still be required.

III. We have already contemplated baptism, as also the other sacrament — the Lord’s-supper — as a sign and seal of “internal spiritual grace.” We now inquire more particularly concerning the design and efficacy of baptism.

1. The first theory upon this subject which we shall notice, is that of the Roman Catholics. They attribute to this sacrament a saving efficacy — teaching that, in some mysterious way, there is directly imparted through this ordinance, when properly administered, spiritual grace, in such sense, that whatever may be the character of the subject (unless he be guilty of some mortal sin), his moral nature is at once regenerated and sanctified; thus attributing to the element of water the efficacy pertaining alone to the blood of Christ, and to the agency of the priest the work of regeneration and sanctification, which can only be effected by the agency of the Holy Spirit.

2. Another theory, somewhat different from the view just presented, though closely allied to it, has been sanctioned by a class of High-church Episcopalians, and very zealously advocated by Alexander Campbell and his followers. This theory, while it rejects the notion that there is any saving efficacy in the sacrament of baptism itself, or any spiritual grace directly imparted through this application of water, independent of the character or disposition of the subject, yet maintains that baptism, properly administered and received, secures the grace of regeneration, and is the means and pledge of the remission of sins.

The abettors of this theory are, however, not agreed among themselves as to the import of regeneration. While some of them understand the term as implying, according to its commonly received import, a change of heart, or a renewal of the moral nature, others construe it as meaning only a change of state; yet they harmonize in the position that the remission of sins is promised only through baptism, and, consequently, that without baptism an evidence of forgiveness cannot be obtained. Alexander Campbell has expressed his peculiar theory upon this subject in the following language: “We have the most explicit proof that God forgives sins for the name’s sake of his Son, or when the name of Jesus Christ is named upon us in immersion; that in and by the act of immersion, so soon as our bodies are put under water, at that very instant our former or ‘old sins’ are all washed away, provided only that we are true believers.”

It is apparent, from the account just given of the views of Roman Catholics, High-church Episcopalians, and of Alexander Campbell, as to the connection of baptism with regeneration and the remission of sins, that there are several shades of difference in sentiment among them. Yet, so closely are they allied, that a refutation of the position of Mr. Campbell, as just presented in his own language, will comprise a refutation of all the schemes to which we have referred. Therefore, we proceed directly to examine that position.

The position is substantially this: that the remission of sins is imparted only through baptism.

This, which is the theory of Mr. Campbell, we consider but little better than the doctrine of the High-church Episcopalians or of the Roman Catholics. These schemes, we are satisfied, are radically erroneous, substituting, in effect, the element of water and the physical agency of man for the blood of Christ and the divine agency of the Holy Spirit.

Now, if we can show that there is some other condition, separate and distinct from baptism, with which the remission of sins is inseparably connected, and that remission is not thus inseparably connected with baptism, it will follow, of course, that the position we oppose cannot be true.

We appeal, then, “to the law and to the testimony.” “He that believeth on him is not condemned.” (John 3:18,) “He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life.” (John 3:36.) “Verily, verily I say unto you, he that believeth on me hath everlasting life.” (John 3:47.) “Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.” (Romans 3:28.) “To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.” (Acts 10:43.)

A large portion of Scripture, to the same effect, might be adduced; but to add more is needless. If the above passages do not decide the point that faith, and not baptism, is the condition on which the “remission of sins” turns, no language could be framed to prove the position. Here we are taught that every believer is freed from “condemnation” — “hath everlasting life” — “is justified” — and “shall receive remission of sins.” Now, we affirm that no man can possess all these things and his sins not be remitted. Can a man be “not condemned,” “have everlasting life,” and be “justified,” and his sins not be remitted? The supposition is utterly inadmissible. Can he have faith without baptism? Surely he can. Why not? Then it follows that his sins may be remitted without baptism. Indeed, Mr. Campbell’s system not only contradicts the Bible, but fights against itself. Mr. Campbell teaches that a man must have faith before he can properly receive baptism; but if he has faith, if the Bible be true, “his sins are remitted;” and Mr. Campbell correctly tells us that if he has not faith, his sins will not be remitted in baptism. Hence it follows that if all who believe (as the Bible teaches) have already received “remission of sins,” and if (as Mr. Campbell teaches) they can only receive the “remission of sins” by first believing and then being baptized, it amounts to this: a man must first have “his sins remitted” before they can be remitted — that is, a thing must be before it can be. The truth is, the theory that “remission of sins” is inseparably connected with baptism flatly contradicts the Bible. The Bible connects remission inseparably with faith. Admit the truth of this position (which we cannot deny without flatly contradicting many plain scriptures, as we have shown), then we cannot escape the conclusion, according to Mr. Campbell, that we must first have remission before we can have it, which is a contradiction.

We take the first text which we quoted above — “He that believeth on him is not condemned” — and if there were no other scripture bearing on the subject, this alone contains a proof of the position for which we here contend, that can never be shaken (unless we flatly contradict the Saviour) by all the skill, ingenuity, and sophistry in the world. “He that believeth on him is not condemned.” Now, if this text means any thing, it means this: that all who believe on Christ are, that instant — the very moment they first believe on Christ — free from condemnation; and if free from condemnation, then they are pardoned, forgiven, their sins are remitted, they are justified, they are the children of God, they “shall not come into condemnation, but are passed from death unto life.” Can language be plainer, or proof clearer or more direct? If it be, then, a settled Bible maxim that the “remission of sins” is inseparably connected with faith, can it, at the same time, be inseparably connected with baptism? It is utterly impossible, unless we say that faith also is inseparably connected with baptism. We arrive again at the same conclusion — faith gives remission; but if faith must first exist in order to proper baptism, then baptism cannot give remission; for you cannot give a man what he already possesses. Seeing, then, that the Scriptures so explicitly and so abundantly teach that the “remission of sins” is inseparably connected with faith, we now examine those texts which, it is alleged, teach that “remission of sins” is inseparably connected with baptism. Of one thing we may be well assured: the Scriptures do not contradict themselves. If, therefore, it can be established from the Scriptures that “remission of sins” is inseparably connected with baptism, then it will necessarily follow that faith is inseparably connected with baptism; for “things equal to the same are equal to one another.”

The main reliance of the advocates of the system of baptismal regeneration and remission is on the words of Peter in his sermon at Pentecost: “Then Peter said unto them, 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.” (Acts 2:38.) Now, the question is, does this text necessarily prove the inseparable connection of the remission of sins with baptism? We contend that it does not. In the phrase, “for the remission of sins,” great stress has been laid on the meaning of the Greek preposition, eiv, which, it is contended, should have been translated “in order to,” instead of “for.” We attach no importance whatever to the controversy about the translation. The same preposition, as may be shown from numerous examples in the New Testament, may be translated in either way. It often means “in order to,” and it often means “in reference to,” or “on account of;” and the context must determine the proper sense. But the rendering of the preposition in this instance can have no effect upon the question before us. The question is this: Is it clearly taught that baptism is here presented as the essential and inseparable condition of remission? Under the sermon of Peter the wicked Jews were “pricked in their heart;” that is, they were convicted, and cried out: “Men and brethren, what shall we do?” They seem to have been in a similar condition to that of the jailer when he exclaimed, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” In this condition were they when “Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized,” etc. Now, as it is evident from this language that they had not yet evangelically repented, is it not also clearly implied that they had not yet believed “to the saving of the soul?”

In the fifteenth chapter of the Acts of the Apostles, St. Peter, in referring to the conversion of the Jews at Pentecost, clearly teaches that faith, and not baptism, was the great instrument of their salvation. In arguing that the Gentiles, who had embraced the gospel, should be received into the communion of the Church, Peter speaks as follows: “Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; and put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.” Here, in speaking of the salvation of the Gentiles, the apostle refers not to their baptism, but to their faith — “that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.” And, again, he says: “And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.” Now, here is proof positive that the Gentiles had their hearts purified by faith, and not by baptism; that is, they