Questions on Chapter 12.

were converted, justified, pardoned, saved, and their sins were remitted by faith, not baptism.

Again, precisely as it was with the Gentiles, so was it with the Jews at Pentecost. God put no difference between them. According to St. Peter, then, as the Gentiles received remission through faith, so did the Jews at Pentecost. Thus it is clear that, according to the apostle’s comment on his own words, when he said, “Repent and be baptized for the remission of sins,” faith was necessarily implied in connection with repentance, as the grand instrument or condition through which remission was obtained. It is, therefore, manifest that the passage under review, so far from teaching that baptism is the instrument, condition, or means, by or through which the remission of sins is obtained, does, most explicitly, when the apostle is allowed to comment on his own language, teach the inseparable connection of the remission of sins with faith, and not with baptism. One or two other texts have also been urged in support of the theory here opposed. For instance, the words of Ananias to Saul have been quoted: “Arise and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.” But the arguments already presented on the subject will apply with equal force against the doctrine, from whatever Scripture its proof may be attempted; therefore, we examine the testimony no farther. We arrive, then, at the conclusion that although water baptism should not be too lightly esteemed, and either set aside as not necessary under the gospel, or viewed as merely a form of initiation, or as a help to the exercise of faith, neither, on the other hand, should it be exalted too highly, as possessing intrinsic virtue and saving efficacy. The truth is this: it is a sign of Christian men’s profession, and also of the inward spiritual grace of regeneration and sanctification, and a seal of the gracious covenant by which the Church relation and the promise of eternal life are confirmed unto God’s people.

But yet, it is but an external ordinance. It is no substitute for the blood of atonement, by which alone sins can be washed away; or for the influence of the Holy Spirit, by which alone the regeneration and sanctification of the soul can be secured.

QUESTIONS ON CHAPTER 12.

QUESTION 1. What is the etymology of the word baptism?

2. Can it impart any light as to the nature or design of the ordinance?

3. Where do we date the origin of Christian baptism?

4. What evidence have we that the Jews practiced a proselyte baptism?

5. What was its design?

6. What was the design of the Jewish baptisms under the law?

7. What was the nature of John’s baptism?

8. How is it proved that John’s was not the Christian baptism?

9. What relation did the baptism Christ commanded his disciples to perform previous to his crucifixion, sustain to the Christian baptism?

10. Is the Christian baptism of universal and perpetual obligation?

11. By what arguments is this position sustained?

12. How has the attempt been made to disprove the position?

13. What is the Roman Catholic view as to the nature of Christian baptism?

14. What the view of High-church Episcopalians?

15. What the view of Alexander Campbell?

16. Is there any material difference between these views?

17. How may Mr. Campbell’s view be shown to be erroneous?

18. Upon what scriptures has he mainly based his argument on the subject?

19. What is the reply to his argument?