Chapter II: Part 2

But there is a circumstance recorded in three of them, which cannot be overlooked in connection with the subject of the administration of baptism to children;—though baptism itself is not mentioned in it. St. Matthew, St. Mark, and St. Luke, relate the bringing of little children or infants, or both, either by their parents or others interested for them, to Christ, “that He should put His hands on them and pray for them.” The disciples, unwilling probably that their Master should be troubled with such an application, “rebuked those who brought them: but when Jesus saw it, He was much displeased” with the disciples, “and said unto them, Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not; for of such is the kingdom of God. Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein. And He took them up in His arms, put His hands upon them, and blessed them.” (Mark x. 13–16.) What doubtless increased Christ’s displeasure at the conduct of His disciples was their evident forgetfulness of what had passed a short time before; when, a dispute having arisen among them who should be the greatest, He set a child in the midst of them and proposed him as a pattern of humility, unto which He declared all the subjects of His kingdom must be conformed. With respect to the children thus brought to Christ, He only acted in His usual benevolent manner, when He complied with the request made of Him concerning them. He was asked to “put His hands on them and to pray,”—that is, for a blessing to rest upon them. This therefore He did. The word “blessed”—He “blessed them”—is the same with that used by Himself in His sermon on the Mount: “bless them that curse you:”—the meaning of which is, ‘Pray that blessings may come upon those who call down curses upon you.’ And when Jesus blessed the children which were brought to Him, He commended them by prayer to the compassion and favour of His heavenly Father. This is all that we can legitimately conclude from what is here said. Jesus manifested the same kindness of heart towards the rich young ruler, mentioned immediately afterwards; when “beholding him, He loved him;” though this object of His love went away from Him, and there is every reason to fear that his riches proved the cause of his ruin. The same disposition of benevolence which led the Lord Jesus to pray for the children that were brought to Him, led Him also to pray for His murderers; for while hanging on the cross, He cried, “Father, forgive them.” But, were all that were engaged in putting Him to death really forgiven? Did not many of them continue in impenitence and unbelief? Undoubtedly they did. It is impossible, therefore, to conclude _absolutely_ that even these children which were brought to Christ were _eternally saved_, whatever _hope_ and charitable opinion may be entertained on the subject. But He farther said respecting them,—“Of such is the kingdom of God.” What then did He mean by this declaration? It is to be observed, that this was said by Jesus of these children, _not after_ they had been brought to Him and blessed by Him, but _before_ they were so brought, and _as the reason why they should be brought to Him_: “For of such is the kingdom of God.” Now it is evident that Christ does not say this of children as they are _by nature_. He Himself had before described the heart of man, that is, the nature of man, as full of all evil. (See Mark vii. 26.) And though these children might have been circumcised, yet _this_ does not appear to have been contemplated by Christ when He spake of them: and we know from what St. Paul says, as well as from other Scriptures, that the outward circumcision was by no means always accompanied with the circumcision of the heart. Nor does there appear to have been anything _peculiar_ in this case, to which Christ’s observations were confined. If so, _we_ should have nothing whatever to do with it. It seems to be of children, _as children_, that He here speaks;—not of _children brought to Him_, (as already noticed) but of _children in general_: “Of such is the kingdom of God.” These words, _strictly taken_, would intimate, that they were in the kingdom of God already; for He does not say this of them _after_ that they had been blessed by Him, but He says it of them _before_. It was not, therefore, _His reception of them_ which caused Him to speak thus concerning them. The true view of the subject seems to be this;—that, while the whole transaction wears a kind and gracious aspect toward man’s helpless offspring, Jesus had special regard in it to _the dispositions found in children_;—for by reason of infantile weakness corruption is then unable to manifest itself, and all appears to be gentleness and loveliness;—pride and malice and such like evils being necessarily absent, and humility and lowliness and dependance and such like tempers being by the same necessity present. So that it was with regard to _these_, rather than to _the subjects of them_, that Jesus said, “Of such is the kingdom of God.” This view harmonizes exactly with what He said in immediate connection with the words we are considering: “Verily, I say unto you, whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as _a little child_, he shall not enter therein.” The great object of the Lord evidently was, to set forth children, both as to what is _not_ seen in them, and what _is_ found in their meek, passive, harmless, submissive, and dependant state, as the pattern for His disciples’ imitation;—as, in fact, the exhibition of what must be found in every one, who would be a real subject of His kingdom. And that it was of _the age of infancy or childhood_, and not of the persons of the children themselves, that Christ was here speaking, is confirmed by a reference to the circumstance already mentioned, which is related by St. Matthew, in the beginning of the eighteenth Chapter, and which had occurred not long before the bringing of the children to Him. “The disciples came unto Jesus, saying, Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven? And Jesus called a little child unto Him, and set him in the midst of them, and said, Verily, I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as _little children_, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child,”—that is, so as to be as this little child is,—“the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven.” Now it cannot be supposed, that this child was selected by Christ as having any peculiar excellency in him. _Any child_ would doubtless have served His purpose:—the child of a Gentile as well as of a Jew. Neither _the nature_ of the child, nor _the state of the child’s soul in the sight of God_, had any thing to do with the use which the Lord here makes of him. It was _the state of childhood_ that Christ evidently had respect unto, and this He makes the model of His disciples. Just as David had said,—“My soul is even as _a weaned child_;” and as St. Paul afterwards wrote to the Corinthians,—“In malice be ye _children_.” And if farther evidence that this was Christ’s meaning be needed, it is found in the transition which He, as it were, insensibly makes from the “little children” to “believers in Him;” “_those little ones_,” (the word used by Him being changed,) “_those little ones_,” He calls them, “_which believe in me_;”—evidently referring to such as regard themselves to be the meanest and most humble of His disciples. With respect to children themselves, personally considered, the words of Christ seem only to convey a general expression of good will toward them,—to be understood and applied in conformity with other declarations of the Inspired Word. As to the bearing of this whole passage upon _baptism_, it is impossible to prove by it the connection of the new birth with baptism, or indeed anything about baptism at all;—except that it affords great encouragement to godly parents to bring their children to this Ordinance, and in it to present and dedicate them to the Lord their God. If we attempt to force the application of the passage, it may be turned against ourselves, and used as an argument for doing without the baptism of children altogether: for Christ does not say anything about the baptism of the children brought to Him, although baptism was then in use among His disciples. His silence respecting it is no valid argument against it; but it prevents the possibility of proving anything _absolutely_ as to the effect of baptism from this occurrence. In truth, the circumstances of the cases must be analogous, before _any_ application can fairly be made of it. Children must not be brought in gross ignorance and utter carelessness to be baptized, that they may receive their name from a minister, or for some other merely temporal object, without any regard to Christ or His grace, and this be said to correspond with what was done for the children in the history before us. This is to profane Christ’s Sacrament; and shall the profanation of it be attended with a blessing? No wonder that baptized children show no benefit from their baptism, when it has really not been a bringing of them to Christ at all:—Christ having never been thought of from first to last. If an appeal be made to the supposed efficacy of _the Ordinance itself_, then this passage has nothing to do with the subject. Other Scriptures must be resorted to, wherein reference _is_ made to baptism. From what was done and said on this occasion, believing parents, anxious for the salvation of their children, may draw much encouragement to bring them to Christ in baptism, and to pray and hope for a blessing, in connection with the subsequent use of means for their spiritual good: and they who act thus, comply much more with His mind and spirit, than those who withhold their children from the Ordinance. But no absolute and unconditional benefit in baptism can by any fair process of reasoning be deduced from it.

* * * * *

We proceed, then, to examine the passages in ‘The Acts of the Apostles,’ which relate to the subject of Baptism; and we shall there see the directions which Christ gave them concerning it carried into effect.

No sooner had the Apostles begun to execute their important Commission by preaching the gospel on the day of Pentecost, than God gave testimony to their word by convincing many of sin, especially of the sin of “crucifying the Lord of glory;” and they “said unto Peter and to the rest of the Apostles,” (as we read in Acts ii. 37,) “Men and brethren, what shall we do?” To this Peter answered, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.” In this exhortation, the principle enjoined by Christ upon the Apostles is found. Repentance and faith are first required. For the expressions, “Be baptized _in the name of Jesus Christ_,” do certainly mean, “Make an open profession of your believing in Jesus Christ, by being baptized in His name.” That this is their meaning there can be no doubt, when we consider what is said immediately afterwards: (v. 41.) “Then _they that gladly received his word_” (and how is the word received but by faith? See 1 Thess. ii. 13,) “were baptized; and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls. And they continued stedfastly in the Apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread and in prayers.” Here, then, things were as Christ intended them to be. They who were convinced of sin ask what they shall do—that is, to be saved. They are told to repent, and openly to confess Christ—that is, that they believed in Him as the Saviour—by being baptized. And they are assured, that upon doing _these things_—(the whole exhortation being taken together) they should receive “remission of their sins” and “the gift of the Holy Ghost.” They gladly received the word preached to them; and they were then baptized; and while their baptism was a public profession of repentance and faith on their part, it would doubtless be a means of grace to them, and a seal and pledge on God’s part of the forgiveness of their sins and of His good-will and favour towards them. And this was the right and legitimate use of the Ordinance.

The next instance recorded in The Acts of the Apostles is that of the people of Samaria, to whom Philip went and preached Christ, (viii. 5.) They had for a long time been bewitched with the sorceries of a certain man, called Simon; but, it is added, “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.” The same order is seen here, as at Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost. They first _believe_, and then _are baptized_. But now a very different case presents itself to us. Simon, the sorcerer himself, is said also to have believed and been baptized, and to have “continued with Philip,” (having of course ceased from his sorceries) “and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done” by him. Some think, that by pretending to be Philip’s disciple Simon hoped to be able to do the same; for that his opinion of Philip was, that he was but a more skilful sorcerer than himself. It appears that the Holy Ghost—by which the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit, the ability to speak divers languages and such like, are undoubtedly meant,—had not fallen upon any of the people of Samaria at their baptism, but was reserved to be bestowed in answer to the prayers of the Apostles and by the imposition of their hands. For “when the Apostles at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John: who, when they were come down, prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Ghost: then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.” (v. 14, 15.) The effect of this gift must have been immediately perceptible by others; for it led to that bold and blasphemous offer of money by Simon to the Apostles, which betrayed the hypocrisy, and pride, and wickedness of his heart. “When Simon saw, that through laying on of the Apostles’ hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money, saying, Give me also this power, that on whomsoever I lay hands, he may receive the Holy Ghost.” (v. 18, 19.) Peter’s indignant reply to him proves, that, though he had been baptized, he was in heart a sorcerer still. “The dog had turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed, to her wallowing in the mire.” (2 Peter ii. 22.) No change whatever had taken place in his character. And no change seems to have taken place in him afterwards; if we may judge from what he said to the Apostles. For when Peter denounced the just judgment of God against him, and declared that he “had neither part nor lot in the matter,” there was no sign of real penitence in his expressions. He deprecated the judgment indeed, and asked the Apostles to pray for him that it might not come upon him. “Pray ye to the Lord for me, that none of these things which ye have spoken come upon me.” (v, 24.) But even Pharaoh went farther than this. He said to Moses and Aaron, “Intreat the Lord, that He may take away this death from me;” but he also added, “I have sinned:” “I am wicked:”—a confession, which Simon never made; for it is to be feared that the conviction of it he never felt. And his case incontestably proves, that professions and Ordinances avail nothing, unless the “heart” be also “right in the sight of God.”

In this same Chapter we have an account of the baptism of the Ethiopian Eunuch. As far as his knowledge reached, this interesting person was a sincere and devout worshipper of the true God: but, as in the case of Cornelius afterwards, it was necessary that he should be brought to the clear and full knowledge of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Philip therefore is sent to instruct him, and is gladly received by him as his teacher. Philip, taking as his text the place of Scripture which he found the Eunuch reading, “preached unto him Jesus.” And his word was mixed with faith in him that heard it. And coming to a certain water, the Eunuch, having learned what was the rite of initiation which Christ had appointed, was anxious to take this opportunity of being openly received into the number of His disciples; and he therefore asked Philip, “What doth hinder me to be baptized?” Our Authorized Version has a reply from Philip and a confession of faith by the Eunuch, which are not found in many very ancient Manuscripts. Beza says of this verse, “God forbid I should think it ought to be expunged, since it contains such a confession of faith, as was in the Apostolic ages required of adults, in order to their being admitted to baptism.” But whether it be genuine or not, is of no material consequence. Christ had confined baptism to believers, in His instructions to His Apostles; and this verse only repeats the limitation. “If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayst” be baptized. And as for the confession of faith attributed to the Eunuch, it is plain that he was prepared and willing to make it. “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.” Both he and Philip then went down into the water, and Philip baptized him. In what manner, we are not told; nor do even the expressions, “into the water,” decide whether it was by immersion or the pouring or sprinkling of some of the water on his person. If the mode of administration had been essential to the validity of the Sacrament, no doubt it would have been mentioned. But neither here nor any where else is this the case. The Eunuch, then, having thus received the grace of the Covenant and the seal of the Covenant, confirmed too by the sign of Philip’s miraculous removal from him,—“went on his way rejoicing.” (v. 39.)

In the next Chapter, the ninth, we have an account of the conversion and baptism of Saul of Tarsus. The Lord Jesus appeared to him as he went to Damascus to persecute the disciples which might be found there: and Saul, having fallen to the ground and being told that that same Jesus whom he persecuted stood before him, exclaimed with all humility and entire submission, “Lord, what wilt thou have me to do?” One of the most astonishing instances of a sudden change of mind on record! The Lord then bade Saul “arise” from the earth, in order that he might hear what more He had to say to him. And well might Saul be overwhelmed by the communication which the Lord Jesus proceeds to make to him! In the account given in this ninth Chapter, it is briefly stated that the Lord commanded him to “go into the city,” (Damascus) and that “it should be told him what he must do.” This no doubt was a part of His communication. But by a reference to the account of this transaction given by himself before Agrippa, as recorded in the xxvith Chapter of this Book, it appears that the Lord made known to Saul _at that very time_ much of His mind and will concerning him; and that He said to him, “I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a Minister and a Witness both of these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee; delivering thee from the people and from the Gentiles, unto whom now I send thee, to open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me.” (v. 16–18) After this, Saul went into Damascus, and was three days without sight or food. Ananias was then sent to him by the Lord Jesus; and having put his hands upon him that he might receive his sight, and having repeated to him the Commission which Jesus had in person given to him, said, (as we read in the account of this event given in the xxiind Chapter,) “And now why tarriest thou? Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.” And he “arose, and was baptized.” This address of Ananias to Saul, taken by itself, would seem to connect the forgiveness or putting away of sin with the act of baptism. But were not Saul’s sins forgiven before his baptism? And did he not know that they were forgiven? Suppose a subject to have a very mistaken view of his Sovereign’s title to the crown, and an ignorant but very fervid zeal for some other. Suppose him not to have taken due pains to correct his error, and to be at the same time under the influence of much high-mindedness and self-confidence. He takes up arms against his Prince, and for a season is very successful in his efforts. But suddenly he finds himself in his power:—and at the same time his eyes are opened;—and he is convinced of the mistake which he had made, and of the delusion under which he had been acting. He now casts himself at his Sovereign’s feet, and professes his willingness to be at his absolute disposal for the future. Suppose the generous Monarch to reply;—‘I know that thou wast engaged in a blind and unequal contest with me: (“it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks:”) but I am come to tell thee, that I have appointed thee my Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary, and am about to send thee forth to a distant kingdom, there to transact for me some difficult and important business, in which my honour and interest and the interest of my subjects are greatly concerned: (“For I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a Minister and a Witness of these things which thou hast seen:”) I will from time to time communicate most confidentially with thee: (“and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee:”) all my authority and power shall be put forth for thy personal preservation: (“delivering thee from the people and from the Gentiles, unto whom now I send thee:”) and nothing shall be wanting on my part to make thine Ambassage successful.’ (“to open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light and from the power of Satan unto God, &c.”) Would this subject, after such a communication and commission,—delivered too by his Prince in person—have any doubt on his mind respecting the pardon of his rebellion? He might for a few days retire into secret, to reflect on his case;—to consider the evil of his own conduct, and the noble and generous manner in which he had been treated, when he might justly have been dealt with in a very different way. But his preferment of necessity involved his pardon and his full and complete establishment in his Sovereign’s favour. How could he, in the very nature of things, execute the Commission given to him, if he were to be put to death for his treason? Nevertheless, it might be very expedient, that a public manifestation should be made to the kingdom of this change in the state of things: for the Prince’s visit to his subject was in secret, though not the least suspicion could attach to the truth and sincerity of it. A public Ceremony might, therefore, take place, at which his own change of mind and his Sovereign’s pardon might be proclaimed, and his sealed Commission delivered into his hands:—but this, however important, would follow the previous interview as a matter of course. What has thus been _supposed_ was more than fulfilled in the case of Saul of Tarsus: for no communication among men could equal the condescension and grace of the Lord Jesus towards him and the confidence which He reposed in him. And the manner in which Ananias spake to Saul of his baptism seems to convey the last-mentioned idea; namely, that, however necessary, it was to take place as a matter of course. “_And now why tarriest thou_? _Arise_, _and be baptized_, _and wash away thy sins_, _calling on the name of the Lord_.” This washing away of his sins in baptism was a mystical or emblematical washing. It was a public manifestation of his penitence and his pardon. It was on his part an open avowal of submission to Christ; and on the part of the Lord Jesus Christ it was an equally open avowal of the acceptance of his submission, and a seal of his sonship and security. Hereby his faith would be confirmed, and his grace increased by virtue of “calling on the name of the Lord.” But how could this confirmation and increase take place, unless faith and grace had been possessed by him previously?

The baptism of Cornelius and his company, recorded in Chapter x., is the next instance we meet with in Scripture of the administration of this Sacrament of the Christian Church. This case is remarkable as being the first-fruits of the Gentiles unto Christ. Peter—to whom Christ had given “the keys of the kingdom of Heaven,” (Matt. xvi. 19,) that is, the high privilege of opening the door of faith both to the Jews and to the Gentiles,—was sent by God to preach the gospel to this Roman Centurion. His objections, as a Jew, to go unto one of another nation having been removed by a vision, Peter went to the house of Cornelius, where he found him and his kinsmen and near friends assembled together to receive and to hear him. He faithfully preached Christ unto them: and while he spake those important words, “To Him give all the prophets witness, that, through His name, whosoever believeth in Him shall receive remission of sins,” “the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.” Under the influence of the Spirit they “spake with tongues, and magnified God. Then answered Peter, Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord.” (43–47.) In the case of the people of Samaria, the Holy Ghost was not given when they were baptized, but _some time after_;—when the Apostles Peter and John, came down from Jerusalem and laid their hands upon them. In the case of Cornelius and his friends, the same Holy Spirit was given before their baptism, and while Peter was preaching the gospel to them. Thus it was not always _at_ the administration of the Ordinance that the Holy Ghost was given. And though the immediate effect of this gift of the Spirit was manifested in the power to speak with tongues and to prophesy, yet it also enabled and disposed them to “magnify God:” thereby showing, that His ordinary sanctifying operations were included. Well then might Cornelius and they who were with him receive the outward and visible sign of baptism by water, since they had already received the thing signified by it!

In Chapter xvi., two very interesting cases are recorded, which are worthy of particular attention. They occurred at Philippi, in Macedonia; to which country St. Paul and his company had been called by a vision to preach the gospel there. The first of these is the case of a woman named Lydia. In the 13th and 14th verses the sacred historian writes; “And on the Sabbath we went out of the city by a river side, where prayer was wont to be made; and we spake unto the women which resorted thither. And a certain woman, named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, which worshipped God, heard us: whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul.” In consequence of the opening of her heart by the Lord, she heard to her soul’s profit. She received the gospel which Paul preached. We are then told concerning her, that “she was baptized, and her household.” And her faith brought forth fruit: for she immediately invited the Apostle and those who were with him, to come and abide at her house; and she would not take a denial. They therefore abode with her many days. Another case then occurred, which served to show why they had been called to preach the gospel in Macedonia. Paul and Silas having been thrown into prison for casting a spirit of divination out of a certain damsel, the Lord sent a great earthquake at midnight, which opened the doors of the prison, and awoke the jailor; who, fearing that the prisoners had fled, drew his sword and was about to kill himself; when Paul assured him that they were all there. Upon this, “he sprang in, and fell down before Paul and Silas, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” Paul and Silas immediately preached the gospel to him, saying, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.” They then at greater length “spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house.” The same success attended the word, as in the case of Lydia. And his faith, like her’s, wrought by love; for he immediately began to show all the attention in his power to Paul and Silas. And as Lydia was baptized, and her household, so it is said that the jailor “was baptized, he and all his, straightway.” Now it is evident, that in the baptizing of the two principal persons in this history, Lydia and the jailor, the same course was pursued by the Apostle as in all the other instances which have been considered. They first believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, and then they were baptized. But a new feature presents itself on both these occasions; that is, the baptizing of their households. And hence has been drawn a very common argument in favour of the baptizing of children; as it has been thought _probable_ that children formed a part of these households. Beside these cases, there are only two other, in which the house or family is spoken of in the New Testament in connection with the head of the house,—the house of Crispus and the house of Stephanas; and though it is taking them out of their order, it may be well to notice them also here. Let us consider first the case of the jailor. It is said that “he was baptized, and all his,”—that is, “all his house;” to whom, as well as to himself, Paul and Silas had “spoken the word of the Lord.” But if we are told that _they were baptized_, we are also told that _they believed_. In the 34th verse we read, that the jailor “rejoiced, believing in God with all his house.” In order to force this case to support Infant-baptism, an attempt is sometimes made to change the construction of the sentence, _thus_; “He, believing in God, rejoiced with all his house.” This makes very little difference in the meaning. For if his house were capable of rejoicing with him, they must have been of a sufficient age to understand _why_ they rejoiced: and as his faith in Christ was the cause of _his_ joy, it must have been also the cause of _theirs_; and if they could rejoice in _his_ faith, why might they not have had faith _of their own_ to rejoice in? But the Greek will not admit of the above construction. The adverb translated “with all his house” must be referred to the participle “believing,” which in the Original follows it; and these words express the reason of his joy, which was, his own faith and the faith of his family. Beza gives _this_ as the sense of the latter part of the 34th verse; “He,” that is, the jailor, “rejoiced because that with the whole of his house he had believed in God.” {50} _As believers_, therefore,—of whomsoever his “house” consisted—they were entitled to baptism _on their own account_, and thus they stood precisely in the same situation with himself. And _no inference_ can _hence_ be drawn respecting Infant-baptism. Of Crispus, the chief ruler of the Synagogue at Corinth, mentioned in the xviiith Chapter, it is at once said that he “believed on the Lord with all his house;” and though their baptism is not particularly spoken of, it would of course take place with the baptism of the other believing Corinthians. From St. Paul’s First Epistle to the Corinthians we learn that he himself baptized Crispus;—no mention being made of his household: but as we are informed that they were _believers_, they would certainly be baptized, like the household of the Philippian jailor. This case, therefore, does not apply to the subject of Infant-baptism. Neither does the baptizing of the house of Stephanas. St. Paul tells the Corinthians, in the beginning of his First Epistle, that he baptized this house: but what does he say of them at the close of the Epistle? “Ye know,” he says, “the house of Stephanas, that it is _the first fruits of Achaia_, _and that they have addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints_:” (xvi. 15.)—a description this, of _personal religion_; and proving that they were _all_ capable of meeting the requirements of baptism _in their own persons_. The only remaining case in which a household is said to have been baptized, is that of Lydia at Philippi. Now it seems evident from her history that she had no husband. The house is twice called _her house_; and _the household_ is called _hers_ also. And the invitation to Paul and his company is given _by herself and in her own name_. “Come into _my house_, and abide there.” (v. 15.) This language could never have been used of her and by her, if she had had a husband. Nor does it appear at all likely, that she was a widow with children; for, from the particularity with which her circumstances are related, there is every probability that, had this been the case, some intimation would have been given of it. We have not only _her name_ mentioned, but _the place_ she came from or still belonged to, and _the business_ which she followed: but no allusion whatever to any family. She could not have been a person in a low condition of life, or she would not have been able to receive and entertain in her house for many days the Apostle and those who were with him. She would therefore have “household servants,” and probably persons to assist her in her business as “a seller of purple.” But the whole tenor of her history is against the supposition, that there were in her house _any who could not answer for themselves_. It appears, then, from the consideration of the cases in which the baptizing of households is mentioned in Scripture, that no argument whatever can be deduced from them on the subject of Infant-baptism. A reference to them, therefore, only gives an advantage to the opponents of the practice:—an argument which will not bear close examination being always worse than none.

The xviiith Chapter of this Book of The Acts of the Apostles contains the account of Crispus and his house just referred to. It is also simply, though very strikingly, said of many others of the Corinthians, that they “heard,”—they “believed,”—and they “were baptized.” (v. 8.) Faith came by hearing; and baptism, according to the institution of Christ, followed faith.

There only remains, in this Book of The Acts of the Apostles, another instance of baptism to be noticed; and this occurred at Ephesus. It is related in the beginning of the nineteenth Chapter. “Paul came to Ephesus, and finding certain disciples, he said unto them, have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.” We are reminded here of that passage in the Seventh Chapter of St. John, (v. 39.) where the Evangelist, referring to some words of the Lord Jesus, says, “This spake He of the Spirit, which they that believe on Him should”—that is, afterwards—“receive;”—adding, “for the Holy Ghost was not yet given, because that Jesus was not yet glorified.” The literal translation of the latter part of this text is, “for the Holy Ghost was not yet:”—from which it would appear, that at that time there was no Holy Ghost; and therefore that the ignorance of His existence, of which the disciples at Ephesus seem to speak, was not so much to be wondered at. But the solution of the difficulty is probably the same in both cases. When St. John says, “For the Holy Ghost was not yet, because that Jesus was not yet glorified,” his meaning is made plain by the very proper introduction into our translation of the word “given;”—“for the Holy Ghost was not yet given.” This evidently refers to the extraordinary and abundant pouring out of the Holy Spirit, which was reserved until Jesus had ascended up on high, and (according to the prophecy in the lxviiith Psalm) had “received gifts for men;” and when He received them, He shed them forth, first upon His Apostles on the day of Pentecost, and afterwards upon multitudes of believers, generally by the laying on of their hands. But the disciples at Ephesus had not heard of these things. They had had no communication with any Christian Church or people; and thus, though they had been baptized with the baptism of John, as they tell the Apostle Paul in answer to his next question, “Unto what then were ye baptized?”—and _must_ therefore have heard of the existence of the Holy Ghost, yet they had not heard of His having been given; and they express their ignorance in language very like to that which the Evangelist uses, when he is describing the period before the gift of the Spirit on the day of Pentecost. This seems a reasonable account of the matter. And if the same course had been pursued in the translation of both texts, the likeness between them would have been very evident. In the passage in St. John the explanatory word “given” is introduced. In the Chapter before us, not only is this or any such word omitted, but the word “any” is added,—“_any_ Holy Ghost,” without a word in the Original to justify it. The literal rendering would be; “We have not even heard whether the Holy Ghost is.” Now if the word “given,” or “come,” were added, as in St. John, the two passages would exactly correspond:—“The Holy Ghost was not yet given:”—“We have not even heard whether the Holy Ghost is given.” These persons had probably not been long at Ephesus, but might have been (as Dr. Whitby suggests) “travelling into other parts of the world, where the gospel had not yet been planted.” But a question has arisen, whether what is said in the fifth verse relates to _them_, or whether it is not a continuation of St. Paul’s description of John’s baptism, begun in the verse before. “When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.” The objection to the application of this to the twelve disciples found at Ephesus is, that it involves a repetition of the Ordinance of baptism. But though John’s baptism and the Christian Sacrament were administered _substantially_ upon the same principles, there was a sufficient difference between them to warrant the baptizing again, in the name of the Sacred Trinity, of those who might already have partaken of John’s baptism. The baptism of John was connected with an intermediate, or, at most, an introductory dispensation. It was, what the Apostle says of the tabernacle,—“for the time then present.” But after that Christ had appointed baptism “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,” as the door of entrance into His Church for believers, there was no reason why such as had been baptized with John’s baptism should not be admitted to Christ’s Ordinance also, if occasion seemed to require it. And indeed St. Paul’s question, “Unto what then were ye baptized?” seems to recognize a distinction of baptisms. But no argument whatever can be founded upon this case for the repetition of baptism _under the same Dispensation_. To suppose that the words in the 5th verse are a continuation of St. Paul’s description of John’s baptism, would be inconsistent with the natural course of the narrative; and to say that John “baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus,” would be to speak of his baptism as it is no where else spoken of. Beside, the persons on whom St. Paul laid his hands, as stated in the 6th verse, were the disciples found at Ephesus, and not the people in general who were baptized by John. So that it appears that what is said in the 5th verse relates to these disciples. Their knowledge was very limited; but they had the characteristic dispositions of disciples,—humility and teachableness; and thus, when they were farther instructed by St. Paul in the things concerning the Lord Jesus Christ, they, no doubt with the greatest willingness, were baptized in His name. And then as in the case of Samaria, “when the Apostle had laid his hands upon them,” (but not before,) “the Holy Ghost came on them, and they spake with tongues and prophesied.”

This is all that is said on the subject of baptism, as a Sacrament of the Christian Church, in the Scripture-history of The Acts of the Apostles.

* * * * *

We come, then, to The Epistles.

The first passage we meet with on our subject is in the sixth Chapter of the Epistle to the Romans. St. Paul, the writer of this Epistle, had been dwelling, in the former Chapters, upon the great gospel-doctrine of salvation by grace through faith. He had declared, that “a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law;” (iii. 28,) that in this way Abraham was justified; (iv. 3,) and that in this way every one else must be justified: (iv. 24,) and in the latter part of the fifth Chapter he had spoken strongly of God’s grace much more abounding where man’s sin abounded. The Apostle, then in the beginning of the sixth Chapter anticipates an abuse which might be made of this doctrine, and corrects it. “What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin,” in order “that grace may abound? God forbid!” Abhorred be the thought! And he proceeds to reason upon this; and to show, not only its _incongruity_, but (in a sense which other Scriptures allow) its _impossibility_:—“How shall _we_ that _are dead_ to sin, _live_ any longer therein?” And then he brings in the subject of their baptism. “Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ, were baptized into His death? Therefore we are buried with Him by baptism into death; that like as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.” (v. 3, 4.) After what we have seen already of baptism, as administered by the Apostles and others, we can be at no loss to perceive the meaning of St. Paul’s expression, “baptized into Christ.” According to His own command, all who believed in Him were baptized; and this act or Ordinance was their open avowal of faith in Him,—their public and palpable engrafting and incorporation into Him and His Church,—and their solemn dedication and consecration to the love, worship, and service of God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. {57} Their baptism into Christ, consequent upon, and declarative of, their faith in Him, publicly and manifestly bound them unto Him;—to strict and spiritual conformity with Him. And thus the Apostle goes on to remind those who had been “baptized into Christ,”—for the Epistle was addressed to those at Rome who were “beloved of God and called to be saints,” and whose “faith was spoken of throughout the whole world,” (i. 7, 8,)—that they were “baptized into His death;” that is, into conformity to His death; that in virtue of His dying for their sins, and after the pattern of this His death, and by motives and considerations drawn from His death, they should die to all sin and be delivered from the reigning power of it. ‘The faithful,’ observes Beza on this expression, ‘are said to be baptized into the death of Christ, that through His death sin may die and be abolished in them.’ And to carry this conformity still farther, St. Paul adds, “Therefore we are buried with Him by baptism into death.” For as Christ’s burial was a manifestation of the reality of His death, so ought it to be also with them respecting sin. It was likewise an introduction to, and preparation for, His glorious resurrection. And thus the Apostle proceeds with his exhortation;—“that like as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory (the glorious power) of the Father, even so we also (we who are baptized into Him) should walk in newness of life.” And in the following verses—indeed to the end of the Chapter—St. Paul presses the Roman Christians to devotedness to God’s service, in language the most forcible which could have been made use of. Here then we see what baptism is, in the case of real believers: and it is of such alone that the Apostle here speaks. The obligations which result from it to righteousness and holiness are of the strongest possible description. And these obligations have their influence upon the faithful; though that influence is capable of a continued increase. How different is this from a service which is “outward” only “in the flesh!”

The expressions, “buried with Christ by baptism” and “walking in newness of life” “after the pattern of His resurrection,” seem to imply, that the method of baptizing was by immersion, or plunging the whole body under water, from which it would come forth as by a kind of resurrection. That baptism _has been_ thus administered, and _may be_ thus administered, is freely admitted. But this is _no proof_ that such was the unvarying method, and certainly _no precept_ that it shall always be administered in this way. It may, however, with much reason be argued, that the expressions, “baptized into His death,”—“buried with Him,”—and “walking in newness of life” like unto His resurrection,—were not used by the Apostle with any reference to _the mode of administration_, but to _the events spoken of_; namely, Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection. Christians are said to have been “circumcised in Christ,” and to be “crucified with Him,” without any outward corresponding actions. But if an argument for _immersion_ may be drawn from this passage, an argument for _affusion_, or the pouring of water upon the person, may with greater force be drawn from the manner in which the Holy Ghost descended upon Christ Himself at His baptism, and upon the Apostles on the day of Pentecost, and subsequently upon others who were baptized, and from the language used to describe it. When Peter preached to Cornelius, it is said, “The Holy Ghost _fell on_ all them that heard the word:” and again, “On the Gentiles also _was poured out_ the gift of the Holy Ghost.” This is expressly called by St. Peter, their being “baptized with the Holy Ghost.” (Acts xi. 15, 16.) An argument might also be drawn for the practice of _sprinkling_, not only from the striking similarity between baptism and the water of separation which was to be sprinkled upon the unclean, (Numb. xix. 19.,) but from the connection between the water of baptism and the blood of Christ, of which, as well as of the Holy Spirit, this water is an emblem, and which is called “the blood of sprinkling” from the method of its application to the heart. From all these things, and from the absence of any specific directions on the subject, it is reasonable to conclude, that baptism may be rightly administered in each of the _three_ ways which have been mentioned. And it is too much like an undue magnifying of _the sign_, when it is attempted to make it in all respects answerable to the thing signified by it.

This is the only passage _directly_ relating to baptism in the Epistle to the Romans.

But there is a statement of the Apostle in the eleventh Chapter, which not only confirms what has been already said of the continuance of the Covenant with Abraham under the Christian Dispensation, but which also bears strongly upon the subject of the right of the children of believing parents to the token of the Covenant, together with their parents. The passage particularly referred to is the 24th verse of the eleventh Chapter. “For if thou wert cut out of the olive-tree which is wild by nature, and wert grafted contrary to nature into a good olive-tree, how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be grafted into _their own olive-tree_!” The Apostle is here comparing the admission of the Gentiles into the Church of God, to the cutting off of branches from a wild olive and the grafting of them into a good olive; the good olive being the ancient church, planted, as it were, in the person of believing Abraham. ‘In the view of St. Paul, the establishment of the Christian Church was no dissolution of the Jewish Church. It is the same Society still;—the same Body Corporate. Some of its rules and regulations, indeed, have been altered: a disfranchisement of many of its old members has taken place, and new ones have been admitted: but the same Church,—the same Chartered Company,—which existed _before the Law and under the Law_, exists to this present hour under the Gospel Dispensation. It is still Abraham’s family. He is “the father of all them that believe.” “If ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.” {61} When, therefore, any of the Jews “abide not in unbelief,” and are received into the Church of Christ, it is but “the grafting of the natural branches into _their own olive-tree_.” They are restored to the privileges which their fathers enjoyed, and are made members of the Church of God. But are their children to be left behind? Are they to be left out of the Covenant? And is this, might a converted Israelite justly ask,—Is this to be restored to our fathers’ privileges? “Circumcision was not of the law, but of the fathers.” _That_ is taken away; and what have we in its place, if baptism, which is now the token of the covenant, be withheld from our children? If circumcision was our children’s birthright before, how can they be deprived of it, and have nothing given them in the stead thereof, and yet the privileges possessed by our fathers not be lessened? This is _not_ to be “grafted into _our own olive-tree_”!