Chapter III: Part 3

In the first Chapter of his first Epistle to the Corinthians, St. Paul speaks of baptism; but as it is principally with a reference to himself, it is scarcely necessary to notice it in our present consideration,—except for the statement he is led to make of the great object of his mission; which was “_not_ to baptize, but to preach the gospel:” the latter being the far more important and difficult work; necessary as it was that converts to Christ should be baptized. Divisions had arisen among the Corinthians: “one saying, I am of Paul,”—that is, I prefer Paul before all other Ministers, and others of them preferring others. This state of things caused the Apostle great distress, and he anxiously endeavours to correct it. He indignantly asks them, whether he (or any other Minister) had been “crucified for them,” or whether they had been “baptized _in his name_.” This shows that baptism implies an entire dedication to him, in whose name it is administered. The Apostle then tells them, that he was very thankful it had been so ordered that he had baptized very few of them himself;—adding, as the cause of this, “for Christ sent me not to baptize,”—_that_ might be done by others,—“but”—He sent me—“to preach the gospel.” The Apostle here cannot intend to put any slight upon Christ’s Ordinance of baptism, as is evident from what he has just said of it, “_Were ye baptized in the name of Paul_?”—but he intends to show, that it might be administered by persons of inferior station and gifts in the Church. And this is manifest from the very nature of the service.

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

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

The Epistle to the Galatians furnishes us with the next passage in our important inquiry. It is at the close of the iiird Chapter, the 26th and two following verses:—“For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek; there is neither bond nor free; there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.” Here a new idea is introduced;—a fresh practical use is made by the Apostle of the Ordinance of baptism. And a very striking and beautiful idea it is. The order hitherto invariably found to prevail in what the Scripture says on the subject of baptism is observable also here. The Apostle first reminds the Galatians that _they were made the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus_, and then he refers to their baptism and what they had done by it. As we have considered the expressions, “baptized into Christ,” as they occur in the Epistle to the Romans, they need not be noticed here. But the words, “have put on Christ,” represent to us—what in connection with our subject we have not had before—the clothing or garments which baptized believers have put on, and in which they appear (when things are as they ought to be with them) both before God and before men. This phrase is said to have been taken from the method of dipping or plunging adults in baptism; who, when they came forth from the water, were clothed with their own garments as though they had been new, or with other garments really new. There are two senses in which true believers may be said to “put on Christ.” First, they put Him on as their righteousness for acceptance with God or for their justification; and, secondly, they put Him on—(and this seems especially intended here)—for sanctification; that is, His Spirit is imparted to them, by which they are so changed as to become new creatures. The graces of Christ’s Spirit are sometimes thus described under the figure of clothing. “Put on, as the elect of God, holy and beloved,” writes St. Paul to the Colossians, “bowels of mercies, kindness, humbleness of mind, meekness, long-suffering.” “And above all these things, put on charity, which is the bond of perfectness.” (iii. 12, 14.) The Spirit of Christ ought to be as apparent in those who have been baptized into Him as the garments which they wear. Nay, His meekness, and lowliness, and gentleness, and goodness, and heavenly-mindedness, should become _a part of themselves_—_their very nature_. For as the work of sanctification, expressed by the being clothed upon with ‘Christ, is both _internal_ and _outward_, it may be compared to _the natural beauty_ with which Christ Himself said that God clothes the plants and the flowers: and when Christians manifest the genuine influence of the Spirit of Christ, it may then indeed be said of them, as He said of the lilies, “that Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these.” The words in the 28th verse, “There is neither male nor female,”—connected with what follows, “If ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed,”—clearly show that circumcision was superseded, and that baptism now supplied its place.

Upon St. Paul’s declaration in the ivth Chapter of his Epistle to the Ephesians, “One baptism,” it is perhaps only necessary to remark, that it again follows faith;—“One faith,”—the same doctrine of salvation once for all delivered to the saints and to be received by faith,—and then, “One baptism” with water, by which that faith is professed, and in which believers are by One Spirit baptized into One body, and dedicated to the service of the One living and true God. It is One and the same Ordinance for all,—for Jews and Gentiles; and once administered, not to be repeated. The practical purpose for which this, with the other Unities, was mentioned by the Apostle, was to enforce the same lesson as that given to the Corinthians,—that Christians should “endeavour to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.” (v. 3.)

In the vth Chapter of this Epistle there appears another allusion to baptism, when the Apostle says, that “Christ loved the Church, and gave Himself for it, that He might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word.” (v. 26.) It is not necessary to the sense and force of this verse to suppose that baptism is referred to in it; for the word of God has a cleansing and sanctifying power, when applied by His Spirit. “Sanctify them through Thy truth: Thy word is truth;” was Christ’s prayer for His disciples to His heavenly Father. And He also said unto them, “Now ye are clean _through the word_ which I have spoken unto you.” And as it is a continuous and progressive work, which the Apostle is here speaking of, and not any one particular act,—for the use of God’s “_word_” in the work of sanctification is continually repeated,—it seems much more natural to understand the expressions, “with the washing of water by” or in “the word,” as referring to the figure of water, and its purifying properties in general, rather than to a single instance of its application. But there can be no objection to refer these expressions to baptism, as being an Ordinance which is supposed to be kept always in remembrance, and to have a constant bearing upon the believer’s life and conduct. Let us take it here, and every where else, in connection with the context, and we shall find that it represents—not an imaginary, but a real—not a temporary, but an abiding—influence upon the soul;—issuing in its final salvation. Who is this that is said to be washed with water by the word? The mixed multitude of professors of Christ’s religion? No:—but “_the Church_,”—the blessed Company of all faithful people—“the Bride—the Lambs wife.” And what is the effect ascribed to the washing? Her cleansing and sanctification. But as the Church is composed of individuals, every individual member thereof is “sanctified, and cleansed with the washing of water by the word,” and so is made meet to be presented by Christ to Himself at the last in perfect beauty. Let these things attend and crown the use of the Ordinances, and men may magnify them—as Paul did his Office—as much as they please.

The next place in Scripture in which baptism is spoken of, is in the iind Chapter of St. Paul’s Epistle to the Colossians. At the 11th verse he begins the subject. “In whom also,” that is, in Christ, “ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: buried with Him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with Him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised Him from the dead.” The Apostle’s object here is to show, that the Christian’s completeness in Christ (asserted in the former verse) is not affected by the want of circumcision; for that true believers have that which was represented by circumcision, only under another form and name. By “the circumcision made without hands,” the circumcision of the heart is evidently intended. By “the circumcision of Christ” is probably _not_ meant the circumcision which Christ Himself was subjected to, but the circumcision with which Christ circumcises. This would therefore refer to the Christian Sacrament of baptism, wherever rightly received. This is the corresponding type with, as well as antitype of, circumcision; because, like circumcision, it represents and seals the blessings of the Covenant to believers. The latter part of this passage is so like the one already considered in the vith chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, that it need not be dwelt upon. The death, burial and resurrection of Christ are not only signs and patterns of what _should take place_ with respect to Christians, but they are effectual causes thereof in the case of all who are spiritually joined to Him; and the whole is, as it were, _consolidated in baptism_. The faith which goes before, and which is exercised in the Ordinance, and the fruits which follow after, are all summed up in and referred to this Sacrament: and well and happy it is, whenever this is truly the case.

Two texts more remain to be considered in relation to our subject. The first is found in that passage in the iiird Chapter of St. Paul’s Epistle to Titus, from the 4th to the 7th verse. “But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared, not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, by the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost, which He shed on us abundantly, through Jesus Christ our Saviour; that being justified by His grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.” The word here translated “washing” signifies also _a laver_, or vessel for washing: but the translation is undoubtedly correct, and _ablution_ or _the act of washing_, is intended. This word only occurs here and in Ephes. v. 26., which we have already considered; where it must be translated (as it is) “_washing_:”—“the washing of water by the word.” That regeneration washes or cleanses the soul from the filthiness of sin, is all that can be proved by this passage. The washing is by the regeneration, and not the regeneration by the washing. There _may be_ an allusion to the Christian Sacrament of baptism; but it is not at all necessary to the understanding of the Apostle’s words. _St. Paul is here describing what God does when He saves any_. He sheds on them abundantly the Holy Ghost through Jesus Christ the Saviour, and this Holy Ghost regenerates, and washes and renews; and, in connection with this, God justifies the subjects of this change by His grace, and so makes them heirs according to the hope of eternal life. The regeneration and the renewal are not two distinct things; but the latter is the declaration of the former;—the transforming of the soul into the divine image, consequent upon and in necessary connection with its regeneration. But does this text prove, that all who are washed by the water of baptism partake of regeneration? Then it also proves, that all baptized persons are saved, and that they are renewed by the Holy Ghost, and that the Holy Ghost is shed on them abundantly, and that they are justified by God’s grace, and that they are heirs of eternal life! It is impossible, without doing violence to God’s word, to rend the blessings, here spoken of, asunder. They are links in one and the same golden chain, both the ends of which are in Heaven;—beginning with “the love of God” and terminating with “eternal life.” And are these things true in the case of _all who are baptized_? If this were taught in the Scripture, what then might the infidel say of it? He might then say, that Scripture and matter of fact directly contradict each other. Or it would follow, that regeneration and the renewing of the Holy Ghost and justification and salvation, are terms which mean nothing, because the things they profess to represent have no practical influence upon the lives of men! We must, then, take the passage altogether, or not touch it at all. We must not choose a word or two out of it,—caught by the sound,—and affix a meaning to them, which is inconsistent with the context and other plain portions of revealed truth. If baptism be the washing here spoken of, it is accompanied with regeneration and the renewing of the Holy Ghost, shed on the baptized abundantly; and this cannot be without the exhibition of the fruits of the Spirit in the life and conduct. And if this be Christian baptism, where these things are not, Christian baptism is not. And this is incontestably established by the testimony of St. Peter, in the text about to be noticed. Let it only be farther observed, in connection with this passage in St. Paul’s Epistle to Titus, that a no mean authority in the interpretation of Scripture (Mr. Joseph Mede) thinks, that the Apostle here alludes to the cleansing of the new-born infant from the pollutions which attend its birth: and he refers to the description given in the beginning of the xvith Chapter of the Book of the prophet Ezekiel in confirmation of this:—“Neither wast thou washed in water.” (v. 4.) Here, then, _life_ is first found, and then there is _the washing_ for purification.

The text, already referred to, in St. Peter, is the 21st verse of the iiird Chapter of his First Epistle. This perfects the proof of the view hitherto taken of the Christian Sacrament of baptism; and is _a key_ which would unlock any difficulty which other portions of Scripture might present;—if indeed such assistance were needed. St. Peter is speaking of the days of Noah, and he says, that “the long-suffering of God then waited, while the ark was preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water;” and then he adds, “The like figure whereunto,”—the corresponding type with it, and the antitype of it—(as was observed before respecting circumcision) “even baptism, doth now save us,”—but before he completes the sentence, he breaks off to tell us what this baptism, of which he speaks, is, “_not_ the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience towards God,” and then he finishes what he had begun to say,—“by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.” Now if the two things here spoken of in relation to baptism were always found together, the words of St. Peter would be without meaning; for none, possessing them both, could be so blind as to imagine that it is the outward washing which saves them, and not “the answer of a good conscience;” though _it is possible_ (as experience shows) that men might be satisfied with the outward sign, and look no farther, as the Jews had done in the case of circumcision. The Holy Spirit, therefore, by the pen of St. Peter warns against this error, and assures us, that the baptism which is unto salvation consists of, not only, nor chiefly, the application of water to the body, but “the answer of a good conscience toward God.” It is thought by some, that a _reference_ is here made to the custom of putting questions to those who were about to be baptized as to their faith and repentance: and something of this kind had passed between Philip and the Eunuch, when Philip told him that “if he believed with all his heart he might be baptized, and the Eunuch answered, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.” In every such case there doubtless is _the baptism_—because there has been _the birth_—of the Spirit. But though St. Peter’s words _may be_ applicable to such a custom, if it prevailed in his time, yet, as Archbishop Leighton says in his Commentary on this text, ‘This questioning and answering farther expresses the inward questioning and answering which is transacted betwixt the soul and itself, and the soul of God. The word,’ he says, ‘is _judicial_, and means the interrogation used in law for the trial and executing of processes: and this is the great business of conscience, to hold courts in the soul; and it is of continual necessity that it be so. This “answer of a good conscience unto God” (as likewise its questioning to enable itself for that answer) is touching great points that are of chief concern to the soul, its justification and sanctification; for baptism is the seal of _both_, and purges the conscience in both respects. Now, the conscience of a real believer inquiring within, upon right discovery, will make this answer unto God;—“Lord, I have found that there is no standing before Thee, for the soul in itself is overwhelmed with a world of guiltiness; but I find a blood sprinkled upon it, that hath, I am sure, virtue enough to purge it all away, and to present it pure unto Thee.” And this the Lord does agree to, and authorizes the conscience, on this account, to return back an answer of peace and safety to the soul. So for the other: “Lord, I find a living work of holiness on this soul. Though there is yet corruption there, it is as a continual grief and vexation: and if I cannot say much of high degrees of grace, yet I may say, there is the beginning of them;—at least this I most confidently affirm, that there are real and earnest desires in the soul after these things. It would know and conform to Thy will, and it would gladly walk _in all well-pleasing_ unto Thee.” Now He that sees the truth of these things, owns it as His own work, and engages to advance it and bring it to perfection.’

Such is the intercourse which the purified conscience hath with God; and wherever this is, there is the “baptism” which is unto salvation.

In the examination which has thus been made into the Scripture-testimony concerning the Christian Sacrament of Baptism, no text has been—at least intentionally—overlooked, from which any additional information could be obtained on the subject.

* * * * *

From the passages which have been considered, the following conclusions may be taken as the Summary of the whole:—

1. That baptism with water has been appointed by Christ as the door of entrance into His Visible Church, and is the token of the Covenant of grace under the Christian Dispensation, in the place of circumcision, which was the token of this Covenant upon its formal establishment with Abraham. To be baptized with water, therefore, is necessary to constitute any one a member of the Visible Church of Christ or Kingdom of God upon earth.

2. That since _faith_ hath from the beginning been appointed by God, as the instrument or means by which men are admitted into Covenant with Him, it was the command of the Lord Jesus Christ that baptism, which is now the token of the Covenant, should be administered only to _believers_. It was the same with respect to circumcision. Abraham believed God: and, as a believer, he was circumcised. And true believers only are acknowledged by Christ as rightful members of His Church. Yet as Abraham’s children were admitted to circumcision together with himself, it is hence inferred, that the children of believers in Christ should be baptized, as well as their parents: no prohibition of their admission to the Ordinance having been given. This conclusion is confirmed by Christ’s kind reception of the children that were brought to Him—by the application of Old Testament promises after Christ’s resurrection—by the declared continuance of the root and fatness of the Olive-tree planted at first in Abraham—and by the description given of the children of even one believing parent, namely, that they are holy; that is, such as ought to be presented to the Lord. Still, no direction to administer baptism to children has been found, nor is any instance of it recorded.

3. That although Christ, the Head of the Church, sows only good seed in His field, His enemy has succeeded in sowing tares among the wheat; and thus it comes to pass, that evil men are in the Visible Church mingled with the good. Hence we learn, that neither baptism nor any outward Ordinances are _necessarily_ attended with spiritual blessings. “All were not Israel, who were of Israel.” “He was not a Jew, who was one outwardly; neither was that circumcision, which was outward in the flesh.” And we have seen that the “baptism” which “saves,” is “not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God.” Simon Magus, though baptized, was not sound in heart from the beginning. And if during the life-time of the Apostles, and when persons were baptized upon their own profession, men thus found admission into the Church, who “had the form of godliness, but denied its power,”—no wonder that in later times, and since baptism has been administered almost exclusively to infants, the case should have been the same. For we have met with no promise that God will give His grace to any particular persons, except in connection with the state of mind and the character which He prescribes. In no place of Scripture has God bound the first communication of His grace to any Ordinance, time, or circumstance whatsoever:—and for this simple, but sufficient reason, that if He had done so, it would have been an abdication of His authority; His sovereignty would have ceased; and man would have become—what in truth he wishes to be—the virtual ruler in God’s Kingdom. God no where promised to circumcise the hearts of all the children of the Israelites, although He commanded them to be circumcised in the flesh. And with respect to the baptism of children, how can _any thing absolute and unconditional_ be predicated concerning it, since no command or direction was given for it? The administration of baptism to infants is certainly most agreeable with the spirit of Christ and of His Dispensation, and it is but a continuance of what was begun in the family of Abraham. But resting, as it does, upon inference and analogy, it is not possible to assign any specific spiritual influence with absolute certainty to it.

4. That with respect to the advantages and uses of baptism,—besides its being appointed by Christ as the door of admission into His Visible Church, and the practical purposes to which it is applied in the course of the Christian’s conduct and experience,—very little particular instruction is given in Scripture. To the corresponding rite of circumcision, therefore, we chiefly look for direction here.

It may be said, then, of baptism, as of circumcision,

(1.) That it is _a sign_ of spiritual blessings. Of Abraham we are told, that he “received _the sign_ of circumcision.” (Rom. iv. 11.) This Ordinance _represented_ “the putting off of the body of the sins of the flesh.” Baptism with water also _signifies_ the washing of the soul from sin;—both from the guilt of it by forgiveness and from the pollution of it. When Saul of Tarsus was bidden to “be baptized, and wash away his sins,” this twofold purification was visibly represented. And so it is in all cases. “The putting away of the filth of the flesh” by the application of “pure water” to the body, does in a very simple and intelligible, yet striking and significant manner, represent the purging of the conscience by the sprinkling of the blood of Christ, and the cleansing of the heart from its filthiness and idols by God’s Holy Spirit. It symbolizes both pardon and purity:—especially the latter;—the soul’s death unto sin and its new birth unto righteousness.

(2.) Like circumcision, baptism is also _a seal_. “Abraham” (as we also read in Rom. iv. 11,) “received circumcision, _a seal_ of the righteousness of the faith, which he had yet being uncircumcised.” A seal ratifies a Deed, and is a token and pledge that the engagements of it will be fulfilled by all the contracting parties. When Abraham submitted to circumcision, he ratified or confirmed his former faith in God and obedience to Him; and God, by the same pledge, assured Abraham of his justification—of his adoption into His family—and that he should finally inherit a better country, that is, Heaven.

Baptism, in like manner, is _a seal_ on the part of those who receive it rightly, that they believe in God through Christ, and regard themselves as bound to forsake all sin, and to serve Him unto their lives’ end: and God thereby visibly assures them of the remission of their sins and of their adoption as His children, and that, as He gives them grace, so He will give them glory. And if this visible seal of the Covenant had not been serviceable, the wise and gracious God would never, either in the case of circumcision or baptism, have caused it to be affixed unto it.

(3.) Circumcision had _this_ “profit” also connected with it,—that the different means of grace, which God from time to time appointed, followed in its train. St. Paul, having distinctly declared at the end of the iind Chapter of his Epistle to the Romans, that the circumcision of the flesh and of the heart did not necessarily accompany each other, supposes some, who were “Jews outwardly,” to exclaim,—If this be so,—if the inward grace does not always attend the outward sign,—and that the want of the inward grace puts us circumcised Jews on the same level spiritually with uncircumcised Gentiles, then, “What advantage hath the Jew? Or what profit is thereof circumcision?” (iii. 1.) _Is the same question asked respecting baptism_, _when a like separation is made between the water and the Holy Spirit_? The Apostle’s answer shall suffice for both:—“Much every way; chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.” It is here evident, that God regards the possession of a Revelation from Heaven as highly advantageous, considered in itself; so that for the neglect or misuse of it men are deeply responsible. In the beginning of the ixth Chapter, St. Paul again takes up the subject, and enumerates several other “advantages” as belonging to the Jews;—“the adoption, and the glory, and the Covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises, and the fathers, and that Christ, as concerning His human nature, was born a Jew;”—and though the circumcision of the heart together with that of the flesh is not found among these, yet the Apostle maintains, that the possession of them did set the Israelites, in point of religious privileges, far above all the other nations of the earth. And it is the same with those who are admitted into Christ’s Church by baptism. Having free access to the word of God and instruction in its sacred truths—the enjoyment of His Sabbaths and Service—having His promises and threatenings, and the experience of their fulfilment in time past, together with the examples of faith and godliness and the blessed effects of them in such as have gone before—all these are so many means of improvement, as will leave speechless at the last those who had them and did not profit by them. While all who use them aright, and sincerely seek to derive benefit from them, find to their exceeding great comfort, that God hath “not said to the seed of Jacob, Seek ye me in vain.” It was no small advantage to Abraham’s family to be “commanded by him to keep the way of the Lord, to do justice and judgment:” (Gen. xviii. 19,) and that children should be “brought up” by Christian parents “in the nurture and admonition of the Lord,” and be taught what was done for them at their baptism, united too with earnest prayers on their behalf,—is a privilege, for which many will to all eternity have cause to bless Him, who gave them so “goodly a heritage.” (Ps. xvi. 6.)

Lastly. We would refer again, concerning the advantages and uses of baptism, to that _practical __application of it_ which we have seen may be made throughout the whole course of the Christian’s life upon earth. He is to remember, that he was “baptized into the death of Christ and buried with Him,” that so he may die unto sin, and have, as much as possible, done with it. “Risen with Christ in baptism,” his “affections should be set on things above,” and he should “walk in newness of life.” “Baptized into one body,” strife and divisions should not be seen among Christians, and “the unity of the spirit should be kept in the bond of peace.” “Baptized into Christ, and having put on Christ,” they should appear in the beautiful clothing of His mind and Spirit. They should seek and pray daily to be more and more “sanctified and cleansed with the washing of water by the word,” that they may be “prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.” Thus baptism, if used as the Scripture uses it, would be of great practical influence. And when this is the case, it may be productive of much comfort; for, like the bow in the cloud, it is a token of God’s Covenant to save and not destroy. The water of baptism, in the case of every true believer, “is as the waters of Noah unto the Lord: for as He hath sworn that the waters of Noah should no more go over the earth,” so in this Sacrament He hath, as it were, added His oath to His word of promise, that “he that believeth and is baptized _shall he saved_.” (Is. liv. 9. Mark xvi 16.)

APPENDIX.

_Note_ (A.) _page_ 27.

WHEN God said to Abraham, (Gen. xvii. 7.) “I will establish my Covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee, in their generations for an everlasting Covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee,” His meaning was, that as He was the God of _believing Abraham_, so He would be the God of all Abraham’s _believing children and descendants_. And when He farther promised to “give unto Abraham and to his seed after him, the land in which he was a stranger, even all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession,” the same limitation as to “his seed” was also intended. That these, and these only, are the “seed” referred to, is as clear as the declarations of Holy Scripture can make it. In the Epistles to the Romans and Galatians this matter is placed beyond a doubt. The “seed” must partake of _the character of the father_, and then the promises were theirs, as well as his. In the ivth Chapter of the Epistle to the Romans and the 12th verse, the Apostle, speaking of Abraham, says, that he was to be “the father of circumcision to them _who are not of the circumcision only_, (that is, who are not only circumcised in the flesh) _but also walk in the steps of that faith of Abraham_, _which he had yet being uncircumcised_.” Could any thing be plainer than this? St. Paul is here speaking of the circumcised Jews, (he had spoken of the uncircumcised Gentiles in the former verse, the 11th,) and he says distinctly, that Abraham was a father to those circumcised ones who should “walk in the steps of his faith.” So that the following is evidently the Apostle’s meaning in the 11th and 12th verses: ‘Both Jew and Gentile may see, in God’s dealings with Abraham, an exhibition of the plan in which each is to seek the imputation of righteousness. Let the uncircumcised believe in God, as Abraham, when yet uncircumcised, believed in God; and his faith shall be counted to him for righteousness, as Abraham’s was. Let the Jews, too, learn from the case before them, that though, like circumcised Abraham, they bear in their bodies the seal of the Covenant, yet _the sign of circumcision alone will not ensure the blessing signified_, _unless at the same time they are found resembling Abraham in the exercise of that faith_, _in consequence of which the seal was fixed upon him_.’ {88} These, then,—_believers_,—are the “seed” of Abraham, with whom the Covenant was made, and to whom the promises were given. And this is confirmed by what follows. In the next verse the Apostle goes on to say; “For the promise that he should be the heir of the world,”—(which is the inspired exposition of the other part or promise of God’s Covenant with Abraham; “And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, for an everlasting possession;”)—“For the promise that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham or _to his seed_ through the law, but _through the righteousness of faith_:” and again, in the 16th verse; “Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace, to the end _the promise might be sure to all the seed_; not to that only which is of the law, (believing circumcised Jews) but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham, (believing uncircumcised Gentiles) who is _the father of us all_,”—that is, of all believers, whether circumcised or not,—“before Him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead.” “The promise,” then, “that he should be the heir of the world” (evidently meaning the better world, that is, the heavenly,) “was to Abraham and _to his seed through the righteousness of faith_.” Not to his _unbelieving descendants_, but to those only who were partakers of his faith;—to all of whom, the promise was and still is “_sure_.” We pass over the ixth Chapter of this Epistle, though it is full of evidence to the same effect; and proceed to the Epistle to the Galatians; where we shall find the description of Abraham’s “seed” given in language, if possible, still plainer and stronger. In the iiird Chapter and the 6th verse the Apostle begins the subject: “Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness. Know ye, therefore, that _they which are of faith_, the same _are the children_ of Abraham.” “So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.” And then in the 14th verse, the Apostle tells us more of this blessing of Abraham: “That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ, that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.” “The promise of the Spirit” is here said to be “received through faith;”—that is, by them that believe. But in the 16th verse, the account given of the “seed” of Abraham is as distinct and decisive as words can make it. Referring to the Covenant made by God with Abraham, (contained in Gen. xvii.) St. Paul says, “Now to Abraham _and his seed_ were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to _thy seed which is Christ_.” By “Christ” here (it is scarcely necessary to remark) is not meant Christ _personal_, but Christ _mystical_;—His mystical Body, consisting of Christ himself, the Head, and true believers, both Jews and Gentiles, “all one in Him.” (v. 28.) The same expression is used in 1 Cor. xii. 12: “For as the body (the natural body) is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body; _so also is Christ_.” Believers in Christ, then, who compose His mystical Body, are _the seed of Abraham_, to whom with himself,—“the father of all them that believe,”—the promises of the Covenant were made. And, intent upon inforcing this truth, and leaving no possibility of mistaking his meaning, the Apostle concludes the subject with these words; (v. 29.) “And if ye be Christ’s,” (by believing in Him and by being baptized by One Spirit into his One Body) “_then_ are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.” A clearer and a fuller description of _the persons_, to whom the promises of the Covenant were made, could not possibly have been given! God did not promise to be a God, and to give the inheritance of which Canaan was a type, _to all_ the natural descendants of Abraham, though they were all to be circumcised; but _to those only who should_ “_walk in the steps of his faith_.” For this _limitation_ of the meaning of the “_seed_” of Abraham does no more violence to the text, than the _extension_ of the meaning of “Canaan” to the heavenly world. But there is (as we have seen) _inspired authority_ for both interpretations. _These_, then, were the “seed,” to whom the promises were made. And it is the same still. The children of professing believers are baptized; but the outward form of baptism does not secure to them the blessings thereby sealed to the believer, unless they also have a true and lively faith. _Then_ the promises are theirs. The Scripture warrants us to go thus far, but no farther. And when man attempts to put benefits into Ordinances, which God has not revealed to him, he makes himself wise “above that which is written;” and thus does in effect what the Jews did,—and for which they were so justly reproved by the Lord Jesus Himself;—he “teaches for doctrines the commandments of men.” (Matt. xv. 9.)

_Note_ (B.) _page_ 50.

It is expressly said in the 32nd verse, that Paul and Silas “spake the word of the Lord to _all that were in the jailor’s house_.” This was _before_ they were baptized. All that were in his house were capable therefore of instruction; and thus their “faith came by hearing.” And to show more decidedly the existence of faith in _the __family_, not only is _the fact_ itself stated, but also _the fruit_ which it produced: namely, its adding to the jailor’s joy. He rejoiced—of course _the more_—because that _his house believed_, as well as himself.

_Note_ (C.) _page_ 57.

The baptism of a believer is like the coronation of a lawful Sovereign. The latter at his coronation publicly enters upon his Office. He is then anointed, and invested with the robes and other ensigns of royalty. The crown is then solemnly put upon his head—the sceptre into his hand—and he swears in the presence of the nobles and chief of the people to rule according to law: and any subsequent dereliction of duty would be called _a breaking of his coronation-oath_. But he was _in reality_ king before his coronation. Thus when a man repents, he forsakes sin; (and what is the forsaking of it but the dying to it?) and when he believes, he is born of God; (and what is this but his spiritual resurrection?) and this repentance and this faith are both required of every one _before_, _and in order to_, _his baptism_. But at his baptism he is publicly invested with his privileges as a Christian, and he then solemnly swears to live according to Christ’s laws for the future. And thus every departure from duty may well be called _a violation of his baptismal engagements_. But _in reality_ his death unto sin and his new birth unto righteousness commenced when he repented and believed; that is, at a period prior to (and under some circumstances the interval of time might be very considerable) his baptism. His claim to baptism is founded upon his having already renounced sin and being possessed of a lively faith;—as a claim to be crowned is founded upon this, that the person who makes it is the rightful sovereign already. In both cases, there is _the confirmation_ of the relationship with all its rights and duties, but not _the commencement_ of it. _This_ had taken place _before_.

* * * * *

L. SEELEY,
PRINTER,
THAMES DITTON.

* * * * *

FOOTNOTES.

{20} See Plain Tracts for Critical Times, by a Union of Clergymen. And on this text generally.

{27} With reference to the “seed” of Abraham, see Note A. in Appendix.

{50} See Note (B.)

{57} See Note (C.)

{61} Lectures on The Epistle to the Romans. By the Rev. John Fry, A.B., &c.

{65} See the connection between _the Covenant-holiness_ of children and _their being presented to the Lord_, more distinctly shown in the case of the first-born of Israel. (Exod. xiii. 2, compared with Luke ii. 22, 23.)

{88} Lectures on The Epistle to the Romans, by the Rev. John Fry, A.B., &c.