Chapter II: The Ordinances Of The Church (2)

C. H. M.: “A truly baptized person is one who has passed from the
old world into the new.... The water rolls over his person,
signifying that his place in nature is ignored, that his old
nature is entirely set aside, in short, that he is a dead man,
that the flesh with all that pertained thereto—its sins and its
liabilities—is buried in the grave of Christ and can never come
into God’s sight again.... When the believer rises up from the
water, expression is given to the truth that he comes up as the
possessor of a new life, even the resurrection life of Christ, to
which divine righteousness inseparably attaches.”

(_d_) Of the method in which that purpose is accomplished,—by union with Christ, receiving him and giving one’s self to him by faith.

_Rom. 6:5_—“_For if we have become united_ [σύμφυτοι] _with him in
the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his
resurrection_”—σύμφυτοι, or συμπεφυκώς, is used of the man and the
horse as grown together in the Centaur, by Lucian, Dial. Mort.,
16:4, and by Xenophon, Cyrop., 4:3:18. _Col. 2:12_—“_having been
buried with him in baptism, wherein ye were also raised with him
through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the
dead._” Dr. N. S. Burton: “The oneness of the believer and Christ
is expressed by the fact that the one act of immersion sets forth
the death and resurrection of both Christ and the believer.” As
the voluntary element in faith has two parts, a giving and a
taking, so baptism illustrates both. Submergence = surrender to
Christ; emergence = reception of Christ; see page 839, (_b_).
“_Putting on Christ_” (_Gal. 3:27_) is the burying of the old life
and the rising to a new. _Cf._ the active and the passive
obedience of Christ (pages 749, 770), the two elements of
justification (pages 854‐859), the two aspects of formal worship
(page 23), the two divisions of the Lord’s Prayer.

William Ashmore holds that incorporation into Christ is the root
idea of baptism, union with Christ’s death and resurrection being
only a part of it. We are “_baptized into Christ_” (_Rom. 6:3_),
as the Israelites were “_baptized into Moses_” (_1 Cor. 10:2_). As
baptism symbolizes the incorporation of the believer into Christ,
so the Lord’s Supper symbolizes the incorporation of Christ into
the believer. We go down into the water, but the bread goes down
into us. We are “_in Christ_,” and Christ is “_in us_.” The
candidate does not baptize himself, but puts himself wholly into
the hands of the administrator. This seems symbolic of his
committing himself entirely to Christ, of whom the administrator
is the representative. Similarly in the Lord’s Supper, it is
Christ who through his representative distributes the emblems of
his death and life.

E. G. Robinson regarded baptism as implying: 1. death to sin; 2.
resurrection to new life in Christ; 3. entire surrender of
ourselves to the authority of the triune God. Baptism “_into the
name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit_” (_Mat
28:19_) cannot imply supreme allegiance to the Father, and only
subordinate allegiance to the Son. Baptism therefore is an
assumption of supreme allegiance to Jesus Christ. N. E. Wood, in
The Watchman, Dec. 3, 1896, 15—“Calvinism has its five points; but
Baptists have also their own five points: the Trinity, the
Atonement, Regeneration, Baptism, and an inspired Bible. All other
doctrines gather round these.”

(_e_) Of the consequent union of all believers in Christ.

_Eph. 4:5_—“_one Lord, one faith, one baptism_”; _1 Cor.
12:13_—“_For in one Spirit were we all baptized into one body,
whether Jews or Greeks, whether bond or free; and were all made to
drink of one Spirit_”; _cf._ _10:3, 4_—“_and did all eat the same
spiritual food; and did all drink the same spiritual drink: for
they drank of a spiritual rock that followed them: and the rock
was Christ._”

In _Eph. 4:5_, it is noticeable that, not the Lord’s Supper, but
baptism, is referred to as the symbol of Christian unity. A. H.
Strong, Cleveland Sermon, 1904—“Our fathers lived in a day when
simple faith was subject to serious disabilities. The
establishments frowned upon dissent and visited it with pains and
penalties. It is no wonder that believers in the New Testament
doctrine and polity felt that they must come out from what they
regarded as an apostate church. They could have no sympathy with
those who held back the truth in unrighteousness and persecuted
the saints of God. But our doctrine has leavened all Christendom.
Scholarship is on the side of immersion. Infant baptism is on the
decline. The churches that once opposed us now compliment us on
our stedfastness in the faith and on our missionary zeal. There is
a growing spirituality in these churches, which prompts them to
extend to us hands of fellowship. And there is a growing sense
among us that the kingdom of Christ is wider than our own
membership, and that loyalty to our Lord requires us to recognize
his presence and blessing even in bodies which we do not regard as
organized in complete accordance with the New Testament model.
Faith in the larger Christ is bringing us out from our
denominational isolation into an inspiring recognition of our
oneness with the universal church of God throughout the world.”

(_f_) Of the death and resurrection of the body,—which will complete the work of Christ in us, and which Christ’s death and resurrection assure to all his members.

_1 Cor. 15:12, 22_—“_Now if Christ is preached that he hath been
raised from the dead, how say some among you that there is no
resurrection of the dead?... For as in Adam all die, so also in
Christ shall all be made alive._” In the Scripture passages quoted
above, we add to the argument from the meaning of the word βαπτίζω
the argument from the meaning of the ordinance. Luther wrote, in
his Babylonish Captivity of the Church, section 103 (English
translation in Wace and Buchheim, First Principles of the
Reformation, 192): “Baptism is a sign both of death and
resurrection. Being moved by this reason, I would have those that
are baptized to be altogether dipped into the water, as the word
means and the mystery signifies.” See Calvin on _Acts 8:38_;
Conybeare and Howson on _Rom. 6:4_; Boardman, in Madison Avenue
Lectures, 115‐135.

B. Inferences from the passages referred to.

(_a_) The central truth set forth by baptism is the death and resurrection of Christ,—and our own death and resurrection only as connected with that.

The baptism of Jesus in Jordan, equally with the subsequent
baptism of his followers, was a symbol of his death. It was his
death which he had in mind, when he said: “_Are ye able to drink
the cup that I drink? or to be baptized with the baptism that I am
baptized with?_” (_Mark 10:38_); “_But I have a baptism to be
baptized with; and how am I straitened till it be accomplished!_”
(_Luke 12:50_). The being immersed and overwhelmed in waters is a
frequent metaphor in all languages to express the rush of
successive troubles; compare _Ps. 69:2_—“_I am come into deep
waters, where the floods overflow me_”; _42:7_—“_All thy waves and
thy billows are gone over me_”; _124:4, 5_—“_Then the waters had
overwhelmed us, The stream had gone over our soul; Then the proud
waters had gone over our soul._”

So the suffering, death, and burial, which were before our Lord,
presented themselves to his mind as a baptism, because the very
idea of baptism was that of a complete submersion under the floods
of waters. Death was not to be poured upon Christ,—it was no mere
sprinkling of suffering which he was to endure, but a sinking into
the mighty waters, and a being overwhelmed by them. It was the
giving of himself to this, which he symbolized by his baptism in
Jordan. That act was not arbitrary, or formal, or ritual. It was a
public consecration, a consecration to death, to death for the
sins of the world. It expressed the essential nature and meaning
of his earthly work: the baptism of water at the beginning of his
ministry consciously and designedly prefigured the baptism of
death with which that ministry was to close.

Jesus’ submission to John’s baptism of repentance, the rite that
belonged only to sinners, can be explained only upon the ground
that he was “_made to be sin on our behalf_” (_2 Cor. 5:21_). He
had taken our nature upon him, without its hereditary corruption
indeed, but with all its hereditary guilt, that he might redeem
that nature and reunite it to God. As one with humanity, he had in
his unconscious childhood submitted to the rites of circumcision,
purification, and legal redemption (_Luke 2:21‐24_; _cf._ _Ex.
13:2, 13_; see Lange, Alford, Webster and Wilkinson on _Luke
2:24_)—all of them rites appointed for sinners. “_Made in the
likeness of men_” (_Phil. 2:7_), “_the likeness of sinful flesh_”
(_Rom. 8:3_), he was “_to put away sin by the sacrifice of
himself_” (_Heb. 9:26_).

In his baptism, therefore, he could say, “_Thus it becometh us to
fulfil all righteousness_” (_Mat. 3:15_) because only through the
final baptism of suffering and death, which this baptism in water
foreshadowed, could he “_make an end of sins_” and “_bring in
everlasting righteousness_” (_Dan. 9:24_) to the condemned and
ruined world. He could not be “_the Lord our Righteousness_”
(_Jer. 23:6_) except by first suffering the death due to the
nature he had assumed, thereby delivering it from its guilt and
perfecting it forever. All this was indicated in that act by which
he was first “_made manifest to Israel_” (_John 1:31_). In his
baptism in Jordan, he was buried in the likeness of his coming
death, and raised in the likeness of his coming resurrection. _1
John 5:6_—“_This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus
Christ; not in the water only, but in the water and in the blood_”
= in the baptism of water at the beginning of his ministry, and in
the baptism of blood with which that ministry was to close.

As that baptism pointed forward to Jesus’ death, so our baptism
points backward to the same, as the centre and substance of his
redeeming work, the one death by which we live. We who are
“_baptized into Christ_” are “_baptized into his death_” (_Rom.
6:3_), that is, into spiritual communion and participation in that
death which he died for our salvation; in short, in baptism we
declare in symbol that his death has become ours. On the Baptism
of Jesus, see A. H. Strong, Philosophy and Religion, 226‐237.

(_b_) The correlative truth of the believer’s death and resurrection, set forth in baptism, implies, first,—confession of sin and humiliation on account of it, as deserving of death; secondly,—declaration of Christ’s death for sin, and of the believer’s acceptance of Christ’s substitutionary work; thirdly,—acknowledgment that the soul has become partaker of Christ’s life, and now lives only in and for him.

A false mode of administering the ordinance has so obscured the
meaning of baptism that it has to multitudes lost all reference to
the death of Christ, and the Lord’s Supper is assumed to be the
only ordinance which is intended to remind us of the atoning
sacrifice to which we owe our salvation. For evidence of this, see
the remarks of President Woolsey in the Sunday School Times:
“Baptism it [the Christian religion] could share in with the
doctrine of John the Baptist, and if a similar rite had existed
under the Jewish law, it would have been regarded as appropriate
to a religion which inculcated renunciation of sin and purity of
heart and life. But [in the Lord’s Supper] we go beyond the
province of baptism to the very _penetrale_ of the gospel, to the
efficacy and meaning of Christ’s death.”

Baptism should be a public act. We cannot afford to relegate it to
a corner, or to celebrate it in private, as some professedly
Baptist churches of England are said to do. Like marriage, the
essence of it is the joining of ourselves to another before the
world. In baptism we merge ourselves in Christ, before God and
angels and men. The Mohammedan stands five times a day, and prays
with his face toward Mecca, caring not who sees him. _Luke
12:8_—“_Every one who shall confess me before men, him shall the
Son of man also confess before the angels of God._”

(_c_) Baptism symbolizes purification, but purification in a peculiar and divine way,—namely, through the death of Christ and the entrance of the soul into communion with that death. The radical defect of sprinkling or pouring as a mode of administering the ordinance, is that it does not point to Christ’s death as the procuring cause of our purification.

It is a grievous thing to say by symbol, as those do say who
practice sprinkling in place of immersion, that a man may
regenerate himself, or, if not this, yet that his regeneration may
take place without connection with Christ’s death. Edward
Beecher’s chief argument against Baptist views is drawn from _John
3:22‐25_—“_a questioning on the part of John’s disciples with a
Jew about purifying._” Purification is made to be the essential
meaning of baptism, and the conclusion is drawn that any form
expressive of purification will answer the design of the
ordinance. But if Christ’s death is the procuring cause of our
purification, we may expect it to be symbolized in the ordinance
which declares that purification; if Christ’s death is the central
fact of Christianity, we may expect it to be symbolized in the
initiatory rite of Christianity.

(_d_) In baptism we show forth the Lord’s death as the original source of holiness and life in our souls, just as in the Lord’s Supper we show forth the Lord’s death as the source of all nourishment and strength after this life of holiness has been once begun. As the Lord’s Supper symbolizes the sanctifying power of Jesus’ death, so baptism symbolizes its regenerating power.

The truth of Christ’s death and resurrection is a precious jewel,
and it is given us in these outward ordinances as in a casket. Let
us care for the casket lest we lose the gem. As a scarlet thread
runs through every rope and cord of the British navy, testifying
that it is the property of the Crown, so through every doctrine
and ordinance of Christianity runs the red line of Jesus’ blood.
It is their common reference to the death of Christ that binds the
two ordinances together.

(_e_) There are two reasons, therefore, why nothing but immersion will satisfy the design of the ordinance: first,—because nothing else can symbolize the radical nature of the change effected in regeneration—a change from spiritual death to spiritual life; secondly,—because nothing else can set forth the fact that this change is due to the entrance of the soul into communion with the death and resurrection of Christ.

Christian truth is an organism. Part is bound to part, and all
together constitute one vitalized whole. To give up any single
portion of that truth is like maiming the human body. Life may
remain, but one manifestation of life has ceased. The whole body
of Christian truth has lost its symmetry and a part of its power
to save.

Pfleiderer, Philos. Religion, 2:212—“In the Eleusinian mysteries,
the act of reception was represented as a regeneration, and the
hierophant appointed to the temple service had to take a
sacramental bath, out of which he proceeded as a ‘new man’ with a
new name, which signifies that, as they were wont to say, ‘the
first one was forgotten,’—that is, the old man was put off at the
same time with the old name. The parallel of this Eleusinian rite
with the thoughts which Paul has written about Baptism in the
Epistle to the Romans, and therefore from Corinth, is so striking
that a connection between the two may well be conjectured; and all
the more that even in the case of the Lord’s Supper, Paul has
brought in the comparison with the heathen festivals, in order to
give a basis for his mystical theory.”

(_f_) To substitute for baptism anything which excludes all symbolic reference to the death of Christ, is to destroy the ordinance, just as substituting for the broken bread and poured out wine of the communion some form of administration which leaves out all reference to the death of Christ would be to destroy the Lord’s Supper, and to celebrate an ordinance of human invention.

Baptism, like the Fourth of July, the Passover, the Lord’s Supper,
is a historical monument. It witnesses to the world that Jesus
died and rose again. In celebrating it, we show forth the Lord’s
death as truly as in the celebration of the Supper. But it is more
than a historical monument. It is also a pictorial expression of
doctrine. Into it are woven all the essential truths of the
Christian scheme. It tells of the nature and penalty of sin, of
human nature delivered from sin in the person of a crucified and
risen Savior, of salvation secured for each human soul that is
united to Christ, of obedience to Christ as the way to life and
glory. Thus baptism stands from age to age as a witness for God—a
witness both to the facts and to the doctrine of Christianity. To
change the form of administering the ordinance is therefore to
strike a blow at Christianity and at Christ, and to defraud the
world of a part of God’s means of salvation. See Ebrard’s view of
Baptism, in Baptist Quarterly, 1869:257, and in Olshausen’s Com.
on N. T., 1:270, and 3:594. Also Lightfoot, Com. on _Colossians
2:20_, and _3:1_.

Ebrard: “Baptism = Death.” So Sanday, Com. on _Rom. 6_—“Immersion
= Death; Submersion = Burial (the ratification of death);
Emergence = Resurrection (the ratification of life).” William
Ashmore: “Solomon’s Temple had two monumental pillars: _Jachin_,
‘he shall establish,’ and _Boaz_, ‘in it is strength.’ In
Zechariah’s vision were two olive trees on either side of the
golden candlestick. In like manner, Christ has left two monumental
witnesses to testify concerning himself—Baptism and the Lord’s
Supper.” The lady in the street car, who had inadvertently stuck
her parasol into a man’s eye, very naturally begged his pardon.
But he replied: “It is of no consequence, madame; I have still one
eye left.” Our friends who sprinkle or pour put out one eye of the
gospel witness, break down one appointed monument of Christ’s
saving truth,—shall we be content to say that we have still one
ordinance left? At the Rappahannock one of the Federal regiments,
just because its standard was shot away, was mistaken by our own
men for a regiment of Confederates, and was subjected to a
murderous enfilading fire that decimated its ranks. Baptism and
the Lord’s Supper are the two flags of Christ’s army,—we cannot
afford to lose either one of them.

4. The Subjects of Baptism.

The proper subjects of baptism are those only who give credible evidence that they have been regenerated by the Holy Spirit,—or, in other words, have entered by faith into the communion of Christ’s death and resurrection.

A. Proof that only persons giving evidence of being regenerated are proper subjects of baptism.

(_a_) From the command and example of Christ and his apostles, which show:

First, that those only are to be baptized who have previously been made disciples.

_Mat. 28:19_—“_Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all the
nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son
and of the Holy Spirit_”; _Acts 2:41_—“_They then that received
his word were baptized._”

Secondly, that those only are to be baptized who have previously repented and believed.

_Mat. 3:2, 3, 6_—“_Repent ye ... make ye ready the way of the Lord
... and they were baptized of him in the river Jordan, confessing
their sins_”; _Acts 2:37, 38_—“_Now when they heard this, they
were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and the rest of
the apostles, Brethren, what shall we do? And Peter said unto
them, Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you_”; _8:12_—“_But
when they believed Philip preaching good tidings concerning the
kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized,
both men and women_”; _18:8_—“_And Crispus, the ruler of the
synagogue, believed in the Lord with all his house; and many of
the Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptized_”;
_19:4_—“_John baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto
the people that they should believe on him that should come after
him, that is, on Jesus._”

(_b_) From the nature of the church—as a company of regenerate persons.

_John 3:5_—“_Except one be born of water and the Spirit, he cannot
enter into the kingdom of God_”; _Rom. 6:13_—“_neither present
your members unto sin as instruments of unrighteousness; but
present yourselves unto God, as alive from the dead, and your
members as instruments of righteousness unto God._”

(_c_) From the symbolism of the ordinance,—as declaring a previous spiritual change in him who submits to it.

_Acts 10:47_—“_Can any man forbid the water, that these should not
be baptized, who have received the Holy Spirit as well as we?_”
_Rom. 6:2‐5_—“_We who died to sin, how shall we any longer live
therein? Or are ye ignorant that all we who were baptized into
Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried
therefore with him through baptism into death: that like as Christ
was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we
also might walk in newness of life. For if we have become united
with him in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the
likeness of his resurrection_”; _Gal. 3:26, 27_—“_For ye are all
sons of God, through faith, in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as
were baptized into Christ did put on Christ._”

As marriage should never be solemnized except between persons who
are already joined in heart and with whom the outward ceremony is
only the sign of an existing love, so baptism should never be
administered except in the case of those who are already joined to
Christ and who signify in the ordinance their union with him in
his death and resurrection. See Dean Stanley on Baptism, 24—“In
the apostolic age and in the three centuries which followed, it is
evident that, as a general rule, those who came to baptism came in
full age, of their own deliberate choice. The liturgical service
of baptism was framed for full‐grown converts, and is only by
considerable adaptation applied to the case of infants”; Wayland,
Principles and Practices of Baptists, 93; Robins, in Madison
Avenue Lectures, 136‐159.

B. Inferences from the fact that only persons giving evidence of being regenerate are proper subjects of baptism.

(_a_) Since only those who give credible evidence of regeneration are proper subjects of baptism, baptism cannot be the means of regeneration. It is the appointed sign, but is never the condition, of the forgiveness of sins.

Passages like Mat. 3:11; Mark 1:4; 16:16; John 3:5; Acts 2:38; 22:16; Eph. 5:26; Titus 3:5; and Heb. 10:22, are to be explained as particular instances “of the general fact that, in Scripture language, a single part of a complex action, and even that part of it which is most obvious to the senses, is often mentioned for the whole of it, and thus, in this case, the whole of the solemn transaction is designated by the external symbol.” In other words, the entire change, internal and external, spiritual and ritual, is referred to in language belonging strictly only to the outward aspect of it. So the other ordinance is referred to by simply naming the visible “breaking of bread,” and the whole transaction of the ordination of ministers is termed the “imposition of hands” (_cf._ Acts 2:42; 1 Tim. 4:14).

_Mat. 3:11_—“_I indeed baptize you in water unto repentance_”;
_Mark 1:4_—“_the baptism of repentance unto remission of sins_”;
_16:16_—“_He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved_”;
_John 3:5_—“_Except one be born of water and the Spirit, he cannot
enter into the kingdom of God_”—here Nicodemus, who was familiar
with John’s baptism, and with the refusal of the Sanhedrin to
recognize its claims, is told that the baptism of water, which he
suspects may be obligatory, is indeed necessary to that complete
change by which one enters outwardly, as well as inwardly, into
the kingdom of God; but he is taught also, that to “_be born of
water_” is worthless unless it is the accompaniment and sign of a
new birth of “_the Spirit_”; and therefore, in the further
statements of Christ, baptism is not alluded to; see _verses 6,
8_—“_that which is born of the Spirit is spirit ... so is every
one that is born of the Spirit._”

_Acts 2:38_—“_Repent ye, and be baptized ... unto the remission of
your sins_”—on this passage see Hackett: “The phrase ‘in order to
the forgiveness of sins’ we connect naturally with both the
preceding verbs (‘_repent_’ and ‘_be baptized_’). The clause
states the motive or object which should induce them to repent and
be baptized. It enforces the entire exhortation, not one part to
the exclusion of the other”—_i. e._, they were to repent for the
remission of sins, quite as much as they were to be baptized for
the remission of sins. _Acts 22:16_—“_arise, and be baptized, and
wash away thy sins, calling on his name_”; _Eph. 5:26_—“_that he
might sanctify it_ [the church], _having cleansed it by the
washing of water with the word_”; _Tit. 3:5_—“_according __ to his
mercy he saved as, through the washing of regeneration_ [baptism]
_and renewing of the Holy Spirit_ [the new birth]”; _Heb.
10:22_—“_having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience_
[regeneration]: _and having our body washed with pure water_
[baptism]”; _cf._ _Acts 2:42_—“_the breaking of bread_”; _1 Tim.
4:14_—“_the laying on of the hands of the presbytery._”

Dr. A. C. Kendrick: “Considering how inseparable they were in the
Christian profession—believe and be baptized, and how imperative
and absolute was the requisition upon the believer to testify his
allegiance by baptism, it could not be deemed singular that the
two should be thus united, as it were, in one complex
conception.... We have no more right to assume that the birth from
water involves the birth from the Spirit and thus do away with the
one, than to assume that the birth from the Spirit involves the
birth from water, and thus do away with the other. We have got to
have them both, each in its distinctness, in order to fulfil the
conditions of membership in the kingdom of God.” Without baptism,
faith is like the works of a clock that has no dial or hands by
which one can tell the time; or like the political belief of a man
who refuses to go to the polls and vote. Without baptism,
discipleship is ineffective and incomplete. The inward
change—regeneration by the Spirit—may have occurred, but the
outward change—Christian profession—is yet lacking.

Campbellism, however, holds that instead of regeneration preceding
baptism and expressing itself in baptism, it is completed only in
baptism, so that baptism is a means of regeneration. Alexander
Campbell: “I am bold to affirm that every one of them, who in the
belief of what the apostle spoke was immersed, did, in the very
instant in which he was put under water, receive the forgiveness
of his sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit.” But Peter commanded
that men should be baptized because they had already received the
Holy Spirit: _Acts 10:47_—“_Can any man forbid the water, that
these should not be baptized, who have received the Holy Spirit as
well as we?_” Baptists baptize Christians; Disciples baptize
sinners, and in baptism think to make them Christians. With this
form of sacramentalism, Baptists are necessarily less in sympathy
than with pedobaptism or with sprinkling. The view of the
Disciples confines the divine efficiency to the word (see
quotation from Campbell on page 821). It was anticipated by Claude
Pajon, the Reformed theologian, in 1673: see Dorner, Gesch. prot.
Theologie, 448‐450. That this was not the doctrine of John the
Baptist would appear from Josephus, Ant., 18:5:2, who in speaking
of John’s baptism says: “Baptism appears acceptable to God, not in
order that those who were baptized might get free from certain
sins, but in order that the body might be sanctified, because the
soul beforehand had already been purified through righteousness.”

Disciples acknowledge no formal creed, and they differ so greatly
among themselves that we append the following statements of their
founder and of later representatives. Alexander Campbell,
Christianity Restored, 138 (in The Christian Baptist, 5:100): “In
and by the act of immersion, as soon as our bodies are put under
water, at that very instant our former or old sins are washed
away.... Immersion and regeneration are Bible names for the same
act.... It is not our faith in God’s promise of remission, but our
going down into the water, that obtains the remission of sins.” W.
E. Garrison, Alexander Campbell’s Theology, 247‐299—“Baptism, like
naturalization, is the formal oath of allegiance by which an alien
becomes a citizen. In neither case does the form in itself effect
any magical change in the subject’s disposition. In both cases a
change of opinion and of affections is presupposed, and the form
is the culmination of a process.... It is as easy for God to
forgive our sins in the act of immersion as in any other way.” All
work of the Spirit is through the word, only through sensible
means, emotions being no criterion. God is transcendent; all
authority is external, enforced only by appeal to happiness—a
thoroughly utilitarian system.

Isaac Erret is perhaps the most able of recent Disciples. In his
tract entitled “Our Position,” published by the Christian
Publishing Company, St. Louis, he says: “As to the _design_ of
baptism, we part company with Baptists, and find ourselves more at
home on the other side of the house; yet we cannot say that our
position is just the same with that of any of them. Baptists say
they baptize believers _because they are forgiven_, and they
insist that they shall have the evidence of pardon before they are
baptized. But the language used in the Scriptures declaring what
baptism is for, is so plain and unequivocal that the great
majority of Protestants as well as the Roman Catholics admit it in
their creeds to be, in some sense, for the remission of sins. The
latter, however, and many of the former, attach to it the idea of
regeneration, and insist that in baptism regeneration by the Holy
Spirit is actually conferred. Even the Westminster Confession
squints strongly in this direction, albeit its professed adherents
of the present time attempt to explain away its meaning. We are as
far from this ritualistic extreme as from the anti‐ritualism into
which the Baptists have been driven. With us, regeneration must be
so far accomplished before baptism that the subject is changed in
heart, and in faith and penitence must have yielded up his heart
to Christ—otherwise baptism is nothing but an empty form. But
_forgiveness_ is something distinct from _regeneration_.
Forgiveness is an act of the Sovereign—not a change of the
sinner’s heart; and while it is extended in view of the sinner’s
faith and repentance, it needs to be offered in a sensible and
tangible form, such that the sinner can seize it and appropriate
it with unmistakable definiteness. In baptism he _appropriates
God’s promise of forgiveness_, relying on the divine testimonies:
‘He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved’; ‘Repent and be
baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the
remission of sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy
Spirit.’ He thus lays hold of the promise of Christ and
appropriates it as his own. He does not _merit_ it, nor _procure_
it, nor _earn_ it, in being baptized; but he _appropriates_ what
the mercy of God has provided and offered in the gospel. We
therefore teach all who are baptized that, if they bring to their
baptism a heart that renounces sin and implicitly trusts the power
of Christ to save, they should rely on the Savior’s own
promise—’He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.’”

All these utterances agree in making forgiveness chronologically
distinct from regeneration, as the concluding point is distinct
from the whole. Regeneration is not entirely the work of God,—it
must be completed by man. It is not wholly a change of heart, it
is also a change in outward action. We see in this system of
thought the beginnings of sacramentalism, and we regard it as
containing the same germs of error which are more fully developed
in pedobaptist doctrine. Shakespeare represents this view in Henry
V, 1:2—“What you speak is in your conscience washed As pure as sin
with baptism”; Othello, 2:3—Desdemona could “Win the Moor—were’t
to renounce his baptism—All seals and symbols of redeemed sin.”

Dr. G. W. Lasher, in the Journal and Messenger, holds that _Mat.
3:11_—“_I indeed baptize you in water unto (εἰς) repentance_”—does
not imply that baptism effects the repentance; the baptism was
_because_ of the repentance, for John refused to baptize those who
did not give evidence of repentance before baptism. _Mat.
10:42_—“_whosoever shall give ... a cup of cold water only, in
(εἰς) the name of a disciple_”—the cup of cold water does not put
one into the name of a disciple, or make him a disciple. _Mat.
12:41_—“_The men of Nineveh ... repented at (εἰς) the preaching of
Jonah_” = because of. Dr. Lasher argues that, in all these cases,
the meaning of εἰς is “in respect to,” “with reference to.” So he
would translate _Acts 2:38_—“_Repent ye, and be baptized ... with
respect to, in reference to, the remission of sins._” This is also
the view of Meyer. He maintains that βαπτίζειν εἰς always means
“_baptize with reference to_” (_cf._ _Mat. 28:19; 1 Cor. 10:12;
Gal. 3:27; Acts 2:38; 8:16; 19:5_). We are brought through
baptism, he would say, into fellowship with his death, so that we
have a share ethically in his death, through the cessation of our
life to sin.

The better parallel, however, in our judgment, is found in _Rom.
10:10_—“_with the heart man believeth unto (εἰς) righteousness;
and with the mouth confession is made unto (εἰς)
salvation,_”—where evidently salvation is the end _to_ which works
the whole change and process, including both faith and confession.
So Broadus makes John’s “_baptism unto repentance_” mean baptism
in order to repentance, repentance including both the purpose of
the heart and the outward expression of it, or baptism in order to
complete and thorough repentance. Expositor’s Greek Testament, on
_Acts 2:38_—“_unto the remission of your sins_”: “εἰς, _unto_,
signifying the aim.” For the High Church view, see Sadler, Church
Doctrine, 41‐124. On F. W. Robertson’s view of Baptismal
Regeneration, see Gordon, in Bap. Quar., 1869:405. On the whole
matter of baptism for the remission of sins, see Gates, Baptists
and Disciples (advocating the Disciple view); Willmarth, in Bap.
Quar., 1877:1‐26 (verging toward the Disciple view); and _per
contra_, Adkins, Disciples and Baptists, booklet pub. by Am. Bap.
Pub. Society (the best brief statement of the Baptist position);
Bap. Quar., 1877:476‐489; 1872:214; Jacob, Eccl. Pol. of N. T.,
255, 256.

(_b_) As the profession of a spiritual change already wrought, baptism is primarily the act, not of the administrator, but of the person baptized.

Upon the person newly regenerate the command of Christ first terminates; only upon his giving evidence of the change within him does it become the duty of the church to see that he has opportunity to follow Christ in baptism. Since baptism is primarily the act of the convert, no lack of qualification on the part of the administrator invalidates the baptism, so long as the proper outward act is performed, with intent on the part of the person baptized to express the fact of a preceding spiritual renewal (Acts 2:37, 38).

_Acts 2:37, 38_—“_Brethren, what shall we do?... Repent ye and be
baptized._” If baptism be primarily the act of the administrator
or of the church, then invalidity in the administrator or the
church renders the ordinance itself invalid. But if baptism be
primarily the act of the person baptized—an act which it is the
church’s business simply to scrutinize and further, then nothing
but the absence of immersion, or of an intent to profess faith in
Christ, can invalidate the ordinance. It is the erroneous view
that baptism is the act of the administrator which causes the
anxiety of High Church Baptists to deduce their Baptist lineage
from regularly baptized ministers all the way back to John the
Baptist, and which induces many modern endeavors of pedobaptists
to prove that the earliest Baptists of England and the Continent
did not immerse. All these solicitudes are unnecessary. We have no
need to prove a Baptist apostolic succession. If we can derive our
doctrine and practice from the New Testament, it is all we
require.

The Council of Trent was right in its Canon: “If any one saith
that the baptism which is even given by heretics in the name of
the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, with the
intention of doing what the church doeth, is not true baptism, let
him be anathema.” Dr. Norman Fox: “It is no more important who
baptizes a man than who leads him to Christ.” John Spilsbury,
first pastor of the church of Particular Baptists, holding to a
limited atonement, in London, was newly baptized in 1633, on the
ground that “baptizedness is not essential to the administrator,”
and he repudiated the demand for apostolic succession, as leading
logically to the “popedom of Rome.” In 1641, immersion followed,
though two or three years before this, or in March, 1639, Roger
Williams was baptized by Ezekiel Holliman in Rhode Island.
Williams afterwards doubted its validity, thus clinging still to
the notion of apostolic succession.

(_c_) As intrusted with the administration of the ordinances, however, the church is, on its part, to require of all candidates for baptism credible evidence of regeneration.

This follows from the nature of the church and its duty to maintain its own existence as an institution of Christ. The church which cannot restrict admission into its membership to such as are like itself in character and aims must soon cease to be a church by becoming indistinguishable from the world. The duty of the church to gain credible evidence of regeneration in the case of every person admitted into the body involves its right to require of candidates, in addition to a profession of faith with the lips, some satisfactory proof that this profession is accompanied by change in the conduct. The kind and amount of evidence which would have justified the reception of a candidate in times of persecution may not now constitute a sufficient proof of change of heart.

If an Odd Fellows’ Lodge, in order to preserve its distinct
existence, must have its own rules for admission to membership,
much more is this true of the church. The church may make its own
regulations with a view to secure credible evidence of
regeneration. Yet it is bound to demand of the candidate no more
than reasonable proof of his repentance and faith. Since the
church is to be convinced of the candidate’s fitness before it
votes to receive him to its membership, it is generally best that
the experience of the candidate should be related before the
church. Yet in extreme cases, as of sickness, the church may hear
this relation of experience through certain appointed
representatives.

Baptism is sometimes figuratively described as “the door into the
church.” The phrase is unfortunate, since if by the church is
meant the spiritual kingdom of God, then Christ is its only door;
if the local body of believers is meant, then the faith of the
candidate, the credible evidence of regeneration which he gives,
the vote of the church itself, are all, equally with baptism, the
door through which he enters. The door, in this sense, is a double
door, one part of which is his confession of faith, and the other
his baptism.

(_d_) As the outward expression of the inward change by which the believer enters into the kingdom of God, baptism is the first, in point of time, of all outward duties.

Regeneration and baptism, although not holding to each other the relation of effect and cause, are both regarded in the New Testament as essential to the restoration of man’s right relations to God and to his people. They properly constitute parts of one whole, and are not to be unnecessarily separated. Baptism should follow regeneration with the least possible delay, after the candidate and the church have gained evidence that a spiritual change has been accomplished within him. No other duty and no other ordinance can properly precede it.

Neither the pastor nor the church should encourage the convert to
wait for others’ company before being baptized. We should aim
continually to deepen the sense of individual responsibility to
Christ, and of personal duty to obey his command of baptism just
so soon as a proper opportunity is afforded. That participation in
the Lord’s Supper cannot properly precede Baptism, will be shown
hereafter.

(_e_) Since regeneration is a work accomplished once for all, the baptism which symbolizes this regeneration is not to be repeated.

Even where the persuasion exists, on the part of the candidate, that at the time of baptism he was mistaken in thinking himself regenerated, the ordinance is not to be administered again, so long as it has once been submitted to, with honest intent, as a profession of faith in Christ. We argue this from the absence of any reference to second baptisms in the New Testament, and from the grave practical difficulties attending the opposite view. In Acts 19:1‐5, we have an instance, not of rebaptism, but of the baptism for the first time of certain persons who had been wrongly taught with regard to the nature of John the Baptist’s doctrine, and so had ignorantly submitted to an outward rite which had in it no reference to Jesus Christ and expressed no faith in him as a Savior. This was not John’s baptism, nor was it in any sense true baptism. For this reason Paul commanded them to be “baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.”

In the respect of not being repeated, Baptism is unlike the Lord’s
Supper, which symbolizes the continuous sustaining power of
Christ’s death, while baptism symbolizes its power to begin a new
life within the soul. In _Acts 19:1‐5_, Paul instructs the new
disciples that the real baptism of John, to which they erroneously
supposed they had submitted, was not only a baptism of repentance,
but a baptism of faith in the coming Savior. “_And when they heard
this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus_”—as they
had not been before. Here there was no rebaptism, for the mere
outward submersion in water to which they had previously
submitted, with no thought of professing faith in Christ, was no
baptism at all—whether Johannine or Christian. See Brooks, in
Baptist Quarterly, April, 1867, art.: Rebaptism.

Whenever it is clear, as in many cases of Campbellite immersion,
that the candidate has gone down into the water, not with intent
to profess a previously existing faith, but in order to be
regenerated, baptism is still to be administered if the person
subsequently believes on Christ. But wherever it appears that
there was intent to profess an already existing faith and
regeneration, there should be no repetition of the immersion, even
though the ordinance has been administered by the Campbellites.

To rebaptize whenever a Christian’s faith and joy are rekindled so
that he begins to doubt the reality of his early experiences,
would, in the case of many fickle believers, require many
repetitions of the ordinance. The presumption is that, when the
profession of faith was made by baptism, there was an actual faith
which needed to be professed, and therefore that the baptism,
though followed by much unbelief and many wanderings, was a valid
one. Rebaptism, in the case of unstable Christians, tends to bring
reproach upon the ordinance itself.

(_f_) So long as the mode and the subjects are such as Christ has enjoined, mere accessories are matters of individual judgment.

The use of natural rather than of artificial baptisteries is not to be elevated into an essential. The formula of baptism prescribed by Christ is “into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.”

_Mat. 28:19_—“_baptizing them into the name of the Father and of
the Son and of the Holy Spirit_”; _cf._ _Acts 8:16_—“_they had
been baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus_”; _Rom. 6:3_—“_Or
are ye ignorant that all we who were baptized into Christ Jesus
were baptized into his death?_” _Gal. 3:27_—“_For as many of you
as were baptized into Christ did put on Christ._” Baptism is
immersion into God, into the presence, communion, life of the
Trinity; see Com. of Clark, and of Lange, on _Mat. 28:19_; also C.
E. Smith, in Bap. Rev., 1881:305‐311. President Wayland and the
Revised Version read, “_into the name_.” _Per contra_, see Meyer
(transl., 1:281, note) on _Rom. 6:3;_ _cf._ _Mat. 10:41; 18:20_;
in all which passages, as well as in _Mat. 28:19_, he claims that
εἰς τὸ ὄνομα signifies “with reference to the name.” In _Acts
2:38_, and _10:48_, we have “_in the name_.” For the latter
translation of _Mat. 28:19_, see Conant, Notes on Mat., 171. On
the whole subject of this section, see Dagg, Church Order, 13‐73;
Ingham, Subjects of Baptism.

C. Infant Baptism.

This we reject and reprehend, for the following reasons:

(a) Infant baptism is without warrant, either express or implied, in the Scripture.

First,—there is no express command that infants should be baptized. Secondly,—there is no clear example of the baptism of infants. Thirdly,—the passages held to imply infant baptism contain, when fairly interpreted, no reference to such a practice. In Mat. 19:14, none would have “forbidden,” if Jesus and his disciples had been in the habit of baptizing infants. From Acts 16:15, _cf._ 40, and Acts 16:33, _cf._ 34, Neander says that we cannot infer infant baptism. For 1 Cor. 16:15 shows that the whole family of Stephanas, baptized by Paul, were adults (1 Cor. 1:16). It is impossible to suppose a whole heathen household baptized upon the faith of its head. As to 1 Cor. 7:14, Jacobi calls this text “a sure testimony against infant baptism, since Paul would certainly have referred to the baptism of children as a proof of their holiness, if infant baptism had been practised.” Moreover, this passage would in that case equally teach the baptism of the unconverted husband of a believing wife. It plainly proves that the children of Christian parents were no more baptized and had no closer connection with the Christian church, than the unbelieving partners of Christians.

_Mat. 19:14_—“_Suffer the little children, and forbid them not, to
come unto me: for to such belongeth the kingdom of heaven_”; _Acts
16:15_—“_And when she_ [Lydia] _was baptized, and her household_”;
_cf._ _40_—“_And they went out of the prison, and entered into the
house of Lydia: and when they had seen the brethren, they
comforted them, and departed._” _Acts 16:33_—The jailor “_was
baptized, he and all his, immediately_”; _cf._ _34_—“_And he
brought them up into his house, and set food before them, and
rejoiced greatly, with all his house, having believed in God_”; _1
Cor. 16:15_—“_ye know the house of Stephanas, that it is the
firstfruits of Achaia, and that they have set themselves to
minister unto the saints_”; _1:16_—“_And I baptized also the
household of Stephanas_”; _7:14_—“_For the unbelieving husband is
sanctified in the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified in
the brother: else were your children unclean; but now are they
holy_”—here the sanctity or holiness attributed to unbelieving
members of the household is evidently that of external connection
and privilege, like that of the O. T. Israel.

Broadus, Am. Com., on _Mat. 19:14_—“No Greek Commentator mentions
infant baptism in connection with this passage, though they all
practised that rite.” Schleiermacher, Glaubenslehre, 2:383—“All
the traces of infant baptism which it has been desired to find in
the New Testament must first be put into it.” Pfleiderer,
Grundriss, 184‐187—“Infant baptism cannot be proved from the N.
T., and according to _1 Cor. 7:14_ it is antecedently improbable;
yet it was the logical consequence of the command, _Mat. 28:19_
_sq._, in which the church consciousness of the 2d century
prophetically expressed Christ’s appointment that it should be the
universal church of the nations.... Infant baptism represents one
side of the Biblical sacrament, the side of the divine grace; but
it needs to have the other side, appropriation of that grace by
personal freedom, added in confirmation.”

Dr. A. S. Crapsey, formerly an Episcopal rector in Rochester, made
the following statement in the introduction to a sermon in defence
of infant baptism: “Now in support of this custom of the church,
we can bring no express command of the word of God, no certain
warrant of holy Scripture, nor can we be at all sure that this
usage prevailed during the apostolic age. From a few obscure hints
we may conjecture that it did, but it is only conjecture after
all. It is true St. Paul baptized the household of Stephanas, of
Lydia, and of the jailor at Philippi, and in these households
there may have been little children; but we do not know that there
were, and these inferences form but a poor foundation upon which
to base any doctrine. Better say at once, and boldly, that infant
baptism is not expressly taught in holy Scripture. Not only is the
word of God silent on this subject, but those who have studied the
subject tell us that Christian writers of the very first age say
nothing about it. It is by no means sure that this custom obtained
in the church earlier than in the middle of the second or the
beginning of the third century.” Dr. C. M. Mead, in a private
letter, dated May 27, 1895—“Though a Congregationalist, I cannot
find any Scriptural authorization of pedobaptism, and I admit also
that immersion seems to have been the prevalent, if not the
universal, form of baptism at the first.”

A review of the passages held by pedobaptists to support their
views leads us to the conclusion expressed in the North British
Review, Aug. 1852:211, that infant baptism is utterly unknown to
Scripture. Jacob, Eccl. Polity of N. T., 270‐275—“Infant baptism
is not mentioned in the N. T. No instance of it is recorded there;
no allusion is made to its effects; no directions are given for
its administration.... It is not an apostolic ordinance.” See also
Neander’s view, in Kitto, Bib. Cyclop., art.: Baptism; Kendrick,
in Christian Rev., April, 1863; Curtis, Progress of Baptist
Principles, 96; Wayland, Principles and Practices of Baptists,
125; Cunningham, lect. on Baptism, in Croall Lectures for 1886.

(b) Infant baptism is expressly contradicted.

First,—by the Scriptural prerequisites of faith and repentance, as signs of regeneration. In the great commission, Matthew speaks of baptizing disciples, and Mark of baptizing believers; but infants are neither of these. Secondly,—by the Scriptural symbolism of the ordinance. As we should not bury a person before his death, so we should not symbolically bury a person by baptism until he has in spirit died to sin. Thirdly,—by the Scriptural constitution of the church. The church is a company of persons whose union with one another presupposes and expresses a previous conscious and voluntary union of each with Jesus Christ. But of this conscious and voluntary union with Christ infants are not capable. Fourthly,—by the Scriptural prerequisites for participation in the Lord’s Supper. Participation in the Lord’s Supper is the right only of those who can discern the Lord’s body (1 Cor. 11:29). No reason can be assigned for restricting to intelligent communicants the ordinance of the Supper, which would not equally restrict to intelligent believers the ordinance of Baptism.

Infant baptism has accordingly led in the Greek church to infant
communion. This course seems logically consistent. If baptism is
administered to unconscious babes, they should participate in the
Lord’s Supper also. But if confirmation or any intelligent
profession of faith is thought necessary before communion, why
should not such confirmation or profession be thought necessary
before baptism? On Jonathan Edwards and the Halfway Covenant, see
New Englander, Sept. 1884:601‐614; G. L. Walker, Aspects of
Religious Life of New England, 61‐82; Dexter, Congregationalism,
487, note—“It has been often intimated that President Edwards
opposed and destroyed the Halfway Covenant. He did oppose
Stoddardism, or the doctrine that the Lord’s Supper is a
converting ordinance, and that unconverted men, because they are
such, should be encouraged to partake of it.” The tendency of his
system was adverse to it; but, for all that appears in his
published writings, he could have approved and administered that
form of the Halfway Covenant then current among the churches. John
Fiske says of Jonathan Edwards’s preaching: “The prominence he
gave to spiritual conversion, or what was called ‘change of
heart,’ brought about the overthrow of the doctrine of the Halfway
Covenant. It also weakened the logical basis of infant baptism,
and led to the winning of hosts of converts by the Baptists.”