There is perhaps no doctrine in Scripture about which there has been more complete diversity of judgment than the subject of Baptism. It has been turned into the means of regeneration by Romanists and Ritualists, who hold that the priest by sprinkling a few drops of water upon an unconscious infant in the name of the Trinity makes it "a child of God and an inheritor of Christ’s kingdom." For such to be born of water means to be regenerated by baptism, to be put into the Church, and in due time, after instruction, to receive the rite of confirmation and partake of the "holy communion." As to all this those for whom we write need no word. Superstition of the worst form marks it; worst because it borrows the outward forms of Scripture truth to enchain men in the slavery of heathen error.
Passing on to less glaring perversions of truth, we find ourselves amid a confusion of variant voices upon the subject, which has resulted in many breaches among the true people of God. More closely connected with Romanism than they would admit, are those who regard baptism as necessary to salvation. It is to be hoped that the faith of some who hold this is better than their doctrine, else it would be impossible, of course, to consider them as children of God. The fact of baptism occupying so prominent a place in their thoughts betrays a sad ignorance of those commanding truths which control the heart and life, when held in power, and lift above all the petty occupation with that which may of itself be right.
But even where the gospel is to a good extent clearly understood, there is still a wide divergence upon this subject. What is its nature?-has it to do with the Church or the Kingdom? What is the proper mode?-is it sprinkling, pouring, or immersion? Who are the proper subjects?-believers only, households of believers, or all infants? What is the proper formula?-the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, or in or unto the name of Jesus Christ? Should it ever be repeated, if the proper subjects were not baptized, or in the proper manner, or with the proper formula? It is not the purpose of this paper to enter into the discussion of any of these questions. We simply state them to show the confusion that exists in the minds of most.
Our subject lies farther back. Some, in the reaction from controversy, and as a refuge from the confusion attending the matter, have wondered whether a question about which there is so much difference has any place in the dispensation of fully revealed Christianity. At any rate this would be a " short and easy method" of getting rid of vexatious questions, and would serve to bring together many of God’s dear people who are held apart simply by the subject of water baptism. Briefly presented, their thought is that water baptism is an ordinance similar in significance to circumcision, and that is has been displaced by the baptism of the Spirit, which is the only Christian baptism. They would argue that it has nothing to do with the Church, admission into which is by the Spirit’s baptism (i Cor. 12:13). Water baptism was connected with the Kingdom, and this explains why it was practiced by the apostles after Pentecost, and all through the book of Acts. They urge however that we find no teaching as to its observance in the epistles of Paul, and that therefore it has ceased to be binding upon saints to whom the new ground of grace is fully known. There is now no purifying of the flesh;-it has been set aside, and all is of the Spirit.
Our first thought regarding this is that it is a result probably of the variant views we have already spoken of. Amid such confusion is not the simplest and easiest way to drop the whole subject? If water baptism has nothing to do with Christianity, why should Christians have anything to do with it? But the question presses at once, Is this God’s way of getting rid of difficulties? If we are to drop every doctrine about which there are differences of judgment, we will soon strip our holy faith of all its most precious and distinguishing truths. Without doubt God has not intended that truth should be gotten without exercise. That which costs little is worth little, and truths accepted as a matter of course are not often valued as they should be. All will admit this as a general principle, and if it were applied in the case before us most of the difficulties would vanish. Then if the question were taken up prayerfully, in dependence upon God, we would be able to learn God’s thought as to baptism, as to all else.
But let us look a little at Scripture-teaching regarding the place of water baptism in relation to Christianity. We purposely omit all examination into other questions, necessary as they are, in order to have settled in our minds clearly this primary question. Is there water baptism in fully revealed Christianity? For those who have never had a question as to this, what we say may seem needless, but if it settle absolutely and scripturally in our minds the truth, on the subject, our effort will not have been in vain.
It will be well to remember that the baptism of John was not Christian baptism, nor was that of our Lord and His disciples during His early ministry. This is clear as to John from its nature as given. He came to prepare the way of the Lord, as a prophet, preaching repentance "for the Kingdom of heaven is at hand."It had not yet been set up, for the King had not been owned. What he insisted on was repentance, the confession of their sins with a view to their forgiveness. There was not the full declaration of forgiveness on the basis of grace, but a kind of legal pardon as expressed in the words of the prophet, "Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts:and let him return unto the Lord, and He will have mercy upon him:and to our God, for He will abundantly pardon" (Isa. 55:7).It was a call to the people to "break off their sins by righteousness," to "bring forth fruits meet for repentance." Those who were baptized took their place as disciples of John, waiting for a further development of truth. John therefore pointed on to the coming of One who should do more than this. He should baptize with the Holy Ghost.
Our Lord took up John’s work where he laid it down. When He heard that John was cast into prison, He began to preach the same message, "Repent for the Kingdom of heaven is at hand " (Matt. 4:17). The Kingdom was not yet established, but there was this added feature, the signs of the Kingdom were performed. Still men took the general place of confession of sin, awaiting the coming Kingdom. It was in this connection that our Lord baptized,-as John; and where there seemed to be a question raised that His baptism conflicted with John’s, He left Judea (John 4:1-3), and departed into Galilee. This baptism seems to have been confined to the earlier part of His ministry; we hear nothing of it later on. The King was presented and rejected; then everything waited for the setting up the Kingdom of an absent King, when baptism became a new thing and acquired a new meaning. This is alluded to for the first time by our Lord after His resurrection, when He gave the disciples a new commission (Matt. 28:18-20; Mark 16:15, 16), the preaching of the gospel including repentance and remission of sins-salvation-in His name, unto which men were to be baptized as" owning allegiance to Him, as members of the Kingdom of an absent King.
At Pentecost the Holy Ghost came down, and apostles and all believers were baptized into the One Body, the Church, by the Spirit. This marks the establishment of the Church-an absolutely distinct, new operation of God upon earth, though the eternal purpose of His heart (Eph. 4:). From now on believer’s were made members of that heavenly body which on its completion will be caught up to its true place with Christ on high-the bride, the Lamb’s wife. The only admission into this body is by the baptism of the Spirit. Water baptism cannot admit into the Church-the body of Christ.
And yet in immediate connection with this proclamation of forgiveness, and baptism with water in the name of Christ, is the promise of the Holy Ghost. "Repent and be baptized everyone of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost" (Acts 2:38).So it is all through the book of Acts. Believers were baptized, both men and women (Acts 8:12, etc.). They also received the Holy Ghost. In the case of Cornelius, he first received the baptism of the Spirit, and this was followed by water baptism (Acts 10:43-47); in the case of the disciples at Ephesus this order was reversed (Acts 19:1-6). But in whatever order received, it is to be noted that neither excluded the other. Only true believers received the Holy Ghost, but all who professed faith in Christ received water baptism. Paul, the chosen vessel for the revelation of the truth of the Church, both received and practiced baptism as all the rest (Acts 9:18; 16:15, 33; 18:8).This was the case both in Jewish and Gentile communities.
No one can rise from a perusal of the book of Acts without gaining the full conviction that baptism of water and of the Spirit, though absolutely distinct, went on side by side. Nor must it be forgotten that the assemblies formed-at Ephesus, Philippi, Corinth and elsewhere,-were those to whom the epistles unfolding Church position and order were written; some of them, as Thessalonians, Corinthians, Galatians, and Romans manifestly written before Paul’s imprisonment, recorded in the latter part of Acts, and others, as Ephesians, Colossians, and Philippians, during that imprisonment.
Further, it is clear that in Paul’s personal ministry he unfolded the same truths as in the epistles. We cannot, for instance, conceive that he preached one thing at Thessalonica and a few weeks later wrote another. Indeed he distinctly states that his written and oral ministry were the same. (See 2 Thess. ii, 5; 2 Cor. 1:13). Therefore "Church truth" was taught by the apostle during the period covered in the book of Acts. The force of this must be seen at once,-water baptism was practiced at the same time when baptism by the Spirit was taught.
But let us examine the epistles as to what they teach regarding water baptism. They are most assuredly Christian epistles, and unfold the precious truths of grace and the gift of the Holy Ghost. It is from them we learn the doctrine, as in the book of Acts we learn the fact, of the baptism of the Spirit. What have they to teach as to water baptism?
"Know ye not that so many of us as were baptized into (Greek, unto] Jesus Christ were baptized into (unto) His death " (Rom. 4:3, 4). It is not within our purpose to dwell on the significance of the act of baptism,-which is however plain enough – but to show that it was the recognized practice among Christians. This the verse quoted clearly does. The apostle asks, "Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound?" and the answer is, We are dead to sin, and that is emphasized by the act of admitting us within the pale of Christianity. To be a disciple of Christ, to be baptized unto Him, was to own death, and the very act of baptism was a burial. The apostle refers to the baptism as the universally recognized badge of discipleship.
We see a similar use, in a different connection in the next epistle (i Cor. 15:29), "What shall they do who are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? " Christian baptism is for, or in place of, the dead. Saints died, passed off the scene, and fresh disciples took their places. They did so by baptism; that was their outward acknowledgment of the name of Christ. So here there is the recognition of, the taking for granted, the universal and necessary act of baptism. "As many of you as have been baptized unto Christ have put on Christ" (Gal. 3:27, 28). Here again, as in Rom. 6:, the allusion is to the Christian act. There is neither Jew nor Greek, but Christ’s name is upon all who have owned Him, and baptism was the confession of that. "As many of you," does not suggest that some had and some had not been baptized, in the original. The force would be "ye who have," or "your baptism" teaches thus and so.
In like manner Ephesians, the great epistle of the One Body, refers to water baptism as the manifest ordinance of Christianity-"One Lord, one faith, one baptism " (Eph. 4:5). The connection here is very clear and interesting. "There is one body and one Spirit even as ye are called in one hope of your calling. One Lord, one faith, one baptism." In speaking of the one body, the Church, the apostle links the Spirit with it; but when he refers to the Lordship of Christ, and the faith of Christianity, he connects with it the baptism which is the badge of subjection to Christ and the acknowledgment of the Christian faith or doctrine. The first is the sphere of the Church, of pure grace; the second, is the sphere of the Kingdom, of responsibility. There is a third sphere, that of creation-"one God and Father of all, who is over all, and through all, and in us all." Our only point here is that baptism has its distinct place, even in connection with other truths which show the unique place of the Church.
"Buried with Him in baptism" (Col. 2:12). This is a similar passage to that in Romans, and alludes to baptism in just the same way, as the universally recognized way of assuming the Christian faith. Should it be suggested that here it is connected with circumcision, both of them ordinances which are done away in Christ, it is sufficient to call attention to the fact that the circumcision is described as that ‘’made without hands" (Col. 2:ii):it was the circumcision, the death of Christ, in which we are circumcised. But it is not said the baptism was without hands. That was the normal Christian act which symbolized burial with Christ. The following clause should doubtless be rendered " in whom " and not "in which." We are risen in Christ, not in baptism, and it is by faith in God’s work who raised Him from the dead.
Thus we have found that in Paul’s epistles, those which notably dwell upon Christian standing as in Romans, deliverance from law as in Galatians, Church truth as in Corinthians and Ephesians, and deliverance from ordinances as in Colossians, we have not merely allusions to the universally accepted practice of baptism, but doctrines drawn from it. The conclusion is irresistible. Christian truth and water baptism are in no way inconsistent; they accompany one another. How different with circumcision, "If ye be circumcised Christ shall profit you nothing."
But it will be asked, Did not Paul say " Christ sent me not to baptize but to preach the gospel"? He certainly did; let us therefore examine the entire passage, i Cor. 1:12-17. The verse quoted is at the close of the passage, and must be taken in its connection or its meaning will be lost. Paul had heard of the divisions among the saints at Corinth. Among other names mentioned as leaders of parties was his own. He says, "was Paul crucified for you, or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?" He here speaks of the only foundation of our salvation-the crucifix–ion of Christ,-and the universally acknowledged act of baptism-each in its place absolutely distinct, and yet each well known and recognized. That does not look like a denial of baptism.
He next, in allusion to the fact that baptism was the act of making disciples, says he thanked God that he had baptized but few-Crispus and Gaius; and the household of Stephanas – but why? because it had been abrogated? No, but "lest any should say that I had baptized in (Greek, unto) mine own name." Paul allowed others to baptize, lest the impression should prevail that he was making disciples to himself. We can readily understand how, when faith waned, men would boast that so great a leader as Paul had baptized them. The ‘’ Name above every name " would be eclipsed by that of His servant. Thus we read (Acts 10:48) that Cornelius was baptized at the command of Peter, not by him. How everything emphasizes the absolute supremacy of that one peerless Name. It is this thought that seems prominent in Paul’s mind." He was not making disciples to himself-for Christ sent him to preach the gospel. Thus there is no thought of a denial of baptism, quite the reverse, but simply the assertion that Christ was supreme, and the gospel of Christ (introduction into the Church) was his chief work- baptism was necessary, but secondary.
But who that reads the book of Acts, can think of Paul denying baptism as binding? Did he see that the households of Lydia and the jailor at Philippi were baptized, without a knowledge as to Christ’s mission? Surely the question needs no answer.
The conclusion we reach therefore is definite and fully established. Water baptism was commanded by the risen Lord as a badge of discipleship in His Kingdom. As such it was administered by the apostles at Pentecost and throughout their labors in the gospel. The Church was formed at the same time by the baptism of the Spirit. The truth of the Church and of baptism by the Spirit was unfolded in Paul’s epistles, and in the same epistles water baptism is frequently referred to as taken for granted. Those who see the distinction between the Kingdom of heaven and the Church should therefore have no difficulty as to the binding nature of water baptism into the Kingdom.
One further passage calls for a remark:"Which figure also now saves you, even baptism, not a putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the demand as before God of a good conscience; by the resurrection of Jesus Christ" (i Pet. 3:21, J. N. D’s. version). Just as Noah was brought through the waters of death in the Ark, so the figure of baptism saves-1:e. figuratively shows how we are saved-as setting forth our going through the waters of death in Christ. And now the demand, the response rather, of a good conscience before God is-not baptism but the resurrection of Christ. Thus the passage falls into line with all the others we have been considering. It contains a reference to baptism, as the well known act of reception into the pale of Christianity, and proceeds to enlarge upon the spiritual truths which it suggests.
We thus take up the question at the head of our paper, and unhesitatingly reply that if we are to follow the command of Christ, the practice of the apostles in the Acts, and their teachings in the epistles, water baptism has a clearly defined place in Christianity; it is the outward badge of allegiance and responsibility to the Lord, and therefore belongs to all whose place is in the sphere of that responsibility, all who name the name of Christ-the Kingdom of heaven.
Of the importance of this subject it is scarcely needful to speak. All Scripture is important, and demands implicit obedience. There are dangers we can only point out. Those who deny baptism have no scripture for the Lord’s supper. They may inconsistently keep it, for the heart shrinks from disregarding our Lord’s request. But the same Lord ordained, and the same apostles prescribed the one and the other. One is for the Kingdom, the other for the Church. May our gracious God make us obedient to His will.
This suggests one of the probable reasons for so much confusion and denial, as to baptism. Very many have no settled convictions on the subject. They have drifted along, practically ignoring it. The Lord abhors neutrality. Many do not know whether they hold so-called believers or household baptism. Many who accept household baptism do not obey God in having their children baptized. We would affectionately urge the Lord’s people to seek His mind as to this matter. If they see what His will is, let them obey it. We believe there would soon be little inclination to reject what is so clearly the will of God-baptism in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. We would ask those who have hitherto refused this, to accept the truth, and to obey our Lord’s word, remembering they are giving up that which is the distinctive act of confessing allegiance to Christ before the world. "As many of you as were baptized unto Christ have put on Christ."