Thoughts on Baptism

THERE has been much questioning in regard to the relation of John's baptism to the gospel,—whether or not it was gospel baptism. It may not be of much importance, having but little practical bearing on present duty, but a brief notice of it may not be out of place. Our opinion is, that there is not so much difference between the baptism of John and that of the disciples of Jesus as is generally supposed.

Speaking of "the beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ," Mark commences with the baptism of John, and the proclamation of John was identical with the first proclamation of Jesus. John said, "Repent ye, for the kingdom of Heaven is at hand." Matt. 3:2. The Saviour's first preaching was this: "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent ye, and believe the gospel." Mark 1:15. John said he preached the baptism of repentance, and faith in him that was to come, that was, Christ. The first sermon after the resurrection of Christ was of repentance and baptism in the name of Jesus. It appears that the whole period from the beginning of the preaching of John until the time when the apostles turned to the Gentiles, about three and a half years after the death of Christ, was one of transition from one dispensation to the full establishing of the other. The two dispensations were for a time interwoven, as the following will show.

Jesus and his apostles preached the gospel, and their baptism was certainly gospel baptism. But Jesus, when he healed a certain person, commanded him to show himself to the priests and to offer the offering required by the law of Moses. And thus he recognized the validity of that law of the Levitical dispensation at that time. And the apostles were not permitted to preach to the Gentiles, even after the death of Christ, until they had offered the gospel to the Jews, or until the seventy weeks of Daniel 9 were fulfilled. Yet the New Testament was ratified by the death of Christ, Heb. 9:15-17, and the rites of the Levitical law were taken out of the way by his death, being nailed to the cross. Col. 2:14.

Acts 19 does not afford so clear proof that they who were baptized unto John's baptism were again baptized by the apostles as has been supposed by many. This was an unusual case, according to the record. On being questioned by Paul they said, "We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost." They had not been baptized by John, but by some of his followers, and they had not been instructed as John instructed those who came to him for baptism. Matt. 3:11. Thus it appears that they were not even well-instructed disciples of John, and it seemed just and necessary that the apostle should commence with them as novices.

But this instance does present satisfactory proof that it is right to re-baptize those who have not met the requirements of the gospel rite in their first baptism. Of this we may speak more particularly hereafter. Intimately connected with this subject is

THE BAPTISM OF CHRIST.

We do not by this mean that baptism which was taught or administered by Christ, as in the case of John, but that which he received at the hands of John in Jordan. On this also there has been much conjecture. It is mostly supposed to have been merely for an example. Jesus truly was our example; but we think his baptism has a significance beyond that of mere example. And here again, if John's baptism was so essentially different from that of the gospel, as most people suppose, his example under one would carry no weight in favor of obedience to the other. To this point we would call particular attention.

Christ was not our example merely, but he came into the world to be our substitute and our sacrifice. They who deny (as some do) the substitutionary or vicarious nature of the work of Christ, set aside the efficiency of his work unto our salvation. His suffering for us was not altogether on the cross; his whole life was one of trial, of temptation, and of affliction. In the garden his soul was exceedingly sorrowful, even unto death; but an angel strengthened him that he might not then sink under the heavy burden of suffering. When Paul said, "He hath made him to be sin for us," he evidently meant he was made to occupy our position, or be a partaker of our condition. And again when he said, "He was made under the law," he must have meant that he was subjected to our condemnation; the apostle's argument on the need and work of justification shows that this expression—under the law—signifies under its condemnation. He was made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law. Not under obligation to the law, as some vainly urge, for that condition does not call for redemption. Adam was subject to the law before he fell, but not a subject for redemption. It is a sinful condition, or being condemned by the law, which calls for redemption. It is evident that Christ was "made under the law" in this sense: as "the wages of sin is death," he was "made sin for us," to fall under death for our sakes. And this condition must have dated from his taking upon him the nature or "seed of Abraham." And if he died because our sins were upon him (Isa. 53), and suffered under temptations and sorrows in our behalf and on our account, we must conclude that he was baptized for the same reason. And this is yet more evident when we consider that John's baptism was "the baptism of repentance for the remission of sin." Mark 1:4. There could be nothing appropriate to this purpose in his being baptized for himself; for he had no sins to confess, and needed no repentance. But inasmuch as the Lord "laid upon him the iniquity of us all," it seemed suitable that he should be baptized, even as sinful men, for whom he stood, should be baptized.

There is a wonderful significance in his baptism which seems to be entirely lost if we lose sight of this momentous truth. "He bore our sins;" he acted and suffered as our substitute— in our stead. They who pervert or lightly esteem baptism, must lightly esteem the sufferings and the cross of Christ, as well as his example.

BAPTISM IN THE NAME OF CHRIST.

Because it is said in Acts 2:38; 8:16, and 19:5, that they were baptized in the name of Jesus, some have inferred that the apostles baptized in the name of Christ only. But this conclusion is very lame. To discover the fallacy of this idea, it will only be necessary to examine the terms of the commission under which they acted.

1. The Saviour told them to teach all nations, and to baptize them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.

2. He commanded them to tarry at Jerusalem until they were endued with power from on high. They were neither to preach nor to baptize until the Holy Ghost came upon them.

3. The promised power came upon them on the day of Pentecost; and on that day was preached the first sermon after the great commission was given.

4. If they did not baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, they did not obey their Lord's commandment—they did not fulfill the commission under which they acted and by which alone they had authority to baptize. We trust none will be willing to risk such a conclusion as this.

If the record in Acts was the only evidence in the case, the omission of the names of the Father and of the Holy Ghost might be taken as decisive. But knowing that they were acting under a commission, the specific terms of which required the use of the three sacred names, the case appears quite different.

When we consider the prejudice which existed among the Jews against the person and the name of Jesus, we see good reason why his name should be presented with peculiar emphasis to them, for no such prejudice existed against the names of the Father and the Holy Spirit. But to conclude thence that they did not obey their Lord's commandment—that they did not fulfill their commission to baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost—is more than the inspired record will warrant.

THE COMMISSION STILL IN FORCE.

There is a large number of persons who appear to be zealous for the rite of baptism, in regard to both its form and its subjects, who yet, to avoid the evidence of the continuous direct presence and influence of the Holy Spirit, affirm that the commission of Matt. 28:19, 20; Mark 16:15-18, was given to the apostles alone and expired with them. But this affirmation places its advocates in a very unenviable and inconsistent position. That commission was the authority by which the apostles baptized; and if the commission has expired, there remains no authority to administer the rite of baptism. It will not then do to say, as they say, that we must follow the example of the apostles in this; for the example of the apostles, when they acted under a special commission given only to them, gives no warrant to others, who never received the commission, to follow in the same action after the commission has expired. Such a course would indicate the boldest assumption of authority under any government.

Thus it is easy to see that, when any individuals declare that the commission under which the apostles baptized has expired, it is equivalent to an admission that they administer baptism without divine authority. If the Lord suffered that commission to expire, as it contained the only warrant ever given in the gospel to baptize, then they who continue the practice are acting in defiance of the authority of Him who gave and withdrew the commission. They are usurpers of authority under the divine government. That they act according to that commission which they declare to be obsolete, is shown by their using the formula in baptism prescribed only by that commission.

We would fain hope that a consideration of this important truth might open their eyes to the inconsistency of their teachings and practice. If their teaching in regard to the great commission is correct, then surely their baptism is invalid, and their use of the sacred names in such a manner, without any authority, is exceedingly sinful—it is taking the name of Deity in vain. And if they persist in their practice of baptizing, then let them acknowledge the force and obligation of the commission, and accept all the consequences which the acknowledgment logically involves.

BAPTISM IS NOT CIRCUMCISION.

Baptism has, by very many, been considered the antitype of circumcision, or as filling the same place in the New Testament that circumcision did in the Old. Popular theories have been projected on this hypothesis, and Dr. Clarke incautiously says, It has never been proved that baptism does not supply the place of circumcision. That is not the correct method of viewing the argument. The question is this, Has it ever been proved that baptism is in the place of circumcision? We know it has been inferred, it has been supposed, it has been asserted; but it has not been proved. If the negative could not be proved, that would not be conclusive evidence that the affirmative is true. But in this case it is easy to prove that baptism is not the circumcision of the New Testament by showing what is that circumcision.

In Rom. 2:29, it is said circumcision is that of the heart; in the Spirit, and not in the letter. In chapter 4:11, circumcision is called both a sign and a seal, which, indeed, are the same thing. Eph. 1:13, 14, says, "Ye were sealed with that Holy Spirit of promise; which is the earnest of our inheritance." When circumcision was first given to Abraham, it was called the token of the covenant, in which the promise was made that he should inherit the land. Gen. 17:11. Token is the same as earnest or assurance; equivalent also to sign or seal. Eph. 1:13, but confirms Rom. 2:29;—circumcision is of the heart, in the spirit. And this is further confirmed by Eph. 4:30: "And grieve not the Holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption." Also by 2 Cor. 1:22: "Who hath also sealed us, and given the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts."

The Lord said to Abraham that the uncircumcised man child should be cut off; he had no part in the covenant, because he had not the seal or token of the covenant. Even so, we are told in Rom. 8:9, "Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his." He has no part in the new covenant because he has not the seal of the Spirit—the circumcision of the heart, which is the seal of the new covenant. This is a point of the utmost importance, involving our relation to the covenant of grace. And there is this difference under the arrangements of the two covenants: under the first, circumcision related to the men children; but under the second, "there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female;" that is, no such distinctions are recognized in the provisions of the gospel, but "ye are all one in Christ Jesus." All classes, all nationalities, must alike receive the circumcision of the heart, and are all, in Christ, "Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." Gal. 3:28, 29.

There is yet further proof on this point. It has been inferred from the close connection of the statements in Col. 2:11, 12, that baptism is shown to be circumcision, but the proof is decisively to the contrary. "In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands." But baptism is administered by hands, as entirely as was circumcision under the old covenant.

Rom. 2:28 says, "For he is not a Jew which is one outwardly, neither is that circumcision which is outward in the flesh." This exactly corresponds to the evidence already presented, that circumcision or the seal is that of the Spirit,—of the heart. But baptism is an outward ordinance, and therefore cannot be that circumcision which is not outward; and such is the circumcision of the New Testament.

Thinking to relieve themselves of this difficulty, the advocates of that theory say that baptism serves now, as circumcision did then, as "an outward sign of inward grace." But this is really no relief at all; it makes baptism fulfill the place of circumcision, the very thing which Paul says it does not, he showing that something else does take its place. That statement is very incautiously and imprudently made.

The Abrahamic covenant, identical with the gospel, ran parallel with the first covenant made with Israel. There was no salvation in the covenant, with Israel, only as it led to faith in the offerings and promises of the Abrahamic covenant. Heb. 9:8-12; 10:4. "Circumcision of the heart" was taught in the law and the prophets, see Deut. 10:16; Jer. 4:4, etc., because it was their object to direct to the faith and blessings of the new covenant. Of this, outward circumcision was the sign. But Paul shows that there is no such outward sign now; circumcision of the heart, the antitype, alone remains.

To baptism is never ascribed the place, nor is it given any of the titles, which the Scriptures apply to typical circumcision. They who give it such place and titles commit two errors; they assign to it that which the Scriptures never assign to it, and destroy the distinctions which exist between the two covenants in regard to the sign or seal, as shown by Paul.

This theory that baptism occupies in the new covenant the place which circumcision occupied in the old, was invented to uphold the doctrine of infant baptism. It is a pity that first impressions are so strong in any, that, while they renounce infant baptism, they are slow to renounce the means which have been devised for its support.