Thoughts on Baptism

IF there is one part of the doctrine of baptism of more vital importance than another, we have that part now presented before us. We say if, for we do not wish thus to discriminate where every part is important, and where all is of divine authority. But this point is most intimately related to the most vital parts of Christian life.

Baptism has its FORM. Of this no active duty can be destitute. Paul thanked God that his brethren had "obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine" which was delivered unto them; and this was spoken in connection with an argument relating to baptism. To change the form is to change the thing itself. It is not strictly correct to speak of "the mode of baptism," though we often use the expression to conform to the common forms of thought on this subject. Baptism is neither more nor less than immersion; and the "mode of immersion" is an awkward expression.

Baptism has its SUBJECTS. To destroy the distinction of character in the subjects, and administer it to all without discrimination, would entirely destroy the ordinance as an institution for the followers of Christ. Therefore, it is necessary strictly to keep within the bounds of the teachings of the Scriptures as to the subjects of baptism, lest we pervert the ordinance and make it merely a means to minister to our own feelings. If we pervert it to such uses, we make it our own institution, and it is thenceforth no more the institution of our Lord.

Baptism has its ORDER. There is a time in the experience of an individual when it may properly be administered; outside of that order it is not the institution of the gospel.

We heard a person once remark that his charity was of the largest kind; he could fellowship everyone who was baptized in the name of Christ. Now this expression is very liable to be misunderstood. Not everyone who is immersed in water, even after the formula given by the Saviour, is baptized in the name of Christ according to the Scripture meaning of the phrase. A hypocrite, destitute of faith and godliness, may be so immersed; yet he has not been baptized within the intention of the ordinance. The necessary conditions of the rite have not been complied with in such a case. We cannot subscribe to the sentiment of learned advocates of the baptism of non-believers, that the benefit of baptism is not lost because of the indisposition of the receiver.

There is another expression not so liable to be misconstrued as that of being baptized in the name of Christ; that is, being baptized into the death of Christ. This is necessary to Christian baptism. If this is complied with, the ordinance is administered according to its true intent.

We are very far from allowing that there is the shadow of a conflict between these two expressions. We insist that the truth is found in the harmony of Scripture testimony. When we have all that the Scriptures say on a given point, then we have the whole truth on that point. And we are free to express our opinion that if the original were more uniformly translated and rendered into his name, as it is rendered into his death, the meaning would be more apparent to the general reader.

Paul takes up this subject in his letter to the Romans, and carries it out very thoroughly. His premises and conclusions are so clearly set forth that the expositor has little to do more than to trace the line of his argument.

There were some in the days of the apostle who had such erroneous views of the gospel as to think it allowable to do evil if the result was good! This idea has never been eradicated from the professed church of Christ. It has led into a multitude of false doctrines and wrong practices, and introduced into the church what are commonly known as "pious frauds." According to this view, traditions and doctrines not found in the Bible, may be safely followed if they have a "pious use;" and long-established errors must be let alone for fear of weakening somebody's faith in Christianity. But Christianity is never benefited by compromises with error, under any pretense whatever.

Said Paul, "The law entered that the offense might abound." Rom. 5:20. Not that sin is increased by the law; but, as he said in chapter 7:13, "that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful." The sinfulness of sin is increased by the increase of light. This effect was produced in the giving of the law; for "by the law is the knowledge of sin." Rom. 3:20.

Again the apostle says, "For until the law, sin was in the world." This means until the law was delivered on Mount Sinai, as is shown by this reference, "Death reigned from Adam to Moses." Rom. 5:13, 14. It has no reference to the origin of the law at that time, as some assume, for he adds, "But sin is not imputed when there is no law." As by the law is the knowledge of sin, no one can be proved guilty in the absence of law. And if man's knowledge of the law is imperfect, his ideas of sin will be imperfect. Thus is shown the meaning of the expression, "That sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful." The law does not really increase sin, more than the mirror increases the defilement of the person. That only makes the defilement manifest. It is in this sense that the law entered that the offense might abound; or, as it is expressed again in chap. 7:13, "But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good," that is, by the law. In the same connection the apostle says the law is not death; it does not create sin. It proves the sinful nature of sin; it brings death where sin actually exists, and nowhere else.

As there is no guilt, or imputation of sin, where there is no law, so no law will prove a person guilty but that law which he has transgressed. We would not take that law which forbids blasphemy to prove a man guilty of theft. Hence, that law which entered that the offense might abound, or appear sin, was the law which had been transgressed. It was not the making, but the renewing, of the law, which took place at that time.

But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound. Sin called for a special manifestation of grace, and this came through the Son of God. And as God is glorified in his Son, the question is raised, "Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound?" Some say, "Yes, we frustrate grace if we keep the law; we restrain the fullness of the gospel, and thereby dishonor Christ." Many to this day reason thus. But Paul gives the question a decided negative; he says, "God forbid. How shall we that are dead to sin live any longer therein?" Life and death are opposites. If we are living in sin, we are surely not dead to it; it is impossible to be dead to sin, and to live in sin at the same time. And he gives a demonstration of this death to sin: "Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death."

This ought to be conclusive to everyone. If we were not dead to sin, why were we buried? The proper time for burial is after death, not before death. The proper time for burial in baptism is when we die to sin—to the transgression of the law; for "sin is the transgression of the law." But they who still live in violation of the law could not have been buried in this order. They were buried alive; "the body of sin" was not destroyed; the, "old man" in them still lives. This is what is plainly taught in Rom. 6.

Having now fairly introduced this relation, we will go back to notice the instruction previously given by Christ and his apostles.

In our Lord's sermon on the mount he fully announced the nature and object of his mission: "Think not that I am come to destroy the law or the prophets." The law to which he there referred was not a new law; not one which was yet to be introduced. It was a law then in existence; which was known to his hearers, and which was connected with the teachings of the prophets. He also said that whosoever shall do and teach the commandments of this law shall be great in the kingdom of Heaven.

The "golden rule" was enforced on the authority of the law. "All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them; for this is the law and the prophets." The law guards all our rights and all our relations in respect to life, chastity, property, reputation, etc. All that we have, together with ourselves, is protected by the law; and as we desire to have our rights respected, so should we respect the rights of others. This is the law, and this is the golden rule. The law which forbids our doing any injury to our neighbor, guards our own rights with equal care.

He who breaks down the authority of law, breaks down the safeguard of his own rights, and makes a wreck of his own privileges. To give a warrant to lawlessness is to open the gates to a flood which is sure to overwhelm us. There is no higher morality than that contained in the law of God. The very essence of the gospel—glory to God, and peace and good will to man—is the object and spirit of the law.

We do not here refer to the law of types; to those shadows which find their antitype in Christ. We know that these were nailed to his cross, and done away in him. We are speaking in defense of the law of ten commandments, which God spake with his own voice, and wrote with his own finger on tables of stone; which was deposited in the ark, over which the high priest sprinkled the blood of expiation. This is preeminently "the will of God." It is identified as such in Rom. 2:17-23, as follows:—

"Behold, thou art called a Jew, and restest in the law, and makest thy boast of God, And knowest his will, and approvest the things that are more excellent, being instructed out of the law; And art confident that thou thyself art a guide of the blind, a light of them which are in darkness, An instructor of the foolish, a teacher of babes, which hast the form of knowledge and of the truth in the law. Thou therefore which teachest another, teachest thou not thyself? thou that preachest a man should not steal, dost thou steal? Thou that sayest a man should not commit adultery, dost thou commit adultery? thou that abhorrest idols, dost thou commit sacrilege? Thou that makest thy boast of the law, through breaking the law dishonourest thou God?"

This is a decisive vindication of the ten commandments as the will of God, through breaking which, God is dishonored. And this casts light on other texts. Jesus said "My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me. If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself." John 7:16, 17. Here a distinction is made between the will of the Father, and the doctrine of the Son; the same as between "the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus;" Rev. 14:12; or the distinction between the law and the gospel. As Jesus was sent of God, he could do and teach nothing contrary to the revealed will of God. If any man teach a gospel contrary to the will or law of God, we may be assured it is not from Heaven; it is from beneath. It is not the doctrine or gospel of Christ; for he came to do the will of his Father, and to lead men to cease their warfare against the will and authority of his Father. And so he said, "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of Heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in Heaven."

The first sermon preached under the Lord's great commission, that on the day of Pentecost, leads us to the same conclusion. After laying before his hearers the facts of the gospel system, and convicting them of their guilt, Peter proceeded to declare the duties of the convicted sinner. The first is to repent; the second, to be baptized for the remission of sin. In this our day, the antinomian view is largely believed, that all law, the ten commandments as well as the ceremonial law, was abolished at the death of Christ. But it was then true, as it is now, that "by the law is the knowledge of sin," and "sin is not imputed when there is no law." If all law had then been abolished, there could be no conviction of guilt, for there could be no imputation of sin; how, then, could the duty lie upon them to repent, and to be baptized for the remission of sin? It is easy to see that the antinomian view involves an absurdity; we are surprised that men of apparent intelligence and judgment should ever be found to advocate it.