“Jesus
baptized.
And John also was
baptizing in Aenon,
because
there was much water there” (John
3:
23).
-------
I
One
of
the two criminals dying alongside Jesus made this
final request of Him: “Lord,
remember me when
You come into
Your kingdom.”
This scoundrel
lacked baptism and was absent of any good works; yet
Jesus nevertheless assured
him: “Today
you
shall be with Me in Paradise
[based
upon
your faith alone].” (Notice,
however, that the Lord’s reply made no
mention of His kingdom
[Luke 23: 42f.)
…
(As
an
aside, let us wonder: “What
shall we say about
Jesus’ statement in Mark
16: 16? - ‘He who has believed, and
has been baptized,
shall
be saved;
but
he who has not
believed
shall be condemned.” Baptism
is
a work of righteousness [Matt.
3:13ff]. So,
what does the future hold for the one who
believes, but ignores baptism?
This is
an important, kingdom question.)
We
can see that to “be saved”
does not always and only have to do with
regeneration. Such is the
case in Mark
10: 26,
where to “be saved”
is
not a reference to being born again, but to an
abundant entrance into Christ’s
kingdom.*
“It is sad to say but true:
Most
men are unwise,
trusting in their own opinions and in the opinions
of others more than they trust in the sure Word
of God.”
*Taken from Charlie Dines’
book, Being
Glorified With Him
(The Reward of the Inheritance).
II
“
-
Taken from writings by D. M. Panton.
-------
1
BAPTISM
PART ONE
Deriving from the Creek baptisma, “baptism” denotes the action of
washing or plunging in water, which from the earliest
days (Acts 2: 41) has
been used as the rite of Christian initiation.
Its origins have been variously traced to the
O.T. purifications, the
lustrations of Jewish sects and parallel pagan
washings, but there can be no
doubt that baptism as we know it begins with the
baptism of John.
Christ himself, both by precedent (Matt.
3: 13) and
precept (Matt. 28:
19), gives us
authority for its
observance. On
this basis it has been
practiced by almost all Christians, though attempts
have been made to replace
it by a baptism of fire or the Spirit in terms of Matt.
3: 11.
In
essence
the action is an extremely simple one, though pregnant
with meaning. It
consists in a going in or under the
baptismal water in the name of Christ (Acts
19:
5) or more commonly
the Trinity (Matt.
28: 19).
Immersion
was fairly certainly the original practice and
continued in general use up to
the Middle Ages.
The
Reformers agreed that this best brought
out the meaning of baptism as a death and
resurrection, but even the early
Anabaptists did not think it essential so long as
the subject goes under the
water. The
type of water and
circumstances of administration are not important,
though it seems necessary
that there should be a preaching and
confession of Christ as integral parts of the
administration (cf. Acts
8: 37). Other
ceremonies may be used at discretion so
long as they are not unscriptural and do not distract
from the true action,
like the complicated and rather superstitious
ceremonial of the medieval and modern
Roman Church.
Discussion has been raised
concerning the proper
ministers and subjects of the action.
In
the first instance there may be agreement
with Augustine that Christ himself is the true minster
(“he shall baptize you,”
Matt.
3: 11 ). But
Christ
does not give the external baptism directly; he
commits this to his disciples (John
4: 2). This is taken
to mean that baptism should be
administered by those to whom there is entrusted by
inward and outward
calling the ministry of word and
sacrament, though laymen have been allowed to baptize
in the Roman Church (cf.
LAY BAPTISM), and some early Baptists conceived the
strange notion of baptizing
themselves. Normally baptism belongs to the public
ministry of the church.
As concerns the subjects, the
main difference is between
those who practice the baptism of the children of
confessing Christians and
those who insist upon a personal confession as a
prerequisite. This
point is considered in the two separate
articles devoted to the two positions and need not
detain us in this exposition
of positive baptismal teaching.
It may
be noted, however, that adult baptisms continue in all
churches, that
confession is everywhere considered important, and
that Baptists often feel
impelled to an act of dedication of children.
Among
adults it has been a common
practice to refuse baptism to those unwilling to leave
doubtful callings,
though the attempt of one sect to impose a minimum age
of thirty years did not
meet with common approval.
In the case of children there has been
misgiving concerning the infants of parents whose
profession of Christian faith
is very obviously nominal or insincere. The
special
case of the mentally defective demands sympathetic
treatment, but there
is no warrant for prenatal or forced
baptisms, and even less for baptism of inanimate
objects such as was practiced
in the Middle Ages.
A clue to the meaning of “baptism”
is given by three O.T. types: the Flood (1
Pet.
3: 19
f.),
the
When we come to the action
itself, there are many
different but interrelated associations which claim
our attention. The
most obvious is that of washing (Titus
3: 5),
the cleansing water being linked with the blood of
Christ on the one side and
the purifying action of the [Holy] Spirit on the other (see 1
John 5: 6,
8),
so that we are brought at once to the divine work of
reconciliation. A
second is that of initiation, adoption, or,
more especially, regeneration (John
3: 3),
the emphasis again being placed on the
operation of the [Holy]
Spirit in virtue
of the work of Christ.
These various themes find
common focus in the primary
thought of baptism (in the destructive, yet also
life-giving, power of water)
as a drowning and an emergence to new life, i.e., a
death and resurrection (Rom.
6: 3f).
But here again the true witness of the action
is to the work of God in the substitutionary death and
resurrection of Christ. This
identification with sinners in judgment
and renewal is what Jesus accepts when he comes to the
baptism of John and
fulfils when he takes his place between two thieves on
the cross (Luke 12:
50). Here
we have the real baptism of the N.T.,
which makes possible the baptism of our identification
with Christ and
underlies and is attested by the outward sign. Like preaching
and the Lord’s Supper, “baptism”
is an evangelical word telling us that Christ has died and risen again in our place, so that
we are dead and alive again in him, with him, and
through him (Rom.
6: 4,
11).
Like all preaching, however,
baptism carries with it
the call to that which we should do in response or
correspondence to what
Christ has done for us. We,
too, must
make our movement of death and resurrection, not to
add to what Christ has
done, nor to complete it, nor to compete with it, but
in grateful acceptance
and application. We
do this in three
related ways constantly kept before us by our baptism:
the initial
response of repentance and faith (Gal. 2:
20);
the lifelong process of mortification and
renewal (Eph.
4:
22 f.);
and the final dissolution and resurrection of the
body (1 Cor.
15). This rich
signification of baptism, which is
irrespective of the time or manner of baptism, is the
primary theme which ought
to occupy us in baptismal discussion and preaching. But it must
be emphasized continually that this
personal acceptance or entry is not independent of the
once for all and
substitutionary work of Christ, which is the true
baptism.
It is forgetfulness of this
point which leads to
misunderstanding of the so-called grace of baptism. This may be
by its virtual denial.
Baptism has no grace apart from its
psychological effects.
It is primarily a
sign of something that we do, and its value may be
assessed only in explicable
religious terms.
The fact that spiritual
gifts and even faith itself are true gifts of the Holy
Spirit, with an element of
the mysterious and incalculable, is thus denied.
On the other hand, it may be
by distortion or
exaggeration. Baptism
means the almost
automatic infusion of a mysterious substance which
accomplishes a miraculous
but not very obvious transformation.
It
is thus to be regarded with awe, and fulfilled as an
action of absolute
necessity to salvation except in very special cases. The true
mystery of the Holy Spirit yields
before ecclesiastical magic and theological sophistry.
But, when baptismal grace is
brought into proper
relationship to the work of God, we are helped on the
way to a fruitful
understanding. First,
and above all, we
remember that behind the external action there lies
the true baptism which is
that of the shed blood of Christ.
Baptismal grace is the grace of this true
reality of baptism, i.e., of
the substitutionary work of Christ, or of Christ
himself. Only
in this sense can we legitimately speak
of grace, but in this sense we can and must.
Second, we remember that
behind the external action
there lies the inward operation of the [Holy] Spirit moving the recipient
to faith in Christ’s
work, and accomplishing regeneration to the life of
faith. Baptismal
grace is the grace of this internal
work of the Spirit, which cannot be presumed (for the
Spirit is sovereign) but
which we dare to believe where there is a true calling
on the name of the Lord.
Third, the action itself is
divinely ordained as a
means of grace, i.e., a means to present Christ and
therefore to fulfil the
attesting work of the Spirit.
It does
not do this by the mere performance of the prescribed
rite; it does it in and
through its meaning. Nor
does it do it alone;
its function is primarily to seal and confirm, and
therefore it does it in
conjunction with the spoken and written word. It
need not do it at the time of
administration; for, under the gracious sovereignty of
the Spirit, its fruition
may come at a much later date. It
does
not do it automatically; for, whereas Christ is always
presented and his grace
remains, there are those who respond
neither
to word nor sacrament and therefore miss the true and
inward meaning and power.
When we think in these terms,
we can see that there is
and ought to be a real, though not a magical baptismal
grace which is not affected
greatly by the detailed time or mode of
administration. The
essentials are that
we use it (1) to present Christ, (2) in prayer to the
Holy Spirit, (3) in
trustful dependence upon his sovereign work, and (4)
in conjunction with the
spoken word. Restored
to this evangelical
use, and freed especially from distorting and
unhelpful controversy, baptism
might quickly manifest again its power as a summons to
live increasingly, or
even to begin to live, the life which is ours in
Christ crucified and risen for
us.
(G.
W. Bromiley, Baptism and the Anglican
Reformers; J.
Calvin, Institutes, IV, pp. 14-15; W.
F. Flemington,
The
New Testament Doctrine of Baptism; HERE,
“Baptism”;
Reports
on Baptism in the Church of Scotland, 1955 f.)
GEOFFREY
W.
BROMILEY.
PART 2
BELIEVERS’
BAPTISM
Where the
gospel
is first preached, or Christian profession has lapsed,
baptism is always
administered on confession of penitence and faith. In this
sense believers’ baptism, i.e., the
baptism of those who make a profession of faith, has
been an accepted and
persistent phenomenon in the church. Yet
there
are powerful groups amongst
Christians
who think that we should go further than this.
Believers’ baptism as they see it is not merely
legitimate; it is the
only true baptism according to the N.T., especially,
though not necessarily, in
the form of immersion.
This is seen first from the
precept. Which underlies its
institution.
When
Jesus
commanded the apostles to baptize, he told them
first to make disciples and
said nothing whatever about infants (Matt. 28:
19). In other
words, preaching must always precede
baptism, for it is by the word and not the sacrament
that disciples are first
made. Baptism can be
given only when the recipient has responded to the
word in penitence and faith, and it is to be followed at once
by a course of more detailed instruction.
That the apostles understood
it in this way is evident
from the precedents which have come down to us in Acts.
On
the day of Pentecost, for
example, Peter told the conscience-stricken people
to repent and be baptized,
nor did he mention any special conditions for
infants incapable of repentance (Acts
2: 38). Again, when
the Ethiopian eunuch desired
baptism, he was told that there could be no
hindrance so long as he believed, and it was on confession of faith that Philip
baptized him (Acts 8:
36 ff.). Even when
whole households were baptized, we
are normally told that they
first heard
the gospel preached and either believed or
received an endowment of the Spirit
(cf. Acts 10: 45;
16: 32f). In
any
case, no mention is made [at
this time] of any
other type of baptism.
The meaning of baptism, as
developed by Paul in Rom.
6 supports
this contention.
It is in
repentance and faith that we are identified with
Jesus Christ in his death,
burial, and resurrection. To infants who cannot hear the word and make the appropriate response,
it thus seems to be meaningless and even
misleading to speak of baptism into
the death and resurrection of Christ.
The confessing believer alone knows what this
means and can work it out
in his life. In
baptism, confessing his
penitence and faith, he has really turned his back
on the old life and begun to
live the new life in Christ.
He
alone can look back to a meaningful
conversion or regeneration and thus receive the
confirmation and accept the
challenge which comes with baptism.
To
introduce any other form of baptism is
to open the way to perversion or misconception.
To be sure, there
is no direct prohibition of infant baptism in the N.T.
But in the
absence of direction either way it
is surely better to carry out the sacrament or
ordinance as obviously commanded
and practiced than to rely on exegetical or
theological inference for a
different administration.
This is
particularly the case in view of the weakness or
irrelevance of many of the
considerations advanced.
Christ’s blessing
of the children, for example, shows us that the gospel
is for little ones, and
that we have a duty to bring them to Christ, but it says
nothing whatever about administering baptism
contrary to the acknowledged rule
(Mark 10: 13
ff.). Again,
the fact that
certain characters may be filled with the Spirit from
childhood (Luke 1:
15)
suggests that God may work in infants, but it gives us
no warrant to suppose
that he normally does so, or that he does so in any
given case, or that baptism
may be given before this work finds expression in
individual repentance and
faith. Again,
the children of Christians
enjoy privileges and perhaps even a status which
cannot be ascribed to
others. They
are reckoned in some sense
“holy” by God (1
Cor. 7:
14).
But
here too there is no express connection with baptism
or the baptismal
identification with Jesus Christ in death and
resurrection.
Reference to the
household baptisms of Acts
is of no greater
help. The
probability may well be that
some of these households included infants, yet this is
by no means
certain. Even
if they did, it is
unlikely that the infants were present when the word
was preached, and there is
no indication that any infants were actually baptized. At very best
this could only be a hazardous
inference, and the general drift of the narratives
seems to be in a very
different direction.
Nor does it serve
to introduce the O.T. sign of circumcision. There
is certainly a kinship between the
signs. But
there are also great
differences. The
fact that the one was
given to infant boys on a fixed day is no argument for
giving the other to all
children some time in infancy.
They
belong, if not to different covenants, at least to
different dispensations of
the one covenant: the one to a preparatory stage when
a national people was
singled out and its sons belonged naturally to the
people of God; the other to
the fulfilment, when the Israel of God is spiritual
and children are added by
spiritual rather than natural regeneration.
In any case, God himself gave a clear command
to circumcise the male
descendant of Abraham; he has given no similar command
to baptize the male and
female descendants of Christians.
Theologically, the
insistence upon believer baptism in all cases seems
better calculate to serve
the true significance and benefit of baptism and to
avoid the errors which so
easily threaten it. Only
when there is
personal confession before baptism can it be seen that
personal repentance and
faith are necessary to salvation through Christ, and
that these do not come
magically but through hearing the word of God.
With believers’ baptism the ordinance achieves
its significance as the
mark of a
step from darkness and
death to light and life.
The recipient
is thus confirmed in the decision which he has taken,
brought into the living company
of the regenerate, which is the true church,
and encouraged to walk in the
new life which he has begun.
This means that in
believers’ baptism faith is given its proper weight
and sense. The
need for faith is recognized, of course,
in infant baptism. It
is contended that
infants may believe by a special work of the Spirit,
or that their present or
future faith is confessed by the parents or sponsors,
or that the parents or
sponsors exercise vicarious faith, or even that faith
is given in, with, or
under the administration.
Some
of these notions are manifestly
unscriptural.
In others there is a
measure of truth. But
none of them meets
the required merit of a personal confession of
personal faith as invariably
fulfilled in believers’ baptism.
Again, believers’ baptism
also carries with it a
genuine, as opposed to a spurious, baptismal grace. The
expression of repentance and faith in
baptism gives conscious assurance of forgiveness and
regeneration and carries
with it an unmistakable summons to mortification and
renewal. Properly
understood, this may also be the case
with infant baptism, as in the Reformed churches. But a good
deal of embarrassed explanation is
necessary to make this clear, and there
is always the risk of a
false understanding, as in the medieval and
Romanist view of baptismal
regeneration (q.v.). Baptism on
profession of faith is the only effective
safeguard against the dangerous notion that baptism
itself can automatically
transfer the graces which it represents.
To the exegetical and
theological considerations there
may also be added some less important but noteworthy
historical arguments.
First, there is no decisive evidence for a
common Jewish practice of infant baptism in apostolic
times. Second,
the patristic statements linking
infant baptism with the apostles are fragmentary and
unconvincing in the
earlier stages. Third,
examples of
believers’ baptism are common in the first centuries
and a continuing, if
suppressed, witness has always been borne to this
requirement. Fourth,
the development of infant baptism
seems to be linked with the incursion of pagan notions
and practices. Finally,
there is evidence of greater
evangelistic incisiveness and evangelical purity of
doctrine where this form of
baptism is recognised to be the baptism of the N.T.
-------
(K.
Barth, The Teaching of the Church
Regarding Baptism; A
Booth, Paedobaptism
examined;
A Carson, Baptism in the Modes and Subjects: J. Gill, Body of Divinity, Vol. III Infant Baptism
To-day (1948);
J Warns, Baptism,
Eng. Trans.)
- Geoffery W. Bromiley
*
*
*
2
Baptism
The Testimony of History
It
will
be accepted without challenge that Mr.
Gwatkin, professor
of ecclesiastical history in
the
“Christian
life [in the early
church] properly began with baptism, for
baptism
was the convert’s confession before men, the soldier’s oath which enlisted him in the service of Christ. The
rite
was very simple, as described by Justin in the 2nd
century. After
more or less instruction,
the candidate declared ‘his belief in
our teachings, and his
willingness to live accordingly.’ Then
he
might be directed to fast a short time, in way of
preparation. He
was then taken to a place ‘where
there was water.’
Here he made his formal confession, and here
he was baptized by
immersion in the name of the Trinity.
After this he was taken the meeting and
received by the brethren.
We
have decisive evidence that infant baptism is no
direct institution
either of the Lord Himself or of His apostles. There
is
no trace of it in the New Testament.
Immersion
was the rule: the whole symbolism of baptism
requires immersion, and so
The Testimony of the Old Testament
The
Holy
Ghost has selected the two mightiest catastrophes by
water in all history to
picture baptism, and thus to reveal its significance
and its mode. These two
catastrophes were judgments in which, in the one case
thousands, and in the
other millions, were drowned; while, in both cases,
the people of God, though
in the water, and overwhelmed by the water,
nevertheless came through it
dry-shod.
(1) God “waited
in
the days of Noah, while
the ark was a
preparing, wherein
few, that is,
eight souls, were
saved through water: which
also
after a true likeness”
- no
fancied analogy, but a real type - “doth now save*
you, even baptism” (1
Pet. 3: 20). Sin provoked
the Flood, which turned the world into one vast watery
grave: all mankind
perished: but the household of faith, passing through
judgment unscathed, arose
on Ararat out of the grave of the world.
(2)
At the Red Sea both
church and world are again plunged into a common
grave: the mountainous walls
of water roll down on the Egyptians, wiping them out
of existence: while God’s
[redeemed] people, threatened on every hand with a
watery death - for they “were all baptized in
the cloud and in the sea”
(1 Cor. 10:
2), the
two forming together a stupendous coffin -
nevertheless emerge alive on the further shore.
Thus baptism,
as
foreshadowed in the Old Testament, pictures death
overwhelming all - all flesh drowned
in the judgments of God: but,
while one group perishes irremediably, the other -
because God is with them in
the
[*Note.
We
do not believe or interpret this text as evidence of ‘Baptismal
Regeneration’ as some erroneously
teach today! The
Word of God uses the words “save”
and “salvation” to
mean various things; there is both a present and
future aspect to salvation, as
the context will always make clear.
See
for example, 1 Pet. 1: 5,
9-11.]
The Testimony of the New Testament
It
is
with exquisite appropriateness, therefore, that one of
the first allusions
to baptism in the New Testament runs thus: “Jesus
baptized.
And John also was
baptizing in Aenon,
because there was
much water there” (John
3: 23).
A tumblerful
could
have sprinkled a thousand converts: not so immersion:
nor without the
destruction of the symbolism.
For “we were
buried therefore
with Him through
baptism into death” (Rom.
6: 4);
“having been buried
with
Him in baptism, wherein
ye were also
raised with Him” (Col.
3: 12).
Burial
is total immersion in earth; and when it is ocean-burial, it is no less total. “For
as many of
you as were baptized into Christ did put on
Christ”
(Gal. 3:
27) -
clothed with Christ in
“Of all revealed truths, not one
is more clearly revealed in
the Scriptures [than believer’s baptism] - not
even the doctrine of justification by faith; and the
subject has only become
obscured by men not
having been willing
to take the Scriptures alone to decide the point”
(George Muller). Judgment
passed over the believer on
The Testimony of Experience
Experience
exquisitely
confirms baptism, so administered, as of God.
Here are some testimonies the writer has
himself received.
“Last night I was
smitten to the dust.
Of course I shall obey Him in baptism! There is
nothing else to do.
I do so gladly, humbly, thankfully,
gratefully.”
- “Sunday night was far more
beautiful even than I had
thought: I saw no one - the Master was there.”
- “I shall never forget how I
realized the preciousness of
Christ after I obeyed Him in baptism.” - “I
have been thinking over the matter for 25 years: I
only wish now it had taken
place years ago.” - “It
has brought greater joy
into my life, and it has given me a stronger passion
for service. ‘To obey
is better than sacrifice.’
The blessedness that has been mine since my baptism
is
more than words can express.” - “I
was just
trembling in every limb, - but when the time come to
step into the water, it
was just as if He held my hand, and led me. Never in
my whole life has He been
so near: I cannot tell you all that it meant to me,
as I laid my whole life at
His feet.” - “Each
moment of this evening last
week comes to my mind to night; so overpoweringly,
that I was forced to my
knees in an ecstasy of joy. What hath God wrought!” Is it likely
that such experiences flow from
an illusion, an error, a misunderstanding, or a
falsity disapproved by the Holy
host? Then
obey!
“He
that hath My
commandments, AND
KEEPETH
THEM, He it is
that loveth Me”
(John 14: 21):
“why call ye me,
Lord,
Lord,
AND DO NOT
THE THINGS WHICH I SAY?”
(Luke 6: 46).
*
*
*
3
Baptism and the Lord’s Supper
Powerful
and
tempting arguments are now being used for the union of
all disciples on a
basis of the spiritual divorced from the external. Possessing
the realities for which the rites stand
- it is asked - why maintain the forms, so creating,
and perpetuating,
division? Our Lord, in principle, has graciously
revealed a profound answer. “Why do thy disciples fast not?”(Mark 3: 18): why, as a Teacher come from
God, - for this is the
underlying question to which our Lord addresses His
answer - dost Thou add no
ritual to Moses’ Law?
The Lord’s reply
is the great RUBRIC
OF RITUAL.
Jesus,
having
guarded Himself from any condemnation of fasting, of
which He approves
in His absence (Matt.
vi. 16),
answers: - “No man rendeth
a piece from a new garment and putteth it upon an
old garment” (Luke
v. 36). The ritual
of Moses for two thousand years
draped the Law of Jehovah: as an outward vesture, it
clothed and expressed that
which God Himself now calls “the old covenant” (2
Cor. 3: 14),
“the oldness of the letter”
(Rom.
7: 6), the Covenant grown “old”
(Heb. 8:
13). No
man
- Jesus says it is a truism - patches an old garment:
the reasons are obvious.
(1) It is
useless: “else he will rend
the new.”
The patch will be stiffer and stronger than
the garment: the old worn, vesture, too threadbare to
stand the strain, will
rend: and “that which should
fill it up taketh from it,
and a worse rent is made”
(Mark 2: 21). Both patch
and garment perish.
Moreover (2) it is unsightly: “also the piece from
the new will not agree with the old.”
It does not match: the ‘patch
of unbleached rag’
- unwhitened by sunlight
or chemicals - is not only a
badge of poverty, but a positive ugliness.
God rejects it.
Profound
ritual
principles here stand revealed.
The Son of God refuses to add a single rite to
the ritual of the
Law. He
removes the robe, to replace it
with a better: but patchwork is abhorrent to His eye:
so long as God preserves
the vesture, no human hand may tamper with its
handiwork. This
is the condemnation of all man-made
rituals, such as the ‘Seven
Sacraments’ of
Ritual
principles
deeper still are now revealed.
“No
man
putteth new wine into old wineskins; else
the
new wine will burst the skins.” As
the skin yields to the pressure of the
wine, and yet the wine is exactly delimited by the
skin, so a rite enshrines
and expresses a doctrine, and the doctrine is exactly
defined by the rite.
Christ therefore had to make new rites. The old
skins had become rigid: new wine,
poured in and fermenting, would have expanded the
skins, till they burst: the
strong, seething, expansive spirit of the Gospel would
have ruined the old
rituals. The
modern Jew instinctively
realizes this peril to the Law.
“If ever there was a
converted Jew,” says a worker,
concerning a recent convert, “he
is one”.
And yet, whilst his religious conviction is
well known to the Jews, and even to his employer, he
cannot accept
baptism. While
not baptized, it is
little matter to the Jews what his religious opinions
may be: they still
consider him as one of their own.
Once
he submits to baptism, however, he becomes an outcast,
and is regarded as worse
than a heathen. For
the Jew prefers the
doctrine which sets the flesh on its trial - as in
Circumcision - to the
doctrine which buries it as incurable - as in Baptism:
“for
he saith, The old is
better” (Luke 5:
39),
-
that is, is milder.
The Decalogue from
the Mount is an easier rule of life than the Sermon
from the Mount.
Our
Lord
now establishes His Ritual Rubric.
Doctrine must be enshrined in rite: “new
wine must be put into fresh wineskins.” Why?
“They put new wine into fresh
wineskins, and both
are preserved” (Matt.
9: 17): for if the skins are rent,
“the
wine itself will be
spilled, and the
skins will perish” (Luke
5: 37).
Says Dr.
Marcus Dods:-
“We
are in possession of descriptions of proselyte
baptism
which make it impossible to doubt that the rite was
performed by
immersion. And
it is probable that
unbiased interpreters of the Pauline Epistles will
continue to believe that his
allusions to baptism are intelligible only on the
supposition that he had in
view baptism by immersion.
Of course it
is also the fact that owing to the inconvenience and
frequent impossibility of
performing the rite in the ideal manner, another and
also significant mode was
commonly adopted.
But if the meaning of
baptism is understood, why fuss about the mode?”
Because to
rend the skin is to lose the wine: the meaning
evaporates with the mode.
Burial and resurrection disappear from a
baptistry that is no more a grave: a priest, standing
before an altar, swathing
a water with incense, and
offering a sacrifice of
masses - what of truth lingers when the Feast of
Communion is visibly gone? “New wine must be put into
fresh wineskins.”
So
long
as our Saviour’s sacrificial death for sin is to be
kept before the eyes
of the world, so long are the wounded Bread and the
shed Wine to be kept before
the eyes of the Church, showing forth “the Lord’s death till He come”
(I Cor.
11: 26): so
long as the flesh is to be buried as incurable, and
saved souls are to rise to
newness of life, so long is baptism to be the funeral
service and the
resurrection rite of the Church of God - “baptising
them ... even unto
the end of the age” (Matt.
28: 19, 20). “So
both
[doctrine and rite] ARE PRESERVED.”
D.
M.
PANTON.
*
*
*
4
Burial to Sin
A Grave
So
urgent
is God on our separation from the world that He has
taken two of the mightiest
events of all history - the drowning of the old world
in the Flood, and the
drowning of the Egyptians in the
A Burial
So
baptism is the sole God-given ritual of consecration. For the Rite
next reveals a new and wonderful
aspect. The
believer is judicially dead
with Christ, but he is not actually dead to sin:
baptism, therefore, enters as
a self-inflicted death, by which he drowns the old
life, and smothers and
suffocates the past. The
waters of death
and judgment fill the grave; the living man steps
down, and plunges beneath
them; and so real is the ritual that, left but for a
few minutes, he would
die. “Very soon,”
said a Bechuana convert,
a shepherd, “I shall be dead,
and they will bury me in my field.
My sheep will come and pasture above me. But I
shall no more go to them, or they come
to me: we shall be strangers.
So am I in
the midst of the world from the time that I believed
in Christ.”
This is the meaning of baptism.
Crucified with Christ - this is the order of
the prepositions in the passage - baptised into
Christ, buried unto sin like
Christ, we are now alive in Christ. Gal.
3: 27.
A Consecration
Alas,
how
little we baptised have
lived the exquisite
ritual! It
ought to be - in God’s design
it is - as unnatural, as monstrous, for a believer to
live in sin as for a dead
man to cross his grave back into life. The
whole
man and the whole life are baptised into Christ. A heathen
tribe in the middle
ages, about to be immersed, asked that their
right arms might remain out
of the water, that they might still slay their
enemies! Baptism
buries all the man into all the
holiness of God.
“There was a day,”
says George Muller, “when I died, died utterly;
died to George Muller, his opinions, preferences,
tastes, and will - died to
the world, its approval or censure - died to
approval or censure even of my
brethren and friends - and since then I have studied
to show myself approved
unto God.” Baptism
not only
buries our past, but ourselves.
“Even so reckon ye
also yourselves to
be dead unto sin, but
alive unto God in Jesus
Christ.”
A Resurrection
But
baptism
has a still lovelier side: it is not only immersion, but also emersion:
“that like as Christ was
raised from the dead, so
we.” Passive
as
a corpse under redemption, we are at once to pass into
intensest activity: “alive”
- not to a creed, or a church, or a
philanthropy, but - “unto
God.” On
one half of us we are dead: the calls to
wealth, to fame, to pleasure, to sin, are to reach us
on our dead side, all the
avenues of which, into our souls, are blocked.
So it was with Jesus. “Who is
blind, but my
servant? Or deaf, as
my
messenger that I send? Who
is blind as
he that is at peace with me, and
blind as the
Lord’s servant?” (Is.
42: 19).
The kingdoms of the
world and the glory of them appealed to a dead man in
Christ. But
on one half of us we are to be all
a-quiver with life: the calls to God, to heavenliness,
to service - these are
to find us as responsive as the harp to the wind, or
the sunflower to the sun.
So also was it with Jesus.
“He wakeneth morning
by morning, He
wakeneth mine ear to hear as they
that are taught” (Is.
1. 4). Our
bodies are to be a living sacrifice (
A Life
‘Hebrew’ means a man who
lives on the other side of the
water: so we, beyond the ritual grave, are ‘to
walk’
- dead men do not walk - not in a new life so much as
“in
newness of life.”
The deep, dark
grave of Christ lies between us and the world that
cast Him out; with Him we
are to walk on the further shore: on which side,
therefore, are
the theatre, the whist-drive, the novel?
On which side is that love of money which is
ruining untold multitudes
of disciples? Are
these things ‘Hebrew’? Are
they newness of life?
So, naturally, the
newness of life ends in “the
life which is really life”
(1 Tim. 6: 19). Rom.
8: 13. “For
if we have become united with Him
[fellow-plants] by the
likeness of His death [baptism], we
shall be also [fellow-plants] of
His resurrection.”
Sown together in the seed-bed of the baptismal
grave, we shall spring together
- heavenly snowdrops, the first to break up from under
a frozen ground. Rev. 3:
4; 20: 6.
Baptism is the ritual act; sanctification is
the truth it enshrines:
when crystallised together into an actual experience,
together they will lead
into the Select Resurrection (Phil.
iii. 11,
Greek) from the dead.
Brother,
have
you been entombed (both spiritually and ritually)
since you were
crucified? “WHY CALL YE ME LORD, LORD,
AND DO NOT THE THINGS
WHICH I SAY?” (Luke
vi. 46): “HE THAT HATH MY
COMMANDMENTS AND KEEPETH THEM, HE
IT IS THAT
LOVETH ME” (John
14: 21).
D.
M.
PANTON.
*
*
*
5
Burial to Law
A
Jew might object against a Christian: LAW
is Jehovah’s mind as to what a man ought to do; man
was created to do that Law;
that is, the soul of man and the law of God are wedded
together for ever:
therefore your desertion of the law of Moses for the
worship of Christ is
spiritual adultery.
It is an objection
forcible and profound.
Paul,
in
reply, first aggravates the difficulty.
For he asserts that the
failure of a marriage does not
dissolve the union.
Wrath in the
husband, revolt in the wife, utter incompatibility of
temper in both, - nothing
can dissolve what God united: “Are
ye ignorant, brethren,
how that the law
hath dominion over a man for so long time as he
liveth?” (Rom. 7:
1).
What God says man
should be, he must be; what
God says he should do, he must do: there is no option. Now the
marriage is a failure.
The wife is in constant revolt: the soul is
in chronic DISOBEDIENCE. What did the
Law: itself
say for such cases?
The husband could
divorce the wife, or obtain sentence against her in
the courts for
unfaithfulness; but under no circumstances could a
wife free herself from the
law of her husband, Rom.
7: 2. She
is bound for life.
So all the Law, being a holy law, can do is
to prosecute the Soul, being a sinning soul, in the
courts of God: and the
issue of the trial is known.
“The soul that sinneth it shall die”:
“the wages of sin is death”:
the wife is doomed.
So
only
God can solve the problem: how does He solve it? He shuts us
up to one startling, yet obvious,
conclusion. Without
the soul’s death
there can be no life: the only escape out of marriage
is through death.
“If the husband
die, she is
discharged from the law of the husband: ... if
the husband die, she
is free from the law.”
So the Christian begins to answer: - You charge me
with spiritual adultery; but
the wife of whom you are speaking is dead.
For observe a change in the apostle’s figure:
he does not say, the Law
dies; he says, the soul dies.
“Wherefore, my brethren, ye”
- the
wife - “were MADE
DEAD” - put to death - “to
the law.”
The Law remains in all its dread obligations
and power: how else should God judge the world? but as
earthly law runs no longer against a corpse, - as no
officer of the Crown can
deliver a writ on a dead body - so the soul dies to
law: out of death to law
arises life to God.
At
this
point the Gospel reveals its exquisite message.
“Ye were put to death
through the body of Christ.”
Ye -
through Christ’s body: Law slew you in the person of
Christ. Law,
in capital punishment, takes effect on
the body of the criminal:
CHRIST’S
BODY came between me and the
mortal blow of the Law.
Faith makes one
with Christ. 1 Cor.
6: 17. Law
slew Him - Law slew me: Law was done with
Him in His death - Law was done with me in His death:
Christ is divorced from
law - I am divorced from law, absolutely and forever. “Christ
is the end of
the law unto righteousness to every one that
believeth” (
So
vital
is this truth that God has enshrined it in a rite of
perpetual
obligation. Here
is a watery trench, a
grave, into which a man who is to be baptised steps
down. What
of his spirit? It
died with Christ upon the cross. Gal.
2: 20.
But what of his
body? It
must be put to death also.
He must be buried alive: he must go down into
death: so actual is the picture that, if kept under
the water, he would
die. The
Law does not so keep him under
only because it kept Christ under until He died. “Are
ye ignorant that
all we who were baptised into Christ Jesus were
baptised into His death?
We were buried
therefore with Him through BAPTISM
into death” (Rom.
6: 3). Baptism
is our ritual answer to
the circumcised Jew.
It shows the
Christian not guilty of adultery against the Law:
for the Law loses its last
grip of the man in the water: it has no power over
a buried man: baptism is a
funeral rite over one dead to law. So
all who are in living union with Christ
are commanded to proclaim, by this startling rite
of God, their release, their
discharge, their divorce from the Law. “Repent
ye, and be baptised
every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ”
(Acts 2: 38); for “by Him
every one that believeth is justified from all
things, from which
ye could not be justified by the law
of Moses” (Acts
13:
39).
Salvation
closes,
however, not in a funeral, but in a RE-MARRIAGE. Gal. 2: 19. “Ye were made dead to the law, ...
that
ye should be joined to another, even to Him who was
raised from the dead.”
Death to law takes place on faith: burial to
law takes place in the ritual grave, - thenceforth to
walk together “in newness of
life” (Rom.
6: 4). Col. 2:
12. “I espoused you
to one husband” - re-marriage with a
divorced husband Law itself forbids (Deut.
24: 3, 4)
- “that 1 might present you as
a pure virgin to Christ”
(2 Cor.
11: 2): “not being
without law to God, but
under
law to Christ” (1
Cor.
9: 21).
Earth knows no union so
close, so tender, so miraculous: “this
mystery is great:
but I speak in regard of
Christ and of the church”
(Eph. 5: 32) Without
it we cannot be saved.
The flesh is under law, yet antagonistic to
law, and is at last slain by law.
To lay
hold of law - that is, morality, good works, inherent
goodness - for salvation,
is to grasp a live electric wire, to clutch a naked
blade, to leap into; a
burning caldron.
But to lay hold of
Christ is to die to law, and to be lifted into union
with the Son of God.
“For I through law
died unto law,
that
I might live unto God.
I have been crucified
with Christ; yet I
live; and yet no
longer
I, but CHRIST;
LIVETH
IN ME”
(Gal. 2: 19).
*
*
*
6
‘YOUR CHILDREN HOLY.’
OR
WERE INFANTS BAPTISED IN APOSTLES’ DAYS
BY R. GOVETT.
Third
Edition
-------
[Page 3]
‘YOUR CHILDREN HOLY’
A
READER conversant with Holy Scripture will at once
understand from the title,
that this tract is engaged with the well-known passage
in the first Epistle to
the Corinthians.
1 CORINTHIANS
7: 12-14.
“If any brother hath a wife that
believeth not, and
she be pleased to dwell
with him,
let him not put her away,
“And the woman
that hath an husband
that believeth not, and
if he be pleased to
dwell with her, let
her not leave him.
“For the unbelieving husband is
sanctified by the wife,
and the unbelieving wife is
sanctified by the husband:
else were your children
unclean, but now are
they holy.”
The
difficulty
of this text has been felt by many. Paedo-baptists
claim it as
establishing infant baptism.
“How strongly this supports the
doctrine of Paedo-baptism,
is manifest,”
says the learned Dr. Bloomfield.
And
Neale relates, that the
powerful Baptist controversialist,
Mr. Tombes, “so
early as the year 1627 being led in the course of
his
lectures to discuss the subject of baptism, was
brought into doubt concerning
the authority for that of infants, which for
some years he continued to
practise only on the ground of the Apostle’s
words - 1
Cor. 7:
14.” History
iv. 559.
Baptists
in
general, too, since that date, have not felt
themselves at home upon the
verse: the reason of which, I shall endeavour to show.
But
let
us hear the argument for infant baptism derived hence,
as stated by Paedo-baptists.
EXTRACT
FROM
SCOTT
“If this had not so
been appointed, but
Christians had been commanded to put away their
unbelieving partners, as the
Jews did their idolatrous wives, the children of such
marriages would have been
accounted relatively unclean, and so excluded [Page 4] from baptism, as
those of the Jews in the
above-mentioned case were from circumcision; but on
the contrary they were
accounted holy in the Christian churches, and thus
admitted among them as a
part of the visible kingdom of God. This
exposition
of the Scripture before us has indeed been much
controverted; and
some have explained ‘holy’ or ‘unclean’ to mean
‘legitimate’
or ‘illegitimate:’ but in all the places where these
words are found in
Scripture, there is not one that will fairly admit of
this sense. No
doubt the children of heathens who were
lawfully married were as legitimate as those of
Christians, yet they are never
said to be ‘holy.’ Something
more must he meant by the believer
sanctifying the unbelieving party, than merely
legalising their marriage; for
that would have been the case had both been
unbelievers: and the children would
not really be more holy in respect of their nature if one parent was a believer, than if
both were unbelievers. But
as the word ‘unclean’ is frequently used in a relative sense, denoting ‘unfit
to be admitted to God’s ordinances,’
and ‘holy’ the contrary: as
in this sense the male
children of the Jews were holy, and so partakers of circumcision: while those of the Gentiles,
and even such as had one idolatrous parent, were
unclean and excluded from
circumcision: so I cannot but conclude after long
attention to the subject, that
the baptism of the infant off-spring of Christians is
here referred to, as at
that time customary in the churches; and that the
Corinthians knew that this
was not objected to, when only one parent was a
Christian. Hence
then the argument for infant baptism
runs thus. '’If the holy seed among the Jews was
therefore to be circumcised,
and to be made federally holy
by receiving the sign of the covenant, and being
admitted into the number of
God’s holy people, because they were born in sanctity,
or were seminally
holy, for ‘the
root
being holy,
so are
the branches also:’
then by like reason the holy seed of
Christians ought to be admitted to baptism and receive
the sign of the
Christian covenant, ‘the
laver
of regeneration,’
and so be entered
into the society of the Christian Church.”
-
EXTRACT
FROM
DODDRIDGE
“For in such a case as this, the unbelieving husband is so
sanctified to the
wife,
and
the unbelieving wife is so sanctified to the
husband, that their
matrimonial converse is as lawful as if they were
both of the same faith:
otherwise your children in these mixed cases were unclean,
and must be looked upon as unfit to be
admitted to those peculiar ordinances by which the
seed of God’s people are
distinguished; but now they are confessedly holy, and are as readily admitted to baptism in all our churches, as if
both the parents were Christians: so that the case,
you see, is in effect decided
by this prevailing practice.”
“Now are
they holy.” On the maturest
and most impartial
[Page 5]
consideration of the text, I must judge it to refer to
infant baptism.
Nothing
can
be more apparent than that the word holy signifies persons who might be admitted to partake of the
distinguishing rites of God’s people. Compare
Exod. xix. 6; Dent. vii. 6; xiv. 2; xxvi. 19; xxxiii. 3; Ezek. ix. 2, with Isa. xxxv. 8: Iii. 1; Acts x. 28, &c. And
as
for the interpretation which so many of our brethren,
the Baptists, have
contended for, that holy signifies legitimate, and unclean, illegitimate,
(not to urge that this seems an
unscriptural sense of the word,) nothing can be more
evident, than that the
argument will by no means bear it; for it would be
proving a thing by itself, idein
per idem, to argue that the converse of the parents was lawful, because the
children were not bastards; whereas all who thought
the converse of the parents
unlawful, must of course think that the children were
illegitimate.”
Barnes
gives
up the argument for infant baptism from this place:
nor does Matthew
Henry plead for paedo-baptism
from the passage.
Let us then consider - Does
the passage establish the
baptism of infants in apostolic times?
I. First,
be it observed, two principles are admitted on both sides as fundamental.
1.
CHRISTIANS OF
PRESENT TIMES OUGHT TO
FOLLOW THE PRACTICES WHICH
WERE SANCTIONED AND ESTABLISHED BY THE
APOSTLES.
2.
NO ADULT
UNBELIEVER OR HEATHEN OUGHT TO
BE BAPTIZED: NOR WAS
HE BAPTIZED IN APOSTOLIC CHURCHES.
II. Secondly, let us inquire, what was the point in question between
the Apostle and the
It
appears
from the first verse of the chapter,
that the
Corinthian believers wrote to desire the Apostle’s
decision upon certain
practical points: 1 Cor.
7: 1.
Of
these,
the one before us was a scruple, Whether it
was lawful for
a believing husband or
wife to live with an unbelieving partner? Ezra had required the
Jewish husbands to put away their heathen wives: Ezra
10: 2-5.
Did
the
same law hold among Christians?
To settle this, then, is the
Apostle’s intent in the words
cited.
But
in
interpreting the fourteenth verse two main
difficulties meet us.
[Page 6]
I.
The nature of the holiness spoken of.
II. The gist of the argument
used by the Apostle.
Let
us
discuss these questions in order. That
we
may enter upon it the better, I would offer a
translation of the passage
more exact than that of our version.
14. “For
the unbelieving husband hath been
made holy in the wife, and
the unbelieving wife hath been made
holy in the husband:
since if so*
your children are unclean,
but now are they holy.”
*
If the husband and wife are to separate.
I. THE NATURE OF THE HOLINESS.
Of
what
kind is the holiness spoken of?
1.
Holiness is real, or spiritual, when there
is the renewal of the heart
before God. This,
it is granted, was not
possessed by the heathen husband,
or by the children
generally. They
were therefore not holy before
God,
nor pleasing to Him: Heb.
11: 6;
2.
But some contend for a ceremonial holiness, like that
possessed by the Jewish
people. And
herein opinion
is again divided. (1.)
One party would make it a
holiness by nature or by
birth, giving a right to the reception of baptism. (2.)
The
other would affirm it to be holiness acquired by
actual reception of baptism.
The Church
of England asserts all to be
unholy before baptism. Hence
she rightly
disowns any holiness of nature or birth, as giving a ground for baptism; and the idea is refuted
in this verse.
But, (i.) If the
holiness arose from baptism actually received,
then a distinction must have been set up between
the children baptized, and those
not so.
It
would have been said, that they were made, holy, like the wife. But
now
it is said “they are holy.” All
were holy
in
the
same sense.
(ii.) This
idea disturbs the equality of
standing between them and the heathen wife. The
same holiness belongs to both; yet the one
party is unbaptized, the
other baptized.
(iii.) If the
children spoken of were
holy by baptism, then unbaptized
children ought not
to live with their [Page 7] parents, for they are unclean. And
where
a heathen was father, or the children were adult, many
were doubtless unbaptized.
(iv.) If it
admits to baptism it will
admit also to the Supper of the Lord.
(i.)
Nor is it
holiness of nature or of birth: for
all
alike are “by
nature the children of wrath:”
Eph.
2: 3. (ii.)
Again, it would overthrow one of
our fundamental principles. If,
on the
footing of this holiness, the children ought to be,
and were baptized; the
heathen husband or wife ought to be, and was, baptized
also. But
this, it is granted, was not so; nor ought
to be.
(iii.)
Further, this holiness would
admit to baptism not only infants of a believing parent,
but adult unbelieving children also. For the holiness attaches to the
children universally, whether
infant or adult.
3.
Others, both of Baptist and Paedo-baptist views,
contend for a civil holiness. As
though the Apostle had said - ‘Your marriage is legal,
else your children are illegitimate. But
you esteem your children legitimate, and
they are so; therefore the marriage is binding and
legal.’
But
this
argument labours under two
defects; one logical,
and one moral.
(1.) As Doddridge
observes, it is a proving a doubted point by the same
point of doubtfulness. For
he who doubted whether the original relation of
the marriage were lawful,
would doubt also of the derived relation
of the children of
such marriage.
Ezra
when
he bade
Booth,
indeed,
endeavours to get rid of this objection by saying,
that Doddridge’s argument
is founded on a mistake. He
would state it as follows - “The children are legitimate,
because the converse of the parents is lawful; and
that converse is lawful
because they have been sanctified, or mutually set
apart for the enjoyment of
each other, exclusively of all other persons:” - Paedo-baptism
Examined,
ii. 220.
[Page 8]
But
this
is not correct. The
point to be
proved was the lawfulness of the married living
together, not the legitimacy of
the children. ‘Else
wore your
children unclean, but
now are they holy,’
is the result of a previous premise regarding the
lawfulness of their living together. Besides,
his
argument labours under a mistake soon to be set forth.*
*
Logically, it
would be ignoratio
elenchi.
(2) It has
also a moral flaw. It
would prove no satisfaction to the questioner.
‘Am I right
before
God in living with a
heathen wife?’ is the inquiry.
To
this it is no sufficient answer to reply - ‘Yes,
you are right according to human laws,
your marriage is legal, your children
legitimate.’ ‘I know that,’
would be the speedy rejoinder: ‘so were the Jewish marriages
legal according to the Persian
laws. But
the wives and children must
both be put away as unlawful before God.’
4.
Some have supposed the holiness to consist in the hopefulness of the conversion of
the wife
and children under
such circumstances. (1.) But that
could not pacify the
inquiring conscience as to the lawfulness of the
relation at that time. Here
nothing would avail but to point out that
the position at that time, and under all possible
events, was right. (2)
The sanctification is spoken of, not, as yet possibly
future, but as actually
possessed. “The
wife has been
sanctified” -“Your
children are holy.”
5. There remains yet a sense which directly satisfies the question, and
accords with scriptural usage. The
husband’s
living with his heathen wife was lawful before
God.
She
was not unclean, she was made holy to him.
It
is a holiness regarding certain persons, which gives
the privilege of living
with them. It
is not sanctification by
the renewing of the mind,
nor by the Holy Ghost, but “by the husband.” The
scruple
arose from perceiving, that the unbelieving wife was
unholy and spiritually
unclean before God. The
answer to the
scruple is, that though
spiritually unclean before
God, she was yet clean to the believer. The
[Page 9] unbelieving wife
communicated no spiritual defilement to the believing
husband, nor need there
be any conscientious scruple because of their living
together, for the Lord
permitted it. The
‘holiness’ then or ‘cleanness’
respects the party making the inquiry.
The
interchange
of the words ‘unclean’
and ‘holy,’ shows in
what sense each is to be taken. Holiness in the sense
supposed, belongs even to things inanimate. The
believer’s food is “sanctified,”
or “made
holy by the word
of God
and prayer.” 1
Tim 4: 5. “Give
alms of such things as ye have, and
behold, all things
are clean unto you:”
Luke 11: 41. In
the passage
from Timothy the same point is in question. Were
certain kinds of food lawful
to the believer?
or did they defile him?
The answer
to this difficulty is the same. Every
kind of food is lawful, and may be used
without any trouble of conscience, for it is made holy
by prayer.
The
expressions
used then concerning the unbelieving wife are
paralleled by that of
the believer’s food. She
may be lived
with without defilement of soul or body, even as all
kinds of food may be
eaten. “I know, and am
persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that
there is
nothing unclean of
itself,
but to him that esteemeth any
thing to be unclean,
to him it is unclean:”
Rom. 14:
14.
The
question
of the
Christian husband
was, ‘Is
my
heathen wife holy to me?’ The
answer
is, ‘She
was
sanctified or made holy to you by marriage.’ It
is not
said, that she was holy in herself, or made holy towards God;
she could not be, as long as she was
heathen. The
two were “one flesh,”
and her flesh was holy or clean to him.
The
sense
of ‘holy’ is fixed in
this case, by the
word ‘unclean.’ When a word of
several different meanings is
employed, it may, in some cases, be difficult to
decide which is the sense
designed. “Sweet”
is the opposite of “bitter,”
and of “sour” among
tastes: it is the opposite also to
“harsh,” among
sounds. If
then we heard only the words -
“This is sweet,” we [Page 10]
might doubt in what sense it was to be taken. But
if the speaker said - “This
is sweet, but if kept long it will turn sour,” we should
know that the person was speaking of tastes, and that
he meant the opposite of ‘sour.’
So
here
the word ‘unclean’
decides the sense of ‘holy.’
“Your
children were unclean, but
now are
they holy.” ‘Holy,’
then,
means, ‘not unclean.’ ‘Your
children else
were unclean, but now
are they not unclean.’
Attempt to elevate ‘holy’
beyond its due place, and its antagonist in the
other scale witnesses against the error. Depress ‘holy’
from its loftiest sense, and you are sustained by the
word in the other scale.
II. We come now to consider the
second difficulty.
THE GIST OF THE APOSTLE'S
ARGUMENT.
This
is
equivalent to the inquiry - Who are the PARTIES
ADDRESSED in the words, “Else were your
children unclean”?
1.
It has hitherto been universally assumed, that the
Apostle is speaking to the
mixed couples
concerning
their children.
(1.)
“Otherwise
your
children in these mixed cases were
unclean,” says Doddridge.
(2.)
“The
children of
such marriages,”
says Scott, “would
have been accounted
relatively unclean.”
(3.) “From
this it would
follow that the offspring of such a
marriage
would be illegitimate,” says Barnes.
(4.)
“For
otherwise,
(namely, if one party be not sanctified,) your children would be considered impure
and profane. But now (that is, in this
case,) they are holy.”
-
Here
lurked
the unnoticed fallacy, from which arose the difficulty
of seeing the
force of the apostle’s argument.
It
followed
as a necessary result, that
Paul was arguing
only as to the lawfulness of the mixed marriages in
question. But
the force of such an argument is null: as
has been shown. If
the lawfulness of the
marriage were doubtful, the position of the children
who were the result of it,
was equally doubtful. The
[Page
11]
legitimacy in human law of the children born under
such circumstances, could not decide anything as to
the question raised.
1.
If
Paul had intended to speak of the children of such
mixed marriages, he would
have used another relative. He would have said – “Else
were their children
unclean.” So
does Barnes when arguing on the subject.
“The connexion produces a species
of sanctification, or
diffuses a kind of holiness over the unbelieving
party by the believing party,
so far as to render their children holy.” “The
Apostle was
speaking of something then, and which rendered their children at that time holy.” “If the connection
was to be regarded as impure and abominable, then their children were to be esteemed illegitimate and unclean.” “They
did not
believe, and could not believe, that their children were defiled.”*
*
Once, indeed,
Barnes addresses the mixed pair directly, and uses
then the word “your.” But Paul
does not so. He
does
not address directly any but believers.
These
mixed
marriages presented not the case of the Church
generally, but of
exceptions only. He
would have shown
this, then, by speaking of such exceptive cases in a
way that evidenced that he
was addressing the Church generally about them. The word “yours”
supposes that he had before him the parties appealed
to. But
the unbeliever was not of the Church, nor
was he supposed to be present.
2.
The Apostle’s actual use of the word “your,”
proves
that he was speaking Of
THE
CHILDREN OF THE CORINTHIAN CHURCH GENERALLY, and
through that church to all
churches and believers. This
will be
apparent, if we consider the phraseology natural to
the case and that which is
constantly adopted by the Apostle.
1.
“Dare
any of YOU
having a matter against another go
to law before the unjust and not before the saints?”
6:
1.
2. “Know
ye not that YOUR
bodies are members of Christ?”
6:
15. So 19,
20, and 5:
6, &c.
Again
in
the chapter before us:-
3. “Now
concerning the things, whereof ye wrote
unto me.”
[Page 12]
4. “Defraud
ye* not one the other, except
it he with consent for a time, that
ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer, and come
together again, that
Satan tempt YOU
not for YOUR incontinency.”
5. “And
this I speak for YOUR
own profit, not that
I may cast a snare upon YOU,
but
for that which is comely, that
ye may
attend upon the Lord without
distraction:” ver.
35.
It
was
the church at
Further,
does
the Apostle, by the word “your,”
mean only
the children of such mixed marriages? Then
confine
it to that case! Why
do you
apply it to the children of believing
parents in general?
To them it
does not directly apply. On
such a view Paul says only, ‘The
children of such mixed
marriages are not unclean, but holy.’ Before
the sentiment can apply to the children
of Christian parents generally, there must be a
further inference, - ‘And if
the children of such
exceptive cases be not unclean, much more must the children of families
where both the parents are
believers, be holy.’ On
this
supposition only, have the words a general bearing.
*
The italics mark
the cases when the person is only
contained in the form of a verb: the capitals, when
the relative is expressed. This
explanation was first given by Hinton, of
But
while
it is universally assumed by
opponents, that Paul was
speaking of the case of mixed marriages alone, they
nevertheless apply the passage,
as if Paul spoke directly* of the whole Church. They argue in
[Page 13]
relation to the Apostle’s reasoning, as though the
children of the
mixed marriages alone
were intended. But
when they apply it to
the subject of infant baptism, they take “your
children”
as embracing all believers.
* I
propose a slight
variation in the rendering of … The
established version renders, ‘Else
were.’
That
is, “Because if not,
your children would be.” But
there
is no negative in the Apostle’s expressions, nor is
the verb in the subjunctive.
It should
be, ‘Since
- if so - your children are unclean, but now are they holy.’
The
second
inferential article (apa)
takes up the
consequence of their supposition,
not the Apostle’s. If
their principle of separation was good,
the children of church members were unclean to their
parents. Our
translators suppose the Apostle to be
arguing from the contrary to his own conclusion. This requires
“not”
to be introduced; either openly, or covertly, as in ‘else.’
But … apa means, ‘Since, if so.’ Take
a case – ‘Since, if so
(if you are forbidden to keep company with
fornicators) you must go out of the world:’ 1 Cor. 5:
10. Or,
as
our authorized version has it – “For
then ye must needs,” &c.
The
expression
then should be taken generally in both aspects. The words “your
children,” both in the immediate connexion
and in the argument for
infant baptism, have one meaning; and that its most general
one.
They mean, the children of the whole Church, whether
infants or adults. The
holiness here supposed belonged to all alike.
See
now,
with this connexion, how the argument clears up and
becomes wholly
luminous. The
Apostle bids them trace
out the results of the principle in question.
He
says
in effect: ‘Look
at the consequences of your principle. If
the believing husband is not to live with
his heathen wife, because she is an unbeliever and therefore unclean,
the connexion between Christian parents and their children
must be broken also; for all
children are born unbelieving, and are therefore
unclean.’ But
you see that this result of the principle is unnatural
and terrible. So
then is the other and more limited one. Children,
though unbelievers, are not unclean
to their
parents.
They
communicate no defilement to them:
their society is perfectly lawful, or sanctified by
God. “But
now* are they holy.” ‘Is it lawful for a believer
to live with a heathen wife?’ ‘Yes,
as lawful as
for believing parents
to live with
unbelieving children.’
*
‘Now,’
is
here, not a particle of time, but of inference. As
in John 15: 22, 24;
18: 36,
where it stands as the answer to ‘if.’
The
holiness
in question, then, in both cases, relates solely to
the lawfulness of
living together, both as it regards the wife with the
husband, and the children
with their parents.
‘It is God’s will that they
should dwell with you, and their
bodies
communicate no defilement. But
unless their souls be
made holy, they will never dwell with
God.’ Both
were alike unclean before [Page 14] God, and before the Church, which, as an assembly of believers,
upholds, both in theory and practice, God’s views of
holiness. Both
were alike clean in the relations of the flesh. If
baptism belongs not to the original relation of
husband and wife, who
before God are one flesh: neither does it belong to
the derivative
relation of child to parent, which
again is only a relationship of the flesh.
This
inspired
argument then places the unbelieving wife on the same level with the children of
believers.
It
is what logicians call an argument a pari, or from
one case to another like it in
principle. IF SO, THEN NO UNBELIEVING CHILDREN, EVEN OF BELIEVING PARENTS, WERE BAPTIZED IN PAUL’S DAY.
The
heathen
wife was not baptized. This
is
granted. Or,
if any deny it, and outrage
our first principles of faith, we can prove it. If she had
been baptized, she would have been
received into the Church. And
if so, the
scruple of conscience before us could not have arisen.
But if she was not baptized, neither were the infant children of the
Imagine
the
Apostle to be arguing with a Church of modern
Paedo-baptists, and this will
fully appear. ‘If
you bid,’ says he, ‘the
believing husband
separate from his ungodly wife, you must also
require pious parents to separate
from their unbelieving children, upon the same
principle.’ But
he would at once be met by the reply -
‘The cases are not parallel: our
children are in the covenant of
grace, and are baptized members of the
‘But can no infant be saved then?’
Yes, but
not by faith - and baptism is only to
be administered to those who not only believe, but
give the answer of faith: 1
Pet. 3: 21. The
children
of believers are, as truly as the children of
unbelievers, “children of the flesh,” and such are not the
children of God:
The
arguments
on both sides may now be presented in a very small
compass.
The
Paedo-baptist
argument will stand thus:
1.
Those who are holy are fit subjects for baptism.
2.
The children of believers are holy.
3.
Therefore they are fit for baptism.
The
refutation
consists in defining the sense of ‘holy.’
Rightly
taken in this place, it gives no
ground for baptism. And
the counter
arguments are:-
1.
The holiness which belongs to a heathen wife,
is no
lawful ground for baptism.
2.
The holiness possessed by believers’ children, infant
and adult, is the
holiness
which
belongs to a heathen wife.
3.
It is therefore no lawful ground for baptism.
And
in
another form:-
1. Those who are by an apostle
set on the same footing,
received the same treatment at his hands.
2.
The heathen wife and believers’ children are by an
apostle set on the same
footing.
3. Therefore they received the
same treatment.
But
the
heathen wife was not baptized; as is granted.
Then
neither
were the children of believers, considered simply as
such. Of
course if any of them believed, they were
acknowledged and baptized. They
were
then baptized as believers, not as children of
believers. But
we are speaking of their position now,
simply as they were children of the flesh.
[Page 16]
Behold
then
in the text before us a balance contrived by God, that
we may weigh any
theory that professes to explain this point. Any
interpretation which would set the
unbelieving wife either higher or lower than the
unbelieving children,
is unsound.
It
destroys
the inspired argument, and the asserted equality of
the two states.
The
holiness
in question will baptize both, or neither. Make
holiness to mean saying
sanctification, and you overturn the Gospel. You
then assert, that
unbelievers are holy before God! Take
holiness
in its lower sense of civil legitimacy, and it gives
no quiet to the
conscience, no real reply to the question. Regard
holiness as ceremonial fitness for
ordinances, and you must shrink from its application
on one side of the
balance.
Paedo-baptists
would
baptize the children, but not the
heathen wife. But
this the Apostle will not allow. If
the children’s holiness fits them for
baptism, it fits also the heathen wife. If they were
baptized, so
was the heathen wife. Do
you start? Is
that absurd? So
then neither were
the children baptized. Faith
is the
indispensable requirement for baptism in all cases,
whether in adults or
children. “The
like figure whereunto
even baptism also doth now save us: not the
putting away the filth of the flesh, but THE
ANSWER OF A GOOD CONSCIENCE BEFORE GOD:” 1
Pet. 3:
21.
And
if
the infants, even of believers, were not baptized in
apostolic churches,
because unable to give the answer of faith, none ought to be baptized now. INFANT BAPTISM
THEN IS A TRADITION OF MEN!
Is
the
argument of this tract fallacious? Expose
it!
Is it
sound? Obey
the truth yourself, and spread it.
Believers! were
you only sprinkled while an unbelieving infant? Sprinkling
is
not baptism, for baptism means immersion. And
even the immersion of one who does not savingly believe, is not
apostolic and scriptural baptism. Are
you unbaptized
then? Be immersed in obedience to your Lord! in
memory of His burial and resurrection, and of your
oneness with Him in both! (
PLETCHER
AND SON, PRINTERS,
THE
END