Our last subject of consideration in this series was the Testimony of the Church. We may now proceed to consider the different leading expressions involved in the testimony. I would begin with baptism, confining myself to the elucidation of the subject, and not treating of the question as to who are the proper recipients of baptism; the determining of that point I would leave to the enlightened conscience.
As a preface let me remark, that the more commonly any truth of God is received and adopted in the world, the more carefully must any honest enquirer after that truth exclude from his research any construction given to it by the world, or even by the most pious and learned expounding it for the world. Our only course, one that the servant of God ought never to have deviated from, is to disengage our minds from everything man has said on the subject, and apply ourselves to the word of God, as if we never had heard of the subject before. It would reveal one of the mysteries of the mind if one could trace the prepossessions about the truth of God, with which Christians come to the Scriptures; in fact they too often do so more to establish their own convictions than to derive convictions therefrom.
These remarks apply, I think, peculiarly to baptism, for no truth has been so popularized and adopted by the world, and none on which there has been so much controversy and dogmatism among men. Now I desire to dismiss entirely every preconceived thought on the subject borrowed from man; and apply myself to see how it is declared by the word of God.
Baptism is first brought before our notice by John Baptist and is introduced in connection with his ministry as if everyone at once understood what it meant. It was not a novelty which required to be explained, but a practice in such common vogue that when adopted by John in his ministry everyone knew the import and intent of it, and it is from not understanding this practice in its common and general use that we do not easily seize the import of it when attached to John's ministry. Baptism was simply using water as a symbol to declare a dissociation from what I was in, in order to leave me free for entrance into another order of things. John is called Baptist because his ministry is characterized by baptism. He comes as between the law and the prophets, and Christ. He calls on Israel by baptism to declare separation from all that was contrary to their proper ground, which in repentance they reached, looking for the remission of sins, and consequently they who were baptized of John when they heard of Christinstified God. (See Luke 7:29,3029And all the people that heard him, and the publicans, justified God, being baptized with the baptism of John. 30But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel of God against themselves, being not baptized of him. (Luke 7:29‑30).)
Now the other side of the baptism necessarily expressed the demand for which the recipient of it was freeing himself. He first freed himself by baptism, and then the responsibilities were begun. Those who were baptized of John declared that they separated themselves from their present failure, and from that moment were waiting for remission of sins; so when they had heard Jesus, they glorified God, inasmuch as that they had reached that for which they had prepared themselves.
If a Gentile were baptized in order to become a Jew, he knew that the rite determined his past and his future, and therefore bad a deeper significancy to him than if he had only baptized after coming from the market in order that he might eat bread. The rite was the same in both cases, but the claims consequent on the subject of the rite lent a different significancy and weight to it in each case. In either or any case the rite of baptism is -a dissociation from present engagement; but it is the ground I enter upon therefrom, which determines my liability and the extent of my responsibility on account of it. The nature and extent of my separation from my present engagement must be determined by the ground for the entrance on which I am baptized. By baptism I free myself to enter on it, but the nature of the ground entered on, and the responsibilities undertaken, must necessarily define the extent to which I may distance myself from my former self.
There were then necessarily two sides to baptism-the new ground and the old; the former declaring the extent to which the latter was abandoned; baptism declaring the abandonment. The disciples baptized, but it is evident with different demands to those of John, for Christ had come; yet, the declaration in the baptism was the same, for the recipient declared himself freed from present standing, in order to engage in a new one; which new, I repeat, gave a character to the baptism, for it entailed certain claims on account of which he entered baptism, declaring that in order to put himself under those claims be had detached himself from his former engagement.
Although baptism was a well-known rite, that of John was a new thing among God's people, for hitherto they had been called on to reform as they stood; now they are called to renounce their failure, just as much as a Gentile was called on to renounce his, in heathenism, when he desired to enter on Jewish ground. In order to fulfill all righteousness, the motive for baptism, our Lord took His place with the repentant remnant, not, I need hardly say, to recover from the low ground which the unrepentant occupied, but in grace to identify Himself with those; the poor of the flock who had recovered lost ground; i.e., repentant. Now after He had risen from the dead, and had all power given to Him in heaven and on earth, He authorizes the apostles to go and disciple all nations, (the commission to them being as unlimited as His sway was universal,) baptizing them to the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. In a word, man was called to surrender himself to Him who had now entire claim on him. Christ had died for all, therefore all were proved to be dead; and now risen, He had full claim over the dead, and Lord of all; and therefore by His apostles calls on all men to own His claim and be baptized in the name of God as now for the first time fully declared. All who were baptized in this name renounced their own.
Now when it is understood that it was the death of Christ which gave Him this claim, it must be seen that everyone who submitted to His baptism placed themselves in His death, admitting His claim because of it, so that baptized unto Christ, they were baptized unto His death. The ground which Christ's baptism imposed on me was death, because His death proved that all were dead, and therefore when I owned this in baptism I placed myself, not in any of that which caused His death, but in His death I start with renouncing all. In the baptism I declare that I drop myself in His death; I find, that if I would assume His name, which is my duty-He is both Lord and Savior -I must place myself in His death, and must renounce that which would interfere with the profession I am assuming; ao that my entire self as son or Adam must be renounced, and to do this I place myself in His death. If I have faith I rise out of it in newness of life; to walk in the name of the Lord; but whether or not such is the ground on which I place myself. Literally in baptism I assume to dissociate myself from that which interferes with the association I am about to enter on; consequently, when baptized in the name of Christ, I must in the outset place myself in His death, where all of myself is put an end to, and from whence alone I could start in His name. The baptism of John fell far short of this, because, as we have seen, of the different ground on which its recipients entered therefrom; therefore the baptism of John was insufficient to express the baptism of the Lord. (See Acts 19) I am only saying here what the baptism of Christ entails; I do not say that every baptized person understands it in this full way. But we shall best arrive at the true import of baptism by examining the passages where it is spoken of in order. First, then, in Mark 16:1616He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. (Mark 16:16), we read, " He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved." Now it is evident it is not baptism that saves, but that baptism was the expression of separation unto Christ, which true faith would maintain. In Acts 2:3838Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. (Acts 2:38), we find Peter saying to the anxious souls, " Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." Here we see that the recipients of baptism professed to separate from old ground, and to take new for a certain expected end, viz., for the remission of sins and the gift of the Holy Ghost. If they repented, and in the name of Jesus Christ abandoned the ground they were on for the remission of sins, they would receive the gift of the Holy Ghost; the baptism would be declarative of their renunciation of old ground, and of the reality of their profession in assuming new. In Acts 8:1212But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. (Acts 8:12), we find that when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized both men and women. Simon the sorcerer was also baptized, but on none of them had the Holy Ghost as yet fallen. All we can gather from this passage is that they who submitted to baptism put themselves on new ground by dissevering themselves from the one they were on, and were as yet without the power of the Holy Ghost to keep them in it; and in which one (Simon Magus) was not kept.
The next passage is verse 36 of the same chapter. " What cloth hinder me to be baptized?" says the Eunuch to Philip. He feels that there is now no hindrance to his assuming new ground on the clear renunciation of the old, which baptism would imply, and which was, in fact, the way to the new, and presumed that there was no obstacle thereto.
In chapter x. 47, we find Peter saying, " Can any man forbid water that these should not be baptized which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?" In former cases they were baptized in order to receive the Holy Ghost; here they had already received it, so it is plain that baptism placed the recipient on new ground professedly, although he already possessed, before his baptism, all the qualities of that new ground. The rite, then, was to class him with others of the same standing and this same standing the apostle here in demanding baptism claims for the Gentiles, they having received what the Jews were baptized for, and what the Samaritans were baptized for.
The next passage I would refer to occurred earlier, though not related till chapter xxii. I allude to the words used by Ananias to Saul, " Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord." Now we know that Saul had already seen Jesus in the glory; the Savior had been there revealed to him, and therefore he must have known that there was no charge against him before God; and that before Him he had nothing more to do. But he was to stand professedly apart from himself, and his own standing as a man; he is called on to separate himself FROM himself; washing away his sins professedly, not in order to clear himself before God, but to express his dissociation from his former standing in his sins, (as he stood on earth,) and consequent freedom to enjoy his new one, calling on the name of the Lord. Thus Ananias exhorts him to arise and declare by baptism his dissociation from it.
In chapter 16:15, we find that Lydia being baptized and her household, thereon besought Paul, and those with him, to enter into her house, which, I think, supports the idea of the complete exclusion from a previous state, which baptism declared. Further on in this chapter, we find that the jailor was " baptized and all his straightway," intimating again the completeness of the change which now existed. Baptism properly set free from everything in order to connect the recipient with a new profession, which new profession gave a character to the renunciation. Consequently, when we come to Acts 19 we find that John's baptism will not do for the Lord's. The former only entailed on me that I surrendered any ground which interfered with looking for remission of sins; the latter declared I surrendered everything which the assumption of His name involved. I might not have understood this at the time, but the more I entered into the responsibilities of the profession, which I avowed to take consequent on baptism, the more I should understand the import and exclusion from other and former things which baptism involved.
Now when I come to Rom. 6:33Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? (Romans 6:3) I get the true meaning of baptism looked at from the resurrection-side of things. Paul explains and determines it according to the gospel committed unto him, and therefore in its true signification to the Church. Paul was not sent to baptize (1 Cor. 1:1717For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect. (1 Corinthians 1:17))-the twelve had been sent-but he takes up baptism and explains its true spiritual meaning, and therefore says, "As many as have been baptized unto Christ have been baptized unto His death. Mark! it is not said " unto His resurrection," but simply unto His death. Baptism declared the separation which the death of Christ determined. In being baptized unto Christ, I necessarily declare myself no longer connected with that which His death determined in judgment, even my old man. How could I be baptized unto Christ, and stand in that which was judged in the death of Christ? "If Christ died for all, then were all dead;" thus no one could assume His name or profess to do so; but in the act (whether knowing it or not) which made him responsible for renunciation of what the death of Christ determined. The death of Christ has declared us all, as the seed of the first Adam, morally dead; and hence any one baptized unto Christ necessarily makes the death of Christ the line of demarcation. Nothing which caused or needed that death could the baptized one assume to retain, and therefore baptism to such an one declared renunciation of everything interfering with the profession of Christ and which His death judged. He bore death, the judgment on the first Adam; consequently I, a child of Adam, could not assume His, but by first putting myself in His death to lay aside all that for which He bore judgment. How could I take His name, and still admit the existence of that for which He died? I declare myself apart from it in baptism, and this only the death of Christ truly does for me; therefore baptism morally reaches to it. It does not imply resurrection. Faith in the baptized one connects the soul with the risen Jesus, and makes good the profession assumed in baptism, but that is going beyond baptism, for it is not unto His resurrection we are baptized, but unto His death. It may be said that the passage in Col. 2:1212Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead. (Colossians 2:12) connects the idea of resurrection with baptism, but I think if the words be carefully weighed a different conclusion will be arrived at. The apostle had said that they were circumcised in the circumcision of Christ, and if circumcised with Him, I am also raised up with Him, baptism having expressed the fact that I was buried with Him. It is in Him, not in baptism,
that I have the resurrection. (" In whom you have also been raised," &c.) The baptism only expressed my burial with Him, my thorough dissociation from everything which His death determined. I can place the old man in the water of baptism, but it is plain I do not profess to raise it out of it. It is "faith in the operation of God who hath raised Jesus from the dead," which raises me in Him.
I think the passage in 1 Cor. 15:2929Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead? (1 Corinthians 15:29) confirms what I have advanced, viz., that baptism simply declared the character of renunciation implied by the profession about to be assumed-" What shall they do who are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not?" I understand this as showing that the baptized took the place of dead ones, and that the argument is, that if they took the place of dead ones, had they done so without any ulterior hope? Would any one give up present existence professedly who never expected any better? The present might be very indifferent, but it was better than nothing; and skin for skin, all that a man had would be give for his life; therefore, if the resurrection were past, this was an inconsistent standing.
There is only one other passage which I think it necessary to refer to. (See 1 Peter 3:20,2120Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. 21The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ: (1 Peter 3:20‑21).) Here to me it is very clear, that the water is death and the ark resurrection; and it is introduced here because the apostle is pressing on saints that they should not suffer for sins, inasmuch as Christ had once suffered, and that professedly in baptism they had taken the ground of death; His death, out of which they were saved by His resurrection. It was not mere washing away the " filth of the flesh," as under the law, but it was radical, out of death, into resurrection; and, therefore, with the testimony of a good conscience before God. Instead of suffering for sins I am practically with the επερωτημα, (question asked and answered,) of a good conscience as before God touching sins.
Thus briefly I have attempted to gather from Scripture what the true meaning and import of baptism is, and I trust the Lord will lead His people to study the subject, in order that they may put it in its right place, and know in their souls its full moral bearing unto the praise of His grace who has " begotten us again to a lively hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from among the dead." Amen.