I will now briefly refer to one or two passages that are often quoted in connection with baptism. Mark 16:1616He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. (Mark 16:16) is a favorite passage with those who oppose household baptism, but it proves too much, for according to it a person is not saved till baptized; but they say you must be saved first and baptized after. The fact is, the Lord is there looking at salvation in its full sense, connected with the time we are here on earth as well as with eternity, and for this two things are necessary. The vital and by far the most important one is put first, viz., faith, and the other baptism; it is not a question of which comes first in point of time, but both must be true of the person before he is saved in the sense spoken of there. We need hardly say that a person is fit for the glory—for heaven—the moment he believes, and, like the chief on the cross could go straight to Paradise through virtue of Christ's work, but when one remains on earth it is another thing; there is a place where Christ is professedly owned and the faith of Christ is acknowledged, and if not there previously, such an one should then be brought there. If previously there, of course he cannot be brought there, though not saved till he believes; and if not there when he believes he is not saved (as to his place on earth) till baptized, and thus brought there: and, if the head of a family, it is his privilege to bring his children there also, and train them up in the faith of Christ, counting upon God to give them life and faith also; when this latter takes place they, too, are saved, as the two things are true of them—they are believers and are baptized; this is what Mark 16:1616He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. (Mark 16:16) teaches; but it is not faith to say, "I will wait first and make sure that my children have faith and eternal life, and baptize them then;" though, of course, if not baptized before they ought to be then. The verse, however, is in full keeping with household baptism, as surely one part of Scripture must be with another.
Acts 8 is another passage I just notice only to say that verse 37 is spurious, and therefore misleading to those who do not know this.
Acts 19 gives an interesting and instructive case; we learn that John's baptism was then a thing of the past, and in no way connected with Christian baptism; so these disciples were not on Christian ground at all, and are therefore baptized "to the name of the Lord Jesus" (John's was to repentance on the ground of a Messiah coming to the earth); then Paul lays his hands upon them, and they receive the Holy Ghost. Notice the question he puts to them in verse 3, "to what then were ye baptized?" He at once assumed they were baptized because they were disciples, as they would not be disciples unless baptized, but "to what", he asks them; for if to Christ, they would be on Christian ground, where the Holy Ghost dwelt. They are then received by baptism (being baptized to Christ), and afterward receive the Holy Ghost.
There is another point in connection with this subject to which we must refer. The question is sometimes asked, "Is sprinkling baptism?" It is evidently not the Scriptural way of baptizing, but the question really is; does God own it as such? We have seen that He does, from Rev. 3, where Sardis comes in, and we know that for the most part with Protestantism sprinkling is the custom, and has been for hundreds of years. Did then all that go for nothing? Was it nothing before God and Christ? Was it not meant in good faith to be baptism?
But again, were not Israel, young and old, baptized to Moses, in the cloud and in the sea? Yet how many of them went under the water? Scripture, as we have seen, gives no command concerning it, either as to who are to be baptized (except in Matt. 28, where we have "all nations") or how it is to be done, only we know from Scripture that water was the agent used, and that going into it was the custom, and we ought to keep to Scriptural practice for ourselves, but as to others "where there is no law there is no transgression". They baptize the person to Christ by water, owning Him, thus. The act is bona fide before Him, and who are we to set aside or pronounce upon its merits? However, the proof we have adduced from Rev. 3 alone is quite sufficient to satisfy any honest mind, for we see there that Christ addressed them as on Christian ground—on Assembly ground-though they had not life at all, and were for most part baptized by sprinkling when infants.
This instance (Acts 19) should be sufficient to convince any thoughtful Christian that a person should not be received at the Lord's table until baptized. The Lord's supper being the expression of the communion of Christians, and it being the Lord's table, only those who are on Christian ground, and are put under His authority outwardly, should be there; though much more than this is also necessary.
1 Cor. 1:13-1713Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul? 14I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius; 15Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name. 16And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other. 17For 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 1:13‑17) must be noticed. Here, again, the question raised by Paul is—to whose name they had been baptized. Not to Paul's own name, even in the case of those baptized by him; but, lest they should say he had baptized to his own name, he is thankful he had baptized so few of them, adding that his commission was not to baptize, but to preach the gospel, which was infinitely the more important. Had some obscure brother baptized the Corinthians there would not be the same danger of their carnal minds using his name for party purposes and boasts, as that of the apostle Paul. But there is another thing we find here—that besides the two mentioned by name, he had baptized the house of Stephanas, and this seems to be referred to in a way distinguishing them from the two others mentioned. We find the "house of Stephanas" again spoken of in chapter 16, where a different Greek word is used from the first chapter, which latter is the same as in Acts 16, and generally, if not always, in scripture meaning family or descendants when applied to persons. Whether all or any of them were converted or believers when baptized we are not told; and what is said in chapter 16 does not at all preclude the thought of children being there and being baptized.
I will now refer to a few Scriptures, which, though not alluding to baptism, illustrate the principles connected with the baptism of a believer's household, and the importance of it.
There are those who treat baptism as though it were a matter of no importance when a person is baptized, or whether baptized at all or not. It is well for them that they are not under law, but under grace, though that is no excuse for carelessness.
How often one hears of persons being at the Lord's table some time, and then baptized when they think fit; others kept waiting till a public ceremony can take place, on the basis of its being a public confession of being dead and risen with Christ. It is true we are under grace, and called to liberty, but it is liberty to do God's will, to understand His mind, and act on it for ourselves and our families, walking and acting on the principle of faith, and not of law, and this in baptism as well as everything else.
The first scripture I will instance is Ex. 4:2525Then Zipporah took a sharp stone, and cut off the foreskin of her son, and cast it at his feet, and said, Surely a bloody husband art thou to me. (Exodus 4:25), where we have in the case of Moses on his way to Egypt a striking example of the importance of recognizing what God has given, and the difference between his purposes and counsels in grace, and His ways in government. Moses had been shortly before in the presence of Jehovah, and He had communicated His purpose respecting Israel to him; but now He seeks to kill him, because he had neglected to circumcise his child—influenced, evidently, by his wife; but he was responsible as head of the house, and God would not allow this slighting of what He had given. Moses must apply this significant act to his own house, given as it was to Abraham in connection with the very thing for which Moses was sent to Egypt the blessing of the seed of Abraham in Canaan. It was the sign of the covenant between Him and Abraham, and the uncircumcised child was to be "cut off", see Gen. 17:1414And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant. (Genesis 17:14). It was therefore serious for the child as well as for the parent to neglect it; and yet Christians ask, "What difference does it make to an unconscious child whether baptized or not?" and others, again, contend that a believer's child is by birth brought into all the privileges of Christianity, quoting 1 Cor. 7, "Now are they holy." So was the Hebrew child, it was holy (that is relatively holy, or holy as to its place and relationship) by birth, but let the parents neglect to circumcise it, and what good were its advantages and privileges? It must be "cut off".
But, again, we have instances in Scripture, and connected in the same way with the government of God, of how the faith of one is owned for the blessing of another, and these instances give us principles that apply to the baptism of a believer's house.
In the first part of Matt. 9 we have the man with the palsy getting governmental forgiveness, and as a consequence perfect restoration to health, through the act of faith in others. It says, "Jesus seeing their faith." Clearly it was their act which manifested their faith, and the man is blessed. Another case is Acts 3, where the lame man is cured by Peter. In verse 16 Peter explains how it was effected. He says, "His (Christ's) name, through faith in His Name, hath made this man strong", etc., but where was the "faith in His Name?" Not in the man, but in Peter. It may have resulted in faith on the part of the man afterward, but this is not said directly, and certainly his faith is not the ground of his being made whole. It was Christ's Name, and faith in His Name on the part of Peter, and the blessing received related to God's governmental ways. Administrative forgiveness, as in Matt. 9, goes on the same principle (see James 5:1515And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him. (James 5:15), and John 20:2323Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained. (John 20:23)).
While we hold with a firm hand the blessed truth of God's sovereign grace and electing love, manifested in His actings towards us, who had no claim upon Him; yet, on the other hand, we must hold fast the principles of His government of this world, as manifested in His ways in the past, and recorded in Scripture for our admonition, and while we delight in His grace and love the source of all our blessedness, we must own His government, while we wait for the glory, the blessed end of all His ways in grace and government, as regards His own.