The preaching of Peter at Caesarea to Cornelius and his company next comes before us. Again, it is not baptism, but “peace by Christ Jesus,” that is preached to them. Now, if baptism had been the channel, or medium, through or by which forgiveness of sins was obtained, or the medium by which the new birth was effected, then Peter must have at once preached it; or, if there was any sacramental grace connected with it, then also he could not possibly have omitted to preach it first of all. How differently from all this did he declare of Jesus: “To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name, whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.” Does not this explain what was meant at Pentecost, “in the name of Jesus for remission of sins?” It does not say; whosoever is baptized, but, “whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.” Baptism was the profession of faith in Him; but in this case, to show that remission of sins is through faith in Jesus, “whilst Peter spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.” This was before they were baptized. It would therefore be a great mistake to connect forgiveness of sins with baptism, instead of the name of the Lord Jesus. The believing Jews were greatly astonished at this, and especially as this was on the Gentiles, and it demands our closest attention. There were a company of believers baptized by the Holy Ghost, and thus members of the body of Christ (1 Cor. 12), before they had been baptized with water. Does not this, then, show again the distinction between the outward profession and the baptism by the Spirit into the body of Christ?
Surely, however, the way was clear for the former by the latter. “Can any man forbid water, that these should be baptized which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord.” It follows, then, that it is a fatal mistake to attach forgiveness and sacramental efficacy to baptism, instead of faith in the Lord Jesus.
Repentance, no doubt, was wrought in the heart and conscience, but the expression of it in baptism did not take place in this case until they had received the Holy Ghost. The great point established is this: baptism cannot be the channel whereby we get forgiveness of sins, for they had this and the Holy Ghost, and yet were commanded to be baptized. They could not be baptized to obtain what they already had.
We will now look at that remarkable passage in the conversion of Saul. Convicted and repentant, through the revelation of the risen and glorified Jesus, whom he had seen, and whose words he had heard; three days without sight, and neither did eat nor drink. Ananias is sent to him as a chosen vessel of Christ. Let us hear his words: “putting his hands on him, said, Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou earnest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost.” (Acts 9:17.) Mark, all this is before baptism is named. Then Ananias said, “And now, why tarriest thou? Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.” (Chap. 22:16.) This is sometimes read as if it said, or meant, “wash away thy sins by baptism.” But does it say so? Head each clause. It is not, wash away thy sins, being baptized, but, wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord. It does not say, wash away thy sins, and call on the name of the Lord. Is not wash away thy sins connected with calling on the name of the Lord? Let us inquire how Paul himself understood this.
The literal translation of those words of Ananias to Saul is given thus: “And now, why lingerest thou? Arise, and be baptized, and have thy sins washed away, calling on his name;” or, as in the common Greek text, “on the name of the Lord.” Are there not three thoughts: first, “Why lingerest thou?” second, “Arise, and be baptized;” third, “and have thy sins washed away, calling on his name.” Now the question is this—Is the washing away of sins by baptism? It does not say so. Or, then, is it connected with calling on the name of the Lord? If we compare Acts 26, it is clear Saul had received his call and commission three days before his baptism: “To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which arc sanctified, by faith that is in me.” Here forgiveness of sins, &c, is not by baptism, but by faith in Christ. It was through faith in Christ he preached repentance, and doubtless baptism resulted as the expression of both faith and repentance, as we shall soon see: “That they should repent, and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance.”
Saul was, doubtless, a forgiven man, and therefore, whilst it could not be said, Wash away thy sins by baptism, or, thus washing away thy sins, yet, as has been said, being baptized, and now calling on the name of the Lord whom he had persecuted, the assembly would now look upon him as a new and forgiven man: indeed, they could not have done so had he delayed or refused baptism. But this we must say boldly—never did Paul preach baptism as a means of obtaining forgiveness with God; but he did distinctly connect salvation with calling on the name of the Lord (Rom. 10:8-13), ending with these words: “For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.”.... “For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.” No doubt the Holy Ghost used the words of Ananias in bringing Saul into the full enjoyment of sins forgiven.
Now read through the Acts, and examine each instance of the preaching of Paul. Did he once preach baptism as a means either of the new birth, or a means by which sins are forgiven? Redemption being accomplished, he first invariably preached the cross, the death, and then the resurrection of Jesus Christ; and then, “Be it known, therefore.... that through this man (not through baptism) is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins: and by him all [that are baptized? No.] that believe are justified from all things.” (Acts 13:39.) Also at Thessalonica, his manner of preaching was this: “Three sabbath-days [he] reasoned with them out of the scriptures, opening and alleging that Christ must needs have suffered, and risen again from the dead: and that this Jesus, whom I preach unto you, is Christ.” He fully explains the gospel he preached, and that by which the Corinthians were saved, if saved at all, in 1 Cor. 15:1-17. But in that gospel it was, “Christ died for our sins, according to the scriptures; and that he was buried, and that he rose again” &c. He also declares. “Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel.” (1 Cor. 1:17.) Now, if sins were washed away by baptism before God, or if the Spirit used baptism to affect the new birth, then baptism would be the very cream of the gospel, and Paul could not have written such a fact. He makes the gospel something absolutely distinct from baptism. Christ sent him not to baptize, as we have seen in the commission, but to preach the gospel.
Yet it is also clear that baptism was the result where Paul preached the word. Let us look at a few cases. We see Paul at Philippi. Lydia is listening to the word of life: “Whose heart the Lord opened that she attended unto the things that wore spoken by Paul.” And what was the result? “And when she was baptized, and her household, she besought us, saying, If ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house, and abide there.” (Acts 16:14.) This believing woman—the first believer in Europe on record—took a most remarkable place of, shall we say, responsible authority? Her household eras baptized; yet she says, If ye have judged me: she does not say, If ye have judged my household faithful. This is worthy of reflection. She was a Jewess, or “proselyte.”
The next is a poor heathen jailor. He says, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” Did the apostle direct him to baptism as a means of grace or salvation? No: “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house. And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house.” Had he said, Be baptized, and thy house, and thou shalt be forgiven, or saved, it would have been another thing; but it was, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. He believed; and the result was, “He took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes, and was baptized, he and all his, straightway.” &c.
So, again, at Corinth (chap, 28), Paul first testifies that Jesus is the Christ: “And Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his house; and many of the Corinthians hearing, believed, and were baptized.”
Yes, in all these cases they heard, believed, and were baptized. All that heard, and believed, had eternal life, and were justified from all things before God. (John 5:24; Acts 13:38, 39; Rom. 5:1, 2.) Baptism had nothing to do with imparting any of these. The above scriptures make that certain. Baptism marked their separation from Judaism, heathenism, and all with which they had been connected.
(To be continued.)