B O O K   F O U R T H.

---

CHAPTER I.

      AS there cannot be a general providence without a special one, so there cannot be a general design in the Christian Institution without a specific design in every part of it. If, indeed, religion be a reasonable service, there must be a reason for every part of it; and that reason, whatever it may be, is the proper design of it; for reason without design is inconceivable. Reason and design are, indeed, inseparable; or, rather, they are two names for the same thing. Now, as the whole universe is but one grand system of designs terminating in one grand result, so the Christian Institution is one great system of means and ends terminating in one grand consummation--the supreme glory of its Author, in the purity and happiness of his intelligent and moral offspring.

      The gospel system is a system of redemption--a deliverance of its subjects from ignorance, guilt, and bondage. It contemplates a new creation--a transformation of man in body, soul, and spirit. It is, therefore, a great system of physical, moral, and spiritual means and ends. Hence, its doctrine, its precepts, and its promises are but developments of a remedial system, originating in the benevolence of God, guided by his wisdom, and perfected by his power.

      This scheme of mercy has its parts; and each of these parts has its own peculiar object. Faith is not a substitute for repentance, holiness, or righteousness; but a means to these ends. As a means, it is, indeed, indispensable to every one of them. Prayer, reading or hearing, and meditation are means of sanctification. But any one of these, without the other, would be incomplete and incompetent to the end proposed. So of the positive institutions of the Christian system. Baptism, the Lord's day, and the Holy Supper are indispensable provisions [247] of remedial mercy. Not one of them can be dispensed with by any one who desires the perfection of the Christian state and of the Christian character. Eating, drinking, sleeping, exercising, though not of the same nor of equal importance, are, nevertheless, all essential to the preservation and comfortable enjoyment of the human system.

      These things premised, we are induced, according to our plan, to institute an inquiry into the use of Christian baptism, or, rather, into the design of it. It is a conspicuous and prominent part of the Christian religion, and is spoken of and alluded to more than one hundred times in the New Testament. It is worthy of a full examination, and of the most respectful consideration and regard. It could not occupy so much space in so small a volume, and yet be considered as a matter of indifference, or of but little importance. We must, therefore, regard it with the respect and reverence due to a very prominent divine institution.

      But the design of this institution has long been thrown into the shade because of the wordy and impassioned controversy about what the action is, and who may be the proper subject of it. Now, it must be confessed that, whatever importance there may be in settling these questions, that importance is wholly to be appreciated by the design of the institution. This is the only value of it. The question concerning the value of any action is incomparably superior to the question, What is the act itself? or to the questions, Who may perform it? or, Upon whom may it be performed? We are, therefore, induced to believe that the question now before us is the all-interesting important question--indeed, the transcendent question in this discussion.

      The appeal, therefore, must be made to the proper tribunal. It must be carried up to the Apostles and Evangelists of Jesus Christ. What, then, do they propose as the deign of New Testament baptism? We say New Testament baptism, because we have in that book "THE BAPTISM OF JOHN," and the baptism ordained by Jesus Christ. Although not one, nor identical, they may materially unfold and illustrate each other. They both came from heaven. They both immersed believing and penitent persons, and were alike indicative of divine wisdom and benevolence.

      The Harbinger was sent "to prepare a people for the Lord." [248] He designed to enlighten and purify them. Hence he was both a preacher of faith and reformation, and proclaimed "the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins." It would, then, appear from the very annunciation of John's baptism, that its design was of a transcendently important and interesting character.

      The form of expression is exceedingly familiar and intelligible; and, were it not for an imaginary incongruity between the means and the end, or the thing done and the alleged purpose or result, no one could, for a moment, doubt that the design of baptism was "for the remission of sins."¹

      The form of expression is the most common in language, and especially in the simple and sacred style of the Apostles and Evangelists. From the few examples at the foot of the page, any one may see with what little reason and evidence any one can intimate that the form of the expression does not indicate the design of an action. Indeed, if this preposition does not intimate design, we might well ask, What other word in that language could suggest such an idea?

      Nor is it only casually intimated that New Testament [249] baptism was ordained for this purpose. It is the only purpose for which it was ordained; whether in the hands of John or of the twelve Apostles. What could be more plain or intelligible than such forms of expression as the following:--"John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins." (Mark i. 4.) It was not a baptism, but the baptism of repentance. It was not for remission of sins, but for the remission of sins. The fixtures of language could not more safely secure the intention of an institution. It was not because your sins have been remitted; but it is for, or in order to the remission of sins.

      Nor is this a form of expression peculiar to one Evangelist. Luke, as well as Mark, uses the same formula:--"And John came into all the country about Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins." Luke iii. 3. John's baptism was as certainly "for the remission of sins" as it was "the baptism of repentance." The death of the Messiah, or the blood of the new covenant; was not more certainly for the remission of sins, so far as the expression goes, than was the baptism of John for the remission of sins. Indeed, they are not merely similar, but are identical expressions in both cases. It does not, however, follow that they are in the same sense "for the remission of sins." But that they are, in some sense, for the remission of sins, can be denied by no man who either understands the language of the Bible or the language of men.

      From the apostolic style, one might as reasonably conclude that Jesus died because man's sins had been remitted, or because the sin of the world had been taken away, ash that men are to be baptized, or that John baptized men "because their sins had been remitted." To take such freedom with language, with the language of the Bible, would be to make the word of God of no effect; or, what is the same thing, of no certain interpretation: in other words, of no meaning. If goods are laid up for past years--if men buy food for those who never can use it--if men provide money for the expenses of journeys already paid for,--then may it be said that John baptized for sins already remitted; or that his baptism was for those who were already cleansed from their pollutions.

      When the Lord said, "To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world," does he not intimate that he had a design in coming into the world? When Stephen said that [250] Pharaoh cast put the children of the Israelites to the end² that they might not live, does he not mean that their destruction was designed by their exposure? When Stephen again says (Acts vii. 5) that God promised Canaan to Abraham "for a possession," was it not his design to invest him with that inheritance? And when it is said by the people of Damascus, (Acts ix. 21,) that Saul of Tarsus came to that city "for the intent that he might" persecute the disciples; and if, eis, the word always used when baptism and remission of sins are connected, be the word in all these cases containing the sense of "FOR," "in order to," "to the intent that," or "for the intent," shall we hesitate to allow, that, in connection with remission of sins, it has the same meaning; or, that our translators so understood it? Should any one be so regardless of his reputation, he would be as unsafe as unworthy to be reasoned with on any question of religion or morality, whenever he stands committed to its affirmative or negative.

      So far, then, as the force of the preposition is of any consequence or value to show a connection between baptism and remission of sins, it is incontrovertibly indicative of that connection. But were it translated in every case by into or unto, (versions of the word very common in all writings, sacred and profane,) it is as certainly, though not so obviously to all minds, indicative of such a connection. To baptize into remission, or unto remission, intimates that the subject of that act is about passing into a new state; as entering into partnership, or entering into marriage, indicates that it is for such purposes the action, whatever it may be, is performed. "Unto what, then, were you baptized?" (Acts xix. 3,) is equivalent to the question, For what were you, then, baptized; or, into what were you, then, baptized? In either case, the relation of the person baptized is changed.

      It only remains in this part of our essay that we present, in the order of the inspired books, all the passages that plainly import any connection between baptism and remission of sins. They are the following:--

      1. "John did baptize--and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins." Mark i. 4. [251]

      2. "The people of Judea and Jerusalem were baptized by him in Jordan, confessing their sins." Mark i. 5.

      3. "And he came into all the country about the Jordan preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins." Luke iii. 3.

      4. "Repent, and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of the Lord Jesus, for the remission of sins." Acts ii. 38.

      5. "Arise and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, invoking the name of the Lord." Acts xxii. 16. These are oracles as express and explicit as any we can imagine. Any one of them would establish the connection for which we plead. For, if once such a connection is clearly established, it depends not upon the repetition of it, but upon the clearness and definiteness of the expression of it. This is intimated clearly in another passage:--

      6. "There is one Lord, one faith, one baptism." Eph. iv. 5.

      Now, if there be but one baptism, and if it appear that both the New Testament dispensations of baptism, by John and by the Apostles, clearly affirm a connection between baptism and remission of sins--must it not follow that the only diviner-instituted baptism is for the remission of sins.

      It may, however, tend to the confirmation of those halting between two opinions, to inquire, whether there be any other connection between baptism and any thing else noted in the Christian Scriptures; and, if so, of what nature and kind it is?

      In the first place, then, no one is commanded to be baptized for any thing else; and no one is ever said to have been baptized for any thing else, than for the remission of sins. This is a very important fact, and worthy of much reflection.

      I know, indeed, it may be said that there are two or three forms of expression that might be translated in such a way as to intimate some other connection. For example:--

      "As many of you as were baptized for Jesus Christ were baptized for his death." Rom. vi. 3.

      "Know you not that all our fathers were baptized for Moses--in the cloud and in the sea?" 1 Cor. x. 2.

      "For by one Spirit we are all baptized for one body." 1 Cor. xii. 13.

      "For as many of you as have been baptized for Jesus Christ, have been baptized for his death."

      These four passages complete the canon--the whole volume [252] on the subject of the relation of baptism to spiritual rights, privileges, and honours. We have, for the sake of uniformity, and of giving weight to all conceivable objections, preferred the common version of these passages.

      The reader will remember, that in all these it is, in the common version, "into Christ," "into his death," "into one body," &c. Whether, then, we read for or into one body, and for or into his death, the sense is the same. If any one be baptized for the Lord, for his death, or for his body, as a design, as an end, it is for the sake of the rights, privileges, and honours of his body, or for the sake of the rights, privileges, and honours accruing from his death, his church, or himself. Of all these, remission of sins is the leading and the introductory blessing--from which follow, as consequences, all spiritual privileges, honours, and immunities. "For, if you be Christ's, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise."

      Evident, then, it is, that there is no specific design on account of which any one can constitutionally be baptized, except it be for the remission of sins previously committed. We are not commanded to be baptized for faith, for repentance, for justification for regeneration, for sanctification, for adoption, for the Holy Spirit, for eternal life. We are commanded to be baptized "for the remission of sins" not for the remission of "original sin"--not for the remission of sins yet to be committed or in advance; but for the remission of sins that are past, that have been committed, "through the forbearance of God."

      True, when immersed into Christ, we have "put on Christ;" and, of course, are in him and under him, interested in all the provisions of that covenant of life and salvation of which he is the Alpha and the Omega, the Author and the Mediator. Still, through faith and repentance, we are commanded to be baptized for one specific purpose, just as much as we celebrate the Lord's day and the Lord's supper for a specific purpose. Every Christian institution has, indeed, its own peculiar and specific object, which can be neither secured nor enjoyed so well any other way.

      Having, then, philologically ascertained that, in the sacred writings of the Apostles and Evangelists of our King, the baptisms of the New Testament were all for the remission of sins, and for no other specific purpose; our second leading inquiry must be, In what sense is baptism for the remission of sins. The connection between baptism and remission being now fully ascertained [253] and established, the nature of that connection comes deservedly under our immediate examination.

      The relations of time in which one thing may stand to another, are antecedent, simultaneous, and consequent. But the question is not about their relations as respects mere time, place, or circumstance; but as respects natural or necessary dependence--such as that of cause and effect. We contemplate the relations of persons and things with regard to the causes of their existence or the various influences which they may exert on one another. When a man's salvation, for example, is sometimes ascribed to faith, to repentance, to baptism, to the grace of God, to the blood of Christ, to his own efforts, we are desirous to know why a man's salvation should be assigned to so many causes. To prevent confusion, or to relieve the mind from a perplexed, indistinct, and imperfect conception of the influences of numerous and various causes, affecting the existence of any thing, either as respects itself or our conceptions of it, we have given to the word cause a very comprehensive meaning, and have been obliged to select names to express the various applications of the word. Thus, we have a moving or original cause, an efficient or meritorious cause, an instrumental cause, a concurrent cause, a final cause.³

      Every theory of redemption and salvation, with more or less clearness of perception and precision of expression, admits the necessity of such distinctions as these. Since the days of St. Augustine, Calvin, and Luther, since the Jansenists and their rival orders of monkery, all writers and reasoners on this subject, have been constrained to admit of a system of causes cooperating in man's salvation.

      The kingdoms of nature,--mineral, vegetable, and animal,--are replete with such combinations of concurring causes in the various results of the divine wisdom, power and goodness. There is not any thing in the universe of created things, that is the result of a single cause, as to its being, its continued being, or to its well-being. Indeed, the different attributes of God himself are so many concurrent causes in our conceptions of things, both material and mental. Portions of nature, celestial and terrestrial, are to be ascribed to his wisdom, his knowledge, [254] his power, his goodness; and every single result has in it the concurrence of all these.

      But, to keep distinctly before our minds the design and place of Christian baptism--(for we must observe, that for most minds, it is enough to read the precept, "Repent and be baptized, everyone of you, for the remission of sins," without presuming to comprehend or develop the necessity of it)--two facts are most obvious:--First, that all men alike need the Christian institution; second, that, whatever any one institution is to any one proper subject of it, it is in some degree the same to every other proper subject of it. Therefore, we all need every divine institution.

      Philosophers are generally more curious and inquisitive than wise. They delight to comprehend every thing, or to assume to understand all mysteries. But who can specify, enumerate, and sort up the causes that convert one grain of corn into the flesh, blood, bones, and covering of a man, a horse, or any other animal that lives upon it? Or can set forth the number, the variety, and the order of the causes that are necessary to animal life, health and comfort? If not, then why so dogmatical and pragmatical--so inquisitive and positive--so dictatorial and absolute in matters solely depending upon the positive will and law of God?

      To conclude our remarks on this part of the subject, we must assign to every institution of Heaven its own proper place, whether in nature, in providence, or in redemption. We must give to grace, to faith, to repentance, to baptism, to the purpose of the Father, to the blood of the Son, to the sanctification of the Holy Spirit--to each of these severally its proper place and importance in redemption and salvation; and to all of them a concurrent efficacy in the rescue and delivery of man from sin, misery, and ruin.

      While, then, we must say with Peter, "Baptism doth also now save us," we will also say with Paul, that "we are saved by grace," "justified by faith," "redeemed by the blood of the Lord Jesus," "sanctified by the Spirit of our God," and with James, that "a man is justified by works, and not by faith only."

      We do not, however, place baptism among good works. Good works have our brethren, and neither God nor ourselves, for their object. They directly and immediately terminate upon man; while, in their reflex influence, they glorify God, and [255] beatify ourselves. In baptism, we are in spirit, as well as in person, buried with the Lord, "wherein also we are raised with him." Dead men neither bury themselves nor raise themselves to life again. In baptism, we are passive in every thing but in giving our consent. We are buried and we are raised by another. Hence, in no view of baptism can it be called a good work. The influence which baptism may have upon our spiritual relations is, therefore, not because of any merit in the act as our own; not as a procuring cause, but merely as an instrumental and concurring cause, by which we "put on Christ," and are united to him formally as well as in heart, entering into covenant with him, and uniting ourselves to him in his death, burial, and resurrection. Hence, said the Apostle, "As many of you as have been baptized into Christ have been baptized into his death"--"have put on Christ."

      While, then, baptism is ordained for remission of sins, and for no other specific purpose, it is not as a procuring cause, as, a meritorious or efficient cause, but as an instrumental cause, in which faith and repentance are developed and made fruitful and effectual in the changing of our state and spiritual relations to the Divine Persons whose names are put upon us in the very act.

      It is also a solemn pledge and a formal assurance on the part of our Father, that he has forgiven all our offences--a positive, sensible, solemn seal and pledge that, through faith in the blood of the slain Lamb of God, and through, repentance, or a heartfelt sorrow for the past, and a firm purpose of reformation of life, by the virtues of the great Mediator, we are thus publicly declared forgiven, and formally obtain the assurance of our acceptance and pardon, with the promised aid of the Holy Spirit to strengthen and furnish us for every good thought, and word, and work.

      Some have such a puerile and inadequate conception of Christian baptism, as to regard it as a mere ceremonial introduction into the church--a way of making a profession of the Christian religion--no way affecting the spiritual relations of the subject. This view of it ought to have been expressed by such a precept as the following:--"Repent and be baptized, every one of you, for admission into the church." But no such precept, in form, in substance, or in sense, is found in God's own book. As we have, then, but one Lord, one faith, and one baptism, and [256] that baptism is "for the remission of sins"--to give us, through faith and repentance, a solemn pledge and assurance of pardon, any other baptism is a human invention and of no value; wanting, as it does, the sanction of the Lord Jesus, who ordained it, and submitted to the baptism of John as an example to others to honour and obey every divine institution. But there are other passages of Sacred Scripture that both illustrate and confirm the views now presented.

      It is a very important and interesting fact, that no great doctrine or institution of Christianity wholly depends upon a single passage, or even upon a mere plurality of passages. Such is not the Lord's way of teaching his will to weak and erring mortals. He gives us line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little and there a little; wisdom for the wise, knowledge for the prudent, and information for all. No great doctrine; no important principle, no solemn, moral, or religious duty ever was confined to a single enunciation. The more important the duty or the more valuable the privilege, the more ample, explicit, and frequent the allusion to it, except in cases so plain and of such easy intelligence and comprehension that he may run that reads it.

      Baptism, a new institution, is an ordination of great significance, and of the most solemn and sublime importance. It is a sort of embodiment of the gospel; and a solemn expression of it all in a single act. Hence the space and the place assigned it in the commission. It is a monumental and commemorative institution, bodying forth to all ages the great facts of man's redemption as developed and consummated in the death, burial, and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ. Hence, immediately upon the first constitutional promulgation of it on the part of the Christian Lawgiver and Saviour, he adds, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved."

      This has in all past time, and will in all future time impart to this institution a solemnity, a significance, and an importance which no art or ingenuity of corrupted Christianity can long obscure or successfully deface. It will give to it an authority and a claim upon the understanding, the conscience, and the affections of the humble and the devout, which no sophistry or hardihood can weaken or destroy. To associate faith and baptism as antecedents, whose consequent is salvation, no matter what the connection may be, will always impart to the [257] institution a pre-eminence above all other religious institutions in the world. The Lord does not say, he that believeth and obeys this or that moral precept shall be saved; but "He that believeth the gospel and is baptized shall be saved." This very intelligible and prominent annunciation, just before his ascension, greatly explains and justifies the new precept promulged by Peter, a few days afterwards, when the ascended Lord had sent down his Holy Spirit to advocate his cause. Peter, after the new light imparted in the commission, feared not to say to the inquiring Jews, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of the Lord Jesus, for the remission of sins." Nor did any one, so far as the history of the apostolic labors is reported, ever express a doubt or an inquiry upon the connection thus solemnly established between faith, repentance, baptism, and remission or salvation. So far from this, that the Apostles frequently allude to the subject in their epistles as though, by universal consent, it was understood to be a symbol of moral purification--a washing away of sin in a figure, declarative of a true and real remission of sin--a format and definite release of the conscience from the feeling of guilt and all its condemnatory power.

      There remains, in the historical books of the New Institution, another very striking evidence of the proper design of Christian baptism. It being a change of the verbiage of Peter, and from another speaker, and addressed to a great sinner, it is peculiarly striking and impressive. It is the address of Ananias to Saul of Tarsus, than whom had not then lived a more fierce and hostile spirit opposed to the claims of Jesus of Nazareth. When commanded to wait for a message from the Lord, Ananias waited upon him; and, after a very short introduction, be said to Saul of Tarsus, "Arise, brother Saul, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, invoking the name of the Lord." A most unguarded and unjustifiable form of address, under the sanction of a divine mission, if baptism had not for its design the formal and definite remission of sins, according to the Pentecostian address.

      From the express authority and evidence of Apostles and Evangelists, without any inferential reasoning, we feel constrained to conclude that the baptisms of this New Testament, both of John and Jesus, were for the true, real, and formal remission of sins, through faith in the Messiah, and a genuine repentance towards God. We shall, however, for the sake of [258] some of our readers who are slow to believe all that the Apostles have spoken, devote to the subject another essay, in the further examination of the sacred writings, and in some notices of the traditions of the fathers.

[CBAC 247-259]