We proceed, then, to examine the passages in ‘The Acts of the Apostles,’ which relate to the subject of Baptism; and we shall there see the directions which Christ gave them concerning it carried into effect.
No sooner had the Apostles begun to execute their important Commission by preaching the gospel on the day of Pentecost, than God gave testimony to their word by convincing many of sin, especially of the sin of “crucifying the Lord of glory;” and they “said unto Peter and to the rest of the Apostles,” (as we read in Acts ii. 37,) “Men and brethren, what shall we do?” To this Peter answered, “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. For the promise is unto you and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.” In this exhortation, the principle enjoined by Christ upon theApostles is found. Repentance and faith are first required. For the expressions, “Be baptizedin the name of Jesus Christ,” do certainly mean, “Make an open profession of your believing in Jesus Christ, by being baptized in His name.” That this is their meaning there can be no doubt, when we consider what is said immediately afterwards: (v. 41.) “Thenthey that gladly received his word” (and how is the word received but by faith? See 1 Thess. ii. 13,) “were baptized; and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls. And they continued stedfastly in the Apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread and in prayers.” Here, then, things were as Christ intended them to be. They who were convinced of sin ask what they shall do—that is, to be saved. They are told to repent, and openly to confess Christ—that is, that they believed in Him as the Saviour—by being baptized. And they are assured, that upon doingthese things—(the whole exhortation being taken together) they should receive “remission of their sins” and “the gift of the Holy Ghost.” They gladly received the word preached to them; and they were then baptized; and while their baptism was a public profession of repentance and faith on their part, it would doubtless be a means of grace to them, and a seal and pledge on God’s part of the forgiveness of their sins and of His good-will and favour towards them. And this was the right and legitimate use of the Ordinance.
The next instance recorded in The Acts of the Apostles is that of the people of Samaria, to whom Philip went and preached Christ, (viii. 5.) They had for a long time been bewitched with the sorceries of a certain man, called Simon; but, it is added, “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.” The same order is seen here, as at Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost. They firstbelieve, and thenare baptized. But now a very different case presents itself to us. Simon, the sorcerer himself, is said also to have believed and been baptized, and to have “continued with Philip,” (having of course ceased from his sorceries) “and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done” by him. Some think, that by pretending to be Philip’s disciple Simon hoped to be able to do the same; for that his opinion of Philip was, that he was but a more skilful sorcerer than himself. It appears that the Holy Ghost—by which the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit, the ability to speak divers languages and such like, are undoubtedly meant,—had not fallen upon any of the people of Samaria at their baptism, but was reserved to be bestowed in answer to the prayers of the Apostles and by the imposition of their hands. For “when the Apostles at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John: who, when they were come down, prayed for them that they might receivethe Holy Ghost: then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.” (v. 14, 15.) The effect of this gift must have been immediately perceptible by others; for it led to that bold and blasphemous offer of money by Simon to the Apostles, which betrayed the hypocrisy, and pride, and wickedness of his heart. “When Simon saw, that through laying on of the Apostles’ hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money, saying, Give me also this power, that on whomsoever I lay hands, he may receive the Holy Ghost.” (v. 18, 19.) Peter’s indignant reply to him proves, that, though he had been baptized, he was in heart a sorcerer still. “The dog had turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed, to her wallowing in the mire.” (2 Peter ii. 22.) No change whatever had taken place in his character. And no change seems to have taken place in him afterwards; if we may judge from what he said to the Apostles. For when Peter denounced the just judgment of God against him, and declared that he “had neither part nor lot in the matter,” there was no sign of real penitence in his expressions. He deprecated the judgment indeed, and asked the Apostles to pray for him that it might not come upon him. “Pray ye to the Lord for me, that none of these things which ye have spoken come upon me.” (v, 24.) But even Pharaoh went farther than this. He said to Moses and Aaron, “Intreat the Lord, that He may take away this death from me;” but he also added, “I havesinned:” “I am wicked:”—a confession, which Simon never made; for it is to be feared that the conviction of it he never felt. And his case incontestably proves, that professions and Ordinances avail nothing, unless the “heart” be also “right in the sight of God.”
In this same Chapter we have an account of the baptism of the Ethiopian Eunuch. As far as his knowledge reached, this interesting person was a sincere and devout worshipper of the true God: but, as in the case of Cornelius afterwards, it was necessary that he should be brought to the clear and full knowledge of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Philip therefore is sent to instruct him, and is gladly received by him as his teacher. Philip, taking as his text the place of Scripture which he found the Eunuch reading, “preached unto him Jesus.” And his word was mixed with faith in him that heard it. And coming to a certain water, the Eunuch, having learned what was the rite of initiation which Christ had appointed, was anxious to take this opportunity of being openly received into the number of His disciples; and he therefore asked Philip, “What doth hinder me to be baptized?” Our Authorized Version has a reply from Philip and a confession of faith by the Eunuch, which are not found in many very ancient Manuscripts. Beza says of this verse, “God forbid I should think it ought to be expunged, since it contains such a confession of faith, as was in the Apostolic ages required of adults, in order to their being admitted to baptism.”But whether it be genuine or not, is of no material consequence. Christ had confined baptism to believers, in His instructions to His Apostles; and this verse only repeats the limitation. “If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayst” be baptized. And as for the confession of faith attributed to the Eunuch, it is plain that he was prepared and willing to make it. “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.” Both he and Philip then went down into the water, and Philip baptized him. In what manner, we are not told; nor do even the expressions, “into the water,” decide whether it was by immersion or the pouring or sprinkling of some of the water on his person. If the mode of administration had been essential to the validity of the Sacrament, no doubt it would have been mentioned. But neither here nor any where else is this the case. The Eunuch, then, having thus received the grace of the Covenant and the seal of the Covenant, confirmed too by the sign of Philip’s miraculous removal from him,—“went on his way rejoicing.” (v. 39.)
In the next Chapter, the ninth, we have an account of the conversion and baptism of Saul of Tarsus. The Lord Jesus appeared to him as he went to Damascus to persecute the disciples which might be found there: and Saul, having fallen to the ground and being told that that same Jesus whom he persecuted stood before him, exclaimed with all humility and entire submission, “Lord, what wilt thou have me to do?” One of the most astonishinginstances of a sudden change of mind on record! The Lord then bade Saul “arise” from the earth, in order that he might hear what more He had to say to him. And well might Saul be overwhelmed by the communication which the Lord Jesus proceeds to make to him! In the account given in this ninth Chapter, it is briefly stated that the Lord commanded him to “go into the city,” (Damascus) and that “it should be told him what he must do.” This no doubt was a part of His communication. But by a reference to the account of this transaction given by himself before Agrippa, as recorded in the xxvith Chapter of this Book, it appears that the Lord made known to Saulat that very timemuch of His mind and will concerning him; and that He said to him, “I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a Minister and a Witness both of these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee; delivering thee from the people and from the Gentiles, unto whom now I send thee, 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 are sanctified by faith that is in me.” (v. 16–18) After this, Saul went into Damascus, and was three days without sight or food. Ananias was then sent to him by the Lord Jesus; and having put his hands upon him that he might receive his sight, and having repeated to him the Commission which Jesus had in person given tohim, said, (as we read in the account of this event given in the xxiind Chapter,) “And now why tarriest thou? Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.” And he “arose, and was baptized.” This address of Ananias to Saul, taken by itself, would seem to connect the forgiveness or putting away of sin with the act of baptism. But were not Saul’s sins forgiven before his baptism? And did he not know that they were forgiven? Suppose a subject to have a very mistaken view of his Sovereign’s title to the crown, and an ignorant but very fervid zeal for some other. Suppose him not to have taken due pains to correct his error, and to be at the same time under the influence of much high-mindedness and self-confidence. He takes up arms against his Prince, and for a season is very successful in his efforts. But suddenly he finds himself in his power:—and at the same time his eyes are opened;—and he is convinced of the mistake which he had made, and of the delusion under which he had been acting. He now casts himself at his Sovereign’s feet, and professes his willingness to be at his absolute disposal for the future. Suppose the generous Monarch to reply;—‘I know that thou wast engaged in a blind and unequal contest with me: (“it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks:”) but I am come to tell thee, that I have appointed thee my Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary, and am about to send thee forth to a distant kingdom, there to transact for me some difficult and important business,in which my honour and interest and the interest of my subjects are greatly concerned: (“For I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a Minister and a Witness of these things which thou hast seen:”) I will from time to time communicate most confidentially with thee: (“and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee:”) all my authority and power shall be put forth for thy personal preservation: (“delivering thee from the people and from the Gentiles, unto whom now I send thee:”) and nothing shall be wanting on my part to make thine Ambassage successful.’ (“to open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light and from the power of Satan unto God, &c.”) Would this subject, after such a communication and commission,—delivered too by his Prince in person—have any doubt on his mind respecting the pardon of his rebellion? He might for a few days retire into secret, to reflect on his case;—to consider the evil of his own conduct, and the noble and generous manner in which he had been treated, when he might justly have been dealt with in a very different way. But his preferment of necessity involved his pardon and his full and complete establishment in his Sovereign’s favour. How could he, in the very nature of things, execute the Commission given to him, if he were to be put to death for his treason? Nevertheless, it might be very expedient, that a public manifestation should be made to the kingdom of this change in the state of things: for the Prince’s visit to hissubject was in secret, though not the least suspicion could attach to the truth and sincerity of it. A public Ceremony might, therefore, take place, at which his own change of mind and his Sovereign’s pardon might be proclaimed, and his sealed Commission delivered into his hands:—but this, however important, would follow the previous interview as a matter of course. What has thus beensupposedwas more than fulfilled in the case of Saul of Tarsus: for no communication among men could equal the condescension and grace of the Lord Jesus towards him and the confidence which He reposed in him. And the manner in which Ananias spake to Saul of his baptism seems to convey the last-mentioned idea; namely, that, however necessary, it was to take place as a matter of course. “And now why tarriest thou?Arise,and be baptized,and wash away thy sins,calling on the name of the Lord.” This washing away of his sins in baptism was a mystical or emblematical washing. It was a public manifestation of his penitence and his pardon. It was on his part an open avowal of submission to Christ; and on the part of the Lord Jesus Christ it was an equally open avowal of the acceptance of his submission, and a seal of his sonship and security. Hereby his faith would be confirmed, and his grace increased by virtue of “calling on the name of the Lord.” But how could this confirmation and increase take place, unless faith and grace had been possessed by him previously?
The baptism of Cornelius and his company, recordedin Chapter x., is the next instance we meet with in Scripture of the administration of this Sacrament of the Christian Church. This case is remarkable as being the first-fruits of the Gentiles unto Christ. Peter—to whom Christ had given “the keys of the kingdom of Heaven,” (Matt. xvi. 19,) that is, the high privilege of opening the door of faith both to the Jews and to the Gentiles,—was sent by God to preach the gospel to this Roman Centurion. His objections, as a Jew, to go unto one of another nation having been removed by a vision, Peter went to the house of Cornelius, where he found him and his kinsmen and near friends assembled together to receive and to hear him. He faithfully preached Christ unto them: and while he spake those important words, “To Him give all the prophets witness, that, through His name, whosoever believeth in Him shall receive remission of sins,” “the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.” Under the influence of the Spirit they “spake with tongues, and magnified God. Then answered Peter, Can any man forbid water, that these should not 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.” (43–47.) In the case of the people of Samaria, the Holy Ghost was not given when they were baptized, butsome time after;—when the Apostles Peter and John, came down from Jerusalem and laid their hands upon them. In the case of Cornelius and his friends, the same Holy Spirit was givenbefore their baptism, and while Peter was preaching the gospel to them. Thus it was not alwaysatthe administration of the Ordinance that the Holy Ghost was given. And though the immediate effect of this gift of the Spirit was manifested in the power to speak with tongues and to prophesy, yet it also enabled and disposed them to “magnify God:” thereby showing, that His ordinary sanctifying operations were included. Well then might Cornelius and they who were with him receive the outward and visible sign of baptism by water, since they had already received the thing signified by it!
In Chapter xvi., two very interesting cases are recorded, which are worthy of particular attention. They occurred at Philippi, in Macedonia; to which country St. Paul and his company had been called by a vision to preach the gospel there. The first of these is the case of a woman named Lydia. In the 13th and 14th verses the sacred historian writes; “And on the Sabbath we went out of the city by a river side, where prayer was wont to be made; and we spake unto the women which resorted thither. And a certain woman, named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, which worshipped God, heard us: whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul.” In consequence of the opening of her heart by the Lord, she heard to her soul’s profit. She received the gospel which Paul preached. We are then told concerning her, that “she was baptized, and her household.” And herfaith brought forth fruit: for she immediately invited the Apostle and those who were with him, to come and abide at her house; and she would not take a denial. They therefore abode with her many days. Another case then occurred, which served to show why they had been called to preach the gospel in Macedonia. Paul and Silas having been thrown into prison for casting a spirit of divination out of a certain damsel, the Lord sent a great earthquake at midnight, which opened the doors of the prison, and awoke the jailor; who, fearing that the prisoners had fled, drew his sword and was about to kill himself; when Paul assured him that they were all there. Upon this, “he sprang in, and fell down before Paul and Silas, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” Paul and Silas immediately preached the gospel to him, saying, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.” They then at greater length “spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house.” The same success attended the word, as in the case of Lydia. And his faith, like her’s, wrought by love; for he immediately began to show all the attention in his power to Paul and Silas. And as Lydia was baptized, and her household, so it is said that the jailor “was baptized, he and all his, straightway.” Now it is evident, that in the baptizing of the two principal persons in this history, Lydia and the jailor, the same course was pursued by the Apostle as in all the other instances which have been considered. They first believed in theLord Jesus Christ, and then they were baptized. But a new feature presents itself on both these occasions; that is, the baptizing of their households. And hence has been drawn a very common argument in favour of the baptizing of children; as it has been thoughtprobablethat children formed a part of these households. Beside these cases, there are only two other, in which the house or family is spoken of in the New Testament in connection with the head of the house,—the house of Crispus and the house of Stephanas; and though it is taking them out of their order, it may be well to notice them also here. Let us consider first the case of the jailor. It is said that “he was baptized, and all his,”—that is, “all his house;” to whom, as well as to himself, Paul and Silas had “spoken the word of the Lord.” But if we are told thatthey were baptized, we are also told thatthey believed. In the 34th verse we read, that the jailor “rejoiced, believing in God with all his house.” In order to force this case to support Infant-baptism, an attempt is sometimes made to change the construction of the sentence,thus; “He, believing in God, rejoiced with all his house.” This makes very little difference in the meaning. For if his house were capable of rejoicing with him, they must have been of a sufficient age to understandwhythey rejoiced: and as his faith in Christ was the cause ofhisjoy, it must have been also the cause oftheirs; and if they could rejoice inhisfaith, why might they not have had faithof their ownto rejoice in? But the Greek will not admit of the above construction. The adverb translated “with all his house” must be referred to the participle “believing,” which in the Original follows it; and these words express the reason of his joy, which was, his own faith and the faith of his family. Beza givesthisas the sense of the latter part of the 34th verse; “He,” that is, the jailor, “rejoiced because that with the whole of his house he had believed in God.”[50]As believers, therefore,—of whomsoever his “house” consisted—they were entitled to baptismon their own account, and thus they stood precisely in the same situation with himself. Andno inferencecanhencebe drawn respecting Infant-baptism. Of Crispus, the chief ruler of the Synagogue at Corinth, mentioned in the xviiith Chapter, it is at once said that he “believed on the Lord with all his house;” and though their baptism is not particularly spoken of, it would of course take place with the baptism of the other believing Corinthians. From St. Paul’s First Epistle to the Corinthians we learn that he himself baptized Crispus;—no mention being made of his household: but as we are informed that they werebelievers, they would certainly be baptized, like the household of the Philippian jailor. This case, therefore, does not apply to the subject of Infant-baptism. Neither does the baptizing of the house of Stephanas. St. Paul tells the Corinthians, in the beginning of his First Epistle, that he baptized this house: but whatdoes he say of them at the close of the Epistle? “Ye know,” he says, “the house of Stephanas, that it isthe first fruits of Achaia,and that they have addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints:” (xvi. 15.)—a description this, ofpersonal religion; and proving that they wereallcapable of meeting the requirements of baptismin their own persons. The only remaining case in which a household is said to have been baptized, is that of Lydia at Philippi. Now it seems evident from her history that she had no husband. The house is twice calledher house; andthe householdis calledhersalso. And the invitation to Paul and his company is givenby herself and in her own name. “Come intomy house, and abide there.” (v. 15.) This language could never have been used of her and by her, if she had had a husband. Nor does it appear at all likely, that she was a widow with children; for, from the particularity with which her circumstances are related, there is every probability that, had this been the case, some intimation would have been given of it. We have not onlyher namementioned, butthe placeshe came from or still belonged to, andthe businesswhich she followed: but no allusion whatever to any family. She could not have been a person in a low condition of life, or she would not have been able to receive and entertain in her house for many days the Apostle and those who were with him. She would therefore have “household servants,” and probably persons to assist her in her business as “a seller of purple.” But the wholetenor of her history is against the supposition, that there were in her houseany who could not answer for themselves. It appears, then, from the consideration of the cases in which the baptizing of households is mentioned in Scripture, that no argument whatever can be deduced from them on the subject of Infant-baptism. A reference to them, therefore, only gives an advantage to the opponents of the practice:—an argument which will not bear close examination being always worse than none.
The xviiith Chapter of this Book of The Acts of the Apostles contains the account of Crispus and his house just referred to. It is also simply, though very strikingly, said of many others of the Corinthians, that they “heard,”—they “believed,”—and they “were baptized.” (v. 8.) Faith came by hearing; and baptism, according to the institution of Christ, followed faith.
There only remains, in this Book of The Acts of the Apostles, another instance of baptism to be noticed; and this occurred at Ephesus. It is related in the beginning of the nineteenth Chapter. “Paul came to Ephesus, and finding certain disciples, he said unto them, have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.” We are reminded here of that passage in the Seventh Chapter of St. John, (v. 39.) where the Evangelist, referring to some words of the Lord Jesus, says, “This spake He of the Spirit, which they that believe on Him should”—that is,afterwards—“receive;”—adding, “for the Holy Ghost was not yet given, because that Jesus was not yet glorified.” The literal translation of the latter part of this text is, “for the Holy Ghost was not yet:”—from which it would appear, that at that time there was no Holy Ghost; and therefore that the ignorance of His existence, of which the disciples at Ephesus seem to speak, was not so much to be wondered at. But the solution of the difficulty is probably the same in both cases. When St. John says, “For the Holy Ghost was not yet, because that Jesus was not yet glorified,” his meaning is made plain by the very proper introduction into our translation of the word “given;”—“for the Holy Ghost was not yet given.” This evidently refers to the extraordinary and abundant pouring out of the Holy Spirit, which was reserved until Jesus had ascended up on high, and (according to the prophecy in the lxviiith Psalm) had “received gifts for men;” and when He received them, He shed them forth, first upon His Apostles on the day of Pentecost, and afterwards upon multitudes of believers, generally by the laying on of their hands. But the disciples at Ephesus had not heard of these things. They had had no communication with any Christian Church or people; and thus, though they had been baptized with the baptism of John, as they tell the Apostle Paul in answer to his next question, “Unto what then were ye baptized?”—andmusttherefore have heard of the existence of the Holy Ghost, yet they had not heard of His having been given; andthey express their ignorance in language very like to that which the Evangelist uses, when he is describing the period before the gift of the Spirit on the day of Pentecost. This seems a reasonable account of the matter. And if the same course had been pursued in the translation of both texts, the likeness between them would have been very evident. In the passage in St. John the explanatory word “given” is introduced. In the Chapter before us, not only is this or any such word omitted, but the word “any” is added,—“anyHoly Ghost,” without a word in the Original to justify it. The literal rendering would be; “We have not even heard whether the Holy Ghost is.” Now if the word “given,” or “come,” were added, as in St. John, the two passages would exactly correspond:—“The Holy Ghost was not yet given:”—“We have not even heard whether the Holy Ghost is given.” These persons had probably not been long at Ephesus, but might have been (as Dr. Whitby suggests) “travelling into other parts of the world, where the gospel had not yet been planted.” But a question has arisen, whether what is said in the fifth verse relates tothem, or whether it is not a continuation of St. Paul’s description of John’s baptism, begun in the verse before. “When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.” The objection to the application of this to the twelve disciples found at Ephesus is, that it involves a repetition of the Ordinance of baptism. But though John’s baptism and the Christian Sacrament were administeredsubstantiallyupon the same principles, there was a sufficient difference between them to warrant the baptizing again, in the name of the Sacred Trinity, of those who might already have partaken of John’s baptism. The baptism of John was connected with an intermediate, or, at most, an introductory dispensation. It was, what the Apostle says of the tabernacle,—“for the time then present.” But after that Christ had appointed baptism “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,” as the door of entrance into His Church for believers, there was no reason why such as had been baptized with John’s baptism should not be admitted to Christ’s Ordinance also, if occasion seemed to require it. And indeed St. Paul’s question, “Unto what then were ye baptized?” seems to recognize a distinction of baptisms. But no argument whatever can be founded upon this case for the repetition of baptismunder the same Dispensation. To suppose that the words in the 5th verse are a continuation of St. Paul’s description of John’s baptism, would be inconsistent with the natural course of the narrative; and to say that John “baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus,” would be to speak of his baptism as it is no where else spoken of. Beside, the persons on whom St. Paul laid his hands, as stated in the 6th verse, were the disciples found at Ephesus, and not the people in general who were baptized by John. So that it appears that what is said in the 5th verse relates to these disciples. Their knowledge was very limited; but they had thecharacteristic dispositions of disciples,—humility and teachableness; and thus, when they were farther instructed by St. Paul in the things concerning the Lord Jesus Christ, they, no doubt with the greatest willingness, were baptized in His name. And then as in the case of Samaria, “when the Apostle had laid his hands upon them,” (but not before,) “the Holy Ghost came on them, and they spake with tongues and prophesied.”
This is all that is said on the subject of baptism, as a Sacrament of the Christian Church, in the Scripture-history of The Acts of the Apostles.
We come, then, to The Epistles.
The first passage we meet with on our subject is in the sixth Chapter of the Epistle to the Romans. St. Paul, the writer of this Epistle, had been dwelling, in the former Chapters, upon the great gospel-doctrine of salvation by grace through faith. He had declared, that “a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law;” (iii. 28,) that in this way Abraham was justified; (iv. 3,) and that in this way every one else must be justified: (iv. 24,) and in the latter part of the fifth Chapter he had spoken strongly of God’s grace much more abounding where man’s sin abounded. The Apostle, then in the beginning of the sixth Chapter anticipates an abuse which might be made of this doctrine, and corrects it. “What shall we say then? Shall wecontinue in sin,” in order “that grace may abound? God forbid!” Abhorred be the thought! And he proceeds to reason upon this; and to show, not only itsincongruity, but (in a sense which other Scriptures allow) itsimpossibility:—“How shallwethatare deadto sin,liveany longer therein?” And then he brings in the subject of their baptism. “Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ, were baptized into His death? Therefore we are buried with Him by baptism into death; that like as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.” (v. 3, 4.) After what we have seen already of baptism, as administered by the Apostles and others, we can be at no loss to perceive the meaning of St. Paul’s expression, “baptized into Christ.” According to His own command, all who believed in Him were baptized; and this act or Ordinance was their open avowal of faith in Him,—their public and palpable engrafting and incorporation into Him and His Church,—and their solemn dedication and consecration to the love, worship, and service of God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.[57]Their baptism into Christ, consequent upon, and declarative of, their faith in Him, publicly and manifestly bound them unto Him;—to strict and spiritual conformity with Him. And thus the Apostle goes on to remind those who had been “baptized into Christ,”—for the Epistle was addressed to those at Romewho were “beloved of God and called to be saints,” and whose “faith was spoken of throughout the whole world,” (i. 7, 8,)—that they were “baptized into His death;” that is, into conformity to His death; that in virtue of His dying for their sins, and after the pattern of this His death, and by motives and considerations drawn from His death, they should die to all sin and be delivered from the reigning power of it. ‘The faithful,’ observes Beza on this expression, ‘are said to be baptized into the death of Christ, that through His death sin may die and be abolished in them.’ And to carry this conformity still farther, St. Paul adds, “Therefore we are buried with Him by baptism into death.” For as Christ’s burial was a manifestation of the reality of His death, so ought it to be also with them respecting sin. It was likewise an introduction to, and preparation for, His glorious resurrection. And thus the Apostle proceeds with his exhortation;—“that like as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory (the glorious power) of the Father, even so we also (we who are baptized into Him) should walk in newness of life.” And in the following verses—indeed to the end of the Chapter—St. Paul presses the Roman Christians to devotedness to God’s service, in language the most forcible which could have been made use of. Here then we see what baptism is, in the case of real believers: and it is of such alone that the Apostle here speaks. The obligations which result from it to righteousness and holiness are of the strongest possible description.And these obligations have their influence upon the faithful; though that influence is capable of a continued increase. How different is this from a service which is “outward” only “in the flesh!”
The expressions, “buried with Christ by baptism” and “walking in newness of life” “after the pattern of His resurrection,” seem to imply, that the method of baptizing was by immersion, or plunging the whole body under water, from which it would come forth as by a kind of resurrection. That baptismhas beenthus administered, andmay bethus administered, is freely admitted. But this isno proofthat such was the unvarying method, and certainlyno preceptthat it shall always be administered in this way. It may, however, with much reason be argued, that the expressions, “baptized into His death,”—“buried with Him,”—and “walking in newness of life” like unto His resurrection,—were not used by the Apostle with any reference tothe mode of administration, but tothe events spoken of; namely, Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection. Christians are said to have been “circumcised in Christ,” and to be “crucified with Him,” without any outward corresponding actions. But if an argument forimmersionmay be drawn from this passage, an argument foraffusion, or the pouring of water upon the person, may with greater force be drawn from the manner in which the Holy Ghost descended upon Christ Himself at His baptism, and upon the Apostles on the day of Pentecost,and subsequently upon others who were baptized, and from the language used to describe it. When Peter preached to Cornelius, it is said, “The Holy Ghostfell onall them that heard the word:” and again, “On the Gentiles alsowas poured outthe gift of the Holy Ghost.” This is expressly called by St. Peter, their being “baptized with the Holy Ghost.” (Acts xi. 15, 16.) An argument might also be drawn for the practice ofsprinkling, not only from the striking similarity between baptism and the water of separation which was to be sprinkled upon the unclean, (Numb. xix. 19.,) but from the connection between the water of baptism and the blood of Christ, of which, as well as of the Holy Spirit, this water is an emblem, and which is called “the blood of sprinkling” from the method of its application to the heart. From all these things, and from the absence of any specific directions on the subject, it is reasonable to conclude, that baptism may be rightly administered in each of thethreeways which have been mentioned. And it is too much like an undue magnifying ofthe sign, when it is attempted to make it in all respects answerable to the thing signified by it.
This is the only passagedirectlyrelating to baptism in the Epistle to the Romans.
But there is a statement of the Apostle in the eleventh Chapter, which not only confirms what has been already said of the continuance of the Covenant with Abraham under the Christian Dispensation, but which also bears strongly upon thesubject of the right of the children of believing parents to the token of the Covenant, together with their parents. The passage particularly referred to is the 24th verse of the eleventh Chapter. “For if thou wert cut out of the olive-tree which is wild by nature, and wert grafted contrary to nature into a good olive-tree, how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be grafted intotheir own olive-tree!” The Apostle is here comparing the admission of the Gentiles into the Church of God, to the cutting off of branches from a wild olive and the grafting of them into a good olive; the good olive being the ancient church, planted, as it were, in the person of believing Abraham. ‘In the view of St. Paul, the establishment of the Christian Church was no dissolution of the Jewish Church. It is the same Society still;—the same Body Corporate. Some of its rules and regulations, indeed, have been altered: a disfranchisement of many of its old members has taken place, and new ones have been admitted: but the same Church,—the same Chartered Company,—which existedbefore the Law and under the Law, exists to this present hour under the Gospel Dispensation. It is still Abraham’s family. He is “the father of all them that believe.” “If ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.”[61]When, therefore, any of the Jews “abide not in unbelief,”and are received into the Church of Christ, it is but “the grafting of the natural branches intotheir own olive-tree.” They are restored to the privileges which their fathers enjoyed, and are made members of the Church of God. But are their children to be left behind? Are they to be left out of the Covenant? And is this, might a converted Israelite justly ask,—Is this to be restored to our fathers’ privileges? “Circumcision was not of the law, but of the fathers.”Thatis taken away; and what have we in its place, if baptism, which is now the token of the covenant, be withheld from our children? If circumcision was our children’s birthright before, how can they be deprived of it, and have nothing given them in the stead thereof, and yet the privileges possessed by our fathers not be lessened? This isnotto be “grafted intoour own olive-tree”!
In the first Chapter of his first Epistle to the Corinthians, St. Paul speaks of baptism; but as it is principally with a reference to himself, it is scarcely necessary to notice it in our present consideration,—except for the statement he is led to make of the great object of his mission; which was “notto baptize, but to preach the gospel:” the latter being the far more important and difficult work; necessary as it was that converts to Christ should be baptized. Divisions had arisen among the Corinthians: “one saying, I am of Paul,”—that is, I prefer Paul before all other Ministers, and others of them preferring others. This state of things caused theApostle great distress, and he anxiously endeavours to correct it. He indignantly asks them, whether he (or any other Minister) had been “crucified for them,” or whether they had been “baptizedin his name.” This shows that baptism implies an entire dedication to him, in whose name it is administered. The Apostle then tells them, that he was very thankful it had been so ordered that he had baptized very few of them himself;—adding, as the cause of this, “for Christ sent me not to baptize,”—thatmight be done by others,—“but”—He sent me—“to preach the gospel.” The Apostle here cannot intend to put any slight upon Christ’s Ordinance of baptism, as is evident from what he has just said of it, “Were ye baptized in the name of Paul?”—but he intends to show, that it might be administered by persons of inferior station and gifts in the Church. And this is manifest from the very nature of the service.
In the viith Chapter of this Epistle and the 14th verse there is a text, in which (as with respect to the children brought to Christ that He should touch them) baptism is not mentioned, and yet it has so decided a bearing upon the subject, that we cannot but carefully notice it. St. Paul is speaking of the case of married persons, when one party believed, while the other believed not. This he says is not a sufficient reason for their separation: at least the separation should not be made by the one that believed. And to satisfy the mind of the believing “brother or sister” that the childrendid not suffer, he says,—“For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by (or in) the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by (or in) the husband;else were your children unclean,but now are they holy.” It is with the latter part of this verse that we have to do. The Apostle here declares that children, which have one believing parent, are on equal terms or in the same condition with children, both of whose parents are believers; and thus they are said to be not “unclean” but “holy.” Now, can there be a doubt, that the Apostle uses these epithets “unclean” and “holy,” in the same sense in which they were used in reference to the distinction between the Jews and the Gentiles? The latter were called “unclean,” because of their idolatries and other abominations; the former were called “holy,” because of their connection and Covenant with God. When the Apostle Peter was sent to preach the gospel to Cornelius, he applied this word “unclean” to all who were not Jews. “Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew, to keep company or come untoone of another nation; but God hath showed me that I should not call any man common orunclean.” And the people of Israel are repeatedly called “holy to the Lord,” because of the Lord’s choice of them and Covenant with them. “Thou arta holy peopleunto the Lord thy God,” was the language in which Moses addressed them. (Deut, vii. 6). And in this description their children were included: for God’s Covenant with Israel embracedthem also; and thus every man-child, when eight days old, was to receive circumcision, which was the token of the Covenant. From these things we may learn the meaning of the Apostle in the passage under consideration. Theuncleannessof the Gentiles was a barrier against their participating in the Ordinances of the Jewish Church. Theholinessof Israel was their title to those Ordinances; and this too in the case of their children. Surely, then, when the Apostle says to believing Christian parents, “Your children areholy,” he must mean that they are entitled to the Ordinances of the Church of Christ! It seems impossible, if St. Paul’s language has any meaning, to avoidthisconclusion,—thatthe children of the faithful,as soon as they are born,have a Covenant-holiness,and so a right and title to baptism,which is now the token of the Covenant. Their holiness, that is, their being in covenant with God, does not date from theirbaptism, but from theirbirth.[65]To every believing parent God may be supposed to say, as He said to Abraham, “I will establish my Covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.” Much profit ariseth from this connection, if it be made a right use of. Baptism, like circumcision, verily profiteth, if the baptized child keep the law—the requisition which God makesof faith and obedience; but if he be a breaker of the law, his baptism is made no baptism at all; as circumcision was in such a case made uncircumcision. (See Rom. ii. 25.) And let it be farther observed from this text, that it is ofreal believersand their children that the Apostle speaks when he says,—“Now are your childrenholy.” Hence it appears, that the faith of the parents is the foundation of any children’s claim to baptism. “Unclean” is the description which is given of all others.
The only other passage in this Epistle in which baptism is referred to, as a Christian Sacrament, is the 13th verse of the xiith Chapter:—“For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.” St. Paul may here allude to baptism in the former part of the verse, and to the cup in the Lord’s Supper in the latter part of it. But whatever he mayallude to, what heassertsis this;—that it was the baptism of the Holy Spirit which made them real members of Christ’s mystical body. The baptism of water was the sign of this; but the sign would have profited them little, if they had not received also the thing signified. The same may be said of the cup in the Lord’s Supper. It is for the nourishment of those who are real members of the Church of Christ by the baptism of the Spirit: in fact, it cannot possibly nourish any other. The essential unity of all baptized believers, and yet the diversity of Offices and gifts belonging to the several constituentparts or members of Christ’s Church, seems to be what the Apostle is here inculcating upon the Corinthians; and this with the special design to show them the inconsistency and the evil of their emulations and divisions. He aimed at curing them of their unseemly strife, by reminding them that one and the same Holy Spirit had made them all “members of one body,” but had set those members in their several and suitable places; so that each should be content with the place assigned him; and without aspiring to something which had not been given him, or envying those who might be in a higher or a supposed more honourable state, should use what he had for the common good,—for the strengthening and well-being of the whole: “that there should be,” as he says in the 25th verse, “no schism in the body,but that the members should have the same care one for another.”
The Epistle to the Galatians furnishes us with the next passage in our important inquiry. It is at the close of the iiird Chapter, the 26th and two following verses:—“For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek; there is neither bond nor free; there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.” Here a new idea is introduced;—a fresh practical use is made by the Apostle of the Ordinance of baptism. And a very striking and beautiful idea it is. The order hitherto invariably found to prevail in whatthe Scripture says on the subject of baptism is observable also here. The Apostle first reminds the Galatians thatthey were made the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus, and then he refers to their baptism and what they had done by it. As we have considered the expressions, “baptized into Christ,” as they occur in the Epistle to the Romans, they need not be noticed here. But the words, “have put on Christ,” represent to us—what in connection with our subject we have not had before—the clothing or garments which baptized believers have put on, and in which they appear (when things are as they ought to be with them) both before God and before men. This phrase is said to have been taken from the method of dipping or plunging adults in baptism; who, when they came forth from the water, were clothed with their own garments as though they had been new, or with other garments really new. There are two senses in which true believers may be said to “put on Christ.” First, they put Him on as their righteousness for acceptance with God or for their justification; and, secondly, they put Him on—(and this seems especially intended here)—for sanctification; that is, His Spirit is imparted to them, by which they are so changed as to become new creatures. The graces of Christ’s Spirit are sometimes thus described under the figure of clothing. “Put on, as the elect of God, holy and beloved,” writes St. Paul to the Colossians, “bowels of mercies, kindness, humbleness of mind, meekness, long-suffering.” “And above all thesethings, put on charity, which is the bond of perfectness.” (iii. 12, 14.) The Spirit of Christ ought to be as apparent in those who have been baptized into Him as the garments which they wear. Nay, His meekness, and lowliness, and gentleness, and goodness, and heavenly-mindedness, should becomea part of themselves—their very nature. For as the work of sanctification, expressed by the being clothed upon with ‘Christ, is bothinternalandoutward, it may be compared tothe natural beautywith which Christ Himself said that God clothes the plants and the flowers: and when Christians manifest the genuine influence of the Spirit of Christ, it may then indeed be said of them, as He said of the lilies, “that Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these.” The words in the 28th verse, “There is neither male nor female,”—connected with what follows, “If ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed,”—clearly show that circumcision was superseded, and that baptism now supplied its place.
Upon St. Paul’s declaration in the ivth Chapter of his Epistle to the Ephesians, “One baptism,” it is perhaps only necessary to remark, that it again follows faith;—“One faith,”—the same doctrine of salvation once for all delivered to the saints and to be received by faith,—and then, “One baptism” with water, by which that faith is professed, and in which believers are by One Spirit baptized into One body, and dedicated to the service of the One living and true God. It is One and the same Ordinancefor all,—for Jews and Gentiles; and once administered, not to be repeated. The practical purpose for which this, with the other Unities, was mentioned by the Apostle, was to enforce the same lesson as that given to the Corinthians,—that Christians should “endeavour to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.” (v. 3.)
In the vth Chapter of this Epistle there appears another allusion to baptism, when the Apostle says, that “Christ loved the Church, and gave Himself for it, that He might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word.” (v. 26.) It is not necessary to the sense and force of this verse to suppose that baptism is referred to in it; for the word of God has a cleansing and sanctifying power, when applied by His Spirit. “Sanctify them through Thy truth: Thy word is truth;” was Christ’s prayer for His disciples to His heavenly Father. And He also said unto them, “Now ye are cleanthrough the wordwhich I have spoken unto you.” And as it is a continuous and progressive work, which the Apostle is here speaking of, and not any one particular act,—for the use of God’s “word” in the work of sanctification is continually repeated,—it seems much more natural to understand the expressions, “with the washing of water by” or in “the word,” as referring to the figure of water, and its purifying properties in general, rather than to a single instance of its application. But there can be no objection to refer these expressions to baptism, as being an Ordinance which is supposed to be keptalways in remembrance, and to have a constant bearing upon the believer’s life and conduct. Let us take it here, and every where else, in connection with the context, and we shall find that it represents—not an imaginary, but a real—not a temporary, but an abiding—influence upon the soul;—issuing in its final salvation. Who is this that is said to be washed with water by the word? The mixed multitude of professors of Christ’s religion? No:—but “the Church,”—the blessed Company of all faithful people—“the Bride—the Lambs wife.” And what is the effect ascribed to the washing? Her cleansing and sanctification. But as the Church is composed of individuals, every individual member thereof is “sanctified, and cleansed with the washing of water by the word,” and so is made meet to be presented by Christ to Himself at the last in perfect beauty. Let these things attend and crown the use of the Ordinances, and men may magnify them—as Paul did his Office—as much as they please.
The next place in Scripture in which baptism is spoken of, is in the iind Chapter of St. Paul’s Epistle to the Colossians. At the 11th verse he begins the subject. “In whom also,” that is, in Christ, “ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: buried 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.” The Apostle’s object here is to show, that the Christian’s completenessin Christ (asserted in the former verse) is not affected by the want of circumcision; for that true believers have that which was represented by circumcision, only under another form and name. By “the circumcision made without hands,” the circumcision of the heart is evidently intended. By “the circumcision of Christ” is probablynotmeant the circumcision which Christ Himself was subjected to, but the circumcision with which Christ circumcises. This would therefore refer to the Christian Sacrament of baptism, wherever rightly received. This is the corresponding type with, as well as antitype of, circumcision; because, like circumcision, it represents and seals the blessings of the Covenant to believers. The latter part of this passage is so like the one already considered in the vith chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, that it need not be dwelt upon. The death, burial and resurrection of Christ are not only signs and patterns of whatshould take placewith respect to Christians, but they are effectual causes thereof in the case of all who are spiritually joined to Him; and the whole is, as it were,consolidated in baptism. The faith which goes before, and which is exercised in the Ordinance, and the fruits which follow after, are all summed up in and referred to this Sacrament: and well and happy it is, whenever this is truly the case.
Two texts more remain to be considered in relation to our subject. The first is found in that passage in the iiird Chapter of St. Paul’s Epistle to Titus, from the 4th to the 7th verse. “But after thatthe kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared, not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, by the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost, which He shed on us abundantly, through Jesus Christ our Saviour; that being justified by His grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.” The word here translated “washing” signifies alsoa laver, or vessel for washing: but the translation is undoubtedly correct, andablutionorthe act of washing, is intended. This word only occurs here and in Ephes. v. 26., which we have already considered; where it must be translated (as it is) “washing:”—“the washing of water by the word.” That regeneration washes or cleanses the soul from the filthiness of sin, is all that can be proved by this passage. The washing is by the regeneration, and not the regeneration by the washing. Theremay bean allusion to the Christian Sacrament of baptism; but it is not at all necessary to the understanding of the Apostle’s words.St. Paul is here describing what God does when He saves any. He sheds on them abundantly the Holy Ghost through Jesus Christ the Saviour, and this Holy Ghost regenerates, and washes and renews; and, in connection with this, God justifies the subjects of this change by His grace, and so makes them heirs according to the hope of eternal life. The regeneration and the renewal are not two distinct things; but the latter is the declaration of the former;—the transforming of the soul intothe divine image, consequent upon and in necessary connection with its regeneration. But does this text prove, that all who are washed by the water of baptism partake of regeneration? Then it also proves, that all baptized persons are saved, and that they are renewed by the Holy Ghost, and that the Holy Ghost is shed on them abundantly, and that they are justified by God’s grace, and that they are heirs of eternal life! It is impossible, without doing violence to God’s word, to rend the blessings, here spoken of, asunder. They are links in one and the same golden chain, both the ends of which are in Heaven;—beginning with “the love of God” and terminating with “eternal life.” And are these things true in the case ofall who are baptized? If this were taught in the Scripture, what then might the infidel say of it? He might then say, that Scripture and matter of fact directly contradict each other. Or it would follow, that regeneration and the renewing of the Holy Ghost and justification and salvation, are terms which mean nothing, because the things they profess to represent have no practical influence upon the lives of men! We must, then, take the passage altogether, or not touch it at all. We must not choose a word or two out of it,—caught by the sound,—and affix a meaning to them, which is inconsistent with the context and other plain portions of revealed truth. If baptism be the washing here spoken of, it is accompanied with regeneration and the renewing of the Holy Ghost, shed on the baptized abundantly; and thiscannot be without the exhibition of the fruits of the Spirit in the life and conduct. And if this be Christian baptism, where these things are not, Christian baptism is not. And this is incontestably established by the testimony of St. Peter, in the text about to be noticed. Let it only be farther observed, in connection with this passage in St. Paul’s Epistle to Titus, that a no mean authority in the interpretation of Scripture (Mr. Joseph Mede) thinks, that the Apostle here alludes to the cleansing of the new-born infant from the pollutions which attend its birth: and he refers to the description given in the beginning of the xvith Chapter of the Book of the prophet Ezekiel in confirmation of this:—“Neither wast thou washed in water.” (v. 4.) Here, then,lifeis first found, and then there isthe washingfor purification.
The text, already referred to, in St. Peter, is the 21st verse of the iiird Chapter of his First Epistle. This perfects the proof of the view hitherto taken of the Christian Sacrament of baptism; and isa keywhich would unlock any difficulty which other portions of Scripture might present;—if indeed such assistance were needed. St. Peter is speaking of the days of Noah, and he says, that “the long-suffering of God then waited, while the ark was preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water;” and then he adds, “The like figure whereunto,”—the corresponding type with it, and the antitype of it—(as was observed before respecting circumcision) “even baptism, doth now saveus,”—but before he completes the sentence, he breaks off to tell us what this baptism, of which he speaks, is, “notthe putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience towards God,” and then he finishes what he had begun to say,—“by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.” Now if the two things here spoken of in relation to baptism were always found together, the words of St. Peter would be without meaning; for none, possessing them both, could be so blind as to imagine that it is the outward washing which saves them, and not “the answer of a good conscience;” thoughit is possible(as experience shows) that men might be satisfied with the outward sign, and look no farther, as the Jews had done in the case of circumcision. The Holy Spirit, therefore, by the pen of St. Peter warns against this error, and assures us, that the baptism which is unto salvation consists of, not only, nor chiefly, the application of water to the body, but “the answer of a good conscience toward God.” It is thought by some, that areferenceis here made to the custom of putting questions to those who were about to be baptized as to their faith and repentance: and something of this kind had passed between Philip and the Eunuch, when Philip told him that “if he believed with all his heart he might be baptized, and the Eunuch answered, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.” In every such case there doubtless isthe baptism—because there has beenthe birth—of the Spirit. But though St. Peter’s wordsmay beapplicableto such a custom, if it prevailed in his time, yet, as Archbishop Leighton says in his Commentary on this text, ‘This questioning and answering farther expresses the inward questioning and answering which is transacted betwixt the soul and itself, and the soul of God. The word,’ he says, ‘isjudicial, and means the interrogation used in law for the trial and executing of processes: and this is the great business of conscience, to hold courts in the soul; and it is of continual necessity that it be so. This “answer of a good conscience unto God” (as likewise its questioning to enable itself for that answer) is touching great points that are of chief concern to the soul, its justification and sanctification; for baptism is the seal ofboth, and purges the conscience in both respects. Now, the conscience of a real believer inquiring within, upon right discovery, will make this answer unto God;—“Lord, I have found that there is no standing before Thee, for the soul in itself is overwhelmed with a world of guiltiness; but I find a blood sprinkled upon it, that hath, I am sure, virtue enough to purge it all away, and to present it pure unto Thee.” And this the Lord does agree to, and authorizes the conscience, on this account, to return back an answer of peace and safety to the soul. So for the other: “Lord, I find a living work of holiness on this soul. Though there is yet corruption there, it is as a continual grief and vexation: and if I cannot say much of high degrees of grace, yet I may say, there is the beginning of them;—at least thisI most confidently affirm, that there are real and earnest desires in the soul after these things. It would know and conform to Thy will, and it would gladly walkin all well-pleasingunto Thee.” Now He that sees the truth of these things, owns it as His own work, and engages to advance it and bring it to perfection.’
Such is the intercourse which the purified conscience hath with God; and wherever this is, there is the “baptism” which is unto salvation.
In the examination which has thus been made into the Scripture-testimony concerning the Christian Sacrament of Baptism, no text has been—at least intentionally—overlooked, from which any additional information could be obtained on the subject.