Baptism According to Scripture

by E. H. Hoare

Of the baptism of the twelve disciples themselves we have no account. As the baptism of John was so general, it is probable that they, or the greater number of them, had partaken of it. Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother, undoubtedly had. He was one of the two of John’s disciples who heard him say of Jesus, “Behold the Lamb of God!” and who was afterwards one of the twelve. It probably was the case with others of them also. But nothing is said respecting them. Tertullian observes, that with regard to them,—(the twelve)—“the peculiar privilege of the first accession to discipleship, and of the individual familiarity to which they were admitted with Him, had power to confer on them the compendium of baptism;” the sum and substance of it.

No other mention is made of baptism by the Evangelists, until we come to the Commission which the Lord gave to His Apostles after His resurrection from the dead, except in one passage, which occurs in the report of His memorable conversation with Nicodemus, the Jewish ruler, contained in the Third Chapter of the Gospel according to St. John. Nicodemus having come to Jesus with the avowed desire to be instructed by Him, as “a teacher come from God,” “Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” (v. 3.) Nicodemus expresses his surprise at this saying, and asks, “How can a man be born when he is old?”—evidently shewing that he did not at all comprehend its meaning. Upon which the Lord repeats the asseveration, with some addition to it: “Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” (v. 5.) In this instance, as in every other, our endeavour shall be, to ascertain what the words of Scripture do really and simply mean. If there had been no intention on the part of Christ to make baptism with water an Ordinance of His Church or Kingdom upon earth, the expressions, “born of water and of the Spirit,” might still have been used by Him with great propriety; as John the Baptist had previously used the words, “He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and fire:” water being, as well as fire, an appropriate and beautiful emblem of the Holy Spirit. If the “cloven tongues like as of fire,” had not rested upon the Apostles on the day of Pentecost, the words of the Baptist, just referred to, had yet been strikingly applicable to the operations of the Holy Ghost; and the figure would have lost none of its force and fitness. Water too, in like manner, might have been connected by Christ with the mention of the Spirit, because of the similarity between their effects. But inasmuch as Christ Himself had been baptized, and was about to continue baptism in His Church, (not only during His personal Ministry upon earth, but when, after His return to Heaven, His gospel should be preached among all nations,) and as John’s baptism had been so general, and had drawn so much attention to the subject,—it is reasonable to conclude, that when Jesus spake to Nicodemus of a man’s being “born of water,” He meant his being baptized; and it is probable that Nicodemus, who knew well that baptism had been already used in the admission of proselytes into the Jewish Church, at once so understood His words. For, if not altogether figurative, some specific act must have been meant; and what could this be, but baptism? No explanation, therefore, was given to Nicodemus of the terms, “born of water,” because none was needed. Having begun, in v. 3, to speak of a birth, the Lord Jesus continues the same idea, and applies it to the other subject which He wished to introduce, namely, baptism. And this is not the only instance of the use of such phraseology: for, when arguing with the Sadducees about the raising of the dead, He says of the just, that they are “the children of God;”—and then, carrying on the idea, He calls them, “the children of the resurrection.” (Luke xx. 36.) To be “born of water,” then, is to be baptized with water; and this, together with being “born of the Spirit,” Christ declares to be necessary to an entrance into “the kingdom of God.” By “the Kingdom of God” is here meant the Visible Church of Christ upon earth; the members of which are therein prepared for the state of eternal glory in Heaven. This shows us of what characters Christ designed His Visible Church to consist; namely, of those who are born of the Spirit, and baptized with water. And thus the true Church of Christ may well be described as ‘A Congregation of faithful men, in the which the pure word of God is preached, and the Sacraments be duly ministered according to Christ’s Ordinance.’ (Article XIX. of the Church of England.) Christ would have His Church a Visible Body, that it might be “The Pillar and Ground of the truth;”—to maintain the truth and to hold it forth to the world. As there had been before His coming, so it was meet that there should continue to be, an associated and authorized Body of God’s Worshippers and Witnesses, to which additions might from time to time be made of “such as should be saved,” (Acts ii. 47.), and by which Christ’s religion might be spread abroad and propagated. Into this Body ‘faithful men,’ or those who are “born again,” are incorporated by baptism. And it is of this spiritual kingdom, which “is not of this world,” that Christ speaks in the verse we are now considering. The Kingdom of God, or the Kingdom of Heaven, has sometimes in Scripture a more extensive signification, and includes both good and bad,—the true Israel and those “which say they are Jews and are not.” Since man cannot know the heart of his fellow-man, he must accept his profession, where it is not contradicted by plain and palpable evidence: and hence it comes to pass, that ‘in the Visible Church the evil will be mingled with the good.’ (Article XXVI.) But Christ, the Great Head of the Church, does not acknowledge the evil as belonging to Him, or as having any right to a place in His Church or kingdom. Where has He ever prescribed or demanded or allowed a merely external profession and service? What did He say to those who were satisfied with this? “Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying, This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth and honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me!” (Matt. xv. 7, 8.) And if this spiritual service, this service of the heart, was required of the Jews, and evidently symbolized by their distinguishing Ordinance of circumcision, and if they were branded by the Lord as “hypocrites” who did not pay it,—no wonder that it should be designed and required by the Gospel! Otherwise, Christ would be the minister of hypocrisy, formality, and sin! But He Himself has told us, that He soweth good seed only in His field; and that it is His enemy who sows the tares. (Matt. xiii. 37, 38.) The wicked and such as be void of a lively faith, and all who “have a form of godliness but denying the power thereof,” are considered as intruders into the Church of Christ, and as such will be dealt with by Him at the last. This was God’s complaint of His Church of old:—“Among my people are found wicked men!” (Jer. v. 26.) And He remonstrates with such characters for professing that they knew Him, while their conduct was inconsistent with their profession. “Unto the wicked God saith, What hast thou to do that thou shouldest take my covenant in thy mouth?” (Ps. l. 16.) And the Lord Jesus saith the same to such like persons. “Why call ye me Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?” (Luke vi. 46.) “Friend, how camest thou in hither, not having a wedding garment?” (Matt, xxii. 12.) And He declares that in the last day He “will profess unto them, I never knew you.” (Matt, vii. 23.) He calls them “goats,” not “sheep;” though while on earth they find admittance into His fold. (Matt. xxv. 33.) Of such is not the kingdom of God. The Kingdom of God, or ‘the Visible Church of Christ, is a Congregation of faithful men.’ Now, to enter into this kingdom, or, which is the same thing, to be an ostensible member of this spiritual Society, a man must be “born of water and of the Spirit.” No one can be a real and recognised member of Christ’s Church on earth, except he be baptized and born of the Spirit. The necessity of being “born of the Spirit” in order to our becoming the subjects of Christ’s kingdom is shown by Him in what immediately follows. “That which is born of the flesh is flesh:”—(v. 6.) that which proceeds from and is produced by carnal and corrupt nature is carnal and corrupt also. Hence the necessity of a great and thorough change. “Ye must be born again.” (v. 7.) Of this change the Holy Spirit is—to keep up the idea introduced by Christ—the Parent or Father. And as that which generates, generates its like, so “that which is born of the Spirit is spirit:” in other words,—the abstract being here used by Christ for the concrete, (and by its use He more strongly expresses the reality of what might justly be called a birth and the communication of an entirely new nature,)—he that partakes of this birth of the Spirit is thereby made a spiritual man, whereas before he was a carnal and corrupt man. And since Christ came (as we have seen) to set up a spiritual kingdom, (for “the kingdom of God is righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost;”) (Rom. xiv. 17,) none can really belong to this kingdom, except spiritual persons. And to this agrees what the Lord said on another occasion; “Verily I say unto you, whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein.” (Mark x. 15.) And if not real members of His Kingdom on earth, we shall certainly not enter into His Kingdom of glory. But to be recognised as well as real members of His Church, or subjects of His kingdom, we must be “born of water,” or baptized. This is Christ’s appointed Ordinance. He ordained the use of it in His Church, while He was present with His disciples, and He subsequently enjoined the same in the case of all who should believe His gospel. Baptism with water, therefore, is not to be omitted, wherever it may be had. And, surely, the reason which Jesus Himself gave to John for seeking this Ordinance, ought to influence those who desire to be numbered among His friends and followers: “Thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness!”

But while these two things, baptism and the birth of the Spirit, are declared by Christ to be necessary to a certain end,—namely, an entrance into the Kingdom of God, or Visible Church of Christ upon earth,—there is not the slightest intimation given by Him that they are necessarily connected with each other. Not a word is said by Him from which we can deduce this. Two things are often required for a definite purpose;—two witnesses, for instance, to prove a fact;—an invitation and a wedding-garment to entitle any one to be a guest at a marriage-feast;—but these may be quite independent of one another. It cannot be pretended that one thing only is spoken of by Christ. The birth of the Spirit is twice mentioned by itself, and once in connection with baptism by water. Baptism, then, and the birth of Spirit are clearly not identical,—not one and the same thing. And their necessary connection is neither here, nor any where else in Scripture, asserted. It is a statement, not supported by a tittle of evidence; but, on the other hand, contradicted by express testimonies of Scripture, and by very general experience. The putting of these two things together in one sentence is surely no proof of their necessary connection. Had the two been necessarily connected,—had baptism been the appointed channel for the conveyance of the Spirit, Christ would undoubtedly have said so. Or rather, it would have been sufficient for Him to have said, “Except a man be baptized, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God;” and He certainly would not have omitted the mention of baptism, as He did omit it, in His first solemn asseveration to Nicodemus. The necessity of the birth of the Spirit was evidently what Jesus wished to enforce upon His inquirer. This therefore was the first thing spoken of by Him. In His second address He introduces water-baptism; as this would serve to make the spiritual subject clearer, and because He would show that baptism was henceforth to be the token of the Covenant: but how Nicodemus was to conclude from the manner in which it was mentioned, that water was to be the means of communicating the new birth, or that the two things were always to be found together, it is not easy to imagine. Especially as in the very same address he was told, that, in giving the new birth, the Holy Spirit acts as “the wind blowing where it listeth.” Now baptism must always be administered at a specific time; but is this the case with the blowing of the wind? Did Christ then use an inappropriate metaphor? He plainly tells Nicodemus, that as “a master of Israel” he ought to have understood what He was speaking of. But what is there in the Old Testament from which Nicodemus could have learned the necessary connection of the new birth with any outward Ordinance? Was the circumcision of the heart always connected with the circumcision of the flesh? Had not the Lord, in the time of Moses, bidden the people of Israel to “circumcise the foreskin of their hearts”? (Deut. x. 16.) And had He not said of them by Jeremiah, “All the house of Israel are uncircumcised in the heart”? (ix. 26.) This was the doctrine to which Nicodemus had been accustomed:—the necessity of both the outward and the inward circumcision, but not their necessary connection with each other. So likewise with the new birth and baptism.

And as Scripture is, and must be, consistent with Scripture, let the latter part of Christ’s address to Nicodemus be compared with His subsequent directions concerning baptism, and compared also with the writings of His Apostles, and it will be seen, that faith in Him, which He so frequently mentions as leading to salvation, is that with which the birth of the Spirit is connected, and that this faith is invariably required before the administration of the Ordinance to any. How then can baptism with water convey the birth of the Spirit, unless Christ and His Apostles be at issue with each other, and the order of things, which He Himself appointed in His Church, be inverted? St. John expressly declares in his Gospel, (i. 12, 13.) that “as many as received Him, (Jesus Christ) to them gave He power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on His name; which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.” And in his First Epistle, (v. 1.) “Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God.” And the order which Christ intended for the administration of baptism by His Apostles was thus laid down for them;—“He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.” And they acted accordingly. No statement was ever more capable of proof than this, that the birth of the Spirit may be without baptism, and baptism without the birth of the Spirit. Can any doubt, that the penitent thief on the cross was “born of the Spirit,” who yet was not baptized? Can any venture to affirm, that Simon Magus, though baptized, was “born of the Spirit”? Did not Peter tell him, that he “had neither part nor lot in the matter, for his heart was not right in the sight of God”? Man must not put asunder what God hath joined together; but neither must he of his own authority join together what God hath left asunder. We cannot be in manifested communion with the Church of Christ, if we wilfully neglect the Ordinance which He appointed for His disciples; but we may be baptized, or “born of water” and so be in professed communion with His Church, as Simon Magus was, and yet be, like him, void of a lively faith and the inspiration of Christ’s Spirit. As it has been well observed upon this subject; ‘It would violate the principles of common sense and confound all specific modes of instruction, to call that a birth at which nothing was born, and that person new-born whose moral principles had received no change.’ [20] The notion of an initial act—of the communication of something in baptism, which may never be perceived, and never produce any holy fruit,—has no sanction from Sacred Scripture. Our Lord here says nothing like it. He speaks of a second birth,—a new existence,—and that of a spiritual nature. “That which is born of the Spirit is spirit” (v. 6.) The language is the same as that which describes a man’s own entrance into this world of life and activity. And His Apostles, when writing of this spiritual birth, always ascribe to it perceptible and powerful effects. “We know,” writes St. John, (1 Ep. v. 18,) “that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not.” And again, (v. 4,) “Whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world.” And again, (iii. 10,) “In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God.” But if the birth of the Spirit, by which men are made the children of God, necessarily accompany baptism, they may be at one and the same time the children of God and the children of the devil! They may be the children of God, as being born of His Spirit in baptism, and they may be “manifested” to be the children of the devil by committing sin; for thousands who have been baptized never show the least spiritual disposition, but live and die under the dominion of iniquity! But it is said, ‘The Spirit was given to them, and they lost it:—they were God’s children, but they ceased to be such.’ Can that, with a shadow of reason, be said to have been lost, of the possession of which there never was the slightest evidence? Can that, with any propriety, be said to cease, which, if the statement of the Apostle is to be the standard of judgment, never began? “In this,” says St. John, “the children of God are manifest.” Of thousands who have been baptized it may be asked, when were they manifested to be the children of God? And the answer of truth must be, Never. They never did righteousness:—they always committed sin. They were never therefore “born of God:”—they never partook of the birth of the Spirit. “They went out from us,” St. John says again of some who had been nominal members of the Christian Church, “they went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us.” (1 Ep. ii. 19.) The only seminal principle of grace which the Scripture recognizes, is that, which this same Apostle speaks of; (iii. 9.) “Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin, for his seed remaineth in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.” This is in perfect harmony with Christ’s words to Nicodemus;—“The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof:” thou knowest that it is blowing by the effects which it produces: “so is every one who is born of the Spirit.” (v. 8.) But to believe that “the wind bloweth,” when a leaf is not shaken, nor the slightest murmur in the air heard, is so contradictory to the evidence of the senses, that after this we might believe anything. Transubstantiation itself need not be rejected by us. Why not believe a material as well as a moral change, if the exercise of the understanding and of the senses is to be excluded? Nay, transubstantiation has a greater show of Scripture-authority in its favour. Christ did say of the bread and wine, “This is my Body;” “This is my Blood:” but He never said, “Every one who is born of water is born also of the Holy Spirit.” The uniform tenor of His teaching was, that men’s profession and principles and privileges should be tried by their practical effects. “By their fruits ye shall know them.” (Matt. vii. 20.) And as transubstantiation might as well be believed, as that every baptized person is necessarily “born of the Spirit,” so, to claim the power of absolutely setting God on work to new-create the soul in baptism, is little short of the presumption of the Church of Rome, which asserts the power of her priests to turn the bread and wine in the Sacrament of the Supper into Christ’s real Body and Blood! It would not then be true, (as declared in John i. 13,) that “the sons of God we born, not of the will of man;” for baptism is administered at the will of man;—whensoever and to whomsoever he pleases.

The next thing to be noticed in Scripture in connection with this subject, is the Charge or Commission which the Lord Jesus gave to His Apostles after His resurrection from the dead and before His ascension into Heaven. In Matt, xxviii. 19., we find the Lord saying to the Eleven, “Go ye therefore and teach all nations;”—or, as it is in the margin, “make disciples of all nations;”—“baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.” In Mark xvi. 15, 16., the Commission to the Eleven is thus given; “And He said unto them, Go ye into all the world and preach the Gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.” Now in both these passages the same course is prescribed, which had been previously adopted by Christ Himself and by His forerunner, John the Baptist. They (Christ and John) first made disciples; and then baptized them, in token of their being disciples. And the Apostles were to do the same. They were first to preach the gospel, and then, when any believed it,—or, as God only knoweth the hearts, (for the discerning of spirits was not possessed by all who preached the gospel, and does not appear to have been exercised in ordinary ministrations,) when any professed to believe it, without giving cause for a suspicion of insincerity, they were to baptize them; and when the profession was sincere, the promise of salvation was assured unto them. And according to these directions the Apostles and other preachers of the gospel acted. The Jews had hitherto been the peculiar people and Church of God. But this state of things was to last no longer. The gospel was certainly to be first preached to the Jews, but not to be confined to them. It was to be preached “to every creature.”—All nations were to hear the glad tidings of salvation by Jesus Christ, and to be called to “the obedience of faith.” “Repentance and remission of sins were to be preached in Christ’s name among all nations.” The teaching, then, which preceded baptism, and by which disciples were made to Christ, was the preaching of the gospel. (Of this we have a direct proof in Acts xiv. 21. “And when they (Paul and Barnabas) had preached the gospel to that city and had taught many;”—or, as the latter word properly signifies, “had brought many to the faith of Christ and made them His disciples.”) And when the gospel was believed, the Sacrament of baptism was to be administered, and then farther instruction to be given in all things which Christ willed that His disciples should do. For thus continuing baptism as the outward and visible token of believing upon Him, the Lord Jesus gave no reason. The Ordinance, in fact, spake for itself. The design of Christ’s death being to “redeem from all iniquity, and to purify unto Himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works,” what outward rite could more suitably be enjoined upon those who became His disciples, than the washing with pure water? As we have seen already, every proselyte to the Jews’ religion from among the heathen was washed, or baptized, as well as circumcised. In founding the New Testament Church, which was to consist of some of all nations on equal terms with the Jews, the Lord lays aside the distinguishing Ordinance of the Old Testament Church,—circumcision,—and retains that which was its appendage in the case of Gentile converts, namely, baptism. And how delightfully consonant with the character of the New Dispensation was this proceeding! Instead of the painful and bloody rite of circumcision, water only is used;—pleasant and refreshing; and moreover, still more significant: for while circumcision conveyed only the negative idea of the putting away of sin, baptism includes both the removal of uncleanness and the production of its opposite state of purity. In the Commission, then, which the Lord gave to His Apostles, we notice these two things:—first, the universal proclamation to be made of the gospel; and secondly, the limitation of baptism to those who should believe it. No mention is made of the manner in which baptism was to be administered, (of the form of words we shall speak presently) nor is there any distinction of country, condition, sex or age. Every one who should be willing to give in his name to Christ and to be saved by Him, was to partake of the rite of baptism. And this seems the proper place for the remark, that as the use of water was thus made common to both Dispensations, and as no new directions were given, the Apostles would naturally be led to pursue the course which had previously prevailed with respect to the baptism of proselytes to the Jews’ religion. These proselytes had been worshippers of idols, and were therefore to be washed or baptized, in token of their putting away of their idolatry and its accompanying impurities. Proselytes to Christ—from all but the Jewish people—would be of the same description. Circumcision was to cease, and baptism with water alone to be retained, and to be applied alike to Jews and Gentiles. Why then should not the same course be pursued as heretofore? If the children of proselytes had been for the most part baptized with their parents, why should not the same be continued?—The children of believing Jews had received circumcision when eight days old, as the token of the Covenant. Why should the children of those Jews who believed in Christ,—in whom that very Covenant was confirmed, of which circumcision was the token,—why should the children of these believing Jews not have the token of the Covenant, as well as the children of their believing forefathers? The Covenant is one and the same. “The Lord said to Abraham, I will establish my Covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee, in their generations, for an everlasting Covenant, to be a God unto thee and to thy seed after thee. And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, for an everlasting possession.” (Gen. xvii. 7, 8.) These promises were made to Abraham, as “the father of all them that should believe.” The first thing here promised is, that “the Lord would be a God unto Abraham and his seed.” [27] And do not the words of Christ, when He commanded His Apostles to baptize those who should become His disciples, convey the same idea?—“baptizing them in, or into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost”? What is this but a declaration, that the Triune Jehovah should be their God? The other part of the promise is, that “Canaan” should be their “everlasting possession.” This by St. Paul is called a “promise, that he should be the heir of the world:”—which chiefly meant, that he and his true seed should inherit Heaven. And does not St. Paul decide the question as to the continuance of Abraham’s Covenant by asserting, that believers in Christ are heirs of Heaven in virtue of this very promise made to Abraham? “If ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.” (Gal. iii. 29.) The Covenant being thus the same, were children not to be brought into the blessings and the bond of it, simply because the token of it was changed? If (as it has been often observed on this subject) the Lord had been pleased to continue the original token of the Covenant made with Abraham, and had commanded His Apostles and Ministers to circumcise, in the place of baptizing, all who should embrace His gospel, would they not have continued the practice of the Jewish Church, and have circumcised the children of all believing parents? How much rather then, when He saith, Wash; simply baptize with water;—it is my will, that this mild but significant element and emblem be henceforth exclusively used in my Church! And having been hitherto used in the admission of Gentile proselytes into the Jewish Church, it forms a connection with the Covenant made with Abraham, more manifest than any new Ordinance could possibly have done. Therefore there was no need of any directions respecting the baptism of infants, as this would naturally follow upon the continuance of the Abrahamic Covenant. Nay, after all that had taken place, if Christ had not intended that the children of believers should partake of this Sacrament, as well as the parents, a prohibition to this effect would have been needed. But nothing of the kind was given. On the contrary, (to pass on for a moment to another portion of Scripture,) the very first day on which the Apostles began to execute the Commission which Christ had given them, Peter said to those who expressed a desire to become Christ’s disciples, “The promise is unto you and to your children.” (Acts ii. 39.) This certainly did not look like an intention of excluding children from sharing with their parents in the Ordinances of the Church of God!

It has been stated, that some farther notice would be taken of the form of words to be used in the administration of baptism. Whether the Lord Jesus meant, that the precise form, “In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,” should invariably be employed, may admit of a question. Baptized persons were doubtless dedicated to the service of the glorious and blessed Trinity. They were baptized into the name of the Triune God. But it cannot be certainly proved, that the Lord Jesus intended that these very words should be used on each occasion. And it is remarkable, that in the subsequent account of instances of baptism in The Acts of the Apostles, it is called “being baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.” Irenæus observes, that this might be the putting of a part for the whole, and that so it would be generally understood. The safest course has, however, been taken in the Christian Church by the retention of the precise form found in the Commission given by Christ to His Apostles; and no objection can be justly brought against it.

This is all that is found in The Gospels, directly applicable to the Sacrament of Baptism.

But there is a circumstance recorded in three of them, which cannot be overlooked in connection with the subject of the administration of baptism to children;—though baptism itself is not mentioned in it. St. Matthew, St. Mark, and St. Luke, relate the bringing of little children or infants, or both, either by their parents or others interested for them, to Christ, “that He should put His hands on them and pray for them.” The disciples, unwilling probably that their Master should be troubled with such an application, “rebuked those who brought them: but when Jesus saw it, He was much displeased” with the disciples, “and said unto them, Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not; for of such is the kingdom of God. Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein. And He took them up in His arms, put His hands upon them, and blessed them.” (Mark x. 13–16.) What doubtless increased Christ’s displeasure at the conduct of His disciples was their evident forgetfulness of what had passed a short time before; when, a dispute having arisen among them who should be the greatest, He set a child in the midst of them and proposed him as a pattern of humility, unto which He declared all the subjects of His kingdom must be conformed. With respect to the children thus brought to Christ, He only acted in His usual benevolent manner, when He complied with the request made of Him concerning them. He was asked to “put His hands on them and to pray,”—that is, for a blessing to rest upon them. This therefore He did. The word “blessed”—He “blessed them”—is the same with that used by Himself in His sermon on the Mount: “bless them that curse you:”—the meaning of which is, ‘Pray that blessings may come upon those who call down curses upon you.’ And when Jesus blessed the children which were brought to Him, He commended them by prayer to the compassion and favour of His heavenly Father. This is all that we can legitimately conclude from what is here said. Jesus manifested the same kindness of heart towards the rich young ruler, mentioned immediately afterwards; when “beholding him, He loved him;” though this object of His love went away from Him, and there is every reason to fear that his riches proved the cause of his ruin. The same disposition of benevolence which led the Lord Jesus to pray for the children that were brought to Him, led Him also to pray for His murderers; for while hanging on the cross, He cried, “Father, forgive them.” But, were all that were engaged in putting Him to death really forgiven? Did not many of them continue in impenitence and unbelief? Undoubtedly they did. It is impossible, therefore, to conclude absolutely that even these children which were brought to Christ were eternally saved, whatever hope and charitable opinion may be entertained on the subject. But He farther said respecting them,—“Of such is the kingdom of God.” What then did He mean by this declaration? It is to be observed, that this was said by Jesus of these children, not after they had been brought to Him and blessed by Him, but before they were so brought, and as the reason why they should be brought to Him: “For of such is the kingdom of God.” Now it is evident that Christ does not say this of children as they are by nature. He Himself had before described the heart of man, that is, the nature of man, as full of all evil. (See Mark vii. 26.) And though these children might have been circumcised, yet this does not appear to have been contemplated by Christ when He spake of them: and we know from what St. Paul says, as well as from other Scriptures, that the outward circumcision was by no means always accompanied with the circumcision of the heart. Nor does there appear to have been anything peculiar in this case, to which Christ’s observations were confined. If so, we should have nothing whatever to do with it. It seems to be of children, as children, that He here speaks;—not of children brought to Him, (as already noticed) but of children in general: “Of such is the kingdom of God.” These words, strictly taken, would intimate, that they were in the kingdom of God already; for He does not say this of them after that they had been blessed by Him, but He says it of them before. It was not, therefore, His reception of them which caused Him to speak thus concerning them. The true view of the subject seems to be this;—that, while the whole transaction wears a kind and gracious aspect toward man’s helpless offspring, Jesus had special regard in it to the dispositions found in children;—for by reason of infantile weakness corruption is then unable to manifest itself, and all appears to be gentleness and loveliness;—pride and malice and such like evils being necessarily absent, and humility and lowliness and dependance and such like tempers being by the same necessity present. So that it was with regard to these, rather than to the subjects of them, that Jesus said, “Of such is the kingdom of God.” This view harmonizes exactly with what He said in immediate connection with the words we are considering: “Verily, I say unto you, whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein.” The great object of the Lord evidently was, to set forth children, both as to what is not seen in them, and what is found in their meek, passive, harmless, submissive, and dependant state, as the pattern for His disciples’ imitation;—as, in fact, the exhibition of what must be found in every one, who would be a real subject of His kingdom. And that it was of the age of infancy or childhood, and not of the persons of the children themselves, that Christ was here speaking, is confirmed by a reference to the circumstance already mentioned, which is related by St. Matthew, in the beginning of the eighteenth Chapter, and which had occurred not long before the bringing of the children to Him. “The disciples came unto Jesus, saying, Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven? And Jesus called a little child unto Him, and set him in the midst of them, and said, Verily, I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child,”—that is, so as to be as this little child is,—“the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven.” Now it cannot be supposed, that this child was selected by Christ as having any peculiar excellency in him. Any child would doubtless have served His purpose:—the child of a Gentile as well as of a Jew. Neither the nature of the child, nor the state of the child’s soul in the sight of God, had any thing to do with the use which the Lord here makes of him. It was the state of childhood that Christ evidently had respect unto, and this He makes the model of His disciples. Just as David had said,—“My soul is even as a weaned child;” and as St. Paul afterwards wrote to the Corinthians,—“In malice be ye children.” And if farther evidence that this was Christ’s meaning be needed, it is found in the transition which He, as it were, insensibly makes from the “little children” to “believers in Him;” “those little ones,” (the word used by Him being changed,) “those little ones,” He calls them, “which believe in me;”—evidently referring to such as regard themselves to be the meanest and most humble of His disciples. With respect to children themselves, personally considered, the words of Christ seem only to convey a general expression of good will toward them,—to be understood and applied in conformity with other declarations of the Inspired Word. As to the bearing of this whole passage upon baptism, it is impossible to prove by it the connection of the new birth with baptism, or indeed anything about baptism at all;—except that it affords great encouragement to godly parents to bring their children to this Ordinance, and in it to present and dedicate them to the Lord their God. If we attempt to force the application of the passage, it may be turned against ourselves, and used as an argument for doing without the baptism of children altogether: for Christ does not say anything about the baptism of the children brought to Him, although baptism was then in use among His disciples. His silence respecting it is no valid argument against it; but it prevents the possibility of proving anything absolutely as to the effect of baptism from this occurrence. In truth, the circumstances of the cases must be analogous, before any application can fairly be made of it. Children must not be brought in gross ignorance and utter carelessness to be baptized, that they may receive their name from a minister, or for some other merely temporal object, without any regard to Christ or His grace, and this be said to correspond with what was done for the children in the history before us. This is to profane Christ’s Sacrament; and shall the profanation of it be attended with a blessing? No wonder that baptized children show no benefit from their baptism, when it has really not been a bringing of them to Christ at all:—Christ having never been thought of from first to last. If an appeal be made to the supposed efficacy of the Ordinance itself, then this passage has nothing to do with the subject. Other Scriptures must be resorted to, wherein reference is made to baptism. From what was done and said on this occasion, believing parents, anxious for the salvation of their children, may draw much encouragement to bring them to Christ in baptism, and to pray and hope for a blessing, in connection with the subsequent use of means for their spiritual good: and they who act thus, comply much more with His mind and spirit, than those who withhold their children from the Ordinance. But no absolute and unconditional benefit in baptism can by any fair process of reasoning be deduced from it.

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 the Apostles is found. Repentance and faith are first required. For the expressions, “Be baptized in 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.) “Then they 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 doing these 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.