What! Is it possible that a good man like Cornelius needed to do anything more than he was doing, in order to be accepted and justified before God? It appears that the Lord thought so; and it was of such importance, too, that He sent an angel to tell him what his further duty was. And what was it? Peter preached the gospel to him and his household, after his arrival among them. The Holy Ghost fell upon them to bear testimony to Peter's words, and as an evidence to Peter of the favor they enjoyed with the Lord, and then "he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord." (Acts x, 4, 8.)
Now, suppose that Cornelius and his house had disregarded Peter's command to be baptized, could they have been saved? No. Why? Because the angel told him that Peter should tell him words whereby he and all his household should be saved. (Acts xi. 14). It is very evident, therefore, that baptism for the remission of sins is necessary unto salvation.
Infant baptism, as it is erroneously termed, or infant sprinkling, should receive a brief notice here. This is not authorized in the scriptures, neither have any of the New Testament writers alluded to it. Some have supposed because in a few instances whole households were baptized, that possibly there were some infants among them. But this supposition is a very weak foundation upon which to establish an important principle of salvation. In the households of Lydia, Cornelius and the jailor, there were no infants—at least, we cannot learn that there were from the history given of them in the Acts of the Apostles. In fact, the evidence is to the contrary. In the case of the jailor, Paul and Silas taught him, and all that were in his house, the word of the Lord. (Acts xvi, 32.) In the household of Cornelius, the Holy Ghost fell upon them which heard the words of Peter, and they spoke with tongues and magnified God. (Acts x.) And in the household of Lydia it is evident there were no infants any more than there were in the other two households, for these reasons: The gospel is to be preached to individuals. What is the use to preach to infants? They cannot understand it; they cannot have faith in it; they cannot repent, for they have not sinned; it is no use to baptize them, for there are no sins to remit. Sin is a transgression of the law. They have not transgressed any law, therefore, they are without sin. And even had infants any sins to remit, they could not be remitted by baptism alone, for faith and repentance must be exercised in connection with baptism, but infants cannot exercise either. Therefore, it is unreasonable to suppose that the apostles would attempt to teach or baptize infants in the households referred to, or in any other households—they knew better than to act so foolishly in the sight of God.
There are others who have supposed that the baptism of infants is in the place of circumcision. But this is merely a conjecture of impostors to deceive the ignorant. The scriptures do not substitute infant baptism for circumcision. There is no connection or similarity between the two principles. They are no more alike than truth and error, or darkness and light, or heaven and hell. Circumcision is an ancient ceremony or operation performed exclusively on male infants at eight days old; but baptism is an immersion in water, of both male and female, when they have reached an age to be capable of sinning, believing the gospel when it is taught them, and repenting of their sins, so that they may have their past sins remitted according to the laws of God. These evidences should be conclusive to all Bible-believers.
LAYING ON OF HANDS FOR IMPARTING THE HOLY GHOST
True faith in God, repentance true,
Sins remitted by immersion;
The humble soul is born anew,
And the spirit takes possession.
By laying on of holy hands,
Of God's own servants here on earth;
Those who've obeyed the Lord's commands,
Will realize the Spirit's birth.
After the candidate for eternal life has been baptized for the remission of his sins, and has sought unto the Lord in faith, honestly repenting of his sins, and has obtained the forgiveness of all his past transgressions, he is entitled to the gift of the Holy Ghost. He should seek for it, for the Lord has promised that he shall receive it, but He has established a certain ordinance through which He bestows this precious gift. That ordinance is the "Laying on of hands." Many may question this, but the scriptures should decide the matter. Let us see how Paul received the Holy Ghost. Ananias received a mission to visit Paul, and entered into the house where he was staying, "and putting his hands on him said: Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou earnest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost." (Acts ix. 17.) But why not fill him with the Holy Ghost without any administration of Ananias, seeing that he had faith, and was repenting and fasting and praying before the Lord? Because the Lord had established an order in the plan of salvation. He had authorized His servants to observe that order in ministering the spirit as well as the water, and they were to minister the spirit by the laying on of hands.
How did Paul administer the spirit? It is possible that he obtained his first lesson, in the administration of baptism and the laying on of hands, from Ananias when he himself was baptized and confirmed; but, whether this was his first lesson or not, he, no doubt, learned to administer the ordinances of the gospel correctly. And when he came to Ephesus and found about twelve men who had been baptized "unto John's baptism," "they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus," "and when Paul laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them, and they spake with tongues, and prophesied." (Acts xix. 1-6.) Thus, we see Paul administered the Holy Ghost by "the laying on of hands."
When Philip preached to the Samaritans, they believed and were baptized both men and women. "Now when the apostles which were 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 receive the Holy Ghost; (for as yet he was fallen upon none of them, only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus). Then laid they their hands upon them, and they received the Holy Ghost. (Acts viii, 14-17.)
Now, as they were apostles of the Lord Jesus Christ, faithful men whose prayers God would hear and answer, why did not the Lord bestow upon those Samaritans the gift of the Holy Ghost in answer to the earnest prayers of His faithful servants, without the ordinance of the laying on of hands? Because that would have been contrary to the law laid down for the ministering of the spirit. Peter and John were anxious that the Lord should bless their administration for the benefit of those baptized believers. They desired that the Holy Ghost should rest down upon them in mighty power. But they could not exercise the authority of the apostleship in and of themselves, and independently of the Lord, hence they prayed for themselves, no doubt, and that the Samaritans "might receive the Holy Ghost." Then they performed the proper ordinance, God honored the administration in answer to their prayer, and those baptized believers "received the Holy Ghost." (Acts viii, 17).