17. Lecture XVI; Baptism of Saul and the Centurion
LECTURE XVI.
BAPTISM OF SAUL, AND OF THE CENTURION.
"And there was a certain disciple at Damascus, named Ananias; and to him said the Lord in a vision, Ananias. And he said, Behold, I am here, Lord. And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the street which is called Straight, and inquire in the house of Judas for one called Saul of Tarsus: for, behold, he prayeth, and hath seen in a vision a man named Ananias coming in, and putting his hand on him, that he might receive his sight. Then Ananias answered, Lord, I have heard hy many of this man, how much evil he hath done to thy saints at Jerusalem: And here he hath authority from the chief priests to bind all that call on thy name. But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel: For I will show him how great things he must suffer for my name’s sake. And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house; 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. And immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been scales: and he received sight forthwith, and arose, and was baptized. And when he had received meat, he was strengthened. Then was Saul certain days with the disciples which were at Damascus. And straightway he preached Christ in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God. But all that heard him were amazed, and said, Is not this he that destroyed’ them which called on this name in Jerusalem, and came hither for that intent, that he might bring them bound unto the chief priests? But Saul increased the more in strength , and confounded the Jews which dwelt at Damascus, proving that this is very Christ."
"And one Ananias, a devout man according to the law, having a good report of all the Jews which dwelt there, came unto me, and stood, and said unto me, Brother Saul, receive thy sight. And the same hour I looked up upon him. And he said, The God of our fathers hath chosen thee, that thou shouldst know his will, and see that Just One, and shouldst hear the voice of his mouth. For thou shalt be his witness unto all men of what thou hast seen and heard. And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord." On the perpetuity and design of baptism, nothing occurs in this example inconsistent with the preceding examples, or with the commission. 1st, The qualifications of knowledge, faith, and repentance are implied in the narrative. 2dly, Respecting the privileges connected with baptism, we have something very specific. The privilege specified is the remission of sins. “Arise, and wash away thy sins." As remission of sins is indissolubly connected with the other benefits of the covenant of grace, this is in harmony with the preceding example. But it is still more specific. I refer to the explicit application of the privilege to the person baptized. Baptism represents our guilt: washing supposes pollution. Baptism represents the atonement, — the fountain opened for sin and for uncleanness. But it represents more; the removal of the guilt of the individual baptized. This design of baptism is implied in the commission, and in every example hitherto considered. It is particularly noticed in the baptism at Pentecost, Acts 2:38. The meaning is the same with the words under consideration, but not so explicit. The words before us explicitly apply the privilege to Saul. “Arise, and wash away thy sins." This is the unquestionable meaning of Ananias’s language, and it is a matter of consequence. It distinguishes baptism from circumcision. Circumcision was a seal of the righteousness of faith; but it was not a seal of the application of that righteousness to the individual circumcised Hence, it was administered to unbelievers, infants, and such as were never saved; to Ishmael, Esau, and all the descendants of Abraham, whether believers or unbelievers. It was a seal of the covenant made with Abraham. It represented the certainty of Messiah’s advent in his family; the salvation of such as imitated the faith of the patriarch; and the assurance of the other promises of that covenant. But, directly, it sealed nothing to the individual circumcised. From the example before us, we find that the design of baptism is different. The privilege is confirmed to the individual, provided the profession upon which he is baptized be sincere. Paul’s sins were not washed away by the water of baptism, but the water of baptism represented the removal of his sins: “Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins."
It is of consequence to mark and recollect this fact. It proves that the subjects of baptism must be believers; for without faith there is no forgiveness. It proves that infants cannot be baptized; because, though some shall be saved, yet none can give evidence of faith. The words of Ananias cannot be applied to an infant. The difference between hypocrites and infants, was formerly noticed, and need not be repeated.
3dly, Two of the duties connected with baptism are here particularly specified — calling on the name of the Lord, and church-association. So closely is the first of these duties connected with Christianity in general, that it is employed to designate its professors. Acts i10:13, 14, “Then Ananias answered, Lord, I have heard by many of this man, how much evil he hath done to thy saints at Jerusalem; and here he hath authority from the chief priests to bind all that call on thy name." It is the Lord Jesus Christ whom Ananias is addressing. He designates Christians by their duty, “calling on the name of the Lord Jesus." It is to be expected, that they who are baptized into the name of the Lord, should call on that name. But we are not left to inference. Saul is expressly commanded to connect this duty with his baptism, “Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord."
There is no reason for restricting the performance of this duty to the time occupied in immersion, neither is there any reason for excluding it from that time.
All for which we contend, is, without doubt, implied in the form of expression made use of, I mean, that calling on the name of the Lord, is a duty connected with baptism. There is a striking analogy between the forms of expression, “calling on the name of the Lord," and “discerning the Lord’s body." Discerning the Lord’s body is essential to the right observance of the ordinance of the supper; and incapacity for discerning the Lord’s body, is sufficient to disqualify for that ordinance. The impartial inquirer, will, in the case of baptism, draw the same conclusion from the same premises. Calling on the name of the Lord is essential to baptism, and incapacity for calling on the name of the Lord is a sufficient disqualification for that ordinance. The cases are parallel. Bodily service profits as little in the one case as in the other. If there be any difference, it is this: — in the case of the supper, the conclusion follows from the premises; but in the case of baptism, it is expressly asserted that it follows, 1Pe 3:21. The other duty mentioned — church-association, is likewise, though perhaps, not so particularly intimated. We have the words Acts 9:19, “And when he had received meat, he was strengthened. Then was Saul certain days with the disciples which were at Damascus." Saul is no sooner baptized than he connects himself with the church: qualified for baptism, he is qualified for church association. It is in the face of consistency, in the face of scripture, here and elsewhere, that the abettors of sprinkling, plead that infants are qualified for baptism, but not for church communion in all its parts.
4thly, The bearing of Saul’s baptism on the case of infants has been noticed. We have seen that the spirit of the record is anti-pedo-baptist. Allow me to remark, that by this and similar scriptures, every conscientious inquirer must be determined. These scriptures shine in their own light. To attempt to explain them by scriptures more obscure, is worse than absurd; and worse still, to contradict them by imaginary inferences from abrogated institutions. So far as we have examined, not one vestige of infant sprinkling has appeared; on the contrary, the farther we advance, the condemnatory evidence is multiplied and strengthened. Let us persevere in the investigation, until we have examined every scripture on the subject.
5thly, From the baptism of Saul, we have additional evidence that every man, after believing, ought to be baptized. That Saul’s is an example of believer-baptism needs no farther illustration or proof. But does infant sprinkling absolve us from the duty of imitating the example? The nature of the ceremony, and the history of Saul, oblige us to answer in the negative. He tells us himself, that he was a Hebrew of the Hebrews, and circumcised the eighth day, in consequence of his descent. It has been proved that baptism is neither circumcision nor a substitute for it. But, suppose it were, suppose infant baptism to be circumcision, and circumcision infant baptism in another form, — on this supposition, Saul was both baptized in infancy, and baptized after believing. He tells us, that he was circumcised, that is, on the supposition, baptized on the eighth day, and the history before us, declares that he was baptized after believing. The conclusion is, that circumcision-baptism does not supersede believer-baptism. On this topic, there is one thing more, and that of practical consequence, to which our attention is directed by the words of the narrative. They occur, Acts 22:16, “And now, why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized." What in Saul’s conduct gives occasion to this question, we can only conjecture; but the doctrine which it taught him, and through him teaches ourselves, we know for certain. After a man believes, he ought to be baptized without unnecessary delay. He must not tarry. The doctrine, I said, is of practical consequence. If report speak true, there are not a few who acknowledge, and, at the same time, neglect, the duty of being immersed. There may be cases, like that of the thief on the cross, in which the enjoyment of the ordinance is impracticable. But of all the causes of this evil, alleged or suspected, by much the most prevalent appears to be that very common, and very criminal error, — that the institutions of Christ may be dispensed with. I readily allow, that the candidate for baptism ought to understand, as distinctly as possible, both the nature, the evidence, and the bearings of the ordinance. Precipitation has been attended with very serious consequences. By attending to baptism, whilst other doctrines, duties, or ordinances have been neglected, professors of religion have dishonored their profession. Precipitation is one extreme; but procrastination is another. “Whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven; and whosoever shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven." Why tarriest thou? — death may prevent your professing your faith. 6thly, A few words respecting the mode of baptism, and I take leave of tins instructive example. The testimony is short, but not doubtful. Baptism must be administered, not by sprinkling, but by immersion. What is baptism? It is not sprinkling, it is washing. “Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins." How is the person of Saul to be washed? By immersion. “Arise, be immersed, and, by immersion, wash away thy sins." Thus we have seen, that the baptism of Saul is in perfect harmony with the commission, and with the practice of the Apostles. Acts 10:23-24. “And on the morrow Peter went away with them, (the three messengers of Cornelius), and certain brethren from Joppa accompanied him. And the morrow after they entered into Cesarea. And Cornelius waited for them, and had called together his kinsmen and near friends. Verse 33" Now therefore, (said Cornelius), are we all here present before God, to hear all things that are commanded thee of God. Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, — Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons; but in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him. The word which God sent unto the children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ: (he is Lord of all:) That word, I say, ye know, which was published throughout all Judea, and began from Galilee, after the baptism which John preached; how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost, and with power; who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him. And we are witnesses of all things which he did both in the land of the Jews, and in Jerusalem; whom they slew and hanged on a tree: Him God raised up the third day, and showed him openly; not to all the people, but unto witnesses chosen before of God, even to us, who did eat and drink with him after he rose from the dead. And he commanded us to preach unto the people, and to testify that it is he which was ordained of God to be the Judge of quick and dead. To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him, shall receive remission of sins. While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify 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. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days."
Acts 11:14 — 18. “Who (Peter) shall tell thee words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved. And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning. Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost. Forasmuch, then, as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; what was I, that I could withstand God? When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life."
1st, In this example, we have additional evidence of the perpetuity of water-baptism. Some perhaps need to be informed that the perpetuity of this ordinance has been denied. The gift of the Holy Ghost, it is alleged, supersedes the necessity of water-baptism. But the opinion is erroneous. The facts in this history prove, beyond a doubt, that water-baptism is not superseded by the gift of the Holy Ghost. In this case, the gift of the Spirit preceded the administration of water-baptism. According to the opinion under refutation, the centurion and his relatives should not have been baptized with water, for already they had received the Spirit. But the gift of the Spirit is the very reason assigned by Peter for immersing them in water. Instead of saying that water was unnecessary, because the Gentiles had been baptized with the Holy Ghost, lie says the very reverse. The words speak for themselves. Acts 10:47, “Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?" Acts 11:15, “And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning." Ver. 17, “Forasmuch, then, as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; what was I, that I could withstand God?" The inconsistency of this error with the doctrine of the example is sufficiently manifest.
2dly, The design of baptism is illustrated, as well as confirmed, by this example. It was when the Holy Ghost fell on his hearers, that Peter commanded them to be baptized. They had received the truth. The descent of the Holy Ghost was the proof, and baptism was the symbol of that reception.
3dly, The qualifications of the baptized are, according to the example, knowledge and faith. In obedience to his commission, Peter teaches or preaches before he administers baptism. Cornelius and his relatives were instructed before they were baptized. Farther, previous to their baptism they believed what they were taught. Their faith is implied in the angel’s words to the centurion: “Peter shall tell thee words whereby thou and all thy house shall he saved;" and still more emphatically in the Holy Ghost falling on them. Salvation by the Gospel implies faith: “He who believes it shall be saved."
4thly, The privileges and duties connected with baptism are summarily comprehended in the formula, “being baptized in the name of the Lord."
5thly, By this example, infants are excluded from the ordinance of baptism. This assertion has been denied, and the baptism of Cornelius has been adduced as a plea for infant sprinkling. It is not alleged that we have express notice either of infants or of their sprinkling. It is the words of the angel that are insisted on. Acts 11:14, “Send men to Joppa, and call for Simon, whose surname is Peter; who shall tell thee words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved." The house of Cornelius is supposed to contain infants, and that these infants were baptized along with himself. The diligent inquirer is prepared, without assistance, to give the answer. The plea rests on two suppositions, both equally groundless. The first is, that there are infants in every house; the second, that infants were baptized. The supposition that there must have been infants in the house of the centurion is groundless. Every where there are some families without infants. The second supposition is not better supported than the first. There is no evidence that the infants (supposing that there were infants in the family), were baptized. No conclusion can be drawn from groundless suppositions. No conscientious worshipper will observe, as an institution of God, that of which he cannot be fully satisfied in his own mind. Here the matter might safely be left; but there are two sentences in the history, which, separately, and much more together, determine the question for the opposite side. The house referred to by the angel consisted of adults. The first sentence occurs Acts 10:24, “And Cornelius waited for them, and had called together his kinsmen and near friends.’ And when Peter arrived, the centurion addressed him as follows: “Now, therefore, are we all here present before God, to hear all things that are commanded thee of God." This, then, is the house of Cornelius — his kinsmen and near friends; all present before God, to hear all things that were commanded the apostle of God. The other sentence is still more decisive. It occurs Acts 11:14, “Peter shall tell thee words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved." How was the centurion to be saved? In the use of what means? By the words, (the angel answers), which he should hear from Peter. And how was his house to be saved? By hearing the same words. Infants cannot be saved by hearing words. Yet all the centurion’s house were saved in this way. The case is rendered, if possible, still more evident by the history of the actual administration of the ordinance. Acts 10:44, "While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word" — all the centurion’s kinsmen and near friends." And who, in fact, were baptized? Peter gives the answer, “Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we." These, and none else, were baptized. They spoke with tongues, and magnified God, and prayed Peter to tarry certain days.
We learn, from this example, that infants cannot be baptized, because infants cannot answer the design, possess the qualifications, discharge the duties, or enjoy the privileges connected with baptism. The Cesarean baptism is an example of believer-baptism; and all who acknowledge the obligation of Scripture example, must acknowledge the obligation of believers to be baptized on their faith. Is it objected, that if men believe, they shall be saved, whether they be or be not baptized? This example makes answer, that the possession of grace is a reason for observing, not for neglecting baptism. Though Cornelius and his relatives had received the Holy Ghost, yet are they commanded to be baptized, nay, for this very reason, because they had received the Holy Ghost. This example, with those which precede, is in harmony as to the mode of baptism. The ground of this assertion is the primary, and in the Scriptures, the exclusive meaning of the word “baptize.’’ The historian says they were baptized, that is, they were immersed in the name of the Lord.
I am called here, as in some other examples, to take notice of a very common objection. We are said to be baptized with the Holy Ghost; and in this place the Spirit is said to fall, to be poured out, to be received, to be given, in the same way in which He is said to be poured out on the day of Pentecost. Now, say the advocates for sprinkling, is there not some resemblance supposed (when we are said to be baptized with the Holy Ghost), between these expressions and the mode of baptism? I answer, 1st, When it is said by the Baptist and by our Lord that he (Christ) should baptize with the Holy Ghost, the contrast is between the sign and the thing signified. John gave the sign; Christ gave the thing signified. 2dly, The expressions falling, sending, coming, resting, pouring of the Spirit, and the like, are all figurative, and cannot be used to explain the material act of baptism. Indeed, there is no resemblance between speaking different languages, healing the sick, knowing mysteries, faith, hope, charity, and the other gifts and graces of the Spirit, and either sprinkling, pouring, or immersion. The Holy Ghost, the Author of these gifts and graces, is God, and can neither be poured nor sprinkled. 3dly, The figures, pouring, falling, and the like, are obviously borrowed from the fine oil, water, and the other types of the Old Dispensation. They must be explained accordingly. 4thly, The preposition with literally signifies in. Thus, Jobn baptized in Jordan in water, but ye shall be baptized in the Holy Ghost. Immersion is meant. 5thly, The mode of baptism cannot be learned from figures, but from the language and facts in the simple narratives, all of which lead us to immersion. This example calls our attention to a topic not yet touched, viz. the administrators of baptism. Till now no administrator has been expressly mentioned excepting John, the disciples of Christ, the apostles, and Ananias. The words are, Acts 10:48, “And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord." Invert the order of the words, and they intimate that the apostle, by commandment of the Lord to himself, ordered the Cesareans to be baptized. But the inversion is both unnatural and unnecessary. The most natural meaning is, that the apostle gave orders that they should be baptized in the name of the Lord, and that he did not intend in person to baptize them, or at least all of them. On examining the context, we find that there were at Cesarea other disciples besides Peter. Acts 10:23, “And on the morrow Peter went away with them, and certain brethren from Joppa accompanied him." Acts 11:12, “Moreover, these six brethren accompanied me, and we (viz. Peter and these brethren) entered into the man’s house." These brethren, therefore, from Joppa were, it is probable, the administrators. This is a hint from the Spirit which ought not to be overlooked. Amongst other practical purposes, it serves to throw light on some passages comparatively obscure. These administrators are designated neither as apostles nor elders, but as brethren, simply; and if, by orders of the apostle, brethren baptized at Cesarea, they might, by the same authority, baptize at Pentecost; and they may baptize still.
Farther, if men not in office may baptize, it deserves to be considered, whether we are at liberty to find fault with brethren who, in some extraordinary cases, dispense the supper, though not invested with official authority. Something of the same kind seems to be hinted by Paul, 1Co 1:13, “Were ye baptized in the name of Paul? I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius; lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name. And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other. For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the Gospel." The meaning seems to be, that Paul was chiefly employed in preaching j that the baptisms were administered, most generally, by his attendants, Timothy, Titus, Silas, Mark, and others, whether in office or not. Ananias, who administered baptism to Paul himself, was, for any thing we know, a disciple not in office. The historian describes him merely as a disciple. It ought to be observed, that all these descriptions are given by the Spirit for practical purposes. The designation is this: "And there was a certain disciple at Damascus, named Ananias; and the Lord said unto him, Arise," &c. Acts 22:12, “And one Ananias, a devout man according to the law, having a good report of all the Jews which dwelt there, came unto me, and stood, and said unto me, Brother Saul, receive thy sight." The evidence is not exhausted, but enough has been said for my present purpose. Baptism is usually administered by official men; but it may also be administered by others.