BRO SMITH:—I would be glad if you or some one could give me some light on baptism. Who shall administer this ordinance? Shall it be a minister, or brother of like precious faith?
I was baptized when I did not have a correct understanding of the law of God. That is not all; if I am informed right, the minister taught the abolition of the law—the ten commandments. The question in my mind is, Is this baptism valid in the sight of God? We all must know that God is not the God of confusion. See 1 Cor. xv, 33. Then God has not chosen one to teach the abolition of his law, another to teach a change in his law, and a third to teach the perpetuity of it; for this would verily make confusion. Then but one of the three can be right. Therefore shall we not be baptized by those of like precious faith? And what shall be done in case that a minister cannot be had?
Do we not have an example of re-baptism in Acts xix, 1-7? Nothing is said but that those twelve were strictly honest, and lived up to all the light they had, yet they were re-baptized, because they had not knowledge of him that should come after John. I think it will be seen by reading Acts xviii, 24-28, that they were Apollos' disciples. This Apollos is here said to be mighty in the Scriptures, and instructed in the way of the Lord; yet he knew only the baptism of John. But the way of God was expounded unto him more perfectly. Did he receive it? He did; for he mightily convinced the Jews, publicly showing by the Scriptures that Jesus is the Christ.
Will some one that has the light here, give it through the Review, or in a private letter, if they choose? A. G. CARTER. Rubicon, Wis.173
ANSWER.—As these diverse views of the law of God tend to confusion on one of the most important subjects in the Bible, and as God is not the author of confusion, it cannot be his will that these diverse views should be taught. And it must be apparent to all that we countenance the confusion, and of course the error from which it arises, by acknowledging the propagators of the error as ministers of the gospel of Christ, authorized to administer baptism, &c. From the force of this remark no one can escape by asserting his call from God to the work of the ministry;
for even if that be established, we have the evidence of the word that some are called to this work who will be finally cut off for their slothfulness and wickedness. See Matt. xxiv, 45-51. We therefore judge that the fact of any one having been called of God to preach his word, is no more evidence that all is truth and in accordance with the will of God that is declared by the person so called, than the fact that God calls on all to repent, is evidence that all do repent. Acts xvii, 30. He is the minister of Christ who does his will; but he who acts contrary to the will of God will be rejected of him; and a call to the work of God, instead of extenuating, really aggravates the wrong. Our duty to such is indicated in the scriptures. Rom. xvi, 16; 1 Cor. v, 11; 2 John 10.
The relevancy of these scriptures to the subject now under consideration will be evident when we consider the object and place of baptism.
And first, its object, as declared in the scriptures. It is for (“in order to the arrival at, or possession of,”—Webster) the remission of sin. But inasmuch as there is no promise of remission without repentance, (which we take to be equivalent to a reformation, or sorrow for, and forsaking of, sin, Matt. iii, 8, margin; 2 Cor. vii, 9-11,) it cannot be proper to administer baptism when the candidate has not, by repentance and obedience, become a subject of remission. The scripture examples of baptism will clearly show this. See Acts ii, 37-47; viii, 5-12, 35-39; ix, 17, 18; comp. with xxii, 14-16; x, 43-48; xvi, 13-15, 29-34; xviii, 7, 8; xix, 1-7; also the expressions of the following texts: Rom. vi, 3-5; Col. ii, 12.
Second, its place in the gospel plan. But these points are intimately connected, since its place can only be determined by a careful examination of the position occupied by the person baptized. This subject is presented in a pamphlet entitled, The Law of God, pages 61-67; but as that is designed to show that Paul teaches the perpetuity of the law, which in this article we take as granted, we will examine the testimony of Rom. vi, 1-5.
"Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein? 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 up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection."
In this scripture and its contexts the condition of Christ and the believer is brought to view: they are dead, or rather have died, for Christ is raised from the dead. Christ died to sin, (for, or on account of, sin,) and the believer dies with him. But Christ died literally and in fact, while the believer dies only figuratively, or reckons himself to be dead. Verse 11. And as Christ was raised from the dead immortal, death hath no more dominion over him, so the believer is said to be dead, freed from sin, crucified with Christ, having the body of sin destroyed. Verses 6, 7. Life and death are opposite states; and as the dead are where there is no device, [Eccl. ix, 10,] and of course must have ceased the works of life, so he who dies to sin, or is reckoned dead with Christ, must have ceased to sin. This is the condition indicated by the figure, and declared in the text. By this we do not understand that he will become "perfect" or complete before baptism is administered, for Paul pressed forward towards perfection, and all were exhorted to grow in grace. The idea prominently presented throughout these chapters is, that the sinner must recognize, and yield to, the claims of the law. In this light the subject would be plain to all the world, had they not lost sight of scripture facts, and substituted fancies in their places, and making sin something indefinite and indescribable, instead of the transgression of the law.
But if the claims of the law must be acknowledged and yielded to before the sinner is entitled to the remission of past transgressions, it cannot be right to administer to him the ordinance which shows forth his death to sin and his union to Christ, before he has died to sin; for as Christ is not the minister of sin but of righteousness, there is no possibility of being joined to him, without first dying to sin, or of being buried with him by baptism into death, while living the same old life of transgression. See especially verse 5: "For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection." This is "that form of doctrine" spoken of in verse 17. The order is found in 1 Cor. xv, 34: "For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures: and that he was buried, and he rose again the third day according to the scriptures."
Now there is no likeness to this in first being buried, then dying, &c. Those who have been baptized while disregarding the claims of the law, and of course under the condemnation of the law, have not obeyed the form of doctrine delivered in the scriptures; and the illustration in Rom. vii, 1-4, bears upon them with all its force. Says the Apostle to his brethren: "Ye are also become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God." Whiting says, that ye might be married to another.
That being married to another, (to Christ,) here refers to baptism, is evident from Gal. iii, 27: "For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ;" and from the scriptures speaking of being baptized in his name. In this ordinance the believer puts on Christ, becomes a member of his body, and takes his name upon him, even as the woman, in marriage, takes the name of her husband, and becomes one with him. Eph. v, 28-31.
And the question now arises, Can we be married to Christ before we die to sin, or to the law? (for these expressions signify the same thing.) This has already been answered in another form by the scriptures showing that we cannot live unto God, or walk in newness of life, while we continue to transgress the law. But it is further answered in Rom. vii, 2, 3: "For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband, so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress."
The conclusion is drawn in verse 4, as before quoted. The believer has "become dead to the law by the body of Christ," or has died to sin, been "crucified with Christ, that the body of sin might be destroyed," and thus freed from the condemnation of the law, that he might be married to another; but without such change in his condition, he might not be married to another; for we may not "take the members of Christ and make them the members of an harlot," or stand as a member of the body of Christ while convicted of adultery. And it must be the imperative duty of all to correct their errors or cease to occupy this offensive position, as soon as the light of the truth brings the knowledge of sin. This can only be done by "being buried with Christ by baptism into death," and thus obey that form of doctrine which has been delivered to us in the sacred word.
Here it is proper to notice the prejudice (we can call it nothing else) that exists against rebaptism. That it was practised by the Apostle, as recorded in Acts xix, there can be no doubt; the question that remains is, What circumstances will justify us in following the example? Of the propriety of baptizing those who have been sprinkled, either in their infancy or at any other time, scarcely a word need be said; as that is not baptism, to such it would not be rebaptism. But as Dr. Clarke's comment has a hearing beyond that point, it should be noticed. In his note on Acts xix, 5, he says: "It is an awful thing to iterate baptism when it had been before essentially performed: by essentially performed, I mean administered by sprinkling, washing, or plunging, by or in the name of the Father, Son, and Spirit, being invoked at the time."
The position that Dr. Clarke takes on verse 5, is essentially contradicted by his note of verse 2; but of this I have not time now to speak further than to say that the entire wrong rests on those who perform the ceremony contrary to the authority of scripture, either in regard to the mode or subject, whether it be first or second. However others may regard it, I have ever looked upon it as a very serious matter for a man to say to any person, "I baptize thee in the name of the Father," &c., and then venture (sprinkle) them, without any authority from the Lord for so doing. This appears to me to be taking his name in vain; but this unauthorized ceremony cannot invalidate or render unnecessary the authorized scripture ordinance; for no error can render its opposite truth useless or inoperative.
This position, so far as it regards sprinkling, has been acknowledged and acted upon by Baptists, and the principle has been acknowledged by all denominations, but of course not applied to this subject. But the mode is not the only essential in the ordinance; and from the argument contained in Rom. vi and vii, it is evidently duty for a person to be baptized in the order and for the purpose specified in the gospel plan, though he may have been baptized twenty times out of that order, and for other purposes.
The order every where observed and taught in the scriptures, as belonging to the Lord's house, would indicate that a person should be authorized before administering baptism. This is necessary to prevent confusion and trials in the church. As the teachers of the present truth are not numerous, and there are but few places as yet where it is possible to have local Elders, we may be subjected to more or less inconvenience in this matter, as we also are in others. In regard to your own circumstances, we can say, there will doubtless be some of the Lord's messengers in that part of the country this Spring. As others have also queried on these points, we have suffered these remarks to extend to such length that it will be impossible at this time to notice the point of the honesty or sincerity of the person unscripturally baptized, but will notice it at another time. J. H. W.