CHISM OF THE WESTMINSTER ASSEMBLY OF DIVINES-ADDRESSED TO YOUTH.

LECTURE LXXI.

We now resume the consideration of the answer to the 94th question of our Catechism, namely, "Baptism is a sacrament wherein the washing with water in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, doth signify and seal our engrafting into Christ, and partaking of the benefits of the covenant of grace, and our engagement to be the Lord's."

In appointing baptism to be the introductory ordinance of the visible Christian church, our Lord wisely adopted a rite, with the formal part of which the primitive Jewish believers were already familiar. The Mosaick dispensation itself abounded in ceremonial purifications, by the application of water; to which, indeed, unauthorized tradition had made burdensome additions, that our Saviour disregarded and condemned. It appears, moreover, that when gentile proselytes were received into the Jewish church, they were not only circumcised, but washed or baptized with water-the former by divine direction, the latter without it; yet, as strikingly sigCh. Adv.-VOL. X.

from their former idolatrous pollutions. The forerunner of our blessed Lord was called the Baptist, or Baptizer,* because it was a part of his commission to administer the baptism of repentance for sin, to those who received his doctrine and professed to be waiting for the appearance of the Messiah.

When our Lord therefore, after his resurrection and immediately before his ascension into heaven, commissioned his apostles, and through them the ministers of the gospel "to the end of the world," to administer baptism to believers of "all nations"-for till now it had been confined to the Jewshe needed only to declare the nature and design of the institution, since the mode of its administration was already fully known.

Theologians have been divided, as to the proper answer to the inquiry, whether John's baptism was the same as Christian baptism; that is, the same as that which our Lord commanded his disciples to administer, after his resurrection. In the beginning of the nineteenth chapter of the Acts of the Apostles, we have this record,

"1 And it came to pass, that while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts, came to Ephesus; and finding certain disciples,

"2 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. "3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.

"4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, That they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.

"5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

"6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied."

Those who maintain that John's baptism and Christian baptism did not differ in any thing material, insist that the fifth verse in this quotation, is to be considered as affirming that those who had received John's baptism did, by the mere hearing and believing the statement of the Apostle Paul, become "baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus." This I confess has always appeared to me a forced and unnatural construction of a plain passage of sacred Scripture.* I must

In the criticism on the original of the sacred text, on which is founded the opi: nion of Beza, L. Infant, and other learned men, who favour the construction which I oppose, much reliance is placed on the correspondence, which they affirm is always observed, between the Greek particles, ev, in the 4th verse, and de in the 5th verse: this, it is affirmed, proves satisfactorily, that these two verses are to be considered as the continued language of Paul. But the investigations of Griesback have led him to reject the particle sy altogether, and to expel it from the sacred text, as plainly a spurious addition. If this be a just decision, as it

also say, with Dr. Doddridge, that "I think it evident beyond all dispute, that the baptism of John and of Christ, were in their own nature quite different; and that it is plain, in fact, that when persons were converted to Christianity, they were baptized of course, without inquiring whether they had, or had not, received the baptism of John, which we know vast multitudes did, (Matt. iii. 5, 6.) who probably afterwards received Christian baptism. Compare Acts ii. 38-41; iv. 4; vi. 7." The comment of Scott on the 5th and 6th verses of the above quotation, seems to me so candid, judicious, and satisfactory, that I shall close what I have to offer on this point -one which is important though not essential-with quoting it at large.

When, &c.-Several learned criticks, of different sentiments concerning baptism, have argued that these are the words [in the 5th verse,] of Paul, showing the disciples, that when John baptized those who heard his doctrine, he virtually baptized them in the name of Jesus; and not the words of the historian relating the baptism of these persons, subsequent to the apostle's instruction of them. Some of those who first contended for this interpretation, did it out of zeal against such as they called Re-baptizers, lest they should adduce this example in support of their practice. But by maintaining the baptism of John and the baptism of Christ to be entirely the same, they have furnished their opponents with a far more plausible argument, than that which they wanted to wrest from them. But, however that may be, I cannot think that any impartial man, who never heard of these controversies, would, either from reading

probably is, the main support of Beza's opinion is at once entirely subverted. Paul's language is confined to the 4th yerse; in the 5th the historian speaks.

validity of the ordinance, that these very words of the original institution be used in every instance of its administration. The Greek preposition, s (eis), which, in the common version of our bible is, in this place, rendered in, properly denotes into, and is so rendered in many other pas sages of the New Testament. Christians are therefore baptized "into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost;" and I have met with nothing more satisfactory, in explanation of the important and solemn import of this sacred formula of Christian baptism, than that which is given by Scott, in the following passage of his commentary:-"The Apostles and preachers of the gospel were ordered to baptize those who embraced the gospel, into the name (not names) of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. This is a most irrefragable proof of the doctrine of the Trinity; that is, of the Deity of the Son, and of the distinct personality and Deity of the Holy Spirit; for it would be absurd to suppose that a mere man or creature, or a mere modus, or quality of God, should be joined with the Father, in the one name, into which all Christians are baptized. To be baptized into the name of any one, implies a professed dependence on him, and devoted subjection to him: to be baptized, therefore, into the "name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost," implies a professed dependance on these three divine Persons, jointly and equally, and a devoting of ourselves to them as worshippers and servants. This is proper and obvious, upon the supposition of the mysterious unity of three coequal persons in the unity of the Godhead; but not to be accounted for on any other principles. Christianity is the religion of a sinner, who relies for salvation from wrath and sin, on the mercy of the Father, through the

person and atonement of the incarnate Son, and by the sanctification of the Holy Spirit; and who, in consequence, gives up himself to be the worshipper and servant of the triune JEHOVAH, in all his ordinances and commandments; that according to the ancient and excellent Doxology, "Glory may be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost; as it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be."

The answer before us farther states, that baptism "doth signify and seal our engrafting into Christ, and partaking of the benefits of the covenant of grace, and our engagement to be the Lord's."

1. It signifies and seals our engrafting into Christ. It has been justly remarked, that baptism does not constitute a visible subject, but only recognsies one already existing; it does not introduce an individual into the covenant of grace, but it signifies that he is already there. It seals a covenant already formed, and which, indeed, would not admit of a seal, if it were not previously made, and prepared for sealing. Abraham had "the righteousness of faith," before he was circumcised; Cornelius "feared God and was accepted of him," before he was baptized; and every adult candidate for baptism ought to give credible evidence of being born of God, before he is admitted to the ordinance. The infant seed of professing Christians, in virtue of their parent's faith and standing, are born members of the visible church, and are considered as partakers of those benefits of the covenant of grace which belong to the offspring of believers, before they are baptized: and hence it appears, that when professing Christians have not had a proper opportunity to offer their children in baptism, and they die without it, no fear or regret should be indulged by their parents. Their children were born within the co

venant, and no duty has been neglected, if a fit occasion for affixing the outward seal has not occurred. If indeed such opportunity has been enjoyed, and yet neglected, then the guilt of the parent is unquestionable-guilt which it still may be hoped will not affect the future state of the child, but which, if not repented of, will sure ly affect that of the sinful parent. It clearly follows, also, from the fact that a participation of the grace of God is supposed to precede baptism, that this ordinance cannot be essential to salvation. Many, doubtless, have been partakers of the saving grace of God, who have died without baptism. The penitent thief, on the cross, was, we know, an example of this kind. Yet when this, or any other plain duty, is deliberately, wilfully, or carelessly neglected, it may well occasion doubts and fears in the minds of the neglecters, that they are not, and never have been, sharers in the saving grace of God. Another remark may here find its proper place; namely, that as among men there are certain transactions which can be rendered valid only when the evidence of them is sealed by the proper civil officer, so our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ has commissioned none but his ministers to affix the baptismal seal of the covenant of grace, and has commanded that they be accounted as stewards of the mysteries of God;" and therefore it is on good and scriptural authority that our Confession of Faith teaches [chap. xxvii. sec. 4.] "that neither of the sacraments may be dispensed by any, but by a minister of the word, lawfully ordained." And as there is no command, and no adequate example for the repetition of baptism, our Confession of Faith also declares, in the chapter just cited, that "The sacrament of baptism is but once to be administered to any person;" and that "by Christ's own ap

pointment, it is to be continued in his church until the end of the world."

2. Baptism signifies and seals a "partaking of the benefits of the covenant of grace." This follows of course, from being ingrafted into Christ, as members of his mystical body, and the head of that gracious covenant which has been ratified in his blood. The Apostle Paul, in his epistle to the Gallatians (Gal. iii. 27.)] says, "As many of you as have been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ." Compare this with Romans iii. 22. where the same Apostle declares that "the righteousness of God, which is by faith of Jesus Christ, is unto all, and upon all them that believe," and you will see that the union with Christ which baptism signifies and seals to every believer, assures to him the inestimable benefit of being clothed upon with the Redeemer's perfect righteousness, and consequently of justification from the condemning sentence of the law, with the favour of God, and all the blessings of time and eternity which are promised in the covenant of grace. The benefits of this covenant are justly stated in our Larger Catechism to be, "remission of sins by the blood of Christ; regeneration by his Spirit, adoption and resurrection unto life everlasting." Our Confession of Faith also very properly reminds us, that "The efficacy of baptism is not tied to that moment of time in which it is administered; yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised, is not only offered, but really exhibited and conferred, by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants,) as that grace belongeth unto, according to the counsel of God's own will, in his appointed time."

3. A solemn "engagement to be the Lord's" is contracted by all who receive the sacrament of baptism. It may be considered as the