By JOSEPH IRONS (1819-1852).
Sent for publication by Rev. Wm. MacLean, Ness.—Editor.
THE Church of God on earth is in a state of training to join the Church Triumphant above, and there are two important lessons to learn and to be kept perpetually in view, namely the great sacrifice by which redemption is completed, and the great work by which it is communicated; or in a word, the work of Christ for us, and the work of Christ in us. These being the prominent features of the glorious scheme which originated in the everlasting love of God to man, it has pleased the author of salvation to appoint two outstanding ordinances for the express purpose of representing those unspeakable blessings.
These ordinances are coeval with the organisation of the Church, and though like the Church itself, they have changed their external form and outward administration, their design has always been the same, and their use in the Church has the authority of the divine command, which has never been revoked.
In the Old Testament state of the Church these ordinances were called Circumcision and the Passover—in the New Testament state of the Church they are called Baptism and the Lord’s Supper. The first of these is to be the subject of this epistle, and I pray the Holy Spirit to direct my mind to a clear statement of it, so as to fortify you against human inventions and to import the instruction and pleasure for which it was intended.
The direct way to understand this ordinance is first, to enquire into its design, and then to consider its adaptation to that design. The obvious and only design of water baptism is to represent and prefigure the baptism of the Holy Spirit, the communication of divine influence to the soul in regeneration which is a truth too little insisted upon among professing Christians, although it forms an essential feature in the economy of grace, and in the true meaning of many portions of Scripture which speak of baptism, such as “being baptised into Christ.” It is grossly absurd to suppose that baptism represents the death, burial and resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, for then we should have two ordinances to represent the leading scheme of redemption and none to instruct us in the other, but while this important truth is set forth in the Lord’s Supper, Baptism is the significant emblem of the purifying influence of the Holy Ghost, and designed exclusively to point out His holy operations upon the heart, applying the precious blood of Christ to remove our defilement and constitute us spiritual worshippers, which is the same thing as the circumcision of the heart.
We have often been told that saving faith must precede water baptism, but on what authority such an assertion rests I know not, as I cannot find it in Scripture, for the utmost requisition made by the apostles was an acknowledgment that Jesus was the Messiah, and that related only to adult persons who, as Jews or heathen, had denied Him.
It must be admitted that the Holy Spirit baptises infants with His cleansing grace, or they could not be admitted to the pure society of the glorified family above; and where is the Christian who, with his Bible in his hand, would doom the whole multitude of dying infants to perdition? As therefore the atonement of Christ provides full satisfaction for their original guilt, and the Holy Spirit baptises them with His influence, there must be a manifest inconsistency in refusing them the emblem of water baptism.
There is no truth in the whole range of theology more plain to me than that the initiating ordinance of the Church of God in all ages belongs to infants, and in whatever form or manner the ordinance is administered, its proper subjects must continue the same until they are excluded by the same authority which appointed them; and I do not know of one sentence in the Sacred Volume which suggests such an exclusion, or militates in the least degree against the practice of baptising infants.
On the contrary, it appears to me obvious that God has commanded that His people should dedicate their infant seed to Him by an ordinance of His own appointing, and has never revoked that command, also that the ordinance He appointed for that purpose is the very same in spirit and design under both the Old and New Testament dispensations; so that it is surprising that it should ever have been a subject of controversy. Should it be objected that infants cannot understand the nature of a divine ordinance, and therefore ought not to participate in it, such an objection amounts to an impeachment of divine wisdom and sets divine authority at defiance, for infants could no more understand the nature of this ordinance when God gave them a right to it under the Old Testament form than they can now.
There are, indeed, several portions of the New Testament which (by perverted interpretation) have become stumblingblocks to young Christians and appear to support the contracted system which rejects both the proper subjects and mode of baptism. The baptism of Christ by John is often brought forward in this way, but not the shadow of evidence is found, either that Jesus was immersed, or that He abrogated the divine command relative to this ordinance, but on the contrary, His express design was (to use His own words) “to fulfil all righteousness,” that is, to finish and close up John’s ministry with His divine sanction.
The Apostle’s phraseology is also among the commonly perverted texts on this subject: “Buried with Him in baptism.” Now this expression can have no reference to water baptism, but points exclusively to the baptism of the Holy Ghost, which separates us from the world as those who are dead to it. But even if it did refer to water baptism, it should be observed that the Redeemer was not plunged nor put under water or earth, but carried into a cave hewn in a rock, so that there could be no reference to baptism, unless it were in the anointing of His body, which certainly more resembled sprinkling than dipping.
Moreover, “going down into the water, and coming up out of it” are phrases on which much stress is laid, as though they must signify immersion, but the learned inform us that the original would be as correctly rendered “went down to” and “came up from” it. However, without departing from the plain English version, it is evident to a child that he can go down into the water without going under it, and that he can go straightway into a river until the water reaches his knees or his loins, without being dipped or plunged. In fact, there are many similar perversions which are in themselves puerile, and carry us so remote from the ordinance that I trust my dear Enoch will not allow his mind to be disturbed by them, but turn his whole attention to that momentous question, “Have ye received the Holy Ghost?” This is the baptism which cleanses away the pollution of sin and seals all the blessings of the covenant to the soul.
It has also been said that the word “baptise” invariably signifies “dip” or “immerse,” but if this were true, we might read “dip” wherever the word “baptise” occurs in Scripture which would make the language of Scripture preposterously absurd. Notice one text among many, “I indeed baptise you with water, but He shall baptise you with the Holy Ghost and with fire.” Now read this text with the word “dip” instead of “baptise”: I indeed dip you with water, but He shall dip you with the Holy Ghost and with fire. Commonsense is insulted with such a change, and I am grieved that such a perversion of the word should ever be attempted, since its obvious sense is to wash, which we know is done by applying water to the person or thing washed.
Nor is there any difficulty in my mind respecting the mode of administering this ordinance. We have only to attend to the design of it, and if we are to be dipped into the Holy Ghost, then we will dip our infants into the watery emblem; but if the influence of the Holy Ghost is poured out upon us, then we will pour the watery emblem upon our infants in baptism.
I have no wish to decide upon the quantity of water which shall be used, whether a few drops, a shower, or a flood. But I am tenacious of its proper mode of administration, because doctrinal truth is connected with it. If I were an Arminian, I would direct the person to be baptised to apply to the water, as an emblem of his applying the Holy Ghost for his baptism; but as I believe the Holy Ghost communicates His influence to passives, always unsought in the first instance, I must apply the water to the person in baptism in the only way of setting forth the thing signified. Let Arminians half-baptise themselves with the Holy Ghost; then let their minister perform the other half of the ordinance, corresponding with their expectation that the Holy Ghost will complete what they begin. But you, my dear Enoch, “have not so learned Christ,” you will see in your own helpless, passive, unconscious state, when baptised with water, a striking emblem of your spiritual baptism, which was wholly the work of the Holy Ghost shedding forth His influence upon you, in which you took no active part, or even moved toward Him. And as often as you witness the baptism of an infant, you will receive a new lesson of the importance of being daily baptised with His holy unction.
The surest way to avoid the gross perversions of this sacred ordinance, which have perplexed the minds of many young Christians, is to look through the shadow to the substance, and invoke the baptism of the Holy Ghost in the use of the emblem. Never give the importance to the external rite which belongs only to the fundamental doctrine taught in this ordinance, namely the office and work of the Holy Ghost. Then you will be proof against controversial sophistry, and find every portion of Sacred Writ which relates to this ordinance in perfect harmony with the mode of baptising passives, that is, by the application of the water to the body, “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.”
The Holy Spirit’s baptism is set forth is a variety of expressions which imply the communications of His influence to the person, but none which give any idea of the person being immersed into His influence. I have been particularly struck with the following phrases, “descending” (John i. 32), “pouring” (Acts ii. 17), “shedding forth” (Acts ii. 33), “falling” (Acts xi. 15), “anointing” (Acts x. 38), “giving” (Acts xv. 8), “sealing” (Eph. i. 13), “breathing” (John xx. 22). All these relate to the Holy Spirit’s baptism, and are to me quite sufficient to decide the mode.
Turn a deaf ear to every wanton attempt to disturb your peace with human inventions, and anticipate daily the promised baptism of the Holy Ghost which is so strikingly described by Ezekial: “Then I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean; from all your idols will I cleanse you” (Ezek. xxxvi. 25).