Page images
PDF
EPUB

FROM

NOTES ON BAPTISMAL REGENERATION.

ANGLO-CATHOLICISM, BY W. LINDSAY ALEXANDER, D.D.
First Series.

ONE of the best books to which the Tractarian controversy gave birth twenty years ago, was Dr. Alexander's "Anglo-Catholicism not Apostolical." The author sifted and stated the doctrines which were contained in the "Tracts for the Times," with calmness and clearness; and in the same spirit and style he examined the grounds on which these doctrines were based. In discussing the subject of baptismal regeneration, he laid down two preliminary principles: 1. The word baptize, as used by the sacred writers, does not necessarily imply the application of water to the person. That word does not mean, he contends, either to immerse, or to pour, or to sprinkle. As used in the New Testament, it denotes to cleanse, to purify generally, in whatever way, and by whatever means that may be effected. And if this be the case, "It is obvious that, from the mere use, in any given instance, of the word baptize, or its cognates, we cannot justly infer that it is of a rite performed upon the person that the word is employed." 2. We are very emphatically told, that the grand distinction between the baptism of John and the baptism of Christ lay in this-that the former was by water, whilst the latter is by the Spirit. "It does not certainly follow from this, as some have rashly concluded, that baptism with water is no part of the religion of Christ; but from such statements we surely cannot do less than infer (1.) That where, in the New Testament, baptism is spoken of absolutely, the presumption

is that it is to the baptism of the Spirit that reference is made; and (2.) That the place occupied by water-baptism in the Christian system, is one of a merely subordinate character; in other words, that the rite derives its worth not from anything in itself, but solely from its relation as a sign or symbol to that spiritual baptism-that 'repentance unto life' which it is the grand design of Christianity to confer."

Having stated and maintained these principles, Dr. Alexander proceeds to consider the texts on which Dr. Pusey, in his tract "On Baptism," laid the chief stress as favourable to his views, and which he regarded as directly teaching the doctrine of baptismal efficacy. We give his exposition of these texts almost in full, and commend it earnestly to all who would know what the mind of Christ is on this great subject.

The first text which Dr. Pusey is John iii. 5:

urges

66

'Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.' By 'water' in this passage, he understands our Lord to mean baptismal water; and in this light he quotes our Lord's words, as containing a decided declaration as to the regenerating power of baptism. On this I observe, 1st. That even admitting the catholic interpretation of this passage, I do not see that it will greatly serve the object for which it is adduced. The point to be proved is, that outward baptism has power to regenerate those

to whom it is applied; that is, that a properly qualified person has only to administer the baptismal waters in order directly, ipso facto, to regenerate the party receiving the rite. Now, where is the countenance given to this doctrine in the passage before us ? Our Lord does not say that water, by itself, without the Spirit, will regenerate; nor does He intimate that the application of water to the person secures the agency of the Spirit on the mind. He simply affirms that both water and the Spirit (supposing them different) are necessary to regeneration. Now, one might logically enough infer from this, that, on the catholic explanation of the word water, baptism is essential to salvation; but to infer from it that baptism will of itself save [or regenerate] is clearly illegitimate. If I were to say 'Except a man understand and believe the Gospel he cannot be saved,' it would be a just inference from my words, that the understanding of the Gospel is essential to salvation; but if any were to explain my statement as affirming that a mere understanding of the Gospel was enough to save a man, I should justly complain that my meaning had been perverted. I conceive the case before us to be quite analogous. If by water,' our Lord, in this passage, means baptism, He certainly teaches that, without that rite, there is no regeneration, but He does not teach that that rite has, in itself, the power of regeneration. 2ndly. It may be questioned whether our Lord, in using the word water' on this occasion intended any allusion whatever to baptism. Let it be remembered that, at the time He spoke thus, the commission to His disciples to baptize men into the name of the

[ocr errors]

Trinity had not been given, and that the person for whose instruction He was speaking was a Jew, to whom the meaning of such an allusion, couched in such terms, would be hardly perceptible. There was another meaning, however, which, to the mind of one who was 6 a master in Israel,' would naturally occur. In the ancient Scriptures, the cleansing of the soul from pollution is not rarely spoken of under the figure of water applied to the person. I entered into a cove

nant with thee,' says God to the Jewish Church, and thou becamest mine; then washed I thee with water.'

Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you,' says He again, with reference to the times of the Messiah, and ye shall be clean, from all your filthiness and from all your idols will I cleanse you. A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you; and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you a heart of flesh, and I will put my Spirit within you,' &c. 'In that day,'

says He again, speaking of the same period, 'there shall be a fountain opened to the house of David, and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, for sin and for uncleanness.' With these and similar passages there can be no doubt but that Nicodemus was well acquainted; and, this being the case, it seems almost inconceivable that our Lord's words, literally identical as they are with the expressions used in the second of the above quotations, should have led away the mind of the ruler from the ideas of internal purification, which, in connexion with these passages, they suggest, to a mere outward rite, and one which, in its proper character, as a Christian

institute, did not at the time they were uttered, exist. Surely, if in this solemn declaration, our Lord meant to teach the necessity of baptism to salvation, He would have condescended to use towards one whom He showed such a gracious desire to instruct, language of a nature less likely to mislead His hearer. 3dly. It is worthy of remark, that, in what follows in our Lord's discourse, it is only of the birth by the Spirit that He speaks; this He repeatedly mentions, while no further allusion is made by Him to a birth by water. Now, this seems greatly to favour the opinion, that, in this 5th verse, he makes use of a hendiadys, and that, by water and the Spirit,' He only means the Spirit which cleanses like water, the purifying or cleansing Spirit. This figure is of frequent occurrence in the New Testament, and one example of it is so exactly parallel to the words before us, as almost to require for them the interpretation just given. I allude to the words of John the Baptist concerning Christ: He shall baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire,' words which can bear no other meaning than that the baptism of the Spirit should purify like fire. Why should not the same principle of interpretation be resorted to in the case before us? If a hendiadys be admitted in the one case, why not in the other? Are not the two exactly parallel? In fine, it may be observed, that Dr. Pusey cannot object to the principle of this interpretation, for his own, if I do not misapprehend his meaning, proceeds upon the supposition of a hendiadys in this passage. He understands the passage as if it read Except a man be born of read-Except

water, operating with the power of the Spirit,' &c. The only question, then, between him and us is, whether the water qualifies the Spirit, or the Spirit qualifies the water; in other words, whether our Saviour, to explain the mysterious agency of water, compared it to the Divine Spirit; or, to explain the operation of the Spirit, compared it to water. Between these two there cannot surely be much hesitation in our choice, when we remember that with all correct speakers it is usual to illustrate spiritual objects by material, not material objects by spiritual.

66

Following Dr. Pusey's guidance, the next passage that comes under consideration is our Lord's commission to His apostles immediately before His ascension. This, as given by the Evangelists Matthew and Mark, runs thus Having gone into all the world preach the Gospel to every creature; make disciples of all the nations, [by] baptizing them into (or for, sis) the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, instructing them to keep whatsoever things I have enjoined on you. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be condemned. And lo! I am with you always, even to the end of the world. Amen.' (Matt. xxviii. 19, 20; Mark xvi. 15, 16.) From these words it appears that our Lord commissioned His apostles to make men disciples by two means-by baptizing them and by teaching them; and that consequently men are to become disciples by the correspondent acts of being baptized and believing what they are taught. We also learn from them that both belief and baptism are required for salvation; but there is

certainly no intimation in the whole commission to the effect that baptism of itself will save, still less that faith without baptism will not save. The main stress is evidently laid on the believing, which leads to the conclusion that baptism is here said to be essential to salvation only in the same sense in which a public profession of attachment to Christ is elsewhere said to be essential (Rom. x. 9; Luke xii. 8, &c.), viz., as an outward index or symbol of the faith within with which it stands associated. I understand our Lord's words, then, as virtually meaning that every one who believes and duly professes that belief shall be saved. That such was the interpretation put upon them by the apostles themselves may be inferred, I think, with considerable certainty from their subsequent practice, in the history of which we find no trace of their attempting to baptize any but such as they had previously taught. It is worthy of remark also, that Paul, speaking of his apostolic commission, says, Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the Gospel' (1 Cor. i. 17); language which by no means intimates that the apostle considered the administration of baptism as no part of his duty, but which very clearly teaches that he regarded it as altogether subordinate to the great work of announcing to men the message of salvation through Christ.

[blocks in formation]

imply, he tells us, no mere profession of obedience, sovereignty, belief, but (if one may so speak) a real appropriation of the person baptized to the Holy Trinity, a transfer

of him from the dominion of Satan to them; an insertion of him within their blessed Name; and a casting the shield (to speak humanly) of that Almighty Name over him,' &c. This language is not very intelligible; but I suppose the author means by it that baptism into the name of the Trinity means an actual and not a mere professed submission to God, and embracing of the gracious benefits which He is pleased to bestow. Now, that wherever there is such a profession, it ought to be accompanied with the reality there can be no doubt, but that the phrase to baptize into the name of God' implies anything more than to introduce by means of baptism to the profession of God's service and worship, will not easily admit of proof. Happily for the due understanding of such phraseology, it is not only of the Divine Being that it is employed in Scripture. Paul asks the Corinthians, Were ye baptized into the name of Paul?' and again, in the same epistle he says of the Israelites, that they were all baptized into Moses by (iv) the cloud and by the sea.' (1 Cor. i. 13; x. 2.) In both these passages the phrase in question can imply nothing else than external profession; in the case of the Corinthians of submission to Paul, in the case of the Israelites of submission to Moses. Upon what grounds, then, can it be argued that it has a different meaning in our Lord's commission to His apostles?

[ocr errors]

6

"The only other passages adduced by Dr. Pusey as proving by their

direct testimony the efficacy of outward baptism, are Tit. iii. 5, and 1 Pet. iii. 21. In the former of these, God is said to save us according to His mercy by the washing of regeneration and of renewing of the Holy Spirit." Such is the rendering of the passage which Dr. Pusey himself gives, and which will, I think, be admitted on all hands to be correct. Now, what is the idea intended to be conveyed to us by such a peculiar combination of words as this? All these genitives depend from the word λovrpoũ, rendered 'washing,' and consequently are all explanatory of it. The washing here spoken of is the washing of regeneration, and of renewing of the Holy Spirit. Can this mean anything else than the regenerating and renewing washing of the Holy Spirit? in other words, the moral cleansing which the Spirit effects on the mind? If so, this passage says nothing about outward baptism (except it may be in the way of dim and indistinct allusion), while what it does say, so far from favouring the notion of baptismal efficacy, leads rather to the conclusion that as it is not by any works of ours (and ritual baptism is surely a human work) but by the direct agency of the Divine Spirit that we are regenerated and renewed, it is to the latter and not to the former, we should look as alone efficacious in our salvation.

[ocr errors]

ward but moral purification to which he refers; not,' he says, 'the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God.' Here again, then, there is nothing about water-baptism, except it may be in the way of distant allusion; the saving power being ascribed solely to the moral cleansing which is effected by the Divine Spirit. And with this accords fully the context of the passage, which, indeed, only on this view receives, as it appears to me, any consistent interpretation. In the preceding verse, Peter, speaking of the flood in the days of Noah, says that the salvation of the patriarch and his family by water was a type of the salvation of Christians by baptism. In this comparison the water of the flood answers to the baptism of which the apostle speaks, as type to antitype. But what is the relation of type to antitype? Is it that of one material object or act to another? or is it not that of a material object or act to something spiritual and invisible? If we are to be guided by the case of the Mosaic types, the latter is the decision to which we must come. The entire system of Mosaic types was composed of outward symbols of unseen and invisible things; and the correspondence between them and the system of Christianity is not that of act to act, or person to person, but of acts, persons, offices, times, and places, to the great spiritual truths which Christianity unfolds. When, therefore, Peter says here that baptism is the antitype to the water of the flood, the analogy of typical interpretation leads us to infer, that it is

"As respects the statement by the apostle Peter, that baptism, as an antitype to the flood, now saves us, whatever difficulties may, in other respects, attach to the passage, there can be none in determining of what sort the baptism is of which the apostle speaks; for he himself ex-not the material baptism-the baptism pressly tells us, that it is not out with water that is spoken of (for

[blocks in formation]
« PreviousContinue »