16. Lecture XVI; Baptism of the Samaritans and Ethiopian
LECTURE XVI.
BAPTISM OF THE SAMARITANS AND OF THE ETHIOPIAN.
"Then Philip went down to the city of Samaria, and preached Christ unto them. And the people with one accord gave heed unto those things which Philip spake, hearing and seeing the miracles which he did. For unclean spirits, crying with loud voice, came out of many that were possessed with them: and many taken with palsies, and that were lame, were healed. And there was great joy in that city. But there was a certain man, called Simon, which before-time in the same city used sorcery, and bewitched the people of Samaria, giving out that himself was some great one: to whom they all gave heed, from the least to the greatest, saying. This man is the great power of God. And to him they had regard, because that of long time he had bewitched them with sorceries. But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. Then Simon himself believed also; and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done. Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John; who, when they were come down, prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Ghost: for as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost. And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostle’s hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money, saying, Give me also this power, that on whomsoever I lay hands, he may receive the Holy Ghost. But Peter said unto him, Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money. Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter: for thy heart is not right in the sight of God. Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee. For I perceive that thou art in the gall of bitterness, and in the bond of iniquity. Then answered Simon, and said, Pray ye to the Lord for me, that none of these things which ye have spoken come upon me."
1st, The commission and the example here harmonise as to the design of baptism. The design of the ordinance is to represent the personal application of the truth to the baptized. The apostles, in their commission, are commanded to begin with teaching, as it is in Matthew; or preaching, as it is in Mark. The matter to be preached is the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost — the Gospel — repentance and remission of sins, according to the commission. Philip preaches the same things. The Apostles, in the commission, are next commanded to baptize the disciples into the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. In obedience to the commission, Philip baptizes the believing Samaritans in — literally, to or into — the name of the Lord Jesus. The preposition here is the same as in the commission. Both the preposition and the adjunct lead to the same conclusion.
2dly, The qualifications for baptism are the same in the commission and in the example at Samaria, viz. knowledge, faith, and repentance. Verse 6, “And the people with one accord gave heed unto those things which Philip spake." They understood and rejoiced in what Philip preached respecting Christ. The Samaritans had faith. Ver. 12, “But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized." Ver. 13, w Then Simon himself believed also." We are particularly acquainted with the evidence on which they believed; Ver. 6, "And the people with one accord gave heed unto those things which Philip spake, hearing and seeing the miracles which he did. For unclean spirits, crying with loud voice, came out of many that were possessed with them: and many taken with palsies, and that were lame, were healed." Their repentance is intimated in their turning from Simon to Philip, ver. 10—12.
3dly, The example before us is in harmony with the commission as to the privileges and duties connected with baptism. These privileges comprehend salvation; and these duties comprehend whatever Christ has commanded. Both are implied in the Samaritans being baptized in the name of Christ. The name of Christ means every thing said in the Scriptures concerning him. It implies all the promises that are made to believers, and all the duties that are required of them.
4thly, The example obliges us to reject the practice of pedo-baptism and sprinkling. Without precept or pattern, nothing can be observed as an ordinance of Christ. If the subjects of baptism are to be determined by the persons baptized in Samaria, infants must be excluded; they are not mentioned in the record. And how is this omission to be accounted for, if the infants of Samaritan believers were baptized? The omission is not to be accounted for on Luke’s manner of writing. It is not his manner to omit the concerns of children: We may refer to Luk 18:15, and Acts 21:5. If infants were baptized in Samaria, the historian has altered his usual mode of writing. The omission cannot be accounted for on the supposition that it was a matter of small moment; the baptist controversy proves the contrary. The passages just quoted prove the contrary. The baptism of the Samaritan infants was, without doubt, a matter of unspeakably greater moment than Christ’s touching infants, or children accompanying Paul to his ship. The omission cannot be accounted for, on the supposition of the prevalence of the practice; for, however prevalent pedo-baptism may be supposed to be, the practice of adult baptism must have been still more prevalent in the day’s of the apostles. On this supposition, we had never heard any thing of baptism at all. The omission cannot be accounted for, on the principle that every thing is not recorded in every place; because here, had infants been baptized, their baptism could not be omitted. The historian gives us a particular account of the persons baptized. They who believed were baptized, both men and women; if infants were baptized, the enumeration is incomplete. The omission cannot be accounted for, on the supposition that the historian’s design did not require the mention of infants. His design is intimated in the title of his work, “The Acts of the Apostles." Had infant baptism or sprinkling belonged to these acts, fidelity required its insertion. The omission cannot be accounted for, on the supposition of oversight. Inspiration is, in every instance, inconsistent with error. Let the inquirer consider these things, and he will feel the consequence. The Holy Spirit directed Luke to a special enumeration, that, to the end of time, men’s attention might be turned to the instruction to be gathered from his silence respecting infants. This corruption of Christianity was foreseen, and a sufficient caution against it was provided. othly, From this example, as from the commission, we learn that men and women, after believing, are bound to be baptized. If, then, apostolical practice is a rule of duty, we ourselves, like the Samaritans, must after believing, observe this ordinance.
6thly, The commission and the example are in harmony as to the mode of baptism. The language is the same in both. I hope it is unnecessary to repeat the remarks already made on the word baptize, either respecting its primary meaning, or use in the sacred writings; and as there is nothing peculiar in this example, I shall proceed to the next. Allow me, however, previously to observe two things:
1st, That the whole Scripture, as far as we have advanced, speaks the same language, and leads to the same conclusion. The commission requires the baptism of believers exclusively. The apostles, first at Jerusalem, and next at Samaria, taught and baptized their converts, and they baptized none other.
2dly, On reducing these principles to practice, a distinction must be made between the sincerity and credibility of a Christian profession. Some of the abettors of impure communion have confounded these things, and by the confusion misled the unwary. You cannot judge the heart, say they, and therefore the pursuit of pure communion is illusory. The answer is easy. The churches pretend not to judge the heart; they can, however, judge the external conduct. Where the profession is belied by action, it cannot be admitted, though the professor may be a believer. On the contrary, where a profession is distinctly made, and not contradicted by practice, it ought to be admitted; though, in the sight of God, the professor is not accepted, because, in fact, he does not believe. All this is illustrated and confirmed by the example before us. The profession of Simon was credible, and therefore rightly admitted by Philip; it was insincere, and therefore rejected by God. The fact is recorded as a warning to professors, and a rule for the churches.
Acts 8:26-40," And the angel of the Lord spake unto Philip, saying, Arise, and go toward the south unto the way that goeth down from Jerusalem unto Gaza, which is desert. And he arose and went: and, behold, a man of Ethiopia, an eunuch of great authority under Candace, queen of the Ethiopians, who had the charge of all her treasure, and had come to Jerusalem for to worship, was returning, and sitting in his chariot read Esaias the prophet. Then the Spirit said unto Philip, Go near, and join thyself to this chariot. And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said unto him, Understandest thou what thou readest? And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him. The place of the Scripture which he read was this, He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb before his shearer, so opened he not his mouth: In his humiliation his judgment was taken away: and who shall declare his generation? for his life is taken from the earth. And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, 1 pray thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or of some other man? Then Philip opened his month, and began at the same Scripture, and preached unto him Jesus. And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. And he commanded the chariot to stand still; and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him. And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing. But Philip was found at Azotus: and passing through, he preached in all the cities, till he came to Cesarea." This example teaches us nothing, directly, of the perpetuity or design of baptism, or of the privileges represented by it. On these things, therefore, I shall make only two summary remarks:
1st, Though nothing be, directly, taught of the design and privileges of baptism, yet, indirectly, we are taught the same doctrine as before. The design is implied in the transaction, and the privileges in Philip’s doctrine respecting Jesus. The subject is of the same character as the subjects in the preceding examples. On the head of perpetuity, we have nothing opposed to the former evidence.
2dly, This, and other examples of baptism, recorded in the New Testament, mutually explain and throw light on each other. Inattention to this principle of exposition has led to consequences very unhappy. The Scriptures, (such as 1 Corinthians chap v.) often and imperiously require the exclusion of bad men from the churches; but because in some instances, — such as the Asiatic churches, — the command is not repeated, impure communion has been vindicated. The vindication is inadmissible. The character of the materials of churches must be learned from all the Scriptures on the subject taken together. A disciplined Christian must apply the principle to every topic of inquiry, and every particular of practice; and, amongst the rest, to the subject of baptism. On the other branches of the baptist question, we have, in the example, additional information.
1st, We are informed that faith is a qualification indispensable for this ordinance. Ver. 37, “And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest" (be baptized.) The translation is correct; but there is an emphasis in the word rendered “thou mayest," which ought to be noticed. Literally, it signifies, it is permitted— it is lawful; meaning, that if he did not believe with all his heart, it was not permitted — it was not lawful. There is an universality in the declaration which ought likewise to be noticed. It is not restricted to the Ethiopian; the declaration is general, it is allowed — it is lawful; meaning, that in no case would it be lawful without faith. This emphasis is confirmed by the connection. The Ethiopian had asked what hindered him to be baptized? Philip answers that nothing hindered him, if he believed; but that if he did not believe, there was an insurmountable hinderance, viz. the want of this qualification. It is implied, that, in every instance, the want of faith would disqualify for baptism. Thus additional light is thrown on the commission, "He that believes and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believes not, can neither be saved nor baptized."
2ndly, We have additional information respecting one of the duties connected with baptism, viz. a profession of faith. A profession of faith previous to baptism is supposed in every example we have hitherto examined. That our exposition of the record, in each of these instances, has been correct, is fully confirmed by the history of the Ethiopian’s baptism. In this example the matter is expressly stated, — the Evangelist requires, and the candidate for baptism gives, an explicit confession of faith. Farther, the character of the baptismal confession is fully ascertained, “If thou believest with, from, or out of, all thine heart, thou mayest." If it be inquired, To what end does Philip say, “If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest?" — for answer, let it be observed, that the expression, Jesus Christ is the Son of God, signifies, amongst other things, that Jesus is a Prophet, Priest, and King. The Ethiopian says that he believes this. But does he believe in a theoretical, or a practical sense? Does he believe on Him as the rulers, who did not confess Him? Or, does he intend to take his instructions from Him as a Prophet, — to depend on His merits as a Priest, — to submit to Him, and obey Him as a King? Does he believe to practice? Does he believe with the heart? Philip’s question includes the practical purposes of the man; and the Ethiopian’s answer in this connection, bears that in a practical sense, he believed that Jesus Christ was the Son of God. Thus we find that a Scriptural profession of the faith must comprehend both the theoretical opinions and the practical purposes of the persons to be baptized.
3rdly, We have information as satisfactory as we could reasonably desire, respecting the mode of baptism. The words are these, ver. 36, “And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized." Ver. 38, 39, “And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him. And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip." The meaning of the words is plainly this: they came to a certain water; Philip and the Ethiopian went both down into the water; when both were in the water, Philip immersed the Ethiopian; and then both Philip and the Ethiopian came up out of the water. It has been objected, that, according to this argument, Philip was baptized as well as the Ethiopian. I answer, that this objection is founded either on a mistake, or a palpable misrepresentation of the argument. The argument does not suppose that going down into the water, and being baptized is the same. It supposes that these are different, and that, after both Philip and the Ethiopian had gone down into the water, Philip immersed the Ethiopian. The argument proceeds on three points: 1st, That the primary meaning of the word baptize is to immerse; 2ndly, That the sacred writers use the word in the sense of immersion, without ever using it in any other sense; 3rdly, That the circumstances of the case lead us, in this example, to understand the word in the sense of immersion. What made Philip and the Ethiopian both go down into the water, unless the immersion of the Ethiopian had been necessary? It is highly probable, from the route by which they were travelling, that they had along with them a quantity of water sufficient for the purpose of sprinkling. They needed not, unless for immersion, to wait till they came to tins water. Had sprinkling been all that was necessary, the servants, from the state observed in the East, would, no doubt, have handed up to Philip the water which he needed. If Philip must himself take up the water in the palm of his hand, what necessity was there for the Ethiopian wetting himself in the water? He might have been sprinkled in the chariot. But if both of them go down, why does Philip go into the water? He could, had not immersion been necessary, with more convenience to himself, have administered sprinkling by the side of the water; and, lastly, if Philip go into the water, what, excepting immersion, made it necessary for the Ethiopian to go into the water? The question is not to be evaded, by saying that when the chariot came to the water, they went down to the side of it, and again came up. The prepositions are changed, and each of them is emphatical. When the chariot is said to come to the water, the preposition used signifies close upon, — when the chariot came close upon the water, — when they went down, the preposition signifies to or into; but the translators have preferred into, and for good reason, because the next preposition expresses that they were in it; — after the baptism, they came both up out of the water. Connect with each of these remarks the fact, that the word baptize signifies to immerse. As to the objection, it is not said that Philip was immersed; it is only said that Philip immersed the Ethiopian. As to the evasion, Philip did not go from the water into the chariot, — as soon as they came out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord carried him away. So satisfactory, in every way, is the evidence that the Ethiopian was immersed.
4thly, According to this example, infant baptism must be rejected. According to it, knowledge, faith, and a profession of faith, are requisite to baptism. It need hardly be added, that these things are incompetent to infants.
5thly, The baptism of the Ethiopian is an example of baptism after believing, commanded, approved, and recorded by the Holy Ghost; and if infant sprinkling be a nullity, as assuredly it is, it becomes the duty of every man and woman, after believing, to be immersed. 1 conclude with noticing, what must be obvious to all. that the baptism of the Ethiopian is in perfect harmony with the Apostle’s commission, and with the other examples at Jerusalem and Samaria.