---

I. BAPTISM IS AN ORDINANCE OF CHRIST. It has been a question whether the rite is of Jewish origin. Moses, indeed, ordained "divers washings," to which the elders added many more. But these were essentially different from Christian baptism; they being "waters of separation," this of initiation; they being repeated on any fresh pollution, this not being on any account repeated. Jewish proselyte baptism is more analogous, but is not mentioned until the Christian era. The baptism of John bears more resemblance to it, being, as he declared, the shadow of it. They certainly are not identical, or Paul would not have baptized again the disciples of John at Ephesus. So we conclude that baptism is exclusively Christian. How or why we can hardly tell, except it were gathered from a few such hints as that prediction of Isaiah — "So shall He sprinkle many nations." There prevailed among the Jews an expectation that Christ should institute a new and peculiar baptism. This impression is evident from the question put by the Pharisees to John — "Why baptizest thou, then, if thou be not that Christ," etc. It is, therefore, no wonder chat earnest men among them flocked to receive "the baptism of repentance," nor Chat afterwards "Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John"; and from His own baptism, needful only for example's sake, the Teacher from heaven acted out this prevailing idea — an idea which gave an evident and definite meaning to that saying of His to Nicodemus, "Except a man be born of water," etc., which agreed exactly with the current expectation, and must be law as long as men have to be translated out of the kingdom of this world into the kingdom of our Lord; which further appears from the very last charge of the Saviour (Matthew 28:19, 20).

II. BAPTISM REPRESENTS THE WASHING AWAY OF SINS. Nothing can be clearer than this. Sin has ever been regarded as a defilement which required to be washed away to make a man fit to stand in the sight of God. When this purification became possible, through "the water and the blood" which flowed from the Saviour's side, the fact was set forth by a rite in which water was employed; at the same time the Lord declared the Spirit of God, which He came to give, to be essential to that new birth without which there is no personal efficacy in baptism. Yet this is the matter upon which there has been most unaccountable and fatal confusion. The text says, "Be baptized, and wash away your sins" — two things as different as a sign, and the thing signified. Yet these two have been declared to he the same. If it were so, I myself should have been "a new creature in Christ Jesus" in virtue of it, without any conversion; but I know that I was not. If it were so, then Simon Magus must have been among the saved. The idea of baptism being the actual remission of sins, or regeneration, or anything whatever beyond a sign of these as needful and possible, is too groundless for argument. But it does show us, as clearly as any earthly image can, the necessity and the possibility of "the washing of regeneration."

III. BAPTISM IS OF PERPETUAL IMPORTANCE AND OBLIGATION. Christianity and spirituality are all but synonymous terms, this being emphatically the dispensation of the Spirit. The ceremonial law of Moses was in itself very burdensome; but those who would prefer outward rites to true religion were always heaping up traditions upon it, until it became a yoke of bondage too heavy to be borne. Then the Saviour gave the very character of His economy when He said, "God is a Spirit," etc.; in harmony with which He said also, "The kingdom of God cometh not with observation," etc., which Paul did but illustrate when he said, "The kingdom of God is not meat and drink," etc. Now, from these and a hundred such Scriptures we might have argued that the pure Spirit of Christ, without any figure, was Christianity. But our conceits, however logical they may seem, are not Christianity; and seeing that the thoughts and ways of God are so immeasurably higher than those of men, and wiser, and kinder, it is ever better to inquire what He has decreed than to imagine what He would do. We have already proved that Christ did institute this rite. Its very institution proves its importance then; and if it had any then, it must have as much if not more now; for if ever the outward and visible sign could be dispensed with, it must be while the Divine Teacher was living in our world to explain and to enforce His doctrines. And the most spiritual men have confessed that the two sacraments have proved a real help to their faith. At the dedication of their offspring to God in Christ, as well as at the table of the Lord, they have felt and learnt what they never learnt before, becoming more spiritual than ever. Whether this were so or not, the Divinely attested fact that Jesus decreed the baptism of all nations in His very last words is the proof that it is to have a continuance unto the end of the world. If one may explain away the rites ordained by the Lord, another may explain away the doctrines which they were ordained to teach; and, alas! many do both this day. What the very apostles needed we cannot less need; and it must be a right and safe conclusion that Christ only can unmake any ordinance which He has made, and that until He does so it rests upon all His disciples as an unquestionable obligation.

IV. BAPTISM IS TO BE ADMINISTERED TO ALL WHO WORSHIP CHRIST. The last clause of the text is of all importance. It proves, even before it is expounded, that baptism alone, the rite as the outward action of another, cannot save, but that its efficacy depends upon the state of mind and heart in the subject; for there is something else to be done while it is being performed. What this is is now the question. Of course it does not mean the formal mention of His holy "name," nor does it mean "calling," without any wish or hope of answer. The phrase is one borrowed from the Old Testament, where it always intends the actual worship of God in the prayer of faith. In the Psalms it; is said, "I will offer to Thee the sacrifice of thanksgiving, and will call upon the name of the Lord"; "O give thanks unto the Lord, call upon His name." The phrase in question is also one of those which bind together the two Testaments. Joel says, "It shall come to pass that whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be delivered" — which prediction both Peter and Paul quote word for word; and whatever may have been the prophet's idea, we know the apostle's intention in "the name of the Lord." These meant not the Lord Jehovah, but the Lord Jesus. So, then, what Ananias here required from Saul was that with the highest possible intention he should call Jesus "Master and Lord"; and if any man whatever do this with apparent honesty, and is yet unbaptized, to him every minister of Christ should say, "And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins."

(J. De Kewer Williams.)

---

---

KJV: And one Ananias, a devout man according to the law, having a good report of all the Jews which dwelt there,

WEB: One Ananias, a devout man according to the law, well reported of by all the Jews who lived in Damascus,