CONNECTION OF BAPTISM WITH REMISSION OF SINS.
A complete study on the connection of baptism with the remission of sins is given by J. W. McGarvey in his New Commentary On Acts, Vol. I, pages 243-262).
EXCURSUS A.
CONNECTION OF BAPTISM WITH REMISSION OF SINS.
The thought of any connection at all between baptism and remission of sins is repulsive to many Protestants of the present age. This state of feeling is largely due, I am constrained to believe, to a misconception of the nature of remission of sins. The latter is confounded with a change of heart, and is supposed to be a renewing of the soul effected by the direct agency of the Holy Spirit. It is regarded as an inward experience, a matter of consciousness ; and men are taught to look within themselves for the evidence of it, and to find that evidence in the state of joy which immediately succeeds it. To one who has this conception of remission of sins, and of the agency by which it is brought about, it must necessarily appear absurd to suppose that it is in any way dependent on baptism, unless, with the Romanists, we attach to baptism some kind of magical power to effect a change in the soul.
But this conception of remission of sins is a mistaken one. It is not found in the New Testament. On the contrary, remission of sins is clearly distinguished from that change within which we commonly style a change of heart. This latter change takes place in repentance; for in the course of repentance the love of sin is removed, sorrow for it intervenes, the love of righteousness springs up, and there is a deep resolve to sin no more. But repentance is constantly distinguished in the Scriptures from remission of sins, and the latter is constantly assumed to be consequent upon the former, not included in it. This is seen in the frequent occurrence of the expression, ” repentance and remission of sins.” It is also seen in such expressions as these: ” The baptism of repentance unto remission of sins” (Mark i. 4; Luke iii. 3) ; ” Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins” (Acts ii. 38). Here is not only a very marked distinction between the two, but remission of sins is most clearly set forth as subsequent to repentance.
This mistaken conception is still further corrected, and the true idea brought out, by observing the meaning of the word rendered remission (ciipeatQ). As defined in the lexicons, it means, primarily, ” release, as from bondage, imprisonment, etc. Secondarily, when connected with sins, it means, forgiveness, pardon of sins (properly, the letting them go, as if they had not been committed), remission of their penalty.”1 It is used in its primary sense in the quotation from the Septuagint, Luke iv. 18, 19, where it occurs twice in the sense of deliverance or liberation of captives. It is used in its secondary sense everywhere else in the New Testament, and in one place (Mark iii. 29, “ hath never forgiveness”) the term forgiveness is its only admissible rendering in English. But forgiveness, pardon, is not an act which takes place within the soul of the person who is guilty; it takes place within the mind of the person who forgives, and it can not be known to the person forgiven except by some medium of communication. This is obviously true when one man forgives another; and when it is God who forgives, it is an act of the divine mind in reference to the sinner, and not a change within the sinner himself Furthermore, it is an act which, from its very nature, can not take place until there has already occurred within the sinner such a change of heart and purpose as can make it proper in God, even on the ground of atonement in Christ, to extend pardon. In other words, the whole inward change which the sinner is required to undergo, must take place before sin can be forgiven. This being true, the apparent absurdity of connecting remission of sins in some way with baptism is removed, and it is left an open question, whether, in addition to faith and repentance, God also requires baptism before forgiveness. To the minds of the majority of present-day Protestants, the mere announcement of this question brings up the objection that justification is by faith only, and that the possibility of baptism being a prerequisite is by this fact excluded. But while justification, which involves remission of sins, is undoubtedly dependent on faith as a condition, it is nowhere said or implied that it is dependent on faith alone ; that is, on faith apart from the outward manifestations of faith. If justification is withheld until faith manifests itself in some outward action, the sinner is still justified by faith, but it is by faith in action as distinguished from faith as a mere state of mind. Abraham is the typical example of justification by faith; yet what we have just said is true of him, as his case is expounded by the apostle James. He says: ” Was not Abraham our father justified by works, in that he offered up his son Isaac upon the altar? Thou seest that faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect ; and the Scripture was fulfilled which saith, And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned unto him for righteousness ” (ii. 21- 23). Here the apostle, instead of seeing an inconsistency between justification by faith and justification by faith manifested in an act of faith, holds the latter in the case of Abraham to be the fulfillment of the former. In other words, the Scripture statement that Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned unto him for righteousness, was realized when Abraham by faith offered up his son on the altar. In precisely the same way, and in perfect harmony with justification by faith, a man may be justified by faith when, as an act of faith, he is baptized. The question is still open, then, whether this is the fact in the case.
It is still further objected that some statements respecting faith, not included in those connecting it with justification, exclude the possibility of forgiveness being connected with baptism. For example : ” God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have eternal life’^ (John. iii. 16); and, “He that believeth on the Son hath eternal life” {ib. 34). Here it is plainly affirmed that the believer is in possession of eternal life ; but it is still an open question whether this is affirmed of the obedient believer, or of the believer who has not yet manifested his faith by action; whether, to use James’ phraseology, it is faith made perfect by works of faith, or faith yet silent in the soul. This question is to be determined, not by such general statements as these, but by specific statements as to the conditions on which forgiveness of sins is offered.
The persistent objector has yet another set of texts which, to him, preclude the connection of which we speak, texts in which justification is affirmed of faith without works of law. For example: ” We reckon therefore that a man is justified by faith apart from the works of the law; ” or, leaving out the articles, ” apart from works of law” (Rom. iii. 28). But by works of law in this place Paul means such acts of obedience to law as would justify a man on the ground of innocence, and make him independent of the grace manifested in pardon. Now, acts of faith, such as the offering of Isaac on the altar, do not belong to this category. On the contrary, this act of Abraham, viewed in the light of law, would have been a crime. The same is true of the act of Rahab in receiving the spies and protecting them, which James specifies as the act by which she was justified (James. ii. 25). This act, viewed in the light of law, was treason, while that of Abraham was murder. Now baptism is certainly an act of faith, deriving its propriety from a positive command; and not a work of law in the sense attached to that expression by Paul; consequently, it may be required of a believer to be baptized before he is forgiven, and yet justification may be apart from “works of law.”
All connection between baptism and remission of sins is supposed to be precluded on still another ground, the fact that salvation is a matter of grace and not of works: ” For by grace have ye been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves : it is the gift of God : not of works, that no man should glory” (Eph. ii. 8, 9). But here again, as in the epistle to the Romans, the works excluded from the ground of salvation are works of perfect obedience, by which, if any man had wrought them, he would be saved on the ground of merit. This would exclude grace. But remission of sins is in its very nature a grace bestowed, and not a debt paid ; and whether it is bestowed on certain conditions or on no condition, it remains a matter of grace. Only in case the works done are of such a nature that the person doing them deserves salvation, can grace be excluded ; and in that case there would be no remission, because there would be no sins to be remitted. So, then, if God has seen fit to require the believer to be baptized before he forgives him, forgiveness is none the less a matter of grace than if he made no such requirement. When a state executive pardons a criminal, no one ever thinks of saying it is not an act of grace because the criminal is required, as a condition, to sign a pledge never to repeat his crime; and if it were a case of theft, and the governor should require a restoration of the stolen property as a condition of pardon, no one would think of denying that the pardon was an act of grace.
Seeing now that a connection between baptism and remission of sins is not precluded by any of the doctrinal statements of the Scriptures, which have so commonly been supposed to have this force, we are at liberty to examine without prejudice those passages of Scripture which seem to declare such a connection, and to ascertain, if possible, what that connection is. First, then, we examine some passages which plainly teach that remission of sins follows baptism in order of time.
Foremost among these is Peter’s well-known answer, ill his Pentecost sermon, to the question, ” Brethren, what shall we do?” It is foremost, because this is the first time that Peter, making use of the keys which had been committed to him (Matt. xvi. 19), opened the gates of the kingdom to believers by declaring what they should do to find admittance. He said, ” Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit/^ Here, as we have pointed out in the commentary under this passage, whether the preposition be rendered unto, for, or in order to, remission of sins is unmistakingly placed after repentance and baptism. No words can make this more certain. The same connection precisely is stated in almost identical terms by both Mark and Luke with reference to the baptism of John. They both say that John preached “the baptism of repentance unto the remission of sins” (Mark i. 4; Luke iii. 3). Here John’s baptism is called the “baptism of repentance,” because repentance was the only prerequisite demanded of a believing Jew. If the baptism instituted by Christ were distinguished from it by a corresponding epithet, the latter would be styled the baptism of faith; not because faith is the only prerequisite, but it is the one most prominent in the preaching of the apostles. That this baptism of repentance was ” unto remission of sins,” unmistakably points to remission as subsequent to it in order of time. In all these passages, however, if ‘^ unto ‘^ is used strictly, the baptism is contemplated as bringing the baptized person to remission, and no lapse of time is supposed between the baptism and that to which it brings the person. When, therefore, we speak of remission following baptism, we mean that it follows immediately. The command of Ananias to Saul teaches the same thing. The words, ” Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins” (Acts xxii. 16), clearly imply that his sins were washed away (a metaphor for remission of sins) as the immediate result of baptism. These are all of the passages in which sins are mentioned in immediate connection with baptism, and they unite in showing that remission of the former is an immediate consequent of the latter.
In another class of passages the same truth is set forth by implication. Paul makes the statement, and reiterates it, that we are baptized into Christ: ” Or are ye ignorant that all we who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death ? ” (Rom. vi. 3) ; ” For as many of you as were baptized into Christ did put him on ” (Gal iii. 27). Now when a man is in Christ his sins are certainly forgiven, and before he is in Christ they are certainly not forgiven. They are forgiven in passing into Christ, and a part of the process by which one passes into Christ is the act of baptism ; and it follows that, as he is not in Christ until he is baptized, until he is baptized he is not forgiven. The words of our Lord in the apostolic commission justify the same inference: ” Go ye therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit ” (Matt, xxviii. 19). The man who has not yet entered into the relation expressed by the words ” into the name of the Father and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit,” is yet in an unforgiven state, whatever may be his belief and his emotions; and this relation is established as soon as all of his sins are forgiven; but he enters into this relation in the act of baptism, he is baptized into it, and it follows that his sins are forgiven in connection with his baptism.
Still another class of passages present facts which imply the same relation between baptism and remission, it is of the nature of forgiveness to impart joy to the person forgiven, and it is a matter of universal experience that the consciousness of unforgiven sins is a burden to the soul. If, then, in tracing the experiences of men whose conversion to Christ is described in the New Testament, we should find that they rejoiced before they were baptized, this would be evidence that remission of sins precedes baptism. On the other hand, if we find this rejoicing uniformly following baptism, w^e must accept the opposite conclusion. Now there is not one instance of the former on record; on the contrary, in every instance of the mention of this rejoicing, it comes after baptism. For example, it was after he was baptized that the eunuch went on his way “rejoicing;” while before baptism he was in a state of anxiety and preplexity (Acts viii. 34-40). Before Saul was baptized, and up to the moment that Ananias told him to arise and be baptised and wash away his sins, he was in great agony of soul, and had neither eaten nor drunk for three days; but as soon as he was baptized, his soul was at ease, ” for he took food and was strengthened” (ix. 9-18). In like manner the Philippian jailer was in distress and perplexity before his baptism, but after he was baptized he brought Paul and Silas into his house and set food before them, “and rejoiced greatly, with all his house, having believed in God” (xvi. 30-34).
A fourth class of passages teach the same doctrine by the manner in which they connect baptism with salvation. Salvation in Christ consists essentially in the forgiveness of sins; for only when the soul is redeemed from sins by the power of Christ working within, and the guilt of sin taken away by pardon, can a man be in a state of salvation. If, then, when salvation and baptism are spoken of together, it is in a way to indicate that there is no connection between them, this might force us to re-examine the passages already noticed, to see if we had by any possibility misread them. Or if in such passages we should find that salvation is spoken of as if it precedes baptism, this might demand a similar re-examination. Bat neither of these conditions is found to exist; the reverse is uniformly the order which we find. In the commission we read, ” He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved ” (Mark xvi. 16). Here salvation is placed after baptism, and it is certainly the salvation which consists in forgiveness of sins; for the final salvation depends on much more than believing and being baptized. In the epistle to Titus we read, ” When the kindness of God our Saviour, and his love toward man, appeared, not by works done in righteousness, which we did ourselves, but according to his mercy he saved us, through the washing of regeneration, and the renewing of the Holy Spirit, which he poured out upon us richly, through Jesus Christ our Saviour; that, being justified by his grace, we might be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life” (iii. 4-7). Here, by the washing (literally, laver) of regeneration, the apostle means baptism, which is so called because it is a species of washing connected with the process of regeneration ; and it is affirmed that by this and the renewing of the Holy Spirit (the inward work of the Spirit which precedes baptism) we are saved. At the same time, lest any might think of merit of any kind as the ground of this salvation, he says that this salvation is not accorded because of anything which we had previously done in the way of righteousness, but only because of God’s mercy. Furthermore, he identifies the salvation thus spoken of with justification, by the added clause, ”that, being justified by his grace, we might be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.*’ Again we read in the first epistle of Peter that ‘^ eight souls were saved through water; which also after a true likeness doth now save you, even baptism, not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the interrogation of a good conscience toward God, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ (I. Pet. iii. 31). Here the negation of putting away the filth of the flesh is aimed against a Jewish misconception, and to us its meaning is obvious. The clause rendered, ^* but the interrogation of a good conscience,” is confessedly obscure; but whatever its meaning, it leaves unaffected the fact previously stated, that water does now, in a true likeness to that of the flood, save us in baptism; and if baptism saves in any sense whatever, it must precede salvation, and bring the sinner to it.
Finally, the connection in question is implied in our Lord’s remark to Nicodemus as to the conditions of entering into the kingdom of God: ” Except a man be born of water and the Spirit, he can not enter into the kingdom of God.” All ancient Christian scholars, and all the abler expositors of modern times, agree in declaring with one voice, that by the term water Jesus here refers to baptism. Dr. Wall, in his history of Infant Baptism, says: ” There is not one Christian writer of any antiquity, in any language, but who understands the new birth of water as referring to baptism; and if it be not so understood, it is difficult to give any account how a person is born of water, more than born of wood ” (vol. i. 110). Alford testifies: “All the better and deeper expositors have recognized the coexistence of the two, water and the Spirit” (Cora, in loco); and to the same effect it is said by Dr. Westcott: ” All interpretations which treat the term water here as ‘simply ‘figurative and descriptive of the cleansing power of the Spirit, are essentially defective, as they are also opposed to all ancient tradition” (Com. on John in loco). In another part of his notes on the passage, Alford goes still farther in the direction of these assertions, and also gives the meaning of the verse, in these words: ” There can be no doubt, on any honest interpretation of the words, that to be born of water refers to the token or outward sign of baptism—to be born of the Spirit, to the thing signified, or inward grace of the Holy Spirit. All attempts to get rid of these two plain facts have sprung from doctrinal prejudices, by which the views of expositors have been warped.” We may set aside, therefore, as exceptional and sectarian, all interpretations which take out of this passage its obvious allusion to baptism, and we are justified in saying that according to the united judgment of unbiased scholars of all churches Jesus here meant that except a man experience the inward work of the Holy Spirit, and be baptized, he can not enter into the kingdom of God. Now before a man is in the kingdom of God, his sins are unforgiven; and when his sins are forgiven he is no longer an alien, but a citizen of that kingdom. By whatever process, then, he enters into that kingdom, by that or in that he obtains the remission of sins; but that process is the birth of water and the Spirit, of neither alone, but of both; and therefore he obtains forgiveness not before, but when he is baptized. It is but an echo of these words of our Lord, when Paul says He saved us “through the washing of regeneration and the renewing of the Holy Spirit” (Titus iii. 5).
These evidences establish, as clearly as any fact can be established, an immediate connection between baptism and remission of sins, and they show with equal clearness that the divine act of forgiving sins takes place when the sinner, in whose heart the Holy Spirit has wrought faith and repentance, is baptized into Christ.
Here we might draw this discussion to a close but for the feet that by many this is supposed to be a heretical doctrine, unsupported by the scholarship of either past or present ages. To disabuse the reader of this impression, we proceed to show how these evidences have been regarded by men of learning.- In the first place, the voice of antiquity is united upon it, as on the meaning of “born of water and the Spirit.” Sufficient proof of this, without quoting individual authors, is found in the fact that the article on the subject in the Nicene Creed, adopted in the beginning of the fourth century without a dissenting voice, declares: “We believe in one baptism for the remission of sins.” It is a well known fact also, that the Greek Church, the Armenian, and the Roman Catholic, still teach and have ever taught this doctrine, with the additional and unscriptural idea that baptism, independently of faith and repentance, takes away original sin in the case of infants. Infant baptism indeed owes its origin to this mistaken conception. The process is traced by Neander in the following well known passage: ” But when, now, on the one hand, the doctrine of corruption and guilt, cleaving to human nature in consequence of the first transgression, was reduced to a more precise and systematic form, and on the other, from the want of duly distinguishing between what is outward and what is inward in baptism (the baptism by water and the baptism by the Spirit), the error became more firmly established that without external baptism no one could be delivered from that inherent guilt, could be saved from the everlasting punishment that threatened him, or raised to eternal life; and when the notion of magical influence, a charm connected with the sacrament, continually gained ground, the theory was finally evolved of the unconditional necessity of infant baptism. . About the middle of the third century, this theory was generally admitted in the North African Church.” Among the evidences which he gives of the truth of this representation, is an extract from Cyprian (Epistle 59), in which the writer contends for the baptism of infants immediately after their birth, and closes with these words: ” But if even the chief of sinners, who have been exceedingly guilty before God, receive the forgiveness of sins on coming to faith, and no one is precluded from baptism and from grace, how much less should the child be kept back, which, as it is but just born, can not have sinned, but has only brought with it, by its descent from Adam, the infection of the old death; and which may the more easily obtain the remission of sins, because the sins which are forgiven it are not its own, but those of another” (Church History, i. 313, 314).
The unfortunate circumstance that this doctrine of baptism for remission of sins, universally taught in the ancient church, was thus corrupted by the church of the dark ages, was undoubtedly the cause of a reaction against it among the leaders of the Protestant Reformation; yet Luther and Calvin, while repudiating the doctrine as taught f)y Rome, and failing to adopt it in its original form, did both stumble upon it in their exposition of various passages of Scripture in which it is plainly taught. Thus Luther, commenting on the words (Gal. iii. 27), “All ye that are baptized into Christ, have put on Christ,” makes these remarks: ” This old man must be put off with all his works, that of the children of Adam we may be made the children of God. This is not done by changing of a garment, or by any laws or works, but by a new birth, and by the renewing of the inward man; which is done in baptism, as saith Paul: ‘ All ye that are baptized, have put on Christ.^ Wherefore, to be appareled with Christ according to the gospel is not to be appareled with the law or with works, but with an incomparable gift; that is to say, with remission of sins, righteousness, peace, consolation, joy of spirit, salvation, life, and Christ himself. This is diligently to be noted, because of the fond and fantastical spirits, who go about to deface the majesty of baptism, and speak wickedly of it. Paul, contrary wise, commendeth and setteth it forth with honorable titles, calling it “the washing of the new birth, the renewing of the Holy Spirit^ (Titus iii.). And here also he saith, that all they which are baptized have put on Christ. As if he said. Ye are carried out of the law into a new birth, which is wrought in baptism. Therefore ye are not now any longer under the law, but ye are clothed with a new garment; to-wit, with the righteousness of Christ. Wherefore baptism is a thing of great force and efficacy” (Luther’s Com. on Galatians). In these extracts Luther confirms the views expressed above, not only on the passage which he has immediately in hand, but also on our Lord’s remark about the new birth, and Paul’s in regard to the washing of regeneration. And all this comes from him who is the prime author of the modern doctrine of justification by faith alone.
John Calvin expresses himself to the same effect, and brings into view a still larger number of the passages which I have cited above. He says: “From baptism our faith derives three advantages, which require to be distinctly considered. The first is, that as proposed to us by the Lord, as a symbol and token of our purification ; or, to express my meaning more fully, it resembles a legal instrument properly attested, by which he assures us that all our sins are canceled, effaced, and obliterated, so that they will never appear in his sight, or come into his remembrance, or be imputed to us. For he commands all Who believe to be baptized for the remission of their sins. Therefore those who have imagined that baptism is nothing more than a mark or sign by which we profess our religion before men, as soldiers wear the insignia of their sovereign as a mark of their profession, have not considered that which is the principal thing in baptism; which is, that we ought to receive it with this promise: ‘He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved’ (Mark xvi. 16). In this sense we are to understand what is said by Paul, that Christ sanctifieth and cleanseth the church ‘with the washing of water by the word’ (Eph. v. 26); and in another place that ‘according to his mercy he saves us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Spirit ‘ (Titus iii. 5); and by Peter, that ‘ baptism doth now save us’ (I. Peter iii. 21).”^ From this extract the reader can see at a glance that all the passages cited in it are understood by Calvin to have the very meaning which I have attached to them; and the fact that these interpretations are given by a theologian who did not consistently apply them in his system, gives them the greater weight because it shows that they are not the result of doctrinal prepossession, but of the simplicity and clearness with which they are expressed in the passages themselves.
It is well known, also, that another great reformer of more recent times, John Wesley, fell upon this doctrine in the course of his exegetical studies, although it constituted no part of his system. He says: ” Baptism administered to real penitents, is both a means and a seal of pardon. Nor did God ordinarily, in the primitive church, bestow pardon on any, unless through this means” (Notes on N. T., p. 350).
Not to multiply evidences of this kind to any unnecessary extent, we pass by the utterances of many other eminent scholars of orthodox churches, and add a few from writers of our own age, eminent for their learning and their exegetical skill.
H. B. Hackett, one of the most eminent scholars and commentators in the Baptist Church of America, in commenting on Acts ii. 38, says: ” In order to the forgiveness of sins, we connect naturally with both the preceding verbs. The clause states the motive or object which should induce them to repent and be baptized. It enforces the entire exhortation, no one part of it to the exclusion of the other.’^ On Acts xxii. 16, he says: ” And wash away thy sins. This clause states a result of the baptism in language derived from the nature of that ordinance. It answers to ^ for the remission of sins ‘in ii. 38—that is, submit to the rite in order to be forgiven.” Clearer or more explicit testimony to the doctrine upheld in this excursus could not be uttered.
Dr. Jacobson, Bishop of Chester, and author of the notes on Acts in The Speaker’s Commentary, under Acts xxii. 16 quotes with approval the words of Waterland: ” Baptism was at length his [PauPs] grand absolution, his patent of pardon, his instrument of justification granted him from above; neither was he justified till he received that divine seal, inasmuch as his sins were upon him till that very hour.”
Dr. J. A. Alexander, of Princeton, writes: ” The whole phrase, to (or toward) remission of sins, describes this as the end to which the multitude had reference, and which, therefore, must be contemplated in the answer.” Again: ” The beneficial end to which all this led was the remission of sins” (Com. Acts ii. 38).
Lechler, author of Commentary on Acts in Lange’s Bible Work, says under ii. 38: ” The apostle promises to those who repent and receive baptism, (1) the remission of sins, and (2) the gift of the Holy Spirit.” Under xxii. 16, he says: ” We have here a noble testimony to the value which was assigned to holy baptism by the pure apostolic church. It was not a mere external ceremony, but a means of grace for washing away sins, and was the first actual entrance into the church of Jesus.”
Dr. Gloag (Presbyterian), says in his Commentary, under xxii. 16: “Baptism in the adult, except in the peculiar case of our Lord, was accompanied by a confession of sin, and was a sign of its remission; hence called baptism in order to forgiveness of sins” (Acts ii. 38).
Plumptre, after quoting the words of Ananias to Paul, says: ” They show that for the apostle baptism was no formal or ceremonial act, but was joined with repentance, and, faith being presupposed, brought with it the assurance of a real forgiveness. In St. Paul’s language as to the ‘washing’ (or bath) of regeneration (Tit. iii. 5), we may trace his continued adherence to the idea which he had thus been taught on his first admission to the Church of Christ ‘^ {Com. on Acts^ xxii. 16).
Finally we quote the testimony of two eminent philologists. Meyer says under Acts ii. 38: ” ere denotes the object of the baptism, which is the admission of the guilt contracted in the state before /jtsvauoTa.” Grimm, in his great lexicon of the Greek N. T., defines £^C difsmu d-nacnaov, Acts ii. 38, *’ to obtain the forgiveness of sins” {^anrc^co II. b. aa.).
These citations are abundant to show that we have not misinterpreted the passages in question; and they show clearly that we are right in rejecting the rendering of the R.V., “unto remission of sins,” and retaining that of the R. V., “or remission of sins.” Peter’s purpose in the expression was not to indicate the mere fact that baptism brings one to remission, but to state the blessing in order to the attainment of which his hearers were to be baptized. In other words, he states a motive for the act. In many other passages the R. V. is liable to the same criticism in its rendering of the preposition e^C. We might add many more testimonies if it were necessary. They show that the connection between baptism and remission of sins for which we contend is one of the most universally recognized doctrines of the New Testament. We have occupied so much space with its presentation, from a desire to restore this most solemn ordinance of our Lord to the place which it occupied in the primitive church, and to bring into practice the views of its meaning so clearly expressed by the scholars of all schools and ages. It has been common, in these latter days, to decry the doctrine, connected as it must be with the right action of baptism, because of consequences ascribed to it with reference to the salvation of myriads of pious persons in past ages who have not been really baptized; but such consequences, whether real or imaginary, can not alter the truth of Scriptures, while the consideration of them tends to bias our judgment and to hide the truth from us. It is the part of wisdom to unhesitatingly accept the truth as we discover it, knowing that we are to be judged in the great day according to the measure of light which we have, or may have; and that if our fathers were saved in neglect of any duty of which they were ignorant, we may not hope to be saved in neglect of any duty which is plainly pointed out to us. The right action of baptism is very rapidly gaining recognition among the serious minds of our time; let us endeavor to restore also its right design, and thus we may put to silence those” fond and fantastic spirits,” as Luther styles them, ” who go about to deface the majesty of baptism, and speak wickedly of it.”