What Must I Do to Be Saved? continued

That there should be so much philosophical hostility to belief is matter for surprise. Belief is no invention of creed makers; it is the natural, constant, essential act of finite minds. We cannot exist without it. If we don't believe in religious creeds, we believe in something. We cannot help believing. It is the mainspring of all intelligent action - the source of every sensation of happiness and woe. What makes a man toil all day in the factory? Because he believes he will get his wages; would he do so if he did not? Why is the condemned criminal so overwhelmed and dejected? Because he believes his death will take place on an early day; but let him be told that a reprieve has arrived, and he flies into ecstasies of joy. Why? Because he believes he shall escape the doom that was impending over him. Our whole commercial system is based on belief, and the moment that society begins to be distrustful, that is, unbelieving, then we have a panic, and all the evils that come in its train. So in matters religious: belief is the first principle, the foundation of practical faith, the source of spiritual ecstasy, the cause of consistent action.

Now, what is belief? It is the assent of the mind to definite points of information. Before belief can take place, the mind must be informed; that is, it must first know or be aware of the subject of belief. Hence, knowledge (though only in the limited sense of information) is the foundation of belief. This principle is practically admitted in things secular; how inconsistent, then, to deny its importance in things religious. How foolish to talk down "doctrinal points" as of no moment. Those "points", so much disparaged by the wise men of this generation, are, in reality, so many items of information on which our belief concerning the future is founded, and to run them down as undeserving of an intelligent man's attention, is to insult his judgement, and in reality, betray unbelief.

If they are untrue, they are something more than trivial, and deserve to be scouted; but if they are true, it is folly of a type bordering on insanity to treat them with indifference. The issue, therefore, lies between belief and unbelief - not between "bigotry" and "charity". Religious "liberality" sounds well, but what is it? It means indifference, for yourself and neighbour, to what God has required at your hands. Liberality is pleasanter for this life, than "the narrow way". In the broader road, in respectable company, with the delights of intellect, and the sweets of refinement, myriads of souls are delightfully escorted to destruction. God grant that some in the reading of these pages, may be enticed from the worldly throng, and induced to cast in their lot with a humbler people, who, in the spirit of profoundest regard for the word of the living God, are seeking to do His will according to His revealed requirements.

Belief of the Gospel is the first condition of salvation. This, however, is not all. A man may believe in all the glorious promises of God, and yet not be a participator in them. He must be baptised, as we have seen: "He that believeth, and is baptised, shall be saved."

This is a feature of the apostolic system which is pretty generally ignored by the great body of those who claim the Christian name in the present day. How extraordinary that a loud profession of Christian allegiance should be allied to systematic violation of one of the plainest of Christian precepts! It cannot be said that there is any ambiguity in the manner in which the duty is set forth in the new Testament; for we find that Christ's general announcement on the subject is copiously illustrated both by exegetical comment and recorded example.

On the day of Pentecost, for instance, when the stricken-in-heart exclaimed, "Men and brethren, what shall we do? " the answer was, "Repent and be baptised every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ," and the narrative tells us that "They that gladly received his word WERE BAPTISED: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls" (Acts 2v 37, 38, 41). Here is both precept and example. We are told in Acts 8v 12, that "when the (Samaritans) believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, THEY WERE BAPTISED BOTH MEN AND WOMEN." Again, in the case of Cornelius and his companions, we read in Acts 10v 47, 48, that at the close of their interview with Peter, that apostle said, "Can any man forbid water that these should not be baptised, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? And he commanded them to be baptised in the name of the Lord". Again, in the case of Paul himself, we find the same course adopted after his conversion. "And now, why tarriest thou? " said Ananias to him (Acts 22v 16); "arise and be baptised, and wash away thy sins, calling upon the name of the Lord." "AND HE AROSE AND WAS BAPTISED" (Acts 9v 18). Then we have the case of the Philippian jailer, recorded in Acts 16v, in which the same lesson is enforced by the powerful argument of example. It is stated in 5v 33, "(He) was baptised, he and all his, straightway." Then we have to remember that even the Lord Jesus himself submitted to this act of obedience. We read:--

"Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptised of him; but John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptised of thee, and comest thou to me? And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now, for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him" (Matt. 3v 13-15).

Thus New Testament examples (numerous and decisive) shew that baptism in water was a rite attended to by all who believed the truth in early times. Surely what was necessary or appropriate in the first Christians, is just as necessary and appropriate (and more so, if there be any difference) in Christians of the nineteenth century. It is by no means fashionable, however to take this view. The generality of professing Christians argue against the necessity of baptism in their case, and prefer to risk neglect on their own responsibility. It is clear, however, that the apostles looked upon the act in a much more serious light. Paul, in the words already quoted, is very expressive on the subject:

"As many of you as have been baptised into Christ, HAVE PUT ON CHRIST (Gal. 3v 27).

Again:

Ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; BURIED WITH HIM IN BAPTISM, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God" (Col. 2v 11, 12).

Again Paul says, in Rom. 6v 36:

"Know ye not that so many of us as were BAPTISED INTO JESUS CHRIST, were baptised into his death? Therefore, we are BURIED WITH HIM BY BAPTISM into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection. Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin."

Finally, Peter makes the following allusion to it, which, though incidental, is unmistakable:-

"In the days of Noah while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls, were saved by (or as the marginal reading gives it, ' through') water. The like figure whereunto even BAPTISM DOTH ALSO NOW SAVE US (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ" (1 Pet. 3v 20, 21).

There are other similar references to baptism throughout the epistles; but these are sufficient to shew that whatever may be the difficulty of modern professing Christians in discovering any significance or efficacy in the ordinance of baptism, the apostles saw much of both. They recognised in it a constitutional transition from one relationship to another, - a representative putting off of the old man, or Adam nature, and a putting on of the new man, or Christ, who is the ONE COVERING NAME, in which, when the naked son of Adam is invested, he stands clothed before Jehovah, and is approved in His sight. Of course this effect is imputative; that is to say, it is not brought about by the mere act of submersion in water, which in itself has no religious virtue whatever, but is the result recognised by God when the act is performed in connection with an intelligent apprehension and affectionate belief of the truth.

It may seem strange and incredible that God would connect such a momentous change with a trivial and (as some regard it) ridiculous observance. An earnest mind, however, will not stop to reason on the matter when once satisfied that it is the will of God, especially when he remembers that it is one of the characteristics of God's dealings with men that He selects "weak things, things despised, yea, and things that are not" (1 Cor. 1v 27, 28), by which to accomplish important results that it may be seen that the power is of God, and not in the means, and that true obedience may be secured in His servants. It was not the eating of the fruit in itself - apart from the divine prohibition - that constituted Adam's offence. It was not the mere looking at the brazen serpent in the wilderness that cured the serpent bitten Israelites. It was not Naaman's mere immersion in Jordan in itself that cured him of his leprosy. It was the principle involved in each case that developed the results - the principle of obedience to the divine law, which is one prominent feature in all God's dealings with man. Obedience is the great thing required at our hands:-

"Hath the Lord as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the Lord? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams (1 Sam. 15v 22).

It matters not what the act may be; the more unlikely the thing required, the more severe the test, and the more conspicuous the obedience, even if it be the offering up of an only son, or the slaughtering of a whole nation. In any case, and at all hazards, obedience must be yielded. God is not less exacting in this respect under the Christian dispensation than He was under the law; but, if possible, more so. This appears from Paul saying in Heb. 2v 1,3:--

"Therefore, we ought to give the more earnest heed to the things which we (Christians) have heard, lest at any time we should let them slip. For if the word spoken by angels (viz., the law which was given through the disposition of angels - Acts 7v 53) was steadfast, and every transgression and disobedience received a just recompense of reward HOW SHALL WE ESCAPE, if we neglect so great salvation, which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him?"

So that although Christianity may be said, in its prescriptions to be "a yoke that is easy and a burden that is light," yet in respect of its obligation, we are taught by the apostle that it exceeds the law in rigidness and responsibility. How perilous, then, to tinker with it after the fashion of modern "charity", saying that it is of no importance whether we believe its doctrines or not, and of no concern whether we attend to its ordinances!