Introducing ReScript: Functional Programming for

Web Applications 1st Edition Danny Yang download

https://ebookmeta.com/product/introducing-rescript-functional-
programming-for-web-applications-1st-edition-danny-yang/

Download more ebook from https://ebookmeta.com

We believe these products will be a great fit for you. Click
the link to download now, or visit ebookmeta.com
to discover even more!

Learn ClojureScript Functional programming for the web

1st Edition Andrew Meredith

https://ebookmeta.com/product/learn-clojurescript-functional-
programming-for-the-web-1st-edition-andrew-meredith/

Introducing Functional Programming Using C#: Leveraging

a New Perspective for OOP Developers 1st Edition
Vaskaran Sarcar

https://ebookmeta.com/product/introducing-functional-programming-
using-c-leveraging-a-new-perspective-for-oop-developers-1st-
edition-vaskaran-sarcar/

Functional Programming For Dummies 1st Edition John

Paul Mueller

https://ebookmeta.com/product/functional-programming-for-
dummies-1st-edition-john-paul-mueller/

Artificial Intelligence Basics: A Non-Technical

Introduction 1st Edition Tom Taulli

https://ebookmeta.com/product/artificial-intelligence-basics-a-
non-technical-introduction-1st-edition-tom-taulli/
Graphene and its Derivatives Volume 2 Water Wastewater
Treatment and Other Environmental Applications
Kaustubha Mohanty

https://ebookmeta.com/product/graphene-and-its-derivatives-
volume-2-water-wastewater-treatment-and-other-environmental-
applications-kaustubha-mohanty/

Linux Hardening in Hostile Networks Server Security

from TLS to TOR Kyle Rankin

https://ebookmeta.com/product/linux-hardening-in-hostile-
networks-server-security-from-tls-to-tor-kyle-rankin/

Who Goes to School Margaret Hillert

https://ebookmeta.com/product/who-goes-to-school-margaret-
hillert/

Consumers and Food Understanding and Shaping Consumer

Behaviour 1st Edition Professor Marian Garcia Martinez

https://ebookmeta.com/product/consumers-and-food-understanding-
and-shaping-consumer-behaviour-1st-edition-professor-marian-
garcia-martinez/

Peril on the Page. 1st Edition Margaret Loudon.

https://ebookmeta.com/product/peril-on-the-page-1st-edition-
margaret-loudon/
Against the Clock Dark Tide Mysteries and Thrillers 8
1st Edition Mark Allan Gunnells Shane Nelson Brandon
Ford

https://ebookmeta.com/product/against-the-clock-dark-tide-
mysteries-and-thrillers-8-1st-edition-mark-allan-gunnells-shane-
nelson-brandon-ford/
Danny Yang

Introducing ReScript
Functional Programming for Web Applications
Danny Yang
Mountain View, CA, USA

ISBN 978-1-4842-8887-0 e-ISBN 978-1-4842-8888-7

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4842-8888-7

© Danny Yang 2023

This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively
licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is
concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of
illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in
any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and
retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or
dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed.

The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks,

service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the
absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the
relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general
use.

The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the
advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate
at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the
editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the
material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have
been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional
claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This Apress imprint is published by the registered company APress

Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.
The registered company address is: 1 New York Plaza, New York, NY
10004, U.S.A.
Introduction
Why Learn ReScript?
JavaScript is vital to the modern web ecosystem. It’s used in the front
end to implement websites and other user interfaces, and used in the
back end to implement servers for websites and APIs.
Part of JavaScript’s ubiquity is due to its ease of use. JavaScript is
dynamic and flexible, making it easy for people to pick up. However,
this strength becomes a weakness when working on large web
applications with multiple developers – the only way to know that
JavaScript code works correctly is to actually run it, and it’s relatively
easy to make mistakes when programming in JavaScript.
What if there was a way to detect bugs in JavaScript before running
the code, or prevent many classes of bugs altogether? What if there was
a language that was concise and elegant that made it easy for
programmers to write complex web applications and hard for
programmers to make mistakes?
Enter ReScript.
ReScript is a language designed for writing web applications. It
brings a lot to the table: static typechecking, a strong type system, and
powerful language features that will change the way you program.
Here’s a glimpse of some of the features that make ReScript a great
language:
Static typechecking – Catch bugs in your code without having to run
it: undefined values, missing cases, incorrect types, and more.
Sound type system – ReScript programs that pass typechecking
cannot have runtime type errors.
Type inference – ReScript automatically infers types based on how
variables are used, allowing you to enjoy the benefits of type safety
without having to annotate every variable and function.
Immutability – Peace of mind while you program with variables and
data structures that cannot be unexpectedly modified under your
nose.
Algebraic data types and pattern matching – Cleanly define and
elegantly manipulate complex data.
 First-class bindings for React – Write React elements and JSX
directly inside ReScript files.
There are a number of other languages and tools that offer static
typechecking for web applications, but ReScript has several key
advantages over its competitors. As an example, let’s look at the
benefits ReScript has compared with another popular JavaScript
alternative, TypeScript:
ReScript is safer – Unlike ReScript’s battle-tested and sound type
system, TypeScript’s type system is unsound, so it is still possible to
have runtime type errors in a valid TypeScript program.
ReScript is faster – ReScript’s compiler is much faster than
TypeScript’s compiler, allowing for a smoother development
experience when working in large code bases.
ReScript is more concise – ReScript’s excellent type inference
means that programmers do not have to write as many type
annotations in ReScript programs compared to TypeScript programs.
Although ReScript is a relative newcomer to the web ecosystem, it’s
actually based on technology that has been battle-tested for years
before ReScript even existed. ReScript itself has proven successful as
well. Most notably, Facebook used it to build the web interface for
Messenger – a product used by hundreds of millions of people – with a
code base containing thousands of files.

History of ReScript
The lineage of ReScript can ultimately be traced back to the ML family
of languages originating from the 1960s. In particular, ReScript is
directly based on OCaml, a general-purpose programming language
that was developed in the 1980s and used today for systems
programming in academia and industry.
In 2015, Jordan Walke, the creator of the React web framework,
developed a toolchain and alternative syntax for OCaml called Reason.
Reason was designed to bridge the gap between the web and OCaml
ecosystems – it could be compiled into both native machine code and
JavaScript, allowing web developers to take advantage of OCaml’s
features. Static typechecking and OCaml’s sound type system
eliminated many common bugs in JavaScript code, and OCaml’s
immutability and functional style was a great fit for React.
Reason was compiled to JavaScript using a compiler called
BuckleScript, which was developed at Bloomberg around the same time
Reason was being created at Facebook.
Around 2020, the BuckleScript project created a new language
based on Reason that could only be compiled to JavaScript using the
BuckleScript compiler, and so ReScript was born.
ReScript has the following key differences from its predecessors:
ReScript has different syntax and features. While it looks and feels
more like JavaScript, ReScript is still based on the battle-tested
compiler and type system as Reason and OCaml, so it has the same
type safety benefits as its predecessors.
ReScript can only be compiled to JavaScript. By dropping support
for native compilation, ReScript has a simpler toolchain and standard
library, along with a feature set better suited for web development.
This makes ReScript easier for newcomers to learn and allows for
smoother integration with other web technologies.

ReScript and the Web Ecosystem

Like some other statically typed languages in the web ecosystem,
ReScript code is transpiled to JavaScript. This means that ReScript code
doesn’t directly run in the browser or on the server. Instead, the
ReScript compiler checks that the code is valid and generates JavaScript
files, which can then be imported and used like any handwritten
JavaScript file.
Being able to run in any environment that supports JavaScript
allows ReScript to be used for full-stack web development, from client-
side code that runs in the browser to server-side code that runs in
Node.js.
Since ReScript code is exactly the same as JavaScript code when it
runs, ReScript programs can easily import and use JavaScript libraries,
while JavaScript programs can call ReScript functions as easily as they
can call other JavaScript functions.
Why Learn Functional Programming?
Functional programming is a paradigm of programming that focuses on
the application and composition of functions.
In functional languages, functions are first class and can be used like
any other value (bound to variables, passed as arguments, or returned
from other functions). Complex programs are written by composing
multiple smaller functions that apply transformations to data. This can
be contrasted with the imperative and object-oriented style of many
popular languages, where programs look more like a series of
commands that read and update memory. It’s important to know that
most languages are not purely in one category or the other; many
languages fall somewhere in the middle of this spectrum, and features
from functional languages are slowly being adopted by other languages.
For example, ReScript is more functional but it also has imperative
features like loops, while JavaScript is more imperative but it also has
first-class functions.
Programming in a functional style has many benefits – programs are
cleaner and more concise, and logic is more declarative making it easier
to trace the flow of data through a program. The ability to compose
functions together and write functions that accept other functions as
arguments (higher-order functions) makes functional languages very
flexible, and the greater emphasis on immutability and purity makes it
easier to understand, write, and test programs.
As a disclaimer, I’m not some functional programming purist here to
convince you that functional programming is the best way to solve
every problem. Instead, I view functional programming as a useful tool
in a programmer’s tool belt, albeit a tool that not enough people know
about or know how to use.
Unlike many other functional programming books, the explanations
in this book are designed to be accessible to those without a formal
background in computer science. I do not expect readers to have
experience with statically typed languages or functional programming
concepts.

About This Book

This book is written for anyone who is interested in learning ReScript
or wants to learn the basics of functional programming using ReScript.
The book is structured as an overview of ReScript’s features,
building up from the basics to eventually cover complex data types,
pattern matching, modules, and finally writing a minimal web
application using ReScript.
Along the way, you will learn functional programming concepts like
higher-order functions, immutability, and purity, which will help you
think about and write software differently, even when you are not using
ReScript.
Here’s what this book will cover:
Chapter1 – Language basics: expressions, binding, and control flow
Chapter2 – Functions: higher-order programming, recursion, and
purity
Chapter3 – Composite data types, pattern matching, and error
handling
Chapter4 – Records and objects
Chapter5 – Lists and arrays: map, filter, and reduce
Chapter6 – Collections: sets, maps, stacks, and queues
Chapter7 – Modular programming: modules and functors
Chapter8 – JavaScript integrations: bindings, dealing with JSON, and
more

Installing ReScript
ReScript projects are set up just like modern JavaScript projects, except
we have an extra development dependency on the rescript package.
Before we begin, make sure you have Node.js v10 or higher, and
npm. To check the version of Node.js you have, run node -v in your
terminal. If you don’t have Node.js installed, you can find installation
instructions at https://nodejs.org.
Once you’ve confirmed that you have the right version of Node.js
installed, create a new directory for your project, and run npm
install rescript@10 to install v10 of ReScript.
There will be a package.json file with the following contents
inside the project’s root directory. Add the following scripts to it:
{
...

"scripts": {
"build": "rescript",
"start": "rescript build -w"
}
}
The scripts we added in package.json are used to run the
ReScript compiler to compile our ReScript to JavaScript.
npm run build will compile all the ReScript files in the project.
npm run start will start a process that watches the project and
automatically recompiles whenever anything changes.
Next, create a bsconfig.json file inside the same directory, with
the following contents:

{
"name": "your-project-name",
"sources": [
{
"dir": "src",
"subdirs": true
}
],
"package-specs": [
{
"module": "commonjs",
"in-source": true
}
],
"suffix": ".bs.js",
"bs-dependencies": []
}

The dir field specifies which directory ReScript source files are
located, in this case under the folder src. For every ReScript file
Foo.res under src, the compiler will output a JavaScript file named
Foo.bs.js in the same location as the original source.
Now we’re ready to write some ReScript!

First ReScript Program

Source files in ReScript have the extension .res. We can write a simple
Hello World program by creating a file at src/HelloWorld.res with
the following contents:

Js.log("hello, world")

ReScript is a compiled language – this means that the ReScript files

that we write are not being run directly by the browser or Node.js. The
compiler checks to make sure our ReScript code is valid – syntax is
correct, function calls and values are the right types, etc. – and then it
compiles the ReScript files into JavaScript. The browser or Node.js will
run the JavaScript the same way they would for JavaScript we wrote by
hand.
Run the compiler using npm run build. You will see the
compiled output in src/HelloWorld.bs.js, which will have the
following contents:

console.log("hello, world");

You can run the JavaScript file using node

src/HelloWorld.bs.js to print “hello, world” to the terminal.
Since ReScript compiles to JavaScript, it can be used for both client
and server applications in a variety of environments – your browser,
Node.js, etc. For the purposes of this book, we will be executing
ReScript programs in Node.js.
As you read through the examples in the book, I encourage you to
copy the examples into your code editor or the ReScript playground at
https://rescript-lang.org/try so that you can compile and
run the programs yourself. As you experiment with ReScript for
yourself, make sure to inspect the compiled JavaScript output of your
ReScript programs to get a deeper understanding of how ReScript
works under the hood. You’ll find that the generated JavaScript code is
quite readable!
Any source code or other supplementary material referenced by the
author in this book is available to readers on GitHub
(https://github.com/Apress). For more detailed information, please
visit http://www.apress.com/source-code.
Table of Contents
Chapter 1:​ReScript Basics
Expressions, Values, and Side Effects
Compile Time and Runtime
Types, Typechecking, and Type Inference
Primitive Types and Operators
Integer and Float
Boolean
String
Unit
Printing and Debugging
Bindings
Mutation and Refs
Blocks
Block Scoping
Conditionals
Switches
Loops
Putting It All Together
Final Thoughts
Chapter 2:​Functions
Defining and Using Functions
Type Annotations
Using Standard Library Functions and Opening Modules
Higher-Order Functions
Piping
 Labeled and Optional Parameters
Currying and Partial Application
Polymorphic Functions
Pure Functions
Ignoring Return Values
Recursion
Syntax
How to Use Recursion
Final Thoughts
Chapter 3:​Composite Data Types
Tuples
Creating Tuples
Accessing Tuples
Pattern Matching with Tuples
Variants
Declaring and Constructing Variants
Pattern Matching with Variants
Exhaustiveness
Complex Patterns
Variants with Data
Recursive Data Types
Options
Pattern Matching Options
Exceptions and Error Handling
Raising Exceptions
Catching Exceptions
Another Random Scribd Document
with Unrelated Content
And if farther evidence that this was Christ’s meaning be needed, it
is found in the transition which He, as it were, insensibly makes from
the “little children” to “believers in Him;” “those little ones,” (the
word used by Him being changed,) “those little ones,” He calls them,
“which believe in me;”—evidently referring to such as regard
themselves to be the meanest and most humble of His disciples.
With respect to children themselves, personally considered, the
words of Christ seem only to convey a general expression of good
will toward them,—to be understood and applied in conformity with
other declarations of the Inspired Word. As to the bearing of this
whole passage upon baptism, it is impossible to prove by it the
connection of the new birth with baptism, or indeed anything about
baptism at all;—except that it affords great encouragement to godly
parents to bring their children to this Ordinance, and in it to present
and dedicate them to the Lord their God. If we attempt to force the
application of the passage, it may be turned against ourselves, and
used as an argument for doing without the baptism of children
altogether: for Christ does not say anything about the baptism of the
children brought to Him, although baptism was then in use among
His disciples. His silence respecting it is no valid argument against
it; but it prevents the possibility of proving anything absolutely as to
the effect of baptism from this occurrence. In truth, the
circumstances of the cases must be analogous, before any
application can fairly be made of it. Children must not be brought in
gross ignorance and utter carelessness to be baptized, that they may
receive their name from a minister, or for some other merely
temporal object, without any regard to Christ or His grace, and this
be said to correspond with what was done for the children in the
history before us. This is to profane Christ’s Sacrament; and shall
the profanation of it be attended with a blessing? No wonder that
baptized children show no benefit from their baptism, when it has
really not been a bringing of them to Christ at all:—Christ having
never been thought of from first to last. If an appeal be made to
the supposed efficacy of the Ordinance itself, then this passage has
nothing to do with the subject. Other Scriptures must be resorted
to, wherein reference is made to baptism. From what was done and
said on this occasion, believing parents, anxious for the salvation of
their children, may draw much encouragement to bring them to
Christ in baptism, and to pray and hope for a blessing, in connection
with the subsequent use of means for their spiritual good: and they
who act thus, comply much more with His mind and spirit, than
those who withhold their children from the Ordinance. But no
absolute and unconditional benefit in baptism can by any fair
process of reasoning be deduced from it.

We proceed, then, to examine the passages in ‘The Acts of the

Apostles,’ which relate to the subject of Baptism; and we shall there
see the directions which Christ gave them concerning it carried into
effect.
No sooner had the Apostles begun to execute their important
Commission by preaching the gospel on the day of Pentecost, than
God gave testimony to their word by convincing many of sin,
especially of the sin of “crucifying the Lord of glory;” and they “said
unto Peter and to the rest of the Apostles,” (as we read in Acts ii.
37,) “Men and brethren, what shall we do?” To this Peter answered,
“Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus
Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the
Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you and to your children, and to
all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.” In
this exhortation, the principle enjoined by Christ upon the Apostles is
found. Repentance and faith are first required. For the expressions,
“Be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ,” do certainly mean, “Make
an open profession of your believing in Jesus Christ, by being
baptized in His name.” That this is their meaning there can be no
doubt, when we consider what is said immediately afterwards: (v.
41.) “Then they that gladly received his word” (and how is the word
received but by faith? See 1 Thess. ii. 13,) “were baptized; and the
same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.
And they continued stedfastly in the Apostles’ doctrine and
fellowship, and in breaking of bread and in prayers.” Here, then,
things were as Christ intended them to be. They who were
convinced of sin ask what they shall do—that is, to be saved. They
are told to repent, and openly to confess Christ—that is, that they
believed in Him as the Saviour—by being baptized. And they are
assured, that upon doing these things—(the whole exhortation being
taken together) they should receive “remission of their sins” and
“the gift of the Holy Ghost.” They gladly received the word preached
to them; and they were then baptized; and while their baptism was
a public profession of repentance and faith on their part, it would
doubtless be a means of grace to them, and a seal and pledge on
God’s part of the forgiveness of their sins and of His good-will and
favour towards them. And this was the right and legitimate use of
the Ordinance.
The next instance recorded in The Acts of the Apostles is that of the
people of Samaria, to whom Philip went and preached Christ, (viii.
5.) They had for a long time been bewitched with the sorceries of a
certain man, called Simon; but, it is added, “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.”
The same order is seen here, as at Jerusalem on the day of
Pentecost. They first believe, and then are baptized. But now a
very different case presents itself to us. Simon, the sorcerer himself,
is said also to have believed and been baptized, and to have
“continued with Philip,” (having of course ceased from his sorceries)
“and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done”
by him. Some think, that by pretending to be Philip’s disciple Simon
hoped to be able to do the same; for that his opinion of Philip was,
that he was but a more skilful sorcerer than himself. It appears that
the Holy Ghost—by which the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit, the
ability to speak divers languages and such like, are undoubtedly
meant,—had not fallen upon any of the people of Samaria at their
baptism, but was reserved to be bestowed in answer to the prayers
of the Apostles and by the imposition of their hands. For “when the
Apostles 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:
then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy
Ghost.” (v. 14, 15.) The effect of this gift must have been
immediately perceptible by others; for it led to that bold and
blasphemous offer of money by Simon to the Apostles, which
betrayed the hypocrisy, and pride, and wickedness of his heart.
“When Simon saw, that through laying on of the Apostles’ 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.” (v. 18, 19.) Peter’s indignant reply to him proves, that,
though he had been baptized, he was in heart a sorcerer still. “The
dog had turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was
washed, to her wallowing in the mire.” (2 Peter ii. 22.) No change
whatever had taken place in his character. And no change seems to
have taken place in him afterwards; if we may judge from what he
said to the Apostles. For when Peter denounced the just judgment
of God against him, and declared that he “had neither part nor lot in
the matter,” there was no sign of real penitence in his expressions.
He deprecated the judgment indeed, and asked the Apostles to pray
for him that it might not come upon him. “Pray ye to the Lord for
me, that none of these things which ye have spoken come upon
me.” (v, 24.) But even Pharaoh went farther than this. He said to
Moses and Aaron, “Intreat the Lord, that He may take away this
death from me;” but he also added, “I have sinned:” “I am
wicked:”—a confession, which Simon never made; for it is to be
feared that the conviction of it he never felt. And his case
incontestably proves, that professions and Ordinances avail nothing,
unless the “heart” be also “right in the sight of God.”
In this same Chapter we have an account of the baptism of the
Ethiopian Eunuch. As far as his knowledge reached, this interesting
person was a sincere and devout worshipper of the true God: but, as
in the case of Cornelius afterwards, it was necessary that he should
be brought to the clear and full knowledge of the gospel of Jesus
Christ. Philip therefore is sent to instruct him, and is gladly received
by him as his teacher. Philip, taking as his text the place of Scripture
which he found the Eunuch reading, “preached unto him Jesus.”
And his word was mixed with faith in him that heard it. And coming
to a certain water, the Eunuch, having learned what was the rite of
initiation which Christ had appointed, was anxious to take this
opportunity of being openly received into the number of His
disciples; and he therefore asked Philip, “What doth hinder me to be
baptized?” Our Authorized Version has a reply from Philip and a
confession of faith by the Eunuch, which are not found in many very
ancient Manuscripts. Beza says of this verse, “God forbid I should
think it ought to be expunged, since it contains such a confession of
faith, as was in the Apostolic ages required of adults, in order to
their being admitted to baptism.” But whether it be genuine or not,
is of no material consequence. Christ had confined baptism to
believers, in His instructions to His Apostles; and this verse only
repeats the limitation. “If thou believest with all thine heart, thou
mayst” be baptized. And as for the confession of faith attributed to
the Eunuch, it is plain that he was prepared and willing to make it.
“I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.” Both he and Philip
then went down into the water, and Philip baptized him. In what
manner, we are not told; nor do even the expressions, “into the
water,” decide whether it was by immersion or the pouring or
sprinkling of some of the water on his person. If the mode of
administration had been essential to the validity of the Sacrament,
no doubt it would have been mentioned. But neither here nor any
where else is this the case. The Eunuch, then, having thus received
the grace of the Covenant and the seal of the Covenant, confirmed
too by the sign of Philip’s miraculous removal from him,—“went on
his way rejoicing.” (v. 39.)
In the next Chapter, the ninth, we have an account of the conversion
and baptism of Saul of Tarsus. The Lord Jesus appeared to him as
he went to Damascus to persecute the disciples which might be
found there: and Saul, having fallen to the ground and being told
that that same Jesus whom he persecuted stood before him,
exclaimed with all humility and entire submission, “Lord, what wilt
thou have me to do?” One of the most astonishing instances of a
sudden change of mind on record! The Lord then bade Saul “arise”
from the earth, in order that he might hear what more He had to say
to him. And well might Saul be overwhelmed by the communication
which the Lord Jesus proceeds to make to him! In the account
given in this ninth Chapter, it is briefly stated that the Lord
commanded him to “go into the city,” (Damascus) and that “it should
be told him what he must do.” This no doubt was a part of His
communication. But by a reference to the account of this
transaction given by himself before Agrippa, as recorded in the
xxvith Chapter of this Book, it appears that the Lord made known to
Saul at that very time much of His mind and will concerning him;
and that He said to him, “I have appeared unto thee for this
purpose, to make thee a Minister and a Witness both of these things
which thou hast seen, and of those things in the which I will appear
unto thee; delivering thee from the people and from the Gentiles,
unto whom now I send thee, to open their eyes, and to turn them
from darkness to light and from the power of Satan unto God, that
they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them
which are sanctified by faith that is in me.” (v. 16–18) After this,
Saul went into Damascus, and was three days without sight or food.
Ananias was then sent to him by the Lord Jesus; and having put his
hands upon him that he might receive his sight, and having repeated
to him the Commission which Jesus had in person given to him, said,
(as we read in the account of this event given in the xxiind Chapter,)
“And now why tarriest thou? Arise, and be baptized, and wash away
thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.” And he “arose, and was
baptized.” This address of Ananias to Saul, taken by itself, would
seem to connect the forgiveness or putting away of sin with the act
of baptism. But were not Saul’s sins forgiven before his baptism?
And did he not know that they were forgiven? Suppose a subject to
have a very mistaken view of his Sovereign’s title to the crown, and
an ignorant but very fervid zeal for some other. Suppose him not to
have taken due pains to correct his error, and to be at the same time
under the influence of much high-mindedness and self-confidence.
He takes up arms against his Prince, and for a season is very
successful in his efforts. But suddenly he finds himself in his power:
—and at the same time his eyes are opened;—and he is convinced
of the mistake which he had made, and of the delusion under which
he had been acting. He now casts himself at his Sovereign’s feet,
and professes his willingness to be at his absolute disposal for the
future. Suppose the generous Monarch to reply;—‘I know that thou
wast engaged in a blind and unequal contest with me: (“it is hard for
thee to kick against the pricks:”) but I am come to tell thee, that I
have appointed thee my Ambassador Extraordinary and
Plenipotentiary, and am about to send thee forth to a distant
kingdom, there to transact for me some difficult and important
business, in which my honour and interest and the interest of my
subjects are greatly concerned: (“For I have appeared unto thee for
this purpose, to make thee a Minister and a Witness of these things
which thou hast seen:”) I will from time to time communicate most
confidentially with thee: (“and of those things in the which I will
appear unto thee:”) all my authority and power shall be put forth for
thy personal preservation: (“delivering thee from the people and
from the Gentiles, unto whom now I send thee:”) and nothing shall
be wanting on my part to make thine Ambassage successful.’ (“to
open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light and from
the power of Satan unto God, &c.”) Would this subject, after such a
communication and commission,—delivered too by his Prince in
person—have any doubt on his mind respecting the pardon of his
rebellion? He might for a few days retire into secret, to reflect on
his case;—to consider the evil of his own conduct, and the noble and
generous manner in which he had been treated, when he might
justly have been dealt with in a very different way. But his
preferment of necessity involved his pardon and his full and
complete establishment in his Sovereign’s favour. How could he, in
the very nature of things, execute the Commission given to him, if
he were to be put to death for his treason? Nevertheless, it might
be very expedient, that a public manifestation should be made to the
kingdom of this change in the state of things: for the Prince’s visit to
his subject was in secret, though not the least suspicion could attach
to the truth and sincerity of it. A public Ceremony might, therefore,
take place, at which his own change of mind and his Sovereign’s
pardon might be proclaimed, and his sealed Commission delivered
into his hands:—but this, however important, would follow the
previous interview as a matter of course. What has thus been
supposed was more than fulfilled in the case of Saul of Tarsus: for
no communication among men could equal the condescension and
grace of the Lord Jesus towards him and the confidence which He
reposed in him. And the manner in which Ananias spake to Saul of
his baptism seems to convey the last-mentioned idea; namely, that,
however necessary, it was to take place as a matter of course. “And
now why tarriest thou? Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy
sins, calling on the name of the Lord.” This washing away of his sins
in baptism was a mystical or emblematical washing. It was a public
manifestation of his penitence and his pardon. It was on his part an
open avowal of submission to Christ; and on the part of the Lord
Jesus Christ it was an equally open avowal of the acceptance of his
submission, and a seal of his sonship and security. Hereby his faith
would be confirmed, and his grace increased by virtue of “calling on
the name of the Lord.” But how could this confirmation and increase
take place, unless faith and grace had been possessed by him
previously?
The baptism of Cornelius and his company, recorded in Chapter x., is
the next instance we meet with in Scripture of the administration of
this Sacrament of the Christian Church. This case is remarkable as
being the first-fruits of the Gentiles unto Christ. Peter—to whom
Christ had given “the keys of the kingdom of Heaven,” (Matt. xvi.
19,) that is, the high privilege of opening the door of faith both to
the Jews and to the Gentiles,—was sent by God to preach the gospel
to this Roman Centurion. His objections, as a Jew, to go unto one of
another nation having been removed by a vision, Peter went to the
house of Cornelius, where he found him and his kinsmen and near
friends assembled together to receive and to hear him. He faithfully
preached Christ unto them: and while he spake those important
words, “To Him give all the prophets witness, that, through His
name, whosoever believeth in Him shall receive remission of sins,”
“the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.” Under the
influence of the Spirit they “spake with tongues, and magnified God.
Then answered Peter, Can any man forbid water, that these should
not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?
And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord.”
(43–47.) In the case of the people of Samaria, the Holy Ghost was
not given when they were baptized, but some time after;—when the
Apostles Peter and John, came down from Jerusalem and laid their
hands upon them. In the case of Cornelius and his friends, the
same Holy Spirit was given before their baptism, and while Peter
was preaching the gospel to them. Thus it was not always at the
administration of the Ordinance that the Holy Ghost was given. And
though the immediate effect of this gift of the Spirit was manifested
in the power to speak with tongues and to prophesy, yet it also
enabled and disposed them to “magnify God:” thereby showing, that
His ordinary sanctifying operations were included. Well then might
Cornelius and they who were with him receive the outward and
visible sign of baptism by water, since they had already received the
thing signified by it!
In Chapter xvi., two very interesting cases are recorded, which are
worthy of particular attention. They occurred at Philippi, in
Macedonia; to which country St. Paul and his company had been
called by a vision to preach the gospel there. The first of these is
the case of a woman named Lydia. In the 13th and 14th verses the
sacred historian writes; “And on the Sabbath we went out of the city
by a river side, where prayer was wont to be made; and we spake
unto the women which resorted thither. And a certain woman,
named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, which
worshipped God, heard us: whose heart the Lord opened, that she
attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul.” In
consequence of the opening of her heart by the Lord, she heard to
her soul’s profit. She received the gospel which Paul preached. We
are then told concerning her, that “she was baptized, and her
household.” And her faith brought forth fruit: for she immediately
invited the Apostle and those who were with him, to come and abide
at her house; and she would not take a denial. They therefore
abode with her many days. Another case then occurred, which
served to show why they had been called to preach the gospel in
Macedonia. Paul and Silas having been thrown into prison for
casting a spirit of divination out of a certain damsel, the Lord sent a
great earthquake at midnight, which opened the doors of the prison,
and awoke the jailor; who, fearing that the prisoners had fled, drew
his sword and was about to kill himself; when Paul assured him that
they were all there. Upon this, “he sprang in, and fell down before
Paul and Silas, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” Paul
and Silas immediately preached the gospel to him, saying, “Believe
on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.”
They then at greater length “spake unto him the word of the Lord,
and to all that were in his house.” The same success attended the
word, as in the case of Lydia. And his faith, like her’s, wrought by
love; for he immediately began to show all the attention in his power
to Paul and Silas. And as Lydia was baptized, and her household, so
it is said that the jailor “was baptized, he and all his, straightway.”
Now it is evident, that in the baptizing of the two principal persons in
this history, Lydia and the jailor, the same course was pursued by the
Apostle as in all the other instances which have been considered.
They first believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, and then they were
baptized. But a new feature presents itself on both these occasions;
that is, the baptizing of their households. And hence has been
drawn a very common argument in favour of the baptizing of
children; as it has been thought probable that children formed a part
of these households. Beside these cases, there are only two other,
in which the house or family is spoken of in the New Testament in
connection with the head of the house,—the house of Crispus and
the house of Stephanas; and though it is taking them out of their
order, it may be well to notice them also here. Let us consider first
the case of the jailor. It is said that “he was baptized, and all his,”—
that is, “all his house;” to whom, as well as to himself, Paul and Silas
had “spoken the word of the Lord.” But if we are told that they were
baptized, we are also told that they believed. In the 34th verse we
read, that the jailor “rejoiced, believing in God with all his house.”
In order to force this case to support Infant-baptism, an attempt is
sometimes made to change the construction of the sentence, thus;
“He, believing in God, rejoiced with all his house.” This makes very
little difference in the meaning. For if his house were capable of
rejoicing with him, they must have been of a sufficient age to
understand why they rejoiced: and as his faith in Christ was the
cause of his joy, it must have been also the cause of theirs; and if
they could rejoice in his faith, why might they not have had faith of
their own to rejoice in? But the Greek will not admit of the above
construction. The adverb translated “with all his house” must be
referred to the participle “believing,” which in the Original follows it;
and these words express the reason of his joy, which was, his own
faith and the faith of his family. Beza gives this as the sense of the
latter part of the 34th verse; “He,” that is, the jailor, “rejoiced
because that with the whole of his house he had believed in God.”
[50]
As believers, therefore,—of whomsoever his “house” consisted—
they were entitled to baptism on their own account, and thus they
stood precisely in the same situation with himself. And no inference
can hence be drawn respecting Infant-baptism. Of Crispus, the chief
ruler of the Synagogue at Corinth, mentioned in the xviiith Chapter,
it is at once said that he “believed on the Lord with all his house;”
and though their baptism is not particularly spoken of, it would of
course take place with the baptism of the other believing
Corinthians. From St. Paul’s First Epistle to the Corinthians we learn
that he himself baptized Crispus;—no mention being made of his
household: but as we are informed that they were believers, they
would certainly be baptized, like the household of the Philippian
jailor. This case, therefore, does not apply to the subject of Infant-
baptism. Neither does the baptizing of the house of Stephanas. St.
Paul tells the Corinthians, in the beginning of his First Epistle, that
he baptized this house: but what does he say of them at the close of
the Epistle? “Ye know,” he says, “the house of Stephanas, that it is
the first fruits of Achaia, and that they have addicted themselves to
the ministry of the saints:” (xvi. 15.)—a description this, of personal
religion; and proving that they were all capable of meeting the
requirements of baptism in their own persons. The only remaining
case in which a household is said to have been baptized, is that of
Lydia at Philippi. Now it seems evident from her history that she had
no husband. The house is twice called her house; and the
household is called hers also. And the invitation to Paul and his
company is given by herself and in her own name. “Come into my
house, and abide there.” (v. 15.) This language could never have
been used of her and by her, if she had had a husband. Nor does it
appear at all likely, that she was a widow with children; for, from the
particularity with which her circumstances are related, there is every
probability that, had this been the case, some intimation would have
been given of it. We have not only her name mentioned, but the
place she came from or still belonged to, and the business which she
followed: but no allusion whatever to any family. She could not have
been a person in a low condition of life, or she would not have been
able to receive and entertain in her house for many days the Apostle
and those who were with him. She would therefore have
“household servants,” and probably persons to assist her in her
business as “a seller of purple.” But the whole tenor of her history is
against the supposition, that there were in her house any who could
not answer for themselves. It appears, then, from the consideration
of the cases in which the baptizing of households is mentioned in
Scripture, that no argument whatever can be deduced from them on
the subject of Infant-baptism. A reference to them, therefore, only
gives an advantage to the opponents of the practice:—an argument
which will not bear close examination being always worse than none.
The xviiith Chapter of this Book of The Acts of the Apostles contains
the account of Crispus and his house just referred to. It is also
simply, though very strikingly, said of many others of the
Corinthians, that they “heard,”—they “believed,”—and they “were
baptized.” (v. 8.) Faith came by hearing; and baptism, according to
the institution of Christ, followed faith.
There only remains, in this Book of The Acts of the Apostles, another
instance of baptism to be noticed; and this occurred at Ephesus. It
is related in the beginning of the nineteenth Chapter. “Paul came to
Ephesus, and finding certain disciples, he said unto them, have ye
received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him,
We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.”
We are reminded here of that passage in the Seventh Chapter of St.
John, (v. 39.) where the Evangelist, referring to some words of the
Lord Jesus, says, “This spake He of the Spirit, which they that
believe on Him should”—that is, afterwards—“receive;”—adding, “for
the Holy Ghost was not yet given, because that Jesus was not yet
glorified.” The literal translation of the latter part of this text is, “for
the Holy Ghost was not yet:”—from which it would appear, that at
that time there was no Holy Ghost; and therefore that the ignorance
of His existence, of which the disciples at Ephesus seem to speak,
was not so much to be wondered at. But the solution of the
difficulty is probably the same in both cases. When St. John says,
“For the Holy Ghost was not yet, because that Jesus was not yet
glorified,” his meaning is made plain by the very proper introduction
into our translation of the word “given;”—“for the Holy Ghost was
not yet given.” This evidently refers to the extraordinary and
abundant pouring out of the Holy Spirit, which was reserved until
Jesus had ascended up on high, and (according to the prophecy in
the lxviiith Psalm) had “received gifts for men;” and when He
received them, He shed them forth, first upon His Apostles on the
day of Pentecost, and afterwards upon multitudes of believers,
generally by the laying on of their hands. But the disciples at
Ephesus had not heard of these things. They had had no
communication with any Christian Church or people; and thus,
though they had been baptized with the baptism of John, as they tell
the Apostle Paul in answer to his next question, “Unto what then
were ye baptized?”—and must therefore have heard of the existence
of the Holy Ghost, yet they had not heard of His having been given;
and they express their ignorance in language very like to that which
the Evangelist uses, when he is describing the period before the gift
of the Spirit on the day of Pentecost. This seems a reasonable
account of the matter. And if the same course had been pursued in
the translation of both texts, the likeness between them would have
been very evident. In the passage in St. John the explanatory word
“given” is introduced. In the Chapter before us, not only is this or
any such word omitted, but the word “any” is added,—“any Holy
Ghost,” without a word in the Original to justify it. The literal
rendering would be; “We have not even heard whether the Holy
Ghost is.” Now if the word “given,” or “come,” were added, as in St.
John, the two passages would exactly correspond:—“The Holy Ghost
was not yet given:”—“We have not even heard whether the Holy
Ghost is given.” These persons had probably not been long at
Ephesus, but might have been (as Dr. Whitby suggests) “travelling
into other parts of the world, where the gospel had not yet been
planted.” But a question has arisen, whether what is said in the fifth
verse relates to them, or whether it is not a continuation of St. Paul’s
description of John’s baptism, begun in the verse before. “When
they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.”
The objection to the application of this to the twelve disciples found
at Ephesus is, that it involves a repetition of the Ordinance of
baptism. But though John’s baptism and the Christian Sacrament
were administered substantially upon the same principles, there was
a sufficient difference between them to warrant the baptizing again,
in the name of the Sacred Trinity, of those who might already have
partaken of John’s baptism. The baptism of John was connected
with an intermediate, or, at most, an introductory dispensation. It
was, what the Apostle says of the tabernacle,—“for the time then
present.” But after that Christ had appointed baptism “in the name
of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,” as the door of
entrance into His Church for believers, there was no reason why
such as had been baptized with John’s baptism should not be
admitted to Christ’s Ordinance also, if occasion seemed to require it.
And indeed St. Paul’s question, “Unto what then were ye baptized?”
seems to recognize a distinction of baptisms. But no argument
whatever can be founded upon this case for the repetition of
baptism under the same Dispensation. To suppose that the words in
the 5th verse are a continuation of St. Paul’s description of John’s
baptism, would be inconsistent with the natural course of the
narrative; and to say that John “baptized in the name of the Lord
Jesus,” would be to speak of his baptism as it is no where else
spoken of. Beside, the persons on whom St. Paul laid his hands, as
stated in the 6th verse, were the disciples found at Ephesus, and not
the people in general who were baptized by John. So that it appears
that what is said in the 5th verse relates to these disciples. Their
knowledge was very limited; but they had the characteristic
dispositions of disciples,—humility and teachableness; and thus,
when they were farther instructed by St. Paul in the things
concerning the Lord Jesus Christ, they, no doubt with the greatest
willingness, were baptized in His name. And then as in the case of
Samaria, “when the Apostle had laid his hands upon them,” (but not
before,) “the Holy Ghost came on them, and they spake with
tongues and prophesied.”
This is all that is said on the subject of baptism, as a Sacrament of
the Christian Church, in the Scripture-history of The Acts of the
Apostles.

We come, then, to The Epistles.

The first passage we meet with on our subject is in the sixth Chapter
of the Epistle to the Romans. St. Paul, the writer of this Epistle, had
been dwelling, in the former Chapters, upon the great gospel-
doctrine of salvation by grace through faith. He had declared, that
“a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law;” (iii. 28,)
that in this way Abraham was justified; (iv. 3,) and that in this way
every one else must be justified: (iv. 24,) and in the latter part of the
fifth Chapter he had spoken strongly of God’s grace much more
abounding where man’s sin abounded. The Apostle, then in the
beginning of the sixth Chapter anticipates an abuse which might be
made of this doctrine, and corrects it. “What shall we say then?
Shall we continue in sin,” in order “that grace may abound? God
forbid!” Abhorred be the thought! And he proceeds to reason upon
this; and to show, not only its incongruity, but (in a sense which
other Scriptures allow) its impossibility:—“How shall we that are
dead to sin, live any longer therein?” And then he brings in the
subject of their baptism. “Know ye not, that so many of us as were
baptized into Jesus Christ, were baptized into His death? Therefore
we are buried with Him by baptism into death; that like as Christ
was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also
should walk in newness of life.” (v. 3, 4.) After what we have seen
already of baptism, as administered by the Apostles and others, we
can be at no loss to perceive the meaning of St. Paul’s expression,
“baptized into Christ.” According to His own command, all who
believed in Him were baptized; and this act or Ordinance was their
open avowal of faith in Him,—their public and palpable engrafting
and incorporation into Him and His Church,—and their solemn
dedication and consecration to the love, worship, and service of God
the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. [57] Their baptism into
Christ, consequent upon, and declarative of, their faith in Him,
publicly and manifestly bound them unto Him;—to strict and spiritual
conformity with Him. And thus the Apostle goes on to remind those
who had been “baptized into Christ,”—for the Epistle was addressed
to those at Rome who were “beloved of God and called to be saints,”
and whose “faith was spoken of throughout the whole world,” (i. 7,
8,)—that they were “baptized into His death;” that is, into conformity
to His death; that in virtue of His dying for their sins, and after the
pattern of this His death, and by motives and considerations drawn
from His death, they should die to all sin and be delivered from the
reigning power of it. ‘The faithful,’ observes Beza on this expression,
‘are said to be baptized into the death of Christ, that through His
death sin may die and be abolished in them.’ And to carry this
conformity still farther, St. Paul adds, “Therefore we are buried with
Him by baptism into death.” For as Christ’s burial was a
manifestation of the reality of His death, so ought it to be also with
them respecting sin. It was likewise an introduction to, and
preparation for, His glorious resurrection. And thus the Apostle
proceeds with his exhortation;—“that like as Christ was raised from
the dead by the glory (the glorious power) of the Father, even so we
also (we who are baptized into Him) should walk in newness of life.”
And in the following verses—indeed to the end of the Chapter—St.
Paul presses the Roman Christians to devotedness to God’s service,
in language the most forcible which could have been made use of.
Here then we see what baptism is, in the case of real believers: and
it is of such alone that the Apostle here speaks. The obligations
which result from it to righteousness and holiness are of the
strongest possible description. And these obligations have their
influence upon the faithful; though that influence is capable of a
continued increase. How different is this from a service which is
“outward” only “in the flesh!”
The expressions, “buried with Christ by baptism” and “walking in
newness of life” “after the pattern of His resurrection,” seem to
imply, that the method of baptizing was by immersion, or plunging
the whole body under water, from which it would come forth as by a
kind of resurrection. That baptism has been thus administered, and
may be thus administered, is freely admitted. But this is no proof
that such was the unvarying method, and certainly no precept that it
shall always be administered in this way. It may, however, with
much reason be argued, that the expressions, “baptized into His
death,”—“buried with Him,”—and “walking in newness of life” like
unto His resurrection,—were not used by the Apostle with any
reference to the mode of administration, but to the events spoken
of; namely, Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection. Christians are
said to have been “circumcised in Christ,” and to be “crucified with
Him,” without any outward corresponding actions. But if an
argument for immersion may be drawn from this passage, an
argument for affusion, or the pouring of water upon the person, may
with greater force be drawn from the manner in which the Holy
Ghost descended upon Christ Himself at His baptism, and upon the
Apostles on the day of Pentecost, and subsequently upon others
who were baptized, and from the language used to describe it.
When Peter preached to Cornelius, it is said, “The Holy Ghost fell on
all them that heard the word:” and again, “On the Gentiles also was
poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.” This is expressly called by St.
Peter, their being “baptized with the Holy Ghost.” (Acts xi. 15, 16.)
An argument might also be drawn for the practice of sprinkling, not
only from the striking similarity between baptism and the water of
separation which was to be sprinkled upon the unclean, (Numb. xix.
19.,) but from the connection between the water of baptism and the
blood of Christ, of which, as well as of the Holy Spirit, this water is
an emblem, and which is called “the blood of sprinkling” from the
method of its application to the heart. From all these things, and
from the absence of any specific directions on the subject, it is
reasonable to conclude, that baptism may be rightly administered in
each of the three ways which have been mentioned. And it is too
much like an undue magnifying of the sign, when it is attempted to
make it in all respects answerable to the thing signified by it.
This is the only passage directly relating to baptism in the Epistle to
the Romans.
But there is a statement of the Apostle in the eleventh Chapter,
which not only confirms what has been already said of the
continuance of the Covenant with Abraham under the Christian
Dispensation, but which also bears strongly upon the subject of the
right of the children of believing parents to the token of the
Covenant, together with their parents. The passage particularly
referred to is the 24th verse of the eleventh Chapter. “For if thou
wert cut out of the olive-tree which is wild by nature, and wert
grafted contrary to nature into a good olive-tree, how much more
shall these, which be the natural branches, be grafted into their own
olive-tree!” The Apostle is here comparing the admission of the
Gentiles into the Church of God, to the cutting off of branches from
a wild olive and the grafting of them into a good olive; the good
olive being the ancient church, planted, as it were, in the person of
believing Abraham. ‘In the view of St. Paul, the establishment of the
Christian Church was no dissolution of the Jewish Church. It is the
same Society still;—the same Body Corporate. Some of its rules and
regulations, indeed, have been altered: a disfranchisement of many
of its old members has taken place, and new ones have been
admitted: but the same Church,—the same Chartered Company,—
which existed before the Law and under the Law, exists to this
present hour under the Gospel Dispensation. It is still Abraham’s
family. He is “the father of all them that believe.” “If ye be Christ’s,
then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.”
[61]
When, therefore, any of the Jews “abide not in unbelief,” and are
received into the Church of Christ, it is but “the grafting of the
natural branches into their own olive-tree.” They are restored to the
privileges which their fathers enjoyed, and are made members of the
Church of God. But are their children to be left behind? Are they to
be left out of the Covenant? And is this, might a converted Israelite
justly ask,—Is this to be restored to our fathers’ privileges?
“Circumcision was not of the law, but of the fathers.” That is taken
away; and what have we in its place, if baptism, which is now the
token of the covenant, be withheld from our children? If
circumcision was our children’s birthright before, how can they be
deprived of it, and have nothing given them in the stead thereof,
and yet the privileges possessed by our fathers not be lessened?
This is not to be “grafted into our own olive-tree”!
In the first Chapter of his first Epistle to the Corinthians, St. Paul
speaks of baptism; but as it is principally with a reference to himself,
it is scarcely necessary to notice it in our present consideration,—
except for the statement he is led to make of the great object of his
mission; which was “not to baptize, but to preach the gospel:” the
latter being the far more important and difficult work; necessary as
it was that converts to Christ should be baptized. Divisions had
arisen among the Corinthians: “one saying, I am of Paul,”—that is, I
prefer Paul before all other Ministers, and others of them preferring
others. This state of things caused the Apostle great distress, and
he anxiously endeavours to correct it. He indignantly asks them,
whether he (or any other Minister) had been “crucified for them,” or
whether they had been “baptized in his name.” This shows that
baptism implies an entire dedication to him, in whose name it is
administered. The Apostle then tells them, that he was very
thankful it had been so ordered that he had baptized very few of
them himself;—adding, as the cause of this, “for Christ sent me not
to baptize,”—that might be done by others,—“but”—He sent me—“to
preach the gospel.” The Apostle here cannot intend to put any slight
upon Christ’s Ordinance of baptism, as is evident from what he has
just said of it, “Were ye baptized in the name of Paul?”—but he
intends to show, that it might be administered by persons of inferior
station and gifts in the Church. And this is manifest from the very
nature of the service.
In the viith Chapter of this Epistle and the 14th verse there is a text,
in which (as with respect to the children brought to Christ that He
should touch them) baptism is not mentioned, and yet it has so
decided a bearing upon the subject, that we cannot but carefully
notice it. St. Paul is speaking of the case of married persons, when
one party believed, while the other believed not. This he says is not
a sufficient reason for their separation: at least the separation should
not be made by the one that believed. And to satisfy the mind of
the believing “brother or sister” that the children did not suffer, he
says,—“For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by (or in) the wife,
and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by (or in) the husband; else
were your children unclean, but now are they holy.” It is with the
latter part of this verse that we have to do. The Apostle here
declares that children, which have one believing parent, are on equal
terms or in the same condition with children, both of whose parents
are believers; and thus they are said to be not “unclean” but “holy.”
Now, can there be a doubt, that the Apostle uses these epithets
“unclean” and “holy,” in the same sense in which they were used in
reference to the distinction between the Jews and the Gentiles? The
latter were called “unclean,” because of their idolatries and other
abominations; the former were called “holy,” because of their
connection and Covenant with God. When the Apostle Peter was
sent to preach the gospel to Cornelius, he applied this word
“unclean” to all who were not Jews. “Ye know how that it is an
unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew, to keep company or come
unto one of another nation; but God hath showed me that I should
not call any man common or unclean.” And the people of Israel are
repeatedly called “holy to the Lord,” because of the Lord’s choice of
them and Covenant with them. “Thou art a holy people unto the
Lord thy God,” was the language in which Moses addressed them.
(Deut, vii. 6). And in this description their children were included:
for God’s Covenant with Israel embraced them also; and thus every
man-child, when eight days old, was to receive circumcision, which
was the token of the Covenant. From these things we may learn the
meaning of the Apostle in the passage under consideration. The
uncleanness of the Gentiles was a barrier against their participating
in the Ordinances of the Jewish Church. The holiness of Israel was
their title to those Ordinances; and this too in the case of their
children. Surely, then, when the Apostle says to believing Christian
parents, “Your children are holy,” he must mean that they are
entitled to the Ordinances of the Church of Christ! It seems
impossible, if St. Paul’s language has any meaning, to avoid this
conclusion,—that the children of the faithful, as soon as they are
born, have a Covenant-holiness, and so a right and title to baptism,
which is now the token of the Covenant. Their holiness, that is,
their being in covenant with God, does not date from their baptism,
but from their birth. [65] To every believing parent God may be
supposed to say, as He said to Abraham, “I will establish my
Covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee, to be a God
unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.” Much profit ariseth from this
connection, if it be made a right use of. Baptism, like circumcision,
verily profiteth, if the baptized child keep the law—the requisition
which God makes of faith and obedience; but if he be a breaker of
the law, his baptism is made no baptism at all; as circumcision was
in such a case made uncircumcision. (See Rom. ii. 25.) And let it be
farther observed from this text, that it is of real believers and their
children that the Apostle speaks when he says,—“Now are your
children holy.” Hence it appears, that the faith of the parents is the
foundation of any children’s claim to baptism. “Unclean” is the
description which is given of all others.
The only other passage in this Epistle in which baptism is referred
to, as a Christian Sacrament, is the 13th verse of the xiith Chapter:
—“For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we
be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all
made to drink into one Spirit.” St. Paul may here allude to baptism