Adam Clarke's Baptismal Theology

In this blog post I'm will argue that Adam Clarke one of the chief Methodist commentators within the tradition held to baptismal regeneration. Now the definition is very important when it comes to this topic and how I'm defining baptismal regeneration is a follows that through the water if baptism the Holy Spirit gives newness of life, forgiveness of sins and makes the recipient a new creation. Of course I'm gonna be looking at the most important passages that are commonly cited when it comes to baptismal regeneration and those are John 3:5, Acts 2:38, Titus 3:5 and 1st Peter 3:21 

I would say the main verses that Clarke comments that sets forward his baptismal theology will be in John 3, Acts 2:38, Titus 3:5 and 1st Peter 3:21. From these verses we see that Clarke is precise on what baptism does and the relationship between the water and Holy Spirit. So in John 3:5 Clarke says "But the water which was used on the occasion was only an emblem of the Holy Spirit. The soul was considered as in a state of defilement, because of past sin: now, as by that water the body was washed, cleansed, and refreshed, so, by the influences of the Holy Spirit, the soul was to be purified from its defilement, and strengthened to walk in the way of truth and holiness." So Clarke affirms that in the new birth there is a connection between that and baptism since when Christ is talking to Nicodemus in John 3 it's related to the new birth. He goes onto to explain the relationship between the water and Spirit "Therefore, our Lord asserts that a man must be born of water and the Spirit, i.e. of the Holy Ghost, which, represented under the similitude of water, cleanses, refreshes, and purifies the soul." He repeats this same sentiment again "it is not necessary that by water and the Spirit (in this place) we should understand two different things: it is probably only an elliptical form of speech, for the Holy Spirit under the similitude of water; as, in Mat 3:11, the Holy Ghost and fire, do not mean two things, but one, viz. the Holy Ghost under the similitude of fire - pervading every part, refining and purifying the whole." So Clarke is pretty clear that the Holy Spirit works through the waters of baptism and even saying they aren't two different things but they are one in which the water is the sign God works through.

Then this same theme keeps up in Acts 2:38 and Titus 3:5 on the famous passage in Acts that's always brought up in baptismal discussions "In reference to the remission or removal of sins: baptism pointing out the purifying influences of the Holy Spirit; and it is in reference to that purification that it is administered, and should in consideration never be separated from it. For baptism itself purifies not the conscience; it only points out the grace by which this is to be done." So this purifying influence and the purification is done by the Holy Spirit and it can never be separated from the waters of baptism. So Clarke's view is radically different than the reformed since the reformed would deny that the Holy Spirit is tied to the moment of administration this is said in Westminster chapter 28 section 6 "The efficacy of baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered." Now Clarke does make an important clarification within his comment on Acts 2 by saying "If ye faithfully use the sign, ye shall get the substance. Receive the baptism, in reference to the removal of sins, and ye shall receive the Holy Ghost, by whose agency alone the efficacy of the blood of the covenant is applied, and by whose refining power the heart is purified." So for Clarke you have to be faithful to receive the thing signified i.e the Holy Spirit which purifies the heart.

Now we can look at Titus 3:5 his comments stay the same "Undoubtedly the apostle here means baptism, the rite by which persons were admitted into the Church, and the visible sign of the cleansing, purifying influences of the Holy Spirit, which the apostle immediately subjoins. Baptism is only a sign, and therefore should never be separated from the thing signified; but it is a rite commanded by God himself, and therefore the thing signified should never be expected without it." So Clarke affirms that the washing of regeneration is baptism but he js is very careful not to put the regenerative power to the physical water so that's why he says this "By the renewing of the Holy Ghost we are to understand, not only the profession of being bound to live a new life, but the grace that renews the heart, and enables us thus to live; so the renewing influences are here intended. Baptism changes nothing; the grace signified by it cleanses and purifies. They who think baptism to be regeneration, neither know the Scriptures nor the power of God; therefore they do greatly err." So he rejects a view which says the water itself regenerates which no one argued for so he just has a misunderstanding of what baptismal regeneration is. 

Then the last verse that is brought up in baptismal regeneration discussions is 1st Peter 3:21 and Clarke reads the text as a baptismal regeneration proponent. He says "So the water of baptism, typifying the regenerating influence of the Holy Spirit, is the means of salvation to all those who receive this Holy Spirit in its quickening, cleansing efficacy. Now as the waters of the flood could not have saved Noah and his family, had they not made use of the ark; so the water of baptism saves no man, but as it is the means of his getting his heart purified by the Holy Spirit, and typifying to him that purification." It's pretty clear he believes in baptismal regeneration since he says baptism is he means by which the heart of man is purified by the Holy Spirit that fits the definition of baptismal regeneration perfectly. Also another quote from him on this verse that helps illustrate his proper distinction between the sign and the thing signified "We are therefore strongly cautioned here, not to rest in the letter, but to look for the substance." So the physical sign of water doesn't regenerate us that's the Holy Spirit but the Spirit choose to be represented under the similitude of water, cleanses, refreshes, and purifies the soul." So the Christian should rest in the substance of baptism not just the sign or make the sign the thing that regenerates man instead of the Holy Spirit.

So I would say based off these texts Adam Clarke believed in baptismal regeneration. And this goes to show that a high view of baptism is important to the Methodist/Wesleyan tradition since Adam Clarke is one of the chief expositor of Holy Scripture within this tradition. This also shows that theologians like Thomas Osmond Summers actually holds to a novel view within the Wesleyan tradition for his attacks on baptismal regeneration.